My Conflicted Feelings on Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis
I was intrigued when I first heard about the new Elvis biopic. Growing up my nana LOVED Elvis and she would play us his greatest hits on her CD player, she was an OG fan girl, she had merch, the whole nine yards. I knew of Elvis as this larger-than-life Rock N’ Roll trailblazer. Of course, I knew his image is iconic, even people younger than me will recognize his suave, poofy jet-black hair and glitzy outfits a mile away.
But obviously, as I grew older, I came to learn more about Elvis and the unsavory parts of who he was and how he rose to fame. At the same time, I would be lying if I didn’t listen to “Can’t Help Falling in Love” and “Blue Christmas” from time to time. Having grown up seeing my nana idolize Elvis the way she did, and encountering so many other people who were obsessed with him, even among my peers, just shows how beloved he was— and still is.
So when I first saw the trailer for Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis, starring Austin Butler and Tom Hanks, I was worried we were going to get a watered-down version of Elvis’ impact on culture, his appropriation of Black artists, and his toxic relationship with Priscilla. And what we got was a well-written screenplay, with dazzling cinematography, and brilliant performances, that entertained but only scratched the surface, just like I had predicted. But what I hadn’t expected was to enjoy it in spite of the glossy approach it took to Elvis’ story.
If you’re not super into old music, you may have only heard about Elvis from your parents or grandparents, heard “Can’t Help Falling in Love” or “Hound Dog” in passing, and been told he’s regarded as the “King of Rock N’ Roll.” It’s interesting to me how over time different generations view Elvis and his impact. And since the movie’s release, I think it’s important to talk more deeply about what Elvis represents and how to this day, people are blissfully unaware of where his music came from. No one explains it better than Ray Charles, who in an interview with NBC in 1994 said:
“What Elvis did, he caused a lot of the populace, when they say populace they normally mean white people, to start listening to a lot of music they normally wouldn’t have listened to. But to say that Elvis was so great and so outstanding, they say “He’s the king” I got in trouble when one guy asked me and I said, ‘The King of what?’ and he got mad at me. So I don’t think of Elvis like that because I know too many artists far greater than Elvis…”
He continues, “ I think he came along at the right time. Here was a white kid that could do rock n’ roll and rhythm and blues and the girls could swoon over him. Nat Cole got in trouble in Alabama when the girls swooned over him. Got put out of town.”
If you want to check out the full interview, and I strongly suggest you do, you can find it here. I also highly recommend checking out Kahlil Green’s Tik Tok about Elvis and Cultural Appropriation for more context, he explains it much more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could.
I saw the movie the first day it was in the theaters and my apprehension aside, I did genuinely enjoy the movie, and I thought the performances were really fantastic. But before I talk any more about what I thought, I want to preface this by saying that I know it’s literally impossible to cover somebody’s entire life, especially someone like Elvis, whose story is layered and complicated, just like his impact on popular culture. In fact, I think that there could easily be a series made about Elvis, his career, and the careers of the singers who influenced him.
Without giving any spoilers, I will say the crux of the film is that we’re supposed to sympathize with Elvis, and in many ways I did, but at the same time I really struggled with the way it glamorized appropriation. On one hand, I could understand the argument that he made it feasible for white people to accept rhythm and blues in a time when America was segregated. However, our continued perception of him as the “King of Rock N’ Roll” contributes to the erasure of the brilliant artists, who did it first. For example—people like Big Mama Thornton who first recorded Hound Dog. And the film does address this, but not thoughtfully enough. It does more so in broad strokes than anything and fails to address that artists like Big Mama Thornton will never be remembered the way he was. And even though we’ve since become more aware of the origins of Rock N’Roll because we can research and analyze a lot quicker and a lot more freely than anyone could then, the dismissal of these artists is sad to me. I also struggled with the way characters like BB King, played by Kelvin Harrison Jr., interacted with Elvis, because every person of color in this film seemed to be there as merely a plot device to propel Elvis’ journey further. And yes, I know, the movie is called Elvis, but the problem here is that he wouldn’t have become who he was without his influences, so whether you like it or not, these artists are central to his narrative.
