Elvis: all style, no substance?

A detailed look at a few of Baz Luhrmann's directorial style, as well as his newest release, Elvis (2022)

Mark Anthony "Baz" Luhrmann (born 17 September 1962) first came onto the scene in 1992 when he directed his first movie, Strictly Ballroom. Since then, he has continued to develop his extremely distinct and recognisable style, directing just 6 movies in the last 30 years, and putting an incredible amount of work into each. He is a director who really cares about his work, and because of that, I have always had an interest in seeing his movies. One of Luhrmann's great achievements is that every movie he has produced has a style and pace so atypical of what you usually see from other mainstream directors. One distinction can be seen through his use of colour. He usually chooses to contrast heavily between bright and dull colours, creating a vibrant, beautiful look to his movies. Likewise, he cuts rapidly, assembling a lightning-fast pace that doesn't allow viewers a moment to catch their breath. This does, of course, create some issues which I'll look into later in this article, however, the biggest positive of this style is that it holds the viewer's attention while progressing the plot quickly. Luhrmann tends to create films that reflect on real, emotional, moral stories that excite and enthral his audiences. His three most celebrated movies, Romeo + Juliet, The Great Gatsby, and Elvis are adaptations of either books or real-life events, which focus specifically on love, pain, and the power of loss. Another distinct feature of Luhrmann's films is his use of music. Regardless of the time period of his movie, he will primarily use modern music, usually, hip-hop, which for better and for worse, can lead to his movies adopting the look and feel of a 2-hour long music video, with their quick cuts, vibrant colours, and general extravagance.

Luhrmann's latest movie, Elvis, is a great example of the pluses and negatives of his directorial. Its unique visuals, recognisable performances, and undeniable charm make it an entertaining and memorable watch, however, it ultimately fails to tell Elvis' story in a way which is sharp, focused, and meaningful. The film's maximalist nature captures the excess and overabundance of Elvis' life, but in trying to do so much all at once, and cover so many different topics all at once, there is an argument to say that the subtlety and meaning of Elvis's life are lost.

Luhrmann's choice to tell the story through the eyes of Colonel Tom Parker seems on paper to be an interesting idea, however, for me, it was one of the biggest pitfalls of the movie. Tom Hanks, for one of the first times in his long career, looked totally out of his comfort zone in this role. His character had the look and feel of a Batman villain, and not the good kind. With his over-the-top prosthetics, strange line delivery, and horribly inaccurate European accent, which routinely slipped back into just sounding like Tom Hanks at various points in the movie, his performance was so misguided that I genuinely did not know what he was going for. Hanks is undeniably a great actor, but he has rarely been a pin-point character actor, tending to succeed more off of his innate likeability and charm. For this reason, casting him to play the villain of the story seems an odd decision to me, especially given that Hanks had never played a role like this before. Additionally, there are issues with the writing of the character in general. By portraying Parker as this fat, greedy, unlikeable character with seemingly no redeemable traits (he isn't the least bit threatening, charismatic, or charming), it makes no sense to the audience why Elvis would have so much respect for the man. A character can be evil whilst still earning respect, just look at Terrence Fletcher in Whiplash, and Walter White in Breaking Bad, however, Parker comes across as a man who deserves nothing other than mocking. The issues with this role don't extend to just Hank and the character he is playing, there is also a great issue with Luhraman's choice to construct the story from Parker's perspective, as it doesn't allow the movie enough time to give depth and colour to many of the important events in Elvis' life. There are many plot lines in the movie which are only brief or otherwise completely ignored. For instance, Elvis' romance with Priscilla is given just one scene, his drug addiction is hardly mentioned, his eating disorder is disregarded entirely, and the racial tension of the time period is only lightly touched on. This isn't to say that the movie should have spent more time on these topics in addition to everything else in the movie, Elvis is already mind-numbingly long, however, in my view, some elements of the movie (especially anything Tom Hanks-related) could have been replaced with more scenes which give depth to these plot lines. There's something so frustrating about Luhrmann's insistence on jumping from plot line to plot line without fully giving any the time to resonate and become meaningful. Elvis is so overstuffed with ideas that it feels as though you are watching an early version of the film which needs cutting down. In some ways, as I mentioned earlier, it could be argued that this technique captures the chaos of Elvis Presley's life, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that it leads to messy story-telling.

Despite some issues, there were many elements of the movie I enjoyed. Everyone is talking about Austin Butler and for good reason. He completely embodied the confidence and charisma of Elvis Presley. The film's makeup team did a great at transforming his look as the movie went along, but all the credit has to go to Austin for quite literally becoming Elvis. There is always a danger when you play a character as iconic as Elvis. A scene such as Elvis' first performance could have come off as cringey if Butler didn't live up to the hype. However, he stole the show, with every pelvis thrust and hip wiggle racing hearts almost as much as Elvis once did. In a scene such as this one, you can see how much work Butler put into his physical acting, somehow capturing Elvis' distinctive physicality and movement on stage. Some credit has to go to Luhrmann too, whose fast-paced editing and sound design helped capture these moments in all their glory. Butler’s crotch, in precisely fitted pink pants and shot in close-up, vibrates. Harsh zooms, quick whip pans, and a taste for horniness make the early moments of this biopic so special. Hundreds of women are shown screaming, sexually possessed, and reaching toward Elvis as though he is a God. Through all this extravagance, Butler and Luhrmann managed to do the impossible task of portraying Elvis' ground-breaking magnetism and sex appeal in a way that although silly, still comes off as magical and unique.

Butler produces show-stopping moment after show-stopping moment, refusing to take his foot off the gas pedal for a second. His magnetism and charm uplift Elvis to impressive heights, and gel well with Luhrmann's brash over-confidence as a director, however, I'm not certain how well this really succeeds in telling the story of 'the King' in a way which conveys meaning. It certainly excites, but, as a biopic of Presley's life, this overstuffed film full of mystique and glamour does little to inform audiences about the man who was Elvis, instead, it focuses on capturing the mythic stature he had as a performer.