PDA

View Full Version : Ann Margret & Elvis



May
10-10-2009, 12:59 PM
Here's a thought.

A lot of people (me included initially) think AM would have been the perfect match for Elvis had she not been so "career minded". Yet, their affair didnt go on that long (all affairs that only last a year or so are "hot", for want of a better word! ;))

Do you think she makes out their affair was more than it actually was? I mean, she doesnt say anything in interviews. does that mean she is discreet or does that mean there isnt actually THAT much to say?

:hmm:

I was on u tube once and I saw a comment about how phoney AM was. Just made me think. :doh:

Diane
10-10-2009, 01:17 PM
Here's a thought.

A lot of people (me included initially) think AM would have been the perfect match for Elvis had she not been so "career minded". Yet, their affair didnt go on that long (all affairs that only last a year or so are "hot", for want of a better word! ;))



Do you think she makes out their affair was more than it actually was? I mean, she doesnt say anything in interviews. does that mean she is discreet or does that mean there isnt actually THAT much to say?

:hmm:

I was on u tube once and I saw a comment about how phoney AM was. Just made me think. :doh:


I personally think Elvis and Ann were very well suited to each other but that the Colonel interfered in their relationship.

I don't think she is phoney or makes out that there was more to their relationship than there actually was....I think she is just very private and uncomfortable talking about her life and Elvis.

Diane

GIORGIA
10-10-2009, 01:21 PM
I personally think Elvis and Ann were very well suited to each other but that the Colonel interfered in their relationship.

I don't think she is phoney or makes out that there was more to their relationship than there actually was....I think she is just very private and uncomfortable talking about her life and Elvis.

Diane
You read in My Mind!

May
10-10-2009, 01:24 PM
I have ALWAYS thought the same as you two. Until I saw that u tube clip. I dont dont doubt their relationship was passionate. I just wondered if she makes it out to be more than it was.

Diane
10-10-2009, 01:51 PM
I have ALWAYS thought the same as you two. Until I saw that u tube clip. I dont dont doubt their relationship was passionate. I just wondered if she makes it out to be more than it was.

I don't think so. Remember Elvis came on pretty strong with all the women he saw....at least when he was younger. If she believed there was more than she thought in the relationship, it could very well be that Elvis put that thought there.

Diane

GIORGIA
10-10-2009, 02:06 PM
I don't think so. Remember Elvis came on pretty strong with all the women he saw....at least when he was younger. If she believed there was more than she thought in the relationship, it could very well be that Elvis put that thought there.

Diane
You right!
Again you read in My Mind:D!

Brian
10-10-2009, 02:20 PM
I personally think Elvis and Ann were very well suited to each other but that the Colonel interfered in their relationship.



Diane

The Colonel didn't interfered in their relationship

GIORGIA
10-10-2009, 02:36 PM
The Colonel didn't interfered in their relationship
But,maybe yes:hmm:,look at the releshionship with Anita.........................

Brian
10-10-2009, 02:38 PM
Here's a thought.

A lot of people (me included initially) think AM would have been the perfect match for Elvis had she not been so "career minded". Yet, their affair didnt go on that long (all affairs that only last a year or so are "hot", for want of a better word! ;))

Do you think she makes out their affair was more than it actually was? I mean, she doesnt say anything in interviews. does that mean she is discreet or does that mean there isnt actually THAT much to say?

:hmm:

I was on u tube once and I saw a comment about how phoney AM was. Just made me think. :doh:


I don't think she makes it out to be more than what it was but their relationship is overrated.

When fans say Elvis and Ann should have been married because they were a perfect match and they would've had this great life together and she would have been better for him than Priscilla etc.

I think that's overstepping things when Elvis met Ann Margret he wasn't ready to settle down and he never wanted to marry someone in showbiz.

Now I do think they would've stayed together at least a couple more years if Priscilla wasn't in the picture but they would never have made it down the aisle.

Had they gotten married it would have lasted a few years then they would have gotten a divorce.

Ann Margret was always working and so was Elvis so when would they have seen each other?

That's a common problem in celebrity marriages and an even more common problem in celebrity divorces.

Also I would be suprised if Elvis had stayed faithful to her during their relationship/marriage and that's something I doubt AM would have put up with.

So I would bet money that if they had gotten married it would have lasted maybe 5 years.


I think the reason Ann Margret doesn't talk more about Elvis is out of respect to her husband Roger Smith.

It wouldn't make him feel good if his wife talked about her relationship with another man.

Also Ann Margret is someone who rarely talks about her private life.

Brian
10-10-2009, 02:44 PM
But,maybe yes:hmm:,look at the releshionship with Anita.........................





Ann Margret has spoken about why she and Elvis broke up.

She never even mentions the Colonel


Colonel Parker didn't really get involved with Elvis and Anita's relationship
He just suggested to Elvis that he should wait a few years before he married her due to his career.

Elvis and Anita Wood break up had to do with Elvis not the Colonel.

Elvis just didn't want to marry Anita.

Diane
10-10-2009, 02:48 PM
You could be right Brian as it bothers me that Elvis never loved anyone strong enough to stay with them. He stayed with Priscilla but he still did as he pleased. It bothers me why he couldn't love anyone strong enough to be faithful to them or to fight for them??

Diane

Brian
10-10-2009, 02:54 PM
You could be right Brian as it bothers me that Elvis never loved anyone strong enough to stay with them. He stayed with Priscilla but he still did as he pleased. I often wonder why he couldn't love anyone strong enough to be faithful to them or to fight for them??

Diane

To be a bachelor and to be Elvis Presley was a great thing.


As for Elvis not staying with anyone he was just never ready

He never sowed his wild oats.

That's why I think he should have never married anyone until he got the playing around with other women out of his system.

If Elvis and Linda Thompson had gotten married in 1973 or 1974 it would've eventually ended in divorce as well because of the womanizing.

Diane
10-10-2009, 02:56 PM
To be a bachelor and to be Elvis Presley was a great thing.


As for Elvis not staying with anyone he was just never ready

He never sowed his wild oats.

That's why I think he should have never married anyone until he got the playing around with other women out of his system.


I agree with you there, he shouldn't have married when he did.


Diane

Brian
10-10-2009, 03:06 PM
Another thing to think about about in the Elvis and Ann Margret relationship.

Ann Margret wasn't able to have children so if they had gotten married no kids.

GIORGIA
10-10-2009, 03:07 PM
Ann Margret has spoken about why she and Elvis broke up.

She never even mentions the Colonel


Colonel Parker didn't really get involved with Elvis and Anita's relationship
He just suggested to Elvis that he should wait a few years before he married her due to his career.

Elvis and Anita Wood break up had to do with Elvis not the Colonel.

Elvis just didn't want to marry Anita.
I heard about the colonel from Anita,because she respond this at the question:Why you don't married Elvis?And she respond this,and I believe in her,like Ann,and maybe Ann don't said nothing about the colonel,maybe because she woudn't tell more of that she already said.

Brian
10-10-2009, 03:16 PM
I heard about the colonel from Anita,because she respond this at the question:Why you don't married Elvis?And she respond this,and I believe in her,like Ann,and maybe Ann don't said nothing about the colonel,maybe because she woudn't tell more of that she already said.


I heard Anita Wood wanted to settle down and marry Elvis
Elvis didn't want to marry her.

In the early 60's she found out about Priscilla so she left Elvis

It's in an interview from Elvis World Japan

It's true Anita didn't like the Colonel but he had nothing to do with their break up.

Colonel Parker didn't get involved with Elvis' private life



Ann Margret talks about Elvis telling her about Priscilla in her book
or she alludes to him telling her about it.
That was the reason for their breakup

Diane
10-10-2009, 03:24 PM
Colonel Parker didn't get involved with Elvis' private life

No I can't totally agree with that. He did have something to do with the burning of Elvis' religious books along with Priscilla and that's butting into Elvis' personal life.

I'm still not convinced he didn't interfere in Elvis' relationships with women as well. What I will never understand is why Elvis listened to him so much.

Diane

Brian
10-10-2009, 03:45 PM
No I can't totally agree with that. He did have something to do with the burning of Elvis' religious books along with Priscilla and that's butting into Elvis' personal life.

I'm still not convinced he didn't interfere in Elvis' relationships with women as well. What I will never understand is why Elvis listened to him so much.

Diane

Take for example June Juanico

I don't know if Elvis and June were really engaged but lets say for the sake of argument they were.

June says Colonel Parker wanted Elvis to wait 3 years before getting married because it was just the start of his career.

June agreed but the reason they ultimately broke up (according to June)
was because of all the stories of Elvis with other women and her meeting someone else.
I think Elvis really wasn't that serious about June.

I think Elvis agreed to let them burn his religious books

I think the Memphis mafia wanted and asked Parker to get involved in that
so he did and he got rid of Larry Gellar.

I don't think Elvis listened to the Colonel as much as has been claimed.


For example Colonel Parker gets blamed 100% for the movies and fans think Elvis would've of made great films if he had another manager.

Elvis was offered a long term contracts by Hal Wallis that he signed.
I think Elvis movie career was going real good until the success of Blue Hawaii then all the studios wanted to duplicate that films success so movies like Girls! Girls! Girls!, Fun in Acapulco, Paradise Hawaiian Style and Girl Happy were clunked out.

It wasn't a case of Elvis taking Colonel Parker's advice and accepting these movie roles he had too or he would've been sued for breach of contract that would've cost him millions.

Others actors had contracts like this back then that they had to fulfill
A lot of people think you could just pick and choose which roles to do like they do now.
But that wasn't the case for many actors/

Colonel Parker gets all the blame but people like Hal Wallis and the other studio bosses get a pass from fans.

I think Hal Wallis had more to with Elvis movie career than Parker.
If Wallis was really serious about developing Elvis into a serious actor
He would've gave him a role in the Rainmaker instead of loaning him out to FOX to make Love me Tender.

debtdbruno
10-10-2009, 04:37 PM
The Colonel didn't interfered in their relationship


In thought it was over the papers insinuating they were engaged, and Elvis went mad at her. He thought she had planted the story

debtdbruno
10-10-2009, 04:39 PM
You could be right Brian as it bothers me that Elvis never loved anyone strong enough to stay with them. He stayed with Priscilla but he still did as he pleased. It bothers me why he couldn't love anyone strong enough to be faithful to them or to fight for them??

Diane


Do you feel that he had arrived at the age where he would have been faithful to one woman had he met the right one?
Still don't think Ginger was 'the' one..........but someone, if he had got the wild oats out of his system.

Wild_In_The_Country
10-10-2009, 05:01 PM
You know, as much as i love Elvis, I really do not think he would never be a one woman man. If having a daughter did not change that, nothing would in my opinion.

