Ann Margret & Elvis

[KPM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!
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?
How very sad...

[Brian]

Great thread by the way, and posts!
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?
How very sad...

I do not believe that

[jak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-
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]

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]

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]

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.