ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 5:31 am
Greystoke wrote:jurasic1968 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 10:58 pm
It was just work. But with a lot of money.
It isn't entirely unusual for actors to treat certain roles as work. Even if and when they're doing good work, sometimes that attitude prevails. With regards to Elvis, this was clearly his attitude after a time in Hollywood, and whilst I do think he was being pulled in directions that weren't creatively satisfying, or stimulating, he wasn't doing anything to push back or engage in finding something that was more satisfying or stimulating.
It's an interesting topic of conversation, I think. Because Elvis surely had aspirations in Hollywood that weren't fulfilled, although I also get the impression that there was more to the film industry than he may have appreciated or expected. Especially when success came so quickly. And put him in a box, so to speak.
It's a tough and challenging industry to genuinely succeed and thrive in. And it's easy to feel a degree of sympathy for Elvis, as Bajo alluded to above. Although Elvis and Tom Parker undoubtedly played safe and followed the money in spite of anything else Elvis might have aspired to, and in doing so, despite the direction Elvis's career went in, there was an element of choice in this regard. Especially after Elvis experienced the kind of success that was enviable in some respects.
I do think there is a point when some of that sympathy begins to run out, though. Elvis was a grown man who had years of experience in Hollywood by the time Double Trouble was in production. And if he wasn't doing anything to improve his own fortunes, other than financially, then perhaps the likes of Double Trouble and Spinout, or Speedway, etc., were as good as he deserved. And as much as he was likely to get.
I think there’s something we often overlook, Elvis’s maturity.
He was thrust into the limelight at 19-20 years of age and I don’t really think he matured much past the age of 25. I came to that conclusion many decades ago from stories of his sense of humor, high jinx, treatment of others in personal relationships etc.
Knowing that, I think when it came to the business side of things, the contracts for the films specifically, I don’t really think Elvis knew how to push back. Because Parker isolated him from the Hollywood crowd, he didn’t have that opportunity to learn about how production companies work, or how he could drive the bus so to speak. We so often hear about Elvis complaining about not being able to have a say and it may just be for that reason.
Parker shielded even his rights as a performer within those contracts from him. I doubt Elvis ever read a film contract all the way through 1960’s. he may have just listened to Parker’s explanation of the summary or the highlights of a contract and signed it.
Elvis wasn’t stupid. He didn’t have a lack of intelligence , in many ways he was quite bright and sympathetic/empathetic. But, he was business stupid - and in Hollywood it has been proven time and time again you don’t rely on management to guide you completely. It has to be a collaboration usually with several people.
A good example is in 1957.
When Leiber and Stoller talked out loud with Hollywood agents or the studio , about Elvis doing something with Elia Kazan and an adaption of “walk on the wild side”. The Colonel shut it down quickly - threatening them with never working for Elvis again if they interfered in the course of his career.
I would bet a lot of money that Elvis never even knew about that exchange and was just told that Leiber and Stoller weren’t available for his upcoming sessions when he asked.
Elvis certainly has a fair amount of blame for its Hollywood career but Parker has considerably more.
Elvis could’ve seeked out information, questioned the contracts more than he probably did, told Parker what he wanted to do and - not let Parker tell him what he had to do at every turn.
We must remember too, that Parker‘s tactics soured the studio executives and the studios to the point where they didn’t want to deal with him at all. That coupled with the downturn in the box office and the quality of the films themselves led to no film offers by 1968. Remember it was Parker that forced NBC to include a film deal with the TV special.
Elvis didn't seem to mature, but he didn't seem to learn, either. I don't think he took his career seriously enough when he should have and when he could have. Although I don't believe that he had the kind of acumen or ability that was going to make him anything more than a star name. He was never going to be like Sinatra or Streisand, or Dean or Brando. He didn't have what they had. But he didn't seem to try, either.
Granted, there were factors that worked against Elvis. He was part of a machine that kept moving from the moment he was thrust into movie stardom, which wasn't and isn't uncommon. But there were also factors and elements to his career that were massively in his favour. Especially when taking into consideration that he started in Hollywood as a rank amateur and was - as far as I'm concerned - quite limited in his abilities.
This considered, the prospect of multimillion-dollar contracts to keep doing what was essentially working, must be something that's difficult to question. This was Parker's motivation. Even if Elvis aspired to more from a creative perspective. But Elvis also enjoyed the lifestyle that every new contract afforded him.
What Elvis didn't seem to do, however, was try to explore new avenues. There were more challenging films, such as Flaming Star and Wild in the Country, of course. But there was no individuality to Elvis in Hollywood, apart from his own persona and appeal. And if only for the sake of appreciating what he had by way of studio interest and lucrative contracts, the notion that there could have been small steps in different directions was clearly an unappealing prospect for Parker, and perhaps a daunting prospect for Elvis.
Unfortunately, Elvis wasn't creatively nurtured in more productive ways, either. This was something Parker obviously had no interest in and certainly no capacity for. But Elvis did learn on the job and he did have experiences in the film industry that were surely positive. Even if the way he worked or the way his career was handled wasn't conducive to better growth and development. And how could it be considering the type of films he came to star in?!
Elvis, however, didn't address this. And I think he was quite aware of his contractual status and what he stood to gain. But I also think he was in a position where he was being pulled in different directions and unable to move in ways he perhaps wanted to. If he genuinely wanted to by the mid-sixties and still had dreams of being a better actor. But I'll repeat what I've said a few times of late, in that he was in a tough and challenging industry that comes with expectations and demands for those who are successful.
There were expectations for Elvis's films to make money. There were expectations to meet his contractual obligations. Expectations to appease studios and producers. Expectations from Parker who had very particular ideas about what direction Elvis's career should take. Expectations from fans who responded to Elvis in certain types of films more than others. And for Elvis, who lacked maturity, as you've said, and lacked experience, better acumen, and didn't have anybody to lean on outside of Parker, it's easy to see how and why he was put into a box.
We do know, of course, that opportunities to act in more than vehicles tailored for Elvis and his fans were present at various times in his career, although these were typically rebuffed for the same reasons. And to go back to the original question asked by jurassic1968 on this topic, "did Elvis realise his career was in trouble in 1966." Perhaps this depends on one's definition of trouble.
Elvis was making a lot of money. He was the beneficiary of lucrative contracts. His films were still popular in 1966, at least. But he hadn't really progressed, or challenged himself much since 1960. And importantly, to mind mind, because this is a difference-maker, he wasn't doing anything through his own initiative and volition to improve his prospects or broaden his own horizons. And if not by then, when?!
When Elvis was interviewed in 1972 during the making of On Tour, he commented that things simply didn't change. But what was he expecting?! To go back to my previous post, I think the idea and the reality of having a film career were two different things for Elvis, especially after he made an impression in Hollywood. Whilst he also sounded resigned to the fact that his acting career was behind him.
Perhaps Elvis gave up too soon, if not too easily. Even after the amount of films he starred in during his career. But when the money wasn't there. When opportunities were gone. What did Elvis have after fourteen years and 31 acting credits to his name?!
