There are good actors with or without formal training. There are bad actors with or without formal training.ForeverElvis wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 8:52 pmIgotstung wrote:Elvis' dream of being a Hollywood actor a la Brando/ Dean was not followed up by any real effort by Elvis. While Parker certainly deserves blame, Elvis was ultimatrly responsible.
He said that he doesn't want to take lessons because he wants to be natural. He seems to have thought that if he could do it with music, he could do the same with movies- forgetting that his natural talent for music can not translate to acting- a completely different form of expression. We can put this down to a very young person's ignorance, but then he put forth no effort whatsoever once the factory started. He had good taste in movies, so he obviously knew that his acting was bad. But he didn't actively take any steps to improve himself, self- pity was easier.
This is due to his unique circumstances, and I have sympathy for him to some extent, but I think Elvis liked the easy money more than his Brando dream. He also knew that he could sail through the undemanding movies with his looks, charm and presence. Not to forget the soundtracks.
In almost all movies, we see the potential to be a good actor in varying degrees. So it was ultimately potential not fulfilled case.
Some famous actors who have no formal acting training.
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jennifer Lawrence
Johnny Depp
Tom Cruise
Joaquin Phoenix
Javier Bardem
Christian Bale
I don’t think Elvis’s acting technique was in the same league with anyone on this list but, as with these examples, sometimes natural talent for acting is all that’s needed.
Instinct, not ignorance.
With acting lessons Elvis would have certainly improved his technique but, it’s possible he could have lost something in the process. He said as much in the 1962 film set interview.
Not to pursue lessons may have been a personal choice or an opinion he developed from being told this by Wallis and others at the start.
Money often affects most things in life. Elvis’s fear of a return to poverty drove most of his decision-making after 1956. It wasn’t ego, prompting a “take the money and run” scenario or laziness. It was a genuine fear of losing it all if he went against Parker - who had convinced Elvis that if he didn’t follow the film contracts to the letter, the studios would prevent him from working ever again. Thus stopping the flow of income for himself and Parker, of course.
A quote regarding his film career, from the Netflix film, “Return of The King: The Fall and Rise of Elvis Presley (2024), Elvis says,”I didn’t know what to do. I just felt I was obligated to things I didn’t fully believe in. They couldn’t have paid me no amount of money in the world to make me feel any satisfaction inside.”
The important part of this quote is, “…I just felt I was obligated to things I didn’t fully believe in.”
That word obligation is a strong word and carries different weight in different cultures. Examples of social obligation include being a good listener, showing empathy, and offering support. Which are certainly some of Elvis’s character traits. That this attitude would extend to contracts and his willingness to sign them out of feeling obliged to Parker for a lot of his success is not surprising.
We know that Elvis took care of his extended family financially and the many in his employ. The thought of returning to poverty likely caused considerable anxiety for Elvis - for himself, yes but, also the many he felt financially responsible for.
Mental health medicine has shown that anxiety, such as this, is a disorder - not self-pity.
I wish Elvis had listened to Boris Sagal on the set of Girl Happy when it was suggested he take time off and study acting to improve his natural ability. (I think it was Sagal who suggested this but I may be mis-remembering) but by 1964 Elvis felt obligated to Parker and the studios and didn’t understand he had the Power, not them. Sinatra, Brando and others (Newman) they understood this, so did Parker.
Parker’s understanding of Elvis’s personality and fear of poverty enabled him to manipulate Elvis to be distrustful of anyone in the film industry. To only trust Parker. The fact this was parroted by Vernon certainly didn’t help.
Even when there is no formal training, most good actors always learn from life, like any good artist. They take risks. They experiment. Sometimes they are naturally gifted, but almost always there is serious hard work involved. Elvis didn't do that in 60s movies.
Elvis was not a bad actor, but he lacked technique. For someone with rich emotional depth in his voice and such a strong performing skills, he had terrible dialogue delivery, for e.g. He had many strengths in acting, and formal training was just one way in which he could have improved his strong points. Remember, he admired Brando and Dean- both highly trained actors. We have no evidence which says he honed his craft as time progressed.
As I mentioned, I have sympathy for Elvis. His background, his unprecedented fame at a tender age, the people around him, his own personality- it was not easy for him.
But at some point, one has to reasonably address their dreams. The young boy had learnt the entire script of Love Me Tender, and would often take help from his co- actors. His acting in that movie was quite bad, but he improved slowly but surely. Loving You sees a much better performer. Unfortunately in 60s we see a reverse trend. We all know why the movie factory went on and all that, but we can not absolve a famous grown man from dissolving his own dream down the drain.