Austin Butler as Elvis (left), Kelvin Harrison Jr. as BB King (right)
And another aspect of the movie I had a hard time digesting was the passive portrayal of Elvis’ relationship with his ex-wife, Priscilla Presley. Again, no spoilers but when we’re first introduced to Priscilla we see him kiss her for the first time in 1959, but the film completely disregards the fact that he was 24 and she was 14 when they met. And that little detail along with a lot of others regarding their relationship are omitted. For context, please listen to one of my favorite Tik Toker’s, Hello Tefi talk about the inappropriate nature of Elvis and Priscilla’s relationship. And for even further context, this interview Priscilla did with Barbara Walters in 1985 is both disturbing and eye-opening. It just made me think, what behavior are we willing to excuse in the name of talent? If the teenage girls who fantasized about Elvis knew the realities of being with him, would they still look at him the same way? The answer is probably, hopefully, no. But all of this is swept under the rug because the world saw him as handsome, charming, and talented.
Austin Butler as Elvis (left) and Olivia DeJonge as Priscilla (right)
Overall, I was disappointed at the way the movie ignored that side of him because it was an aspect of who he was, and a really phenomenal biopic dares to explore all sides of a person.
Again, I understand how impossible it is to address a person’s entire life in one movie. I can imagine there are a lot of complicated feelings when it comes to writing a movie about a real person, who has passed away and whose real family will see this movie. Still, I feel like Luhrmann could have still found a way of respectfully exploring Elvis’ positive AND negative impacts on popular culture.
It’s funny though because all of this aside, I did genuinely enjoy the movie. This is something I’m also continuing to analyze and reflect on. Why did I enjoy it, despite the film’s failure to give credit where credit is due to Elvis’ “muses”? And how could I have enjoyed the movie despite the complete dismissal of his predatory relationship with Priscilla? What does it say about me that I sympathized with Elvis?
I think what it boils down to is our ability to be sucked into a narrative and our desire to romanticize people and events in history to make us feel better. By “us” I mean those of us who benefit from white privilege, those of us who were fed the narrative that he was “the king” and excused the way he copied Black artists, not dissimilar to the way this film does. Again, no spoilers, but we get a glimpse into Elvis’ childhood and are shown how he was brought up in a poor, predominately Black neighborhood. By showing us this, the film is undoubtedly perpetuating the “white savior” narrative we’ve seen in films time and time again. It romanticizes the idea that he was able to do what those who inspired him never could have, because of the privilege that came with his skin color. But the film does not fully acknowledge the tragedy of this. There is no scene like the one Ray Charles described in that interview of girls swooning over Elvis and him continuing to rise to fame juxtaposed with Nat Cole being run out of town after girls swooned over him in exactly the same way. This film is told from the gaze of a white filmmaker and caters to white audiences. Which explains why I liked it… it was a movie made for me. And I think it’s important to understand this and unpack what aspects of the film I liked and why, along with what aspects of the film made me uncomfortable and why.
Ultimately, this film presents a watered-down take on Elvis’ appropriation and acknowledges his privilege only at a surface level. I’m sure this is intentional. Elvis is beloved, Baz Luhrmann doesn’t want to upset the people who idolize him! But at what cost do we continue to fail to hold figures like Elvis accountable? No, I’m not saying we should “cancel” him and stop listening to his music, let’s be honest — who would that help? But we can instead thoughtfully and critically analyze figures like Elvis. We can become more aware of the ways in which they’re flawed as individuals and realize that our blind devotion to them might also be flawed. I know there’s a whole debate about whether or not we should separate the art from the artist, but when it comes to Elvis, who he is as an artist is so heavily ingrained in the systemic racism America was built on, that I think it would callous to try and do so.
My hope for this film is that it sparks a lot of conversations about the overlooked artists of rhythm and blues, our societal tendency to excuse inappropriate romantic relationships, and helps us think more critically about what our pop culture influences say about who we are as individuals, especially those of us who benefit from white privilege.
