It sounded like a weird (Southern) regional dialect, and you would know it was Dutch only by listening for certain consonants. Turns out he didn’t have an impediment - he was just trying to wrap a Dutch tongue around the English language, Southern-style. And he had what sounded like a slight lisp or speech impediment. “Well,” Parker finally said, “Did they spell his name right?”ĭid Parker’s accent really sound like the one Tom Hanks is using in the film?
When Parker crony Gabe Tucker threw a magazine piece on the Colonel’s desk that insinuated that Elvis was gay, Parker didn’t say a word until his friend stopped sputtering. Headlines about how lascivious early Elvis was sold concert tickets. And again, he did not advise Elvis on any aspect of his performance. Colonel knew what Elvis was doing and going to do. No, all that stuff was rehearsed and rehearsed. There were concert riots, most notably in Jacksonville, Fla., but not a concert for which Parker issued orders like that. Was there a late ’50s concert riot in which Elvis deliberately disobeyed Parker’s orders not to move around or wiggle on stage? That sold tickets! The only time Parker got critical is when the shows began to falter with drugs or erratic behavior on stage. Listen, this guy was no fool! Parker loved it that Elvis was like a male striptease artist… like the bally girls on the carnivals. He liked it that Elvis did what brought folks into the big tent. Elvis took care of what Elvis did and Colonel took care of what Colonel did. Is it true, as portrayed, that Parker was consistently trying to pressure Elvis to tone down his sex appeal? In making him such an antagonist, they have robbed him of his many accomplishments with his client. The past, present and future are all shook up like a ‘50s milkshake and served with a thousand straws! Other than the tremendous pains Baz has taken to make this story seem “woke,” the liberties are essentially fair - except to Parker. The timeline… well, what timeline? It’s all a Baz Luhrmann fever dream. What’s your overall feeling on the movie’s truth-ometer? Are the liberties worth it for creating an artistic picture? Does it veer off in ways that seem unnecessary? Variety spoke with her about how much rings true about both of the movie’s primary subjects, point by point. But Nash’s work is considered by many to be the authoritative word on Parker, a former carnie who made his fortune off the King, and whose pros and cons as a very, very controlling manager continue to be debated to this day. The new “Elvis” film is not based on her book, nor did Luhrmann read it, by his account (although he says researchers presented him with notes from that and many other key Presley-related books). Nash, a veteran music journalist, published “The Colonel: The Extraordinary Story of Colonel Tom Parker and Elvis Presley” to acclaim in 2010 and her book has just been reissued with a new afterword.
There may be no one better to go to who can provide the truth on both Presley and “the Colonel,” in tandem, than the latter’s biographer, Alanna Nash. Still, “Elvis” is right on enough counts - literally or spiritually - that it’s worth trying to separate fact from fiction in the movie’s narrative of Elvis Presley (played by Austin Butler) and his nearly career-long manager, Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks). And maybe it’s a given that a director who puts hip-hop and hard rock on his period-film soundtracks, as Baz Luhrmann does, might favor effect over total verisimilitude. Does the phrase “That’s All Right, Mama” apply to the new “ Elvis” movie… as in, “that’s all correct, ma’am”? No one is probably expecting that any practiced watcher of biopics knows virtually any example will take deep liberties with the facts for dramatic purposes.
0 kommentar(er)
