I really don't understand the complete and utter derision aimed at Parker, he may well have been a hard nosed business man, he may have been selfish and self centred. What Elvis and the Colonel achieved together cannot be questioned. You don't have to like Parker just accept that they were business partners and reached great heights together. I'm pretty sure Elvis wasn't the easiest artist to be managed despite what everyone might think. There are two sides to every story.
To make an honest film about Parker, they would have to make an honest film about Elvis, the fans would be up in arms because some of the negative issues around Elvis would be raised.
Right here we have seen the negatives debated continually(ebbs and flows) for the 5 years of this great forum.
Parker on the other hand has not really had that kind of scrutiny-certainly not if you go by published scrutiny over this 31 years. I am not a Parker fan-but I see he had a good business sense and he had a place in this puzzle. He did what he did best-and he was a snowman-self proclaimed. I think that self imposed title speaks volumes. I think that one title he gave himself leads to the question-how far did the snowman go?
We should not look blindly at Elvis I agree-but I thing its fair to say that about anyone who has a place in this puzzle. Parker had a huge place in this puzzle-and a lot of it is a mystery.
He was directing the traffic for Elvis's career-the way he directed it and his methods of doing so are subject to big questions. The way he directed it and his methods had a direct cause and effect on the direction of Elvis Presley-he trusted Parker. That to me is the biggest source of my problem with Parker-that I believe Elvis fully and totally for most of their association trusted the Col. I think their is a good case to be made that this trust was at times misplaced. That Parker did not always do what was best for Elvis.
Elvis takes the heat here when he did not always do what was best or right-so should Parker.
Work in Progress!
Yes an honest film about Parker would be great, and I sure wouldn't mind to see negative issues about Elvis, this would be a perfect chance to show the world why some things went wrong in his life!
I don't think for one minute any other manager could have achieved the same as Parker, some things just click and things happen. Parker didn't get 50% until 1976 (I think).
If you believe "No man is an island" you see it the opposite.
We all have to take responsibilty for our lives no question-but others do intersect with us-those intersections do play a role in what our outcomes can be. If you are lied to, and you do not know it,-and you follow the path you think this lie leads-are you totally at fault with the consequence?
People are scammed everyday, by strangers, by friends, by family, by business associates-and when it happens the consequences can be horrid.
Literally change the direction of a life-truely believe that.
If I could carry a lie detector in my pocket-it would never happen-just can't afford one.
Last edited by Jumpsuit Junkie; 01-20-2009 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Fixed quote marks
Work in Progress!
I agree this is probably something that will be viewed differently by each individual. The one question I would ask is that people try to have a bit of perspective and try to look at both sides of the story.
Work in Progress!
1. Apathy, the money still kept rolling in. 2. misguided loyalty?
That said, I truly believe the two although not bosom buddies, were close.
And yes, there are many things that I do not like about Col. Parker - his inability to empathize with Elvis' unquenchable need to make and create music comes to mind; however, Col. Parker did what he needed to do as Elvis' manager. And he made Elvis successful; albeit maybe with a few mistakes along the way, but who here is perfect?
As far as Elvis and his input into his career, I think that some do not give Elvis enough credit for his intelligence and would rather place the blame on Col. Parker or Vernon or the MM for the way Elvis' career was managed. Elvis had a great deal of native intelligence - meaning that, although not college educuated, he did possess an uncanny ability to read people, feel them out and figure out for himself what sort of person or situation he was in. He could have easily stood up to Col. Parker; however, it appears to me and from some of the MM and Priscilla that Elvis seemed to be having too much fun not to confront Col. Parker regarding his career.
And Matt is correct. If an honest movie about Col. Parker would be made, an honest movie about Elvis would have to be made and the fans would be besides themselves when his less desirable side was revealed.
Last edited by ehollier; 01-20-2009 at 10:06 PM.
"More people today should see him not simply as a performer, but as an artist with a great soul."
John Bakke, professor emeritus
University of Memphis
Elvis was such a huge brand name back in the 60's & 70's, this just doesn't happen without someone working in the shadows very hard to make this a reality. Yes Elvis had the talent, the Colonel knew how to turn that talent into a desirable product. No he didn't always get it right! He did enough, he brought Elvis to a world stage where he still has a place today. EPE is more guilty of selling Elvis out than the Colonel ever did.
We all put our lives in the hands of others over the course of our lives, we let people guide us in career/life decisions and that does shape us to a degree. We do however have a responsibility to ensure that the advice we are given is in our interest, we should not let apathy be the reason why we continue down the same path.
It seems to me that everyone surrounding Elvis gets a kicking, there are few colleagues, family or associates who get positive feedback. If everyone was so horrible it begs the question, 'Why did Elvis surround himself with these people?'
Is it the truth that the single most destructive force in Elvis' life was the drugs? If Elvis hadn't become addicted to prescribed medication we simply wouldn't give a hoot about the Colonel
IMO Parker getting Elvis on the Sullivan and Steve Allen show and the performances he gave and the controversy which followed is what really lit the fire to his success IMO
I have to believe that there were other competent people who could have got him on National TV.
I pointed out Crosby and Sinatra careers followed the same path in essence-the got on records, onto national radio, and from that into movies. I do not know the names of their managers-but since Crosby was huge, Sinatra was huge-its a similar road that these managers pioneered.Parker just did what is logical. Of course I do not take anything from the Col. on his masterful exploitation-but controversy is easy to exploit.
Elvis had the added extra-besides talent and charisma he had the controversy about his movements and his new music rock and roll. That is my respectful and heartfelt opinion.
Work in Progress!