Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
"Elvis: The Movies"
The Best Elvis Movie Book Ever!
Alan Hanson | © December 2017
Published in December 2017, “Elvis: The Movies” is a remarkable book that credits me as its author. In actuality, though, I was only a contributing partner in the project overseen by Erik Lorentzen, a long-time Elvis fan and publisher in Norway. “Elvis: The Movies” was his vision from the start, and the text I provided is only one element in this incredible volume.
My involvement in “Elvis: The Movies” began a year earlier, on December 15, 2016, when an email message from Erik showed up in my inbox. It was nothing unusual, as I’d communicated with Erik many times before. Over the past few years, he had used certain articles on elvis-history-blog.com in some of his Presley publications. But when I opened his email on December 15 last year, I was surprised to see he had something much more ambitious in mind. It read:
“I would like to do a book about all of Elvis’ movies, just called ELVIS – THE MOVIES. I would love to have ALL your reviews and other articles you have written about Elvis and his movies. It would ONLY be your stuff in the book. What about that, Alan? I think it will be vey nice for you to have all your stuff put together with a lot of awesome photos in a book like this. Your reviews and the way you have written them remind me a lot of my own youth growing up in the sixties. All the movies would have a number of pages, and the total pages would be something like 400 to 430. I hope you don’t think I’m totally crazy asking about this, and I hope to hear from you soon about your thoughts.”
After I sat back and thought about it for a few minutes, I decided it was an offer I couldn’t refuse. Since I had already written all the movie reviews, my time commitment would be minimal (or so I thought!). Erik was offering to do all the design work, provide all the photos, and shoulder all of the project’s financial obligations. And I, with minimum involvement, would get my name on a second Elvis book. I emailed Erik back—“I’m in!”
My Elvis film reviews had all been written over a few months back in 2007 when I was trying to build up some content on my new Elvis website to start attacking some traffic. So I informed Erik I wanted an opportunity to update the reviews before he used them. He agreed and our partnership on “Elvis: The Movies” was underway.
Erik was finishing up another project, so I didn’t hear from him again until March 20, 2017, when he announced he was ready to start working “for real” on our book. Feeling a little giddy about the whole thing, I responded, “I know there’s plenty of text on my website, but if you think you need something more to make the book complete, I’d be happy to write up something new. Just give me the subject(s).” He came back with, “What about a story on the 1956 screen test?” Suddenly, I realized my involvement in the project wasn’t going to be as minimal as I first thought. I worked up the screen test article, and later many others, all of which were needed to bridge gaps in the book’s narrative of Elvis’ Hollywood career.
In July I sent Erik my edited reviews for Elvis' first seven films, and he got to work selecting pictures to accompany those pages in the book. From then on, whenever Erik sent me work to do, I moved it to the top of my “to do” list.
In early August, Erik emailed me page proofs of the book’s first 50 pages. It was when I viewed them that I first really understood how awesome this book could be. In the layouts, Erik had placed dozens of amazing Elvis pictures, most of which I had never seen before. Starting then, I resolved never to question Erik’s page layouts and use of pictures. My job was to concentrate on the text.
From the beginning, Erik said that he wanted “every word” in the book to be mine and that no page would be printed until I had given it my final approval. From the time he began sending me page proofs to consider, it became my responsibility to make sure the English mechanics and grammar of all the text was accurate and consistent. It’s not completely true that I wrote every word in “Elvis: The Movies.” Erik wrote many of the picture captions, with the understanding that I could edit or rewrite them as I saw fit.
As they arrived, I read each set of page proofs closely and provided Erik with a list of changes that needed to be made. After he made the corrections, the page proofs came back to me again. It was not uncommon for me to examine pages three times before giving my final approval.
From August through September, Erik and I communicated almost daily to complete the sections for each Elvis movie. Finally, on November 5, 2017, Erik emailed me the book’s entire 432 pages for a last go-over. After I gave my final approval, Erik responded as follows:
“It’s been a long road Alan, but finally we are ready to get the book printed. All the pages are sent to the printer, and we will have the books back in about two weeks. Will send you some books right away when they are done. I’ve also VERY excited to see the final book. The sixties (and Elvis) are so important to me. The movies were what we Elvis fans got in most of that decade, and I was always so thrilled when a new Elvis movie came to my hometown of Oslo. The first one for me was G.I.Blues, and I saw it ten times the first week. Your reviews take me back to those happy days, and I’m so happy that we are doing this book.”
At 3 o’clock in the afternoon of December 8, 2017, a rust-colored DHL truck backed into my driveway. The driver brought two heavy packages, each containing six copies of “Elvis: The Movies,” to my door. I pulled out one book and spent an hour or so just turning the pages slowly.
Let me give you a run-down of what, despite my involvement in it, I consider the best book ever published about Elvis Presley’s movies. It measures 9 ¾ by 11 ¾ inches with 432 pages on thick glossy paper, which contribute to the book’s weight of five pounds