But thats the human side of elvis, and I dont think many men would be one women men, being elvis and having hives of great looking girls climbing over themselfs to get to you..

debtdbruno
10-10-2009, 05:07 PM
You know, as much as i love Elvis, I really do not think he would never be a one woman man. If having a daughter did not change that, nothing would in my opinion.

But thats the human side of elvis, and I dont think many men would be one women men, being elvis and having hives of great looking girls climbing over themselfs to get to you..


I think realistically.......you're right

Brian
10-10-2009, 05:53 PM
In thought it was over the papers insinuating they were engaged, and Elvis went mad at her. He thought she had planted the story

Ann Margret denies that

KPM
10-10-2009, 05:57 PM
Take for example June Juanico

I don't know if Elvis and June were really engaged but lets say for the sake of argument they were.

June says Colonel Parker wanted Elvis to wait 3 years before getting married because it was just the start of his career.

June agreed but the reason they ultimately broke up (according to June)
was because of all the stories of Elvis with other women and her meeting someone else.
I think Elvis really wasn't that serious about June.

I think Elvis agreed to let them burn his religious books

I think the Memphis mafia wanted and asked Parker to get involved in that
so he did and he got rid of Larry Gellar.

I don't think Elvis listened to the Colonel as much as has been claimed.

For example Colonel Parker gets blamed 100% for the movies and fans think Elvis would've of made great films if he had another manager.

Elvis was offered a long term contracts by Hal Wallis that he signed.
I think Elvis movie career was going real good until the success of Blue Hawaii then all the studios wanted to duplicate that films success so movies like Girls! Girls! Girls!, Fun in Acapulco, Paradise Hawaiian Style and Girl Happy were clunked out.

It wasn't a case of Elvis taking Colonel Parker's advice and accepting these movie roles he had too or he would've been sued for breach of contract that would've cost him millions.
Others actors had contracts like this back then that they had to fulfill
A lot of people think you could just pick and choose which roles to do like they do now.
But that wasn't the case for many actors/

Colonel Parker gets all the blame but people like Hal Wallis and the other studio bosses get a pass from fans.

I think Hal Wallis had more to with Elvis movie career than Parker.
If Wallis was really serious about developing Elvis into a serious actor
He would've gave him a role in the Rainmaker instead of loaning him out to FOX to make Love me Tender.
I think Elvis listened closely to the Colonel for most of their association-and I think he got tired of listening near the end but was too tired, insecure and frustrated to change.
The contracts Elvis signed with Wallis were negotiated exclusively by Parker-that was his job-to procure show biz offers, then negotiate for Elvis's interests and benefit. So if there were loopholes or problems in the contracts........ Parker negotiated them and has the responsibility for them-
Parker recommended Elvis sign them-that was why Elvis hired Parker to look out for his interests such as an acting career.
We have discussed the "Rainmaker" role before and no matter how you cut it-someone led Elvis to believe that his first role was in the "Rainmaker"-you and I know he mentioned it in interviews right after Parker recommended he sign the deal with Wallis.
Now you can blame Wallis-but if Wallis led Parker to believe Elvis would make the "Rainmaker" then Wallis outsmarted "Snowman Parker" and Elvis paid the price in the direction it took his acting career.
If Parker knew Wallis had no intention of using Elvis in the "Rainmaker" then he was involved in the "bait & switch" which started the road to Elvis's film career.
IMO either way Parker played a huge role in the direction of the acting career of Elvis Presley.

Brian
10-10-2009, 06:09 PM
I think Elvis listened closely to the Colonel for most of their association-and I think he got tired of listening near the end but was too tired, insecure and frustrated to change.
The contracts Elvis signed with Wallis were negotiated exclusively by Parker-that was his job-to procure show biz offers, then negotiate for Elvis's interests and benefit. So if there were loopholes or problems in the contracts........ Parker negotiated them and has the responsibility for them-
Parker recommended Elvis sign them-that was why Elvis hired Parker to look out for his interests such as an acting career.
We have discussed the "Rainmaker" role before and no matter how you cut it-someone led Elvis to believe that his first role was in the "Rainmaker"-you and I know he mentioned it in interviews right after Parker recommended he sign the deal with Wallis.
Now you can blame Wallis-but if Wallis led Parker to believe Elvis would make the "Rainmaker" then Wallis outsmarted "Snowman Parker" and Elvis paid the price in the direction it took his acting career.
If Parker knew Wallis had no intention of using Elvis in the "Rainmaker" then he was involved in the "bait & switch" which started the road to Elvis's film career.
IMO either way Parker played a huge role in the direction of the acting career of Elvis Presley.

In hindsight it was a mistake to sign those contracts because after Blue Hawaii became a big hit all anybody wanted to do with Elvis was those types of films.

I think the Rainmaker was all Hal Wallis he produced the film and it was his decision to loan Elvis out to 20th Century FOX.
He simply didn't want Elvis to have the role.
If Hal Wallis told Parker Elvis' first role would've been the Rainmaker then it would have been that way.
I don't know why Elvis thought the Rainmaker was going to be his first role perhaps it was because he was asked to do a screen test.
It's also possible Hal Wallis told both Colonel and Elvis that The Rainmaker would be his first film and then simply changed his mind.

I'm not saying Colonel Parker had absolutely no role in this it's just that people blame him fully for all this and that's not the case.

If Hal Wallis or the other studio bosses wanted Elvis to have serious roles he would've gotten them.
I just think they deserve more of the blame than what they have gotten.

My point was though most fans think Colonel Parker told Elvis to accept Girl Happy and Harem Scarem while turning down all these great movies.
That wasn't the case Elvis had to do these movies or he would have been sued for breach of contract it was a common thing back then.
In the Elvis on Tour interview he speaks of Hollywood's image of him being wrong and blames the system for him not getting better roles.

SleepyJack
10-11-2009, 04:24 AM
I always got the impression that Elvis really enjoyed being with Ann-Margaret, I think she matched him in many ways for his idea of fun and felt very comfortable around her. I agree with the idea that much of her unwillingness to say much about the affair is out of respect for her husband.The thing is...I think a lot of Elvis` reluctance to get deeply involved with a woman had more to do with him being unsure about their motives, I don`t think he was ever sure whether they were attracted to him as a person or attracted to Elvis the superstar...even more so in the mid to late seventies when he saw the years catching up on him. I think if Elvis had ever met a woman who he fully trusted and believed that her feelings for him were genuine then he would have remained faithful,settled down with her etc..... I don`t really believe all that womanising,stud-of-the-century stuff that he played at...i think most of that was for the benifit of the guys around him and an attempt to live up to an image,I don`t think he was like that deep-down. In that respect I think a lot of his hurt at breaking up with Priscilla was that he had tried to make her into the woman that he wanted,he put a lot of thought and time into it and it still failed.I think by the time of their divorce Elvis began thinking that he would never find someone to be truly happy with and would never find the qualities in any one woman that he wanted and needed.In the end his fame didn`t let him trust anybody enough to make a relationship last.

debtdbruno
10-11-2009, 04:50 AM
I always got the impression that Elvis really enjoyed being with Ann-Margaret, I think she matched him in many ways for his idea of fun and felt very comfortable around her. I agree with the idea that much of her unwillingness to say much about the affair is out of respect for her husband.The thing is...I think a lot of Elvis` reluctance to get deeply involved with a woman had more to do with him being unsure about their motives, I don`t think he was ever sure whether they were attracted to him as a person or attracted to Elvis the superstar...even more so in the mid to late seventies when he saw the years catching up on him. I think if Elvis had ever met a woman who he fully trusted and believed that her feelings for him were genuine then he would have remained faithful,settled down with her etc..... I don`t really believe all that womanising,stud-of-the-century stuff that he played at...i think most of that was for the benifit of the guys around him and an attempt to live up to an image,I don`t think he was like that deep-down. In that respect I think a lot of his hurt at breaking up with Priscilla was that he had tried to make her into the woman that he wanted,he put a lot of thought and time into it and it still failed.I think by the time of their divorce Elvis began thinking that he would never find someone to be truly happy with and would never find the qualities in any one woman that he wanted and needed.In the end his fame didn`t let him trust anybody enough to make a relationship last.


Do you know.............I would sooooo love to believe that.

I do think the 'stud' image wasn't really what he was about.
In Child Bride it's stated Cilla was more highly driven sexually than he......

Diane
10-11-2009, 07:38 AM
Do you feel that he had arrived at the age where he would have been faithful to one woman had he met the right one?
Still don't think Ginger was 'the' one..........but someone, if he had got the wild oats out of his system.

Yes, I have the tendency to believe that he may have married again sometime in his mid to late forties had he lived....but not to Ginger.


Diane

Diane
10-11-2009, 07:57 AM
[/U][/B]


Do you know.............I would sooooo love to believe that.

I do think the 'stud' image wasn't really what he was about.
In Child Bride it's stated Cilla was more highly driven sexually than he......


I do believe every word that Jack said in his post. I think Elvis was highly driven sexually in the fifties and early sixties but after that I think the whole ideal of living up to the "sex god" image got to be too much and I also believe that a lot of things he said to the MM about it was just for show.

I also believe that trusting a woman after Priscilla was very hard for him but still he may have married again in his later years had he found someone who was a "soul" mate. I think Ann was that for him earlier on but I still suspect that the Colonel may have had something to do with that article in which it stated that Ann said they were engaged. I don't believe she did that.

Diane

tlcElvis
10-11-2009, 10:05 AM
Ann Margaret said she wouldn't betray Elvis in life or death and that's why she won't talk about their relationship. I tend to believe her.

If Elvis were alive today, I think he would be devastated to read and listen to his most private moments exposed for the world to read. Ann is one of the few who hasn't told any details of their affair.

Brian
10-11-2009, 11:06 AM
I also believe that trusting a woman after Priscilla was very hard for him but still he may have married again in his later years had he found someone who was a "soul" mate. I think Ann was that for him earlier on but I still suspect that the Colonel may have had something to do with that article in which it stated that Ann said they were engaged. I don't believe she did that.

Diane

The media is known to do that

make up stories or take things out of context

They didn't need the Colonel's help for that.

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:29 PM
No I can't totally agree with that. He did have something to do with the burning of Elvis' religious books along with Priscilla and that's butting into Elvis' personal life.

I'm still not convinced he didn't interfere in Elvis' relationships with women as well.

Diane
I'm totally agree with you Diane.

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:32 PM
Ann Margaret said she wouldn't betray Elvis in life or death and that's why she won't talk about their relationship. I tend to believe her.

If Elvis were alive today, I think he would be devastated to read and listen to his most private moments exposed for the world to read. Ann is one of the few who hasn't told any details of their affair.
I'm also totally agree with you,as I said before it's this the reason that Ann don't talk so much of Elvis!

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:38 PM
No I can't totally agree with that. He did have something to do with the burning of Elvis' religious books along with Priscilla and that's butting into Elvis' personal life.

Diane
I agree with you ,as I said before,
and reading your post,I ask Me:Why Priscilla do this?
This it's Love?
For Me NO!
Sorry,I know that this question is not releted at this thread,but I don't understand this!

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:41 PM
In the early 60's she found out about Priscilla so she left Elvis

It's in an interview from Elvis World Japan

It's true Anita didn't like the Colonel

Yes,is true,I read too this.

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:44 PM
It's true Anita didn't like the Colonel but he had nothing to do with their break up.

Colonel Parker didn't get involved with Elvis' private life

Probably is true,but I'm not sooooooooooooooooo sure.

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:45 PM
Ann Margret talks about Elvis telling her about Priscilla in her book
or she alludes to him telling her about it.
That was the reason for their breakup
Yes,is true,I read too this.

GIORGIA
10-11-2009, 01:47 PM
I heard Anita Wood wanted to settle down and marry Elvis
Elvis didn't want to marry her.

It's difficult to say that Elvis didn't want marry Anita,
maybe is not,like you say,but maybe yes,I don't know:hmm:.

Diane
10-11-2009, 01:48 PM
The media is known to do that

make up stories or take things out of context

They didn't need the Colonel's help for that.


I don't want to argue with you Brian, I just believe the Colonel was capable of messing with Elvis' life more than we know and yes the media is quite capable of twisting a lot of information for sensationalism.


Diane

debtdbruno
10-11-2009, 02:04 PM
I don't want to argue with you Brian, I just believe the Colonel was capable of messing with Elvis' life more than we know and yes the media is quite capable of twisting a lot of information for sensationalism.


Diane

Agree Diane...........not sure if it wasn't the Alana book 'The Colonel', which said it was the Colonel who had Elvis shot from the waist up, not Sullivan, to cultivate the dangerous image.

Diane
10-11-2009, 02:05 PM
Agree Diane...........not sure if it wasn't the Alana book 'The Colonel', which said it was the Colonel who had Elvis shot from the waist up, not Sullivan, to cultivate the dangerous image.

Nothing would surprise me about that old snowman Deb...........


Diane

Brian
10-11-2009, 04:56 PM
It's difficult to say that Elvis didn't want marry Anita,
maybe is not,like you say,but maybe yes,I don't know:hmm:.




It's not difficult

Anita wanted to get married and have children she got married to someone else not long after she left Elvis.

Elvis liked women and when push came to shove he didn't want to get married at that time.

Brian
10-11-2009, 05:00 PM
I agree with you ,as I said before,
and reading your post,I ask Me:Why Priscilla do this?
This it's Love?
For Me NO!
Sorry,I know that this question is not releted at this thread,but I don't understand this!



everybody in Elvis' inner circle Priscilla and the MM thought Larry Gellar and all the different books on all those different religions he was introducing Elvis to became a bad influence on him and started messing up his head.

So Priscilla and the MM wanted all those books burned and Larry Gellar gone.

Brian
10-11-2009, 05:02 PM
I don't want to argue with you Brian, I just believe the Colonel was capable of messing with Elvis' life more than we know and yes the media is quite capable of twisting a lot of information for sensationalism.


Diane

The Ann Margret quote originated from a gossip magazine

In those days anyone that the media found out that Elvis was dating
it was reported that Elvis was going to marry them.

Sweet_One_E.
10-12-2009, 06:20 AM
I read that Anita found letters from Priscilla begging elvis to let her come visit. she got mad and then heard Elvis telling his daddy he was torn between the two women. so Anita said she would make up his mind for him and leave. she did with Elvis crying and begging her to not go. then after Priscilla came for her first visit and the rest is history. Elvis always had women to fall back on and offering to be hiseverything. I think that is why it was easy to not try as hard with the one he was with. I wish Anita would have fought harder but I understand why she didn't too. Priscilla fell for Elvis big and she was hellll bent to have him as hers. she was young and naive and did not know what that meant. for if a man will cheat with you, he will cheat on you, which she came to know too well.

SleepyJack
10-12-2009, 06:31 AM
I know that the Colonel can`t be blamed for everything(much as I`d love to!!) but I would be really surprised if he never had a talk with Elvis about the effect marriage would have on his career,especially in the early days when a huge part of his audience were female. I think that by the time Elvis did get married Colonel Parker was okay with it,supportive even,because it suited his image of the new all-round entertainer and wholesome guy that he wanted the world to see.
I think that people underestimate the Colonels` influence in a lot of aspects of Elvis` life...even if it was only gentle suggestion rather than telling him straight out what to do. I think he is more responsible than we think of planting seeds of doubt in Elvis` mind over many things..... like I said..not all the blame is on him,but definitely more than we think.

Erhan
10-12-2009, 07:16 AM
Ann Margert was the right choice for ELVIS They could understand each other she can help him about drugs and unheathy life syle. He can help her about her alcohol problem (I don't know was it be present at time 1963)


Elvis And Woman (+Ann Margret)
YouTube - ELVIS It's Only Love (New Sound)

GIORGIA
10-12-2009, 12:38 PM
everybody in Elvis' inner circle Priscilla and the MM thought Larry Gellar and all the different books on all those different religions he was introducing Elvis to became a bad influence on him and started messing up his head.

So Priscilla and the MM wanted all those books burned and Larry Gellar gone.
I know this,but if I'm in love with a person,I don't do this!
Never!
Because,for Me this is NOT Love!
But mean that you NOT understand your Love!

GIORGIA
10-12-2009, 12:41 PM
I read that Anita found letters from Priscilla begging elvis to let her come visit. she got mad and then heard Elvis telling his daddy he was torn between the two women. so Anita said she would make up his mind for him and leave. she did with Elvis crying and begging her to not go. then after Priscilla came for her first visit and the rest is history. Elvis always had women to fall back on and offering to be hiseverything. I think that is why it was easy to not try as hard with the one he was with. I wish Anita would have fought harder but I understand why she didn't too.
I read that too,and I agree with you.

GIORGIA
10-12-2009, 12:43 PM
I know that the Colonel can`t be blamed for everything(much as I`d love to!!) but I would be really surprised if he never had a talk with Elvis about the effect marriage would have on his career,especially in the early days when a huge part of his audience were female. I think that by the time Elvis did get married Colonel Parker was okay with it,supportive even,because it suited his image of the new all-round entertainer and wholesome guy that he wanted the world to see.
I think that people underestimate the Colonels` influence in a lot of aspects of Elvis` life...even if it was only gentle suggestion rather than telling him straight out what to do. I think he is more responsible than we think of planting seeds of doubt in Elvis` mind over many things..... like I said..not all the blame is on him,but definitely more than we think.
I'm TOTALLY agree with you!

GIORGIA
10-12-2009, 12:44 PM
Ann Margert was the right choice for ELVIS They could understand each other she can help him about drugs and unheathy life syle. He can help her about her alcohol problem (I don't know was it be present at time 1963)


Elvis And Woman (+Ann Margret)
YouTube - ELVIS It's Only Love (New Sound) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ahx7118H4)
I also agree with you.

Brian
10-12-2009, 12:45 PM
I know that the Colonel can`t be blamed for everything(much as I`d love to!!) but I would be really surprised if he never had a talk with Elvis about the effect marriage would have on his career,especially in the early days when a huge part of his audience were female. I think that by the time Elvis did get married Colonel Parker was okay with it,supportive even,because it suited his image of the new all-round entertainer and wholesome guy that he wanted the world to see.
I think that people underestimate the Colonels` influence in a lot of aspects of Elvis` life...even if it was only gentle suggestion rather than telling him straight out what to do. I think he is more responsible than we think of planting seeds of doubt in Elvis` mind over many things..... like I said..not all the blame is on him,but definitely more than we think.

I said Colonel did indeed advise Elvis to hold off on marriage during the early years of his career.
That was good advice other managers of other popular teen idols gave their clients the same advice.
Elvis not getting married to Anita Wood, June Juanico or Dixie Locke didn't have anything to do with the Colonel though he just simply didn't want to marry any of them.
I think hypothetically if Elvis had dated a black woman or an underage girl Colonel would have objected because that would've hurt his career but other than those 2 things he stayed out of Elvis' private life.

I think we all blame Parker too much for things he never even had anything to do with.
tabloids and gossip mags make up stuff all day long if the Colonel had really interfered in Elvis' relationship with AM I think Ann Margret would've said so.

GIORGIA
10-12-2009, 12:53 PM
It's not difficult

Anita wanted to get married and have children she got married to someone else not long after she left Elvis.

Elvis liked women and when push came to shove he didn't want to get married at that time.
Yes,I agree.
But I also think that Elvis is was not already to get marry not even priscilla.

Brian
10-12-2009, 01:05 PM
Yes,I agree.
But I also think that Elvis is was not already to get marry not even priscilla.


right, he wasn't ready to get married to Priscilla.

Elvis should have never married anyone.

GIORGIA
10-12-2009, 01:17 PM
right, he wasn't ready to get married to Priscilla.

Elvis should have never married anyone.
Yes,I think this too,because for Me Elvis loves sooooooooooooooooo much the woman.

KPM
10-12-2009, 03:15 PM
In hindsight it was a mistake to sign those contracts because after Blue Hawaii became a big hit all anybody wanted to do with Elvis was those types of films.

I think the Rainmaker was all Hal Wallis he produced the film and it was his decision to loan Elvis out to 20th Century FOX.
He simply didn't want Elvis to have the role.
If Hal Wallis told Parker Elvis' first role would've been the Rainmaker then it would have been that way.
I don't know why Elvis thought the Rainmaker was going to be his first role perhaps it was because he was asked to do a screen test.
It's also possible Hal Wallis told both Colonel and Elvis that The Rainmaker would be his first film and then simply changed his mind.

I'm not saying Colonel Parker had absolutely no role in this it's just that people blame him fully for all this and that's not the case.

If Hal Wallis or the other studio bosses wanted Elvis to have serious roles he would've gotten them.
I just think they deserve more of the blame than what they have gotten.

My point was though most fans think Colonel Parker told Elvis to accept Girl Happy and Harem Scarem while turning down all these great movies.
That wasn't the case Elvis had to do these movies or he would have been sued for breach of contract it was a common thing back then.In the Elvis on Tour interview he speaks of Hollywood's image of him being wrong and blames the system for him not getting better roles.
I understand this-but what was Parkers job-to negotiate contracts and to protect Elvis's interests. He negotiated the contracts but did not protect Elvis from the position he ended up in.
So whether Parker told Elvis to accept Girl Happy, or Harem Scarem is not the point-the point is the contracts Parker negotiated and recommended Elvis to sign-put Elvis in this position.
You are correct-if Elvis refused to do a certain picture he may have been sued for breach of contract-but Parkers negotiations on the original contracts put Elvis in this position.
As far as the Rainmaker-I do not think Elvis would have continued to believe that the Rainmaker was to be his first role if someone had not led him to believe this. (as I have pointed out several times)
Parker was always near when Elvis was interviewed-and obviously from the recorded interviews he did not correct Elvis on his Rainmaker statement.
I know Elvis would look to the Col. when he was asked a question he was unsure of-and it did not happen in this instance. So as I said no matter how you look at it Parker had a huge role in the movie careers direction whether in being out foxed by Wallis or just looking for the big paydays that he knew the musicals would bring.

Brian
10-12-2009, 03:41 PM
I understand this-but what was Parkers job-to negotiate contracts and to protect Elvis's interests. He negotiated the contracts but did not protect Elvis from the position he ended up in.
So whether Parker told Elvis to accept Girl Happy, or Harem Scarem is not the point-the point is the contracts Parker negotiated and recommended Elvis to sign-put Elvis in this position.
You are correct-if Elvis refused to do a certain picture he may have been sued for breach of contract-but Parkers negotiations on the original contracts put Elvis in this position.
As far as the Rainmaker-I do not think Elvis would have continued to believe that the Rainmaker was to be his first role if someone had not led him to believe this. (as I have pointed out several times)
Parker was always near when Elvis was interviewed-and obviously from the recorded interviews he did not correct Elvis on his Rainmaker statement.
I know Elvis would look to the Col. when he was asked a question he was unsure of-and it did not happen in this instance. So as I said no matter how you look at it Parker had a huge role in the movie careers direction whether in being out foxed by Wallis or just looking for the big paydays that he knew the musicals would bring.

I'm not talking about the begining

I think both Elvis and Colonel Parker got stuck in the movies unintentionally
Elvis wanted to be a movie star and the well known respected movie producer Hal Wallis came along and offered him a contract so Parker and signed it.

Love me Tender, Loving You, Jailhouse Rock, King Creole, Gi Blues, Blue Hawaii, Follow that Dream and Kid Galahad were all decent films

After Blue Hawaii became such a huge success all the other producers wanted to duplicate that success so from 1964-1968 Elvis made the majority of his bad films. only Viva Las Vegas and maybe Roustabout were the only decent one's made during that time in my opinion.

Colonel Parker and Elvis had no way of knowing that Blue Hawaii would be such a success that all the Hollywood studios would completely stop trying to come up with quality vehicles for himself.

If Blue Hawaii hadn't of been such a box office smash Elvis movie career probably would of followed a different path.

I think the last 4 films Elvis made were decent he didn't sing any
embarrasing songs and their seemed to be more variety in the scripts.

Trouble with Girls

Live a little, Love a little

Change of Habit

Charro


It's just that those mid 60's films made to cash in on Blue Hawaii were so bad they damaged Elvis' career as a singer and any hope of him being a serious actor.

I think the producers deserve more blame because they didn't care about Elvis artistically.

So they should share more of the blame for the demise of Elvis' film career along with Elvis and Colonel Parker.

debtdbruno
10-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Agree there Brian(y)(y)(y)(y)

Neverending
10-14-2009, 06:01 AM
After Blue Hawaii became such a huge success all the other producers wanted to duplicate that success so from 1964-1968 Elvis made the majority of his bad films. only Viva Las Vegas and maybe Roustabout were the only decent one's made during that time in my opinion.

Colonel Parker and Elvis had no way of knowing that Blue Hawaii would be such a success that all the Hollywood studios would completely stop trying to come up with quality vehicles for himself.

If Blue Hawaii hadn't of been such a box office smash Elvis movie career probably would of followed a different path.

It's just that those mid 60's films made to cash in on Blue Hawaii were so bad they damaged Elvis' career as a singer and any hope of him being a serious actor.

I think the producers deserve more blame because they didn't care about Elvis artistically.

So they should share more of the blame for the demise of Elvis' film career along with Elvis and Colonel Parker.


That's absolut right. (y)
Why they should change something what brings in a lot of money? And if you look at the movies under aspect of time - this was the kind of films which the public like a lot - they enjoyed the movies because of fun and music - like films with R. Hudson/D. Day or other teenie-idols like Fabian or the boy-group "The Monkeys" or "Herman Hermits" ect.

True is that one of Elvis biggest wish was to be a great actor. But at the 60's was not the right time to do so. He had so much talent in a lot of things - maybe in filming he was underestimate of the producers - because his films were always a boxcash-guarantee.

About marriage:
If you take a look back - whenever come up rumors of engagements in the media - you can see it was the end of the relationship. It was this way with June Juanico and also with Ann Magret.

with Priscilla: I believe both of them had different opinions how a marriage has to be. And if there is no common so it's a question of time the marriage failed.

I think Elvis was always looking for somebody he could trust, who loved
him as the person he was, not for being a Superstar, somebody to share his thoughts and his interests and this is difficult in a normal life. How difficult it must be when you are someone like Elvis. Always asking yourself questions if the woman love you as the human you are or she love the rich Superstar. And I think he never wasn't sure by this.

He growed up in culturally-rooted forms of the south and this characterise his whole life, his mind and thinking how has to be the "right woman" for him.

beckelvis
10-14-2009, 09:55 AM
I personally think Elvis and Ann were very well suited to each other but that the Colonel interfered in their relationship.

I don't think she is phoney or makes out that there was more to their relationship than there actually was....I think she is just very private and uncomfortable talking about her life and Elvis.

Diane

totally agree

KPM
10-14-2009, 10:46 AM
I'm not talking about the begining

I think both Elvis and Colonel Parker got stuck in the movies unintentionally
Elvis wanted to be a movie star and the well known respected movie producer Hal Wallis came along and offered him a contract so Parker and signed it.

Love me Tender, Loving You, Jailhouse Rock, King Creole, Gi Blues, Blue Hawaii, Follow that Dream and Kid Galahad were all decent films

After Blue Hawaii became such a huge success all the other producers wanted to duplicate that success so from 1964-1968 Elvis made the majority of his bad films. only Viva Las Vegas and maybe Roustabout were the only decent one's made during that time in my opinion.

Colonel Parker and Elvis had no way of knowing that Blue Hawaii would be such a success that all the Hollywood studios would completely stop trying to come up with quality vehicles for himself.
If Blue Hawaii hadn't of been such a box office smash Elvis movie career probably would of followed a different path.

I think the last 4 films Elvis made were decent he didn't sing any
embarrasing songs and their seemed to be more variety in the scripts.

Trouble with Girls

Live a little, Love a little

Change of Habit

Charro


It's just that those mid 60's films made to cash in on Blue Hawaii were so bad they damaged Elvis' career as a singer and any hope of him being a serious actor.

I think the producers deserve more blame because they didn't care about Elvis artistically.So they should share more of the blame for the demise of Elvis' film career along with Elvis and Colonel Parker.

I am talking about the direction Elvis's career took from day one-by the time the of the mid 60s Elvis's direction was set in the minds of many in Hollywood because of the long term deals which locked Elvis into any script which included 10 songs and a nice location-fluff.
The times Elvis was considered for anything beyond this-Parker seemed to have a reason to not recommend them (or perhaps never even mention them to Elvis which is a good possibility)
The fact that Elvis was considered by some for other more serious roles which never materialised shows not everyone just wrote him off as an actor-even after the horrid roles after the early 60s.

I can not blame the bulk of producers for doing what they do-which is to make money.
You are correct most do not care about artistry they care about bottom line profits-so when they negotiate a contract with a manager of an artist- their bottom line is money made off their investment.
But Parker representing the artist is suppose to negotiate with all the artists goals in mine-and Elvis said many times at the start he did not care to sing in motion pictures, he wanted to be an actor-now that makes his goal as an artist back then pretty clear.
If Elvis was telling interviewers and friends this goal -he must have told this to Parker-fair assumption I would think.
Ask yourself did Parker negotiate with this thought as a prime goal with Wallis? I think its obvious he did not-or Parker being considered the great deal maker would have come away with a contract which protected that goal better.
Wallis was a great producer but not the only producer who saw potential in Elvis on screen and shopping around a bit more by Parker may have benefited the process of reaching a stated goal by Elvis-to act.
I still say the question is whether Parker just bungled this negotiation-or did he know that Wallis did not intend to ever really do anything but musicals and Parker saw the bigger paydays in those musicals.
Elvis in the beginning I can not fault-he trusted Parker to do the things Elvis had stated as a goal in pictures as an actor. But by the mid 60s Elvis had still not grown enough as a person to revolt-he was "caught in a trap by the Parker method of snowmanship" and he just did not have the courage to make a real stand.
Maybe Elvis's answers were not in the metaphysics books which Larry Gellar had got him interested in-but at least Elvis was "interested in something new"
Parker was happy seeing him stay the same person he was in 1955-because that person was easy to direct and control IMO

Brian
10-14-2009, 12:33 PM
I am talking about the direction Elvis's career took from day one-by the time the of the mid 60s Elvis's direction was set in the minds of many in Hollywood because of the long term deals which locked Elvis into any script which included 10 songs and a nice location-fluff.
The times Elvis was considered for anything beyond this-Parker seemed to have a reason to not recommend them (or perhaps never even mention them to Elvis which is a good possibility)
The fact that Elvis was considered by some for other more serious roles which never materialised shows not everyone just wrote him off as an actor-even after the horrid roles after the early 60s.

I can not blame the bulk of producers for doing what they do-which is to make money.
You are correct most do not care about artistry they care about bottom line profits-so when they negotiate a contract with a manager of an artist- their bottom line is money made off their investment.
But Parker representing the artist is suppose to negotiate with all the artists goals in mine-and Elvis said many times at the start he did not care to sing in motion pictures, he wanted to be an actor-now that makes his goal as an artist back then pretty clear.
If Elvis was telling interviewers and friends this goal -he must have told this to Parker-fair assumption I would think.
Ask yourself did Parker negotiate with this thought as a prime goal with Wallis? I think its obvious he did not-or Parker being considered the great deal maker would have come away with a contract which protected that goal better.
Wallis was a great producer but not the only producer who saw potential in Elvis on screen and shopping around a bit more by Parker may have benefited the process of reaching a stated goal by Elvis-to act.
I still say the question is whether Parker just bungled this negotiation-or did he know that Wallis did not intend to ever really do anything but musicals and Parker saw the bigger paydays in those musicals.
Elvis in the beginning I can not fault-he trusted Parker to do the things Elvis had stated as a goal in pictures as an actor. But by the mid 60s Elvis had still not grown enough as a person to revolt-he was "caught in a trap by the Parker method of snowmanship" and he just did not have the courage to make a real stand.
Maybe Elvis's answers were not in the metaphysics books which Larry Gellar had got him interested in-but at least Elvis was "interested in something new"
Parker was happy seeing him stay the same person he was in 1955-because that person was easy to direct and control IMO

I think you can't just blame one person in these type of things it's more complicated than that.

The producers bottom line was all about money but they do give serious roles or groom actors to be a great dramatic or great comedy actor.

The producers never had that intention with Elvis they wanted him to just use his popularity as a singer to draw box office.

I think Parker was at least upfront telling Elvis that all Hollywood cares is the money and we aren't going to change the formula until the formula runs out.
While people like Hal Wallis were leading Elvis to believe that he would eventually get a substantial dramatic role but never had any intention of giving him one.

I think it was naive of Elvis to think Hollywood wouldn't insist on him to sing in the movies.
Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Ricky Nelson, Pat Boone, Dean Martin, Bobby Darin etc.
I don't know why they have to do that but it seems every singer that gets a role in a film has to sing at least a couple of songs.
I know Frank Sinatra, and Dean Martin got to do some serious roles but that was after they were older.

KPM
10-15-2009, 09:26 AM
I think you can't just blame one person in these type of things it's more complicated than that.

The producers bottom line was all about money but they do give serious roles or groom actors to be a great dramatic or great comedy actor.
The producers never had that intention with Elvis they wanted him to just use his popularity as a singer to draw box office.

I think Parker was at least upfront telling Elvis that all Hollywood cares is the money and we aren't going to change the formula until the formula runs out.
While people like Hal Wallis were leading Elvis to believe that he would eventually get a substantial dramatic role but never had any intention of giving him one.

I think it was naive of Elvis to think Hollywood wouldn't insist on him to sing in the movies.
Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Ricky Nelson, Pat Boone, Dean Martin, Bobby Darin etc.
I don't know why they have to do that but it seems every singer that gets a role in a film has to sing at least a couple of songs.
I know Frank Sinatra, and Dean Martin got to do some serious roles but that was after they were older.
Yes producers do help actors get dramatic artistic roles-and lets face it anything that smacked of that after 1962 was turned down by Parker because of his "lets don't mess with what works policy"..... or the producers were given such demands that they just could not meet.
Elia Kazan has said he thought Elvis had the talent to be in better pictures,
Stanley Kramer had considered Elvis for the Tony Curtis role in the Defiant Ones, Robert Brooks said he considered Elvis for the Robert Blake role in In Cold Blood, these are great directors who saw something of acting value in Elvis.
But I can not see Parker ever letting Elvis do "In Cold Blood" nor "The Defiant Ones" he wanted the clean cut image out of the Army.
Parker was only up front (as upfront as a Snowman can be)
"after Elvis had signed the long term deals with Wallis"
IMO who knows for sure what Parker told Elvis to get him to sign the deal.
As far as Elvis being naive-sure he was naive-but he was the hottest thing on the planet in 1956-that opens a lot of doors and it gives you a lot of bargaining power. Parker could have stipulated that for every 2 musicals Elvis would be put into a quality non musical-for the duration of the Wallis contract- money would have been made and Elvis could have grown and felt he was not just a singer in pictures but an singer/actor. That would have been a compromise. But I'm sure the salary per picture would have been less-(and Parkers percentage of that salary)
Elvis was also naive to think Parker was always working in his best interests with a plan to stretch Elvis as an all around entertainer in the Sinatra mold. IMO

Brian
10-15-2009, 12:25 PM
Yes producers do help actors get dramatic artistic roles-and lets face it anything that smacked of that after 1962 was turned down by Parker because of his "lets don't mess with what works policy"..... or the producers were given such demands that they just could not meet.
Elia Kazan has said he thought Elvis had the talent to be in better pictures,
Stanley Kramer had considered Elvis for the Tony Curtis role in the Defiant Ones, Robert Brooks said he considered Elvis for the Robert Blake role in In Cold Blood, these are great directors who saw something of acting value in Elvis.
But I can not see Parker ever letting Elvis do "In Cold Blood" nor "The Defiant Ones" he wanted the clean cut image out of the Army.
Parker was only up front (as upfront as a Snowman can be)
"after Elvis had signed the long term deals with Wallis"
IMO who knows for sure what Parker told Elvis to get him to sign the deal.
As far as Elvis being naive-sure he was naive-but he was the hottest thing on the planet in 1956-that opens a lot of doors and it gives you a lot of bargaining power. Parker could have stipulated that for every 2 musicals Elvis would be put into a quality non musical-for the duration of the Wallis contract- money would have been made and Elvis could have grown and felt he was not just a singer in pictures but an singer/actor. That would have been a compromise. But I'm sure the salary per picture would have been less-(and Parkers percentage of that salary)
Elvis was also naive to think Parker was always working in his best interests with a plan to stretch Elvis as an all around entertainer in the Sinatra mold. IMO

there is a difference between being considered for a role and being offered a role.
You can be talked about as a possible candidate for a role for a film behind closed doors but you are never actually offered the role.
All these directors like Elia Kazan, Stanley Kramer, Robert Brooks considered Elvis for roles but they ultimately offered these roles to other actors.
I know Sidney Lumet had expressed interest in working with Elvis but never offered him any roles and to be honest none of the films he was making in the 60's would've been right for Elvis.

Hal Wallis produced Easy come Easy Go with Elvis in 1967
he also produced Barefoot in the Park with Robert Redford in 1967
Barefoot in the Park was the better film but did Wallis at least offer Elvis the role? no
In 1969 Hal Wallis produced True Grit and another singer Glen Campbell got the role.
Did Hal Wallis at least offer the role to Elvis? no

KPM
10-15-2009, 01:20 PM
there is a difference between being considered for a role and being offered a role.
You can be talked about as a possible candidate for a role for a film behind closed doors but you are never actually offered the role.
All these directors like Elia Kazan, Stanley Kramer, Robert Brooks considered Elvis for roles but they ultimately offered these roles to other actors.I know Sidney Lumet had expressed interest in working with Elvis but never offered him any roles and to be honest none of the films he was making in the 60's would've been right for Elvis.

Hal Wallis produced Easy come Easy Go with Elvis in 1967
he also produced Barefoot in the Park with Robert Redford in 1967
Barefoot in the Park was the better film but did Wallis at least offer Elvis the role? no
In 1969 Hal Wallis produced True Grit and another singer Glen Campbell got the role.
Did Hal Wallis at least offer the role to Elvis? no
Whether any offers were actually made-is debateable since the offers would have gone to Parker directly not Elvis.
Wallis had no intention of offering Elvis anything but fluff-he says in his biography as much and in interviews over the years.
Thats why Elvis's interests in film should have been Parkers first priority from day one-Wallis had his own agenda it was Wallis's job with his attorneys to protect that agenda-as it was Parkers task to see that Elvis's agenda or interests were taken care of. I can not blame Wallis for out foxing Parker-or for Parker possibly working with Wallis to secure musicals.
You are also overlooking the reputation that Parker had with nearly everyone-which was that he was hard to work with and wanted control-how many serious offers did not get past the behind closed doors casting discussions in Hollywood because of the Parker style and rep?
I am not blaming only Parker-but he was pivotal..... literally at the center of the direction the motion picture career of Elvis Presley took. He had to know what Elvis wanted in 1956-had to-no question in my mind. Elvis made it clear in interviews and to friends-Parker did the opposite and sold it somehow to Elvis. Elvis did not understand the situation, or it was misrepresented to him....or both.
Parker probably had no confidence in Elvis as an actor-so he thought short term in regards to the acting-he thought in terms quick millions in 6-7 years from musicals (as we know Wallis did)
Parker IMO did not have a creative artistic bone in his body and he rarely thought of the impact of the fluff had on someone who wanted to do more.
Instead of incouraging growth he stiffled it-in the name of money. Sure Elvis wanted to make big money-but did Parker ever seriously say:
"Elvis in order to get better roles, we may need to cut the price"
You and I both know Parker would never speak like that to Elvis-Parker wanted the big money.
He never would have encouraged Elvis to take anything that was not Parker approved..................such as the "In Cold Blood" role.
It is the lack of Parker working to secure better roles that disgusts me-he could have.
As you pointed out Parker made it clear "why mess with what works?"
But that is not the true meaning
"Why mess with what makes the most money?" is the better translation.
Parker could not see that better roles could have fed the creative spirit in Elvis-and led to bigger things, better things which finally lead to bigger better money. Parker wanted the bigger better money-now. That is his ultimate failure in the movie career of Elvis.
Elvis "being snowed"-bought it all-until it was too late. Once the desire had effectively been killed in him he cared less. IMO

Brian
10-15-2009, 04:08 PM
Whether any offers were actually made-is debateable since the offers would have gone to Parker directly not Elvis.
Wallis had no intention of offering Elvis anything but fluff-he says in his biography as much and in interviews over the years.
Thats why Elvis's interests in film should have been Parkers first priority from day one-Wallis had his own agenda it was Wallis's job with his attorneys to protect that agenda-as it was Parkers task to see that Elvis's agenda or interests were taken care of. I can not blame Wallis for out foxing Parker-or for Parker possibly working with Wallis to secure musicals.
You are also overlooking the reputation that Parker had with nearly everyone-which was that he was hard to work with and wanted control-how many serious offers did not get past the behind closed doors casting discussions in Hollywood because of the Parker style and rep?
I am not blaming only Parker-but he was pivotal..... literally at the center of the direction the motion picture career of Elvis Presley took. He had to know what Elvis wanted in 1956-had to-no question in my mind. Elvis made it clear in interviews and to friends-Parker did the opposite and sold it somehow to Elvis. Elvis did not understand the situation, or it was misrepresented to him....or both.
Parker probably had no confidence in Elvis as an actor-so he thought short term in regards to the acting-he thought in terms quick millions in 6-7 years from musicals (as we know Wallis did)
Parker IMO did not have a creative artistic bone in his body and he rarely thought of the impact of the fluff had on someone who wanted to do more.
Instead of incouraging growth he stiffled it-in the name of money. Sure Elvis wanted to make big money-but did Parker ever seriously say:
"Elvis in order to get better roles, we may need to cut the price"
You and I both know Parker would never speak like that to Elvis-Parker wanted the big money.
He never would have encouraged Elvis to take anything that was not Parker approved..................such as the "In Cold Blood" role.
It is the lack of Parker working to secure better roles that disgusts me-he could have.
As you pointed out Parker made it clear "why mess with what works?"
But that is not the true meaning
"Why mess with what makes the most money?" is the better translation.
Parker could not see that better roles could have fed the creative spirit in Elvis-and led to bigger things, better things which finally lead to bigger better money. Parker wanted the bigger better money-now. That is his ultimate failure in the movie career of Elvis.
Elvis "being snowed"-bought it all-until it was too late. Once the desire had effectively been killed in him he cared less. IMO

What you have said about Wallis is part of my point his attitude towards Elvis and the other hollywood producers evidently felt the same.

Colonel Parker also felt that Elvis couldn't draw big money in non musicals
he used Flaming Star and Wild in the Country as examples of fans not wanting to see him not singing.
I think it's true that Elvis had problems drawing big box office when he didn't sing. The problem with his movie career in my opinion was that the formula worked for 4 years and then started to wear thin as the fans got tired of the predictable plots and the terrible songs so at that time around 1965 or so Parker should've pushed harder to get Elvis another Wild in the Country or Flaming Star type role.


Regarding the roles Elvis was rumored to be offered



Elvis was drafted in 1957 and had to get permission to even make King Creole
The Defiant ones was made around 1958 when Elvis was drafted everybody knew he would've been unavailable so why even bother offering the role.

KPM
10-17-2009, 02:09 PM
What you have said about Wallis is part of my point his attitude towards Elvis and the other hollywood producers evidently felt the same.
Colonel Parker also felt that Elvis couldn't draw big money in non musicals
he used Flaming Star and Wild in the Country as examples of fans not wanting to see him not singing.
I think it's true that Elvis had problems drawing big box office when he didn't sing. The problem with his movie career in my opinion was that the formula worked for 4 years and then started to wear thin as the fans got tired of the predictable plots and the terrible songs so at that time around 1965 or so Parker should've pushed harder to get Elvis another Wild in the Country or Flaming Star type role.


Regarding the roles Elvis was rumored to be offered



Elvis was drafted in 1957 and had to get permission to even make King Creole
The Defiant ones was made around 1958 when Elvis was drafted everybody knew he would've been unavailable so why even bother offering the role.
Not all producers or we would not hear of the producers and directors who still "considered Elvis" in certain instances-if not actually made offers.
Just because nothing came from consideration or actual offers does not negate the fact that they saw ability in Elvis.
Woody Allen does not make a mint with every picture he makes-and yet producers are willing to produce him movies because he has a loyal following who love his work-and his work is considered "arty"
Not all producers think of only huge profit-some want to make good film and make a smaller profit (not many but some do)
I think the problem is how I stated it-the cards were stacked from day one-short term thinking for quick profit.

Brian
10-17-2009, 02:58 PM
Not all producers or we would not hear of the producers and directors who still "considered Elvis" in certain instances-if not actually made offers.
Just because nothing came from consideration or actual offers does not negate the fact that they saw ability in Elvis.
Woody Allen does not make a mint with every picture he makes-and yet producers are willing to produce him movies because he has a loyal following who love his work-and his work is considered "arty"
Not all producers think of only huge profit-some want to make good film and make a smaller profit (not many but some do)
I think the problem is how I stated it-the cards were stacked from day one-short term thinking for quick profit.

When I said all the producers

I meant all the other producers that Elvis made films for they evidently felt the same as Hal Wallis.
When it came to Elvis the producers didn't always care about huge profits either they just wanted Elvis movies to make all of their money back at the box office with a nice profit left over.

Genie
10-17-2009, 04:34 PM
I am talking about the direction Elvis's career took from day one-by the time the of the mid 60s Elvis's direction was set in the minds of many in Hollywood because of the long term deals which locked Elvis into any script which included 10 songs and a nice location-fluff.
The times Elvis was considered for anything beyond this-Parker seemed to have a reason to not recommend them (or perhaps never even mention them to Elvis which is a good possibility)
The fact that Elvis was considered by some for other more serious roles which never materialised shows not everyone just wrote him off as an actor-even after the horrid roles after the early 60s.

I can not blame the bulk of producers for doing what they do-which is to make money.
You are correct most do not care about artistry they care about bottom line profits-so when they negotiate a contract with a manager of an artist- their bottom line is money made off their investment.
But Parker representing the artist is suppose to negotiate with all the artists goals in mine-and Elvis said many times at the start he did not care to sing in motion pictures, he wanted to be an actor-now that makes his goal as an artist back then pretty clear.
If Elvis was telling interviewers and friends this goal -he must have told this to Parker-fair assumption I would think.
Ask yourself did Parker negotiate with this thought as a prime goal with Wallis? I think its obvious he did not-or Parker being considered the great deal maker would have come away with a contract which protected that goal better.
Wallis was a great producer but not the only producer who saw potential in Elvis on screen and shopping around a bit more by Parker may have benefited the process of reaching a stated goal by Elvis-to act.
I still say the question is whether Parker just bungled this negotiation-or did he know that Wallis did not intend to ever really do anything but musicals and Parker saw the bigger paydays in those musicals.
Elvis in the beginning I can not fault-he trusted Parker to do the things Elvis had stated as a goal in pictures as an actor. But by the mid 60s Elvis had still not grown enough as a person to revolt-he was "caught in a trap by the Parker method of snowmanship" and he just did not have the courage to make a real stand.
Maybe Elvis's answers were not in the metaphysics books which Larry Gellar had got him interested in-but at least Elvis was "interested in something new"
Parker was happy seeing him stay the same person he was in 1955-because that person was easy to direct and control IMO

Great thread by the way, and posts! (y)
Sadly, I have mentioned too many times already but will again due to the subject material. My Aunt was married to a hollywood producer, I prefer to leave the name out, as she went on to marry another, and then also a director. This got me into places some people get, but I was told that it was not the producers at all blocking Elvis.. but Col Parker. Something about a contract that no matter what Elvis liked, if the Col disliked it, it was a no go?
(n) How very sad...

Brian
10-17-2009, 05:06 PM
Great thread by the way, and posts! (y)
Sadly, I have mentioned too many times already but will again due to the subject material. My Aunt was married to a hollywood producer, I prefer to leave the name out, as she went on to marry another, and then also a director. This got me into places some people get, but I was told that it was not the producers at all blocking Elvis.. but Col Parker. Something about a contract that no matter what Elvis liked, if the Col disliked it, it was a no go?
(n) How very sad...

I do not believe that

jak
10-17-2009, 11:35 PM
IMO Elvis would have been better off if he had never seen a movie studio in his entire career.He wasted far to much time and talent in Hollywood.I think Elvis has to be ranked as the greatest singer in popular culture.Nobody even comes a close second to him.This does not make one a good actor however.I dont think Elvis was a good actor.People like Wallis knew this.There is no way Elvis could have performed in some of the films mentioned above.He would have ruined them.Elvis was best suited for light fare.I know King Creole and Jailhouse Rock are good drama's.A big reason they are good films is the cast around Elvis.There is no way Elvis could have carried a film on his own.Go back and look at the supporting actors involved in his better efforts.Charles Bronson,Barbara Eden,Gig Young,Millie Perkins,Mathau and the list goes on and on.He was very lucky to have some great actors around him.Those people blow him out of the water.You can always tell Elvis is acting.He is always kinda stiff acting and the dialogue usually seems forced.A good actor becomes his character and their performance is just effortless.The people that worked with Elvis liked him.He was a good guy.This always lends itself to comments about he could have been a great actor etc.I dont believe it for a second.The camera did indeed love him.He just didnt have the ability to act on film at a level that would have made him an "A" list actor.Elvis was a movie star,not a great actor.There is a big difference.

Brian
10-18-2009, 12:12 AM
IMO Elvis would have been better off if he had never seen a movie studio in his entire career.He wasted far to much time and talent in Hollywood.I think Elvis has to be ranked as the greatest singer in popular culture.Nobody even comes a close second to him.This does not make one a good actor however.I dont think Elvis was a good actor.People like Wallis knew this.There is no way Elvis could have performed in some of the films mentioned above.He would have ruined them.Elvis was best suited for light fare.I know King Creole and Jailhouse Rock are good drama's.A big reason they are good films is the cast around Elvis.There is no way Elvis could have carried a film on his own.Go back and look at the supporting actors involved in his better efforts.Charles Bronson,Barbara Eden,Gig Young,Millie Perkins,Mathau and the list goes on and on.He was very lucky to have some great actors around him.Those people blow him out of the water.You can always tell Elvis is acting.He is always kinda stiff acting and the dialogue usually seems forced.A good actor becomes his character and their performance is just effortless.The people that worked with Elvis liked him.He was a good guy.This always lends itself to comments about he could have been a great actor etc.I dont believe it for a second.The camera did indeed love him.He just didnt have the ability to act on film at a level that would have made him an "A" list actor.Elvis was a movie star,not a great actor.There is a big difference.

I agree with you

I think he showed potential in some of his films but the other more experienced actors in those films were cleary better.
That's one of the reasons I think Elvis should've took some acting lessons.

I think with acting lessons, time and with Elvis working with good directors he could've matured into a decent movie actor like Redford, Mcqueen or Robert Mitchum.
I think a good idea for Elvis acting career would've been to make action adventure type films in the early 70's like Eastwood, Mcqueen, Bronson and Hackman were doing.
I think Elvis could've done a cop movie in the 70's like they all did.
Jerry Schilling says in his book that Rick Husky was writing a script for Elvis to play an ex-CIA agent who runs a Karate school when he finds out a friend of his has been murdered.
That could've been a good action adventure movie as well if done right.

jak
10-18-2009, 12:49 AM
I agree with you

I think he showed potential in some of his films but the other more experienced actors in those films were cleary better.
That's one of the reasons I think Elvis should've took some acting lessons.

I think with acting lessons, time and with Elvis working with good directors he could've matured into a decent movie actor like Redford, Mcqueen or Robert Mitchum.
I think a good idea for Elvis acting career would've been to make action adventure type films in the early 70's like Eastwood, Mcqueen, Bronson and Hackman were doing.
I think Elvis could've done a cop movie in the 70's like they all did.
Jerry Schilling says in his book that Rick Husky was writing a script for Elvis to play an ex-CIA agent who runs a Karate school when he finds out a friend of his has been murdered.
That could've been a good action adventure movie as well if done right.


Elvis certainly could have used the lessons.Im sure he would have benefited from them.I still dont think he could have came close to the ones you mentioned above though.You listed 3 heavy hitters.Guys like Mitchum and the others had natural ability.Much more than Elvis.It wasnt as hard for them to be great actors.They already had it if you know what I mean.Of course if you ever take the time to listen to one of Mitchum's calypso lp's from the 60's, it's clear Elvis could have taught him a thing or two in that dept.

Brian
10-18-2009, 01:53 AM
Elvis certainly could have used the lessons.Im sure he would have benefited from them.I still dont think he could have came close to the ones you mentioned above though.You listed 3 heavy hitters.Guys like Mitchum and the others had natural ability.Much more than Elvis.It wasnt as hard for them to be great actors.They already had it if you know what I mean.Of course if you ever take the time to listen to one of Mitchum's calypso lp's from the 60's, it's clear Elvis could have taught him a thing or two in that dept.

You never know with lessons and then the right scripts and right directors he could've become a good actor.
it's kinda hard to judge him based on the performances we have, in a lot of his films he was not even trying and was only going through the motions.

jak
10-18-2009, 02:04 AM
You never know with lessons and then the right scripts and right directors he could've become a good actor.
it's kinda hard to judge him based on the performances we have, in a lot of his films he was not even trying and was only going through the motions.

I agree he might have become a good actor with help as you suggested.Im just saying somebody like Mitchum is beyond good.He was one of the greatest film noir actors that ever lived.He defined the whole genre.I keep using him as an example because I hold him in a high regard when it comes to acting ability.I think Elvis would have needed to find a genie's lamp and recieve three wishes if he wanted to be that good.

Brian
10-18-2009, 02:28 AM
I agree he might have become a good actor with help as you suggested.Im just saying somebody like Mitchum is beyond good.He was one of the greatest film noir actors that ever lived.He defined the whole genre.I keep using him as an example because I hold him in a high regard when it comes to acting ability.I think Elvis would have needed to find a genie's lamp and recieve three wishes if he wanted to be that good.

oh sure

I loved him in Night of the Hunter

To me he's definately the best of the 3 actors I mentioned.

KPM
10-18-2009, 12:07 PM
IMO Elvis would have been better off if he had never seen a movie studio in his entire career.He wasted far to much time and talent in Hollywood.I think Elvis has to be ranked as the greatest singer in popular culture.Nobody even comes a close second to him.This does not make one a good actor however.I dont think Elvis was a good actor.People like Wallis knew this.There is no way Elvis could have performed in some of the films mentioned above.He would have ruined them.Elvis was best suited for light fare.I know King Creole and Jailhouse Rock are good drama's.A big reason they are good films is the cast around Elvis.There is no way Elvis could have carried a film on his own.Go back and look at the supporting actors involved in his better efforts.Charles Bronson,Barbara Eden,Gig Young,Millie Perkins,Mathau and the list goes on and on.He was very lucky to have some great actors around him.Those people blow him out of the water.You can always tell Elvis is acting.He is always kinda stiff acting and the dialogue usually seems forced.A good actor becomes his character and their performance is just effortless.The people that worked with Elvis liked him.He was a good guy.This always lends itself to comments about he could have been a great actor etc.I dont believe it for a second.The camera did indeed love him.He just didnt have the ability to act on film at a level that would have made him an "A" list actor.Elvis was a movie star,not a great actor.There is a big difference.
I know you and I in the past have disagreed on this-:D
But your observation about better cast, scripts etc is precisely my point-when Elvis was involved in "quality productions" with cast, directors, scripts to match-his performance rose and he learned. Learning is a process which everyone has to have in any activity. Elvis leaned by doing.
How many opportunities out of 31 acting films did he get "quality productions" in which he could learn and progress?
A handful at best.
I think its hard to just dismiss someones ability as non existent with no chance of expanding-when the best you can judge by are a handful of better productions.
You can not judge by the fluff-because thats all those films tried to be-travelogues with ELVIS songs.
I am amazed how quickly people just write off any ability he had as an actor-because he made 25 fluff films. (which he himself showed disdain for)
I think an actor touches people-makes them feel the emotions which the character is feeling in the film-I honestly can say I felt the emotions of Clint Reno in Love Me Tender, of Pacer in Flaming Star, of Danny in King Creole, and I had a mild dislike for Vince Everett in Jailhouse Rock because he was so self centered. IMO all these films were a great step above the "fluff"
Each time Elvis was given the chance he got better IMO and as reviews showed in the critics eyes also.
The chance to learn and to expand does not continue if your body of work is a stream of remakes after 1962 which steadily get cheaper and sillier.
I must admit I think of the films as I think of the stupid rules on getting songs for Elvis-instead of trying to expand the quality of material-the material is accepted only for the basis of how much more profit it brings into the bottom line. You can not stack the deck against art-by worrying only of bottom line profit-even for Elvis Presley.
When you tie the hands of creativity by accepting substandard material (film or song) in the name of profit you stop the creative spirit in an artist-you in essence are saying-this is all you are! IMO This is what Col Parker did with his deal making in the name of PROFIT ONLY!
Col was the smarter of the 2 when it came to contracts-but he had no inkling of the effect his PROFIT ONLY mentality had on Elvis and his career.
Elvis was caught and he became complacent, I agree he should have rebelled and demanded better-but he for many reasons we've discussed just could never feel condident enough to do so.
SNOWMAN.

KPM
10-18-2009, 12:26 PM
Elvis certainly could have used the lessons.Im sure he would have benefited from them.I still dont think he could have came close to the ones you mentioned above though.You listed 3 heavy hitters.Guys like Mitchum and the others had natural ability.Much more than Elvis.It wasnt as hard for them to be great actors.They already had it if you know what I mean.Of course if you ever take the time to listen to one of Mitchum's calypso lp's from the 60's, it's clear Elvis could have taught him a thing or two in that dept.
Perhaps they might have helped-its hard to say-but did Parker ever tell Elvis, you need lessons?
If Elia Kazan had come to Elvis and said I want you to enroll in acting classes such as the Actors Studio-how do you think Parker would have responded?
Would Parker have encouraged Elvis to do so? We know what Parker felt about people meddling with Elvis and putting ideas in his head (Leiber/Stoller)
Parker had a great deal of control over Elvis and knew how to use it-he could have told Elvis you need to do this.....and I would bet my house cat that Elvis would have done so.

Ask yourself did Parker ever really encourage Elvis in the direction of quality-or only in the direction of money regardless of quality, or value?
Once again who was the Snowman-who had all the answers and all the warnings of trusting others besides himself?
But Parker IMO would never want Elvis around the type of independent people that ended up in such places-nor around people like Elia Kazan or the actor James Whitmore who taught acting to many future stars.
I'm sorry the deck was stacked- Elvis just could not see it.
Col. kept Elvis in a state of constant caution when getting too envolved with anyone accept those the Col wanted in such situations.
If Elvis had a regular Hollywood agent for his film career all the steps (or classes if you will) in learning as an actor and about the craft of film making would have been offered and recommended because...... Hollywood agents know its important to learn/study and to show the seriousness of your intentions. (not to mention the contacts you make in such classes and endeavors in them)
I wish Parker had had one small ounce of interest in developement of ability and quality-instead of cash on delivery.

Brian
10-18-2009, 01:12 PM
Perhaps they might have helped-its hard to say-but did Parker ever tell Elvis, you need lessons?
If Elia Kazan had come to Elvis and said I want you to enroll in acting classes such as the Actors Studio-how do you think Parker would have responded?
Would Parker have encouraged Elvis to do so? We know what Parker felt about people meddling with Elvis and putting ideas in his head (Leiber/Stoller)
Parker had a great deal of control over Elvis and knew how to use it-he could have told Elvis you need to do this.....and I would bet my house cat that Elvis would have done so.

.

Elvis should have realized that he probably needed lessons without Parker telling him.
Most actors simply take them to improve their skills.
I don't think acting coaches would've put ideas into his head they just teach the classes and the techniques.
I don't think Elvis would have had to necessarily study at the actors studio in New York acting teachers are a dime a dozen.

KPM
10-18-2009, 01:42 PM
Elvis should have realized that he probably needed lessons without Parker telling him.Most actors simply take them to improve their skills.
I don't think acting coaches would've put ideas into his head they just teach the classes and the techniques.
I don't think Elvis would have had to necessarily study at the actors studio in New York acting teachers are a dime a dozen.
See this is where you and I will always part company-not everyone realizes what they need and when they need it. (me included)
Elvis saw he had no knowledge of show business-so he hired Parker.
Parker was hired to advise, recommend, negotiate, on show business matters.
Parker was in the business of doing this for many many years before he handled Elvis.
Elvis knew what he had read in movie magazines as a teen and that was it.
Elvis had no idea how it all worked and what was the best path so he hired Parker who supposedly did.
Do you think Parker told Elvis-
"Son I have little knowledge of the movie business, and what should be done"
I doubt it.

Parker was the thinking Snowman-Elvis was a 20 year old kid.
Elvis made it clear in 56 he wanted to act not sing-did Parker work toward that goal in negotiations or actions which would have helped Elvis achieve that goal? NO IMO from seeing how it all played out.

I used the Actors Studio as an example-because Marlon Brando and James Dean had help there and it would have carried more weight for Elvis who admired both.
I think any true teacher "would have put ideas in Elvis's head" part of teaching is to expand the thought process of the one learning-you can't do that without giving ideas that are new or different to a student in any subject. Parker did not want someone telling Elvis
"Don't do so many of the musicals, demand some acting only jobs, and when you do the musicals don't settle for the fluff-ask for better scripts,
songs, direction......"
Parker did not want those ideas pushed-they show independence I as I have said Parker did not want Elvis independent.

Brian
10-18-2009, 01:55 PM
See this is where you and I will always part company-not everyone realizes what they need and when they need it. (me included)
Elvis saw he had no knowledge of show business-so he hired Parker.
Parker was hired to advise, recommend, negotiate, on show business matters.
Parker was in the business of doing this for many many years before he handled Elvis.
Elvis knew what he had read in movie magazines as a teen and that was it.
Elvis had no idea how it all worked and what was the best path so he hired Parker who supposedly did.
Do you think Parker told Elvis-
"Son I have little knowledge of the movie business, and what should be done"
I doubt it.

Parker was the thinking Snowman-Elvis was a 20 year old kid.
Elvis made it clear in 56 he wanted to act not sing-did Parker work toward that goal in negotiations or actions which would have helped Elvis achieve that goal? NO IMO from seeing how it all played out.

I used the Actors Studio as an example-because Marlon Brando and James Dean had help there and it would have carried more weight for Elvis who admired both.
I think any true teacher "would have put ideas in Elvis's head" part of teaching is to expand the thought process of the one learning-you can't do that without giving ideas that are new or different to a student in any subject. Parker did not want someone telling Elvis
"Don't do so many of the musicals, demand some acting only jobs, and when you do the musicals don't settle for the fluff-ask for better scripts,
songs, direction......"
Parker did not want those ideas pushed-they show independence I as I have said Parker did not want Elvis independent.

By Ideas I mean I don't think acting teachers would've told Elvis that he should fire Parker and all of that.
particularly if he took lessons in the early 60's when his roles were varied.
After that I think it would depend on who the teacher was as to whether or not they would give Elvis advice on his acting career.

I'm thinking Elvis should of thought to take lessons because all of his acting idols took them and he wanted to be a great actor like they were.

Elvis is asked if he is going to take acting classes and he responds no, I was never very good at school etc.
Elvis just wasn't interested in doing that.

jak
10-18-2009, 02:54 PM
KPM
It's good to discuss topics with you as always.We both agree that Elvis' best efforts are when he had a good cast around him.The thing I think we disagree on is Elvis' performance.To me the good cast drastically showed how much better everyone else was around him.They were pro's.That's how they earned a living.Im not saying he couldnt have gotten better.I just know he never turned in a first class performance.That includes King Creole and Jailhouse Rock.Adequate yes,first class no.Elvis never shined as an actor.Look at the last two documentaries he starred in.He's a natural and he seems completely at ease.That's because he's not acting.He's just being himself and it shines through.There's the clue to his acting ability.He always tried to hard in the good films.I think it's easy to detect.He is always to focused in his methods.He has to really work at it and it shows.The other actors around him just ease right into the parts they play.True pro's.I will also say if Elvis was serious he would have taken the lessons.He knew that.Elvis didnt have a strong work ethic.There was no way he was going to interupt the party by taking lessons.Elvis may have been disgusted with some of the films he made.However,i believe Elvis placed financial success ahead of creativity a good deal of the time.He did the same thing to his music.Elvis didnt become a better actor because he really didnt apply himself to do that.Even if he did it doesnt mean he would have improved either.If you dont have it,you just dont have it.

KPM
10-19-2009, 12:08 PM
KPM
It's good to discuss topics with you as always.We both agree that Elvis' best efforts are when he had a good cast around him.The thing I think we disagree on is Elvis' performance.To me the good cast drastically showed how much better everyone else was around him.They were pro's.That's how they earned a living.Im not saying he couldnt have gotten better.I just know he never turned in a first class performance.That includes King Creole and Jailhouse Rock.Adequate yes,first class no.Elvis never shined as an actor.Look at the last two documentaries he starred in.He's a natural and he seems completely at ease.That's because he's not acting.He's just being himself and it shines through.There's the clue to his acting ability.He always tried to hard in the good films.I think it's easy to detect.He is always to focused in his methods.He has to really work at it and it shows.The other actors around him just ease right into the parts they play.True pro's.I will also say if Elvis was serious he would have taken the lessons.He knew that.Elvis didnt have a strong work ethic.There was no way he was going to interupt the party by taking lessons.Elvis may have been disgusted with some of the films he made.However,i believe Elvis placed financial success ahead of creativity a good deal of the time.He did the same thing to his music.Elvis didnt become a better actor because he really didnt apply himself to do that.Even if he did it doesnt mean he would have improved either.If you dont have it,you just dont have it.
Yes always good to hear your opinion and have a good discussion my friend.
I realise beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you see it different than I.;):D
IMO for someone who was 3 years before driving a truck-his early films show he had ability which needed to be tapped and nurtured-IMO.
I did think in King Creole and Flaming Star he shined-he may have not been technically perfect but for someone who had not even made 10 films he got rave reviews for his acting.(when compared to reviews of the fluff)
The growth process was never given that chance. He was held in place-and thought his interests were being taken care of.
25 Fluff films and 5-6 better productions hardly gave him the chance to expand.
Here is a critics assessment of the film and the career of Elvis:

......The success of Blue Hawaii and the relative failure of the dramatic films set the course for most of the rest of Elvis’ generally commercially successful but artistically unsatisfying film career. That meant that Flaming Star became a symbol of what could have been and ceased in many ways to exist as an entity of its own.
This is kind of a shame because Flaming Star is a film of considerable merit and an important symbolic achievement for Elvis.



British Film Institute Voted Flaming Star in the Top 100 Essential Westerns

That Flaming Star is a good movie has never been in dispute amongst the few that have seen it. Most of the critical guides rate the film a solid three stars and praise the script and Elvis’ performance. When the British Film Institute compiled a history of the western in the late 1980s, they included it as one of their 100 or so essential westerns.

Don Siegel, the film’s director was pleased with both the film and Elvis’ performance. Oddly, the main dissenters in this point of view have been the rock press.......

KPM
10-19-2009, 12:20 PM
By Ideas I mean I don't think acting teachers would've told Elvis that he should fire Parker and all of that.
particularly if he took lessons in the early 60's when his roles were varied.
After that I think it would depend on who the teacher was as to whether or not they would give Elvis advice on his acting career.

I'm thinking Elvis should of thought to take lessons because all of his acting idols took them and he wanted to be a great actor like they were.

Elvis is asked if he is going to take acting classes and he responds no, I was never very good at school etc.
Elvis just wasn't interested in doing that.
Neither did I -but in telling Elvis how to choose roles, expand range of ability, and what were good choices to be taken serious as an actor-it would automatically point out that the direction his career was going (which was Colonel Parkers plan) was incorrect.
Most people would not be stupid enough to tell Elvis-fire Parker-but enough criticism of the career direction would have to put the thoughts of Parkers bad policys toward any real acting career in a bad light.
Which is why Parker would have never wanted Elvis to get involved in this type thing.
Can you honestly tell me you believe Parker incouraged growth as an artist in Elvis...... in music or in film...by telling him to get involved in any endeavor which might spark such things-if he did I would readily point it out.
We know he did encourage Elvis to be wary of others in the business, he did encourage Elvis not to accept songs from unacceptable sources, he did negotiate the film contracts with the pigeon holing of Elvis, all which kept the quality of any product low and sometimes inferior IMO.

Elvis was not the best judge of his own ability IMO-his own insecurities made him question his every decision concerning direction-Parker is suppose to be the Snowman by his own admission so he had to see this had to understand how to get Elvis to do what Parker thought was best-which always translated into the most money to be made. That is the center of my opinion. I think we are going in circles again.

Brian
10-19-2009, 01:18 PM
Neither did I -but in telling Elvis how to choose roles, expand range of ability, and what were good choices to be taken serious as an actor-it would automatically point out that the direction his career was going (which was Colonel Parkers plan) was incorrect.
Most people would not be stupid enough to tell Elvis-fire Parker-but enough criticism of the career direction would have to put the thoughts of Parkers bad policys toward any real acting career in a bad light.
Which is why Parker would have never wanted Elvis to get involved in this type thing.
Can you honestly tell me you believe Parker incouraged growth as an artist in Elvis...... in music or in film...by telling him to get involved in any endeavor which might spark such things-if he did I would readily point it out.
We know he did encourage Elvis to be wary of others in the business, he did encourage Elvis not to accept songs from unacceptable sources, he did negotiate the film contracts with the pigeon holing of Elvis, all which kept the quality of any product low and sometimes inferior IMO.

Elvis was not the best judge of his own ability IMO-his own insecurities made him question his every decision concerning direction-Parker is suppose to be the Snowman by his own admission so he had to see this had to understand how to get Elvis to do what Parker thought was best-which always translated into the most money to be made. That is the center of my opinion. I think we are going in circles again.

No, I don't think Colonel Parker would encourage Elvis to take acting lessons and as far as I know never encouraged artistic growth.

I think Elvis should have showed more initiative and worked harder to achieve his goals as a serious actor that would include more lessons but as he said in the army press conference he wasn't interested in doing so.

I think had he taken lessons he would've been in a class with other people so their wouldn't be a lot of one on one time between him and the acting teacher.

KPM
10-19-2009, 03:56 PM
No, I don't think Colonel Parker would encourage Elvis to take acting lessons and as far as I know never encouraged artistic growth.

I think Elvis should have showed more initiative and worked harder to achieve his goals as a serious actor that would include more lessons but as he said in the army press conference he wasn't interested in doing so.

I think had he taken lessons he would've been in a class with other people so their wouldn't be a lot of one on one time between him and the acting teacher.
No Elvis felt he learned better by "doing" and perhaps he did-but he got little chance to really "learn from doing" in acting" after the first 5-6 pictures. Certainly not after Parker proclaimed,
"we strayed from what people want and we made less money"???????
Flaming Star ended up with a song in it-Wild in the Country also not because the director or Elvis wanted them but because the producer and Parker wanted them.
When did Elvis ever really get the chance early on to do a film without someone saying its got to have a song somewhere.
Don't you think that song in Flaming Star-detracts from the story-everyone who watches that scene has to be reminded that "Elvis" is Pacer-it detracts from the ability to become the character. That did not help the story-it just slowed it down-because someone wanted "ELVIS" to sing.
What if Parker had said,
"Listen we'll get them to give you better roles, with better scripts and we'll take a lesser payday or we'll find another producer to help you advance as an actor-don't worry Elvis we'll work at it"?
Parker would have been working with Elvis toward the goal of acting-instead of against him with only profit in mind. A true team.
Elvis needed reinforcement (like many people who are insecure) about things which worried him. Instead IMO many times the negatives were reinforced.
Elvis was not Superman, he was not a saint-he was a guy who had a huge talent and charisma..... but had doubts and fears like anyone.
I just wonder what could have been if he had been supported totally artistically...... instead of thwarted at at every other turn by non artistic concerns of money.
Not all artistic endeavors immediately have huge financial rewards-some understand this-others don't want to.
Once again Parker loved Elvis in his way. but that did not in most instances change his ideas of profit and loss.
If you reduce Elvis to worry about nothing but profit and loss you kill that creativity. (or any other creative person IMO) You tell him in a round about way-
"you are not an artist, you are not creative-you are only a way to make money for others"


Well some people can see easily the path they should take to a goal-some need help......some never see it.
All you can hope for in life is when you are in the position of not seeing easily, or of not seeing at all..... that people you trust who do see better help you to reach your goal.

KPM
10-19-2009, 05:37 PM
But back to the main topic-Ann Margret perhaps is like us all- shes been married happily to Roger Smith for well over 40 -but she has Elvis as the special someone in her past who she looks back on with a tug at the heart.
Someone who maybe was the right person in some ways-but it just did not work out. Isn't that kind of universal?
Looking back on matters like this always makes the situation seem sweeter and more special....... time magnifies feelings in a lot of ways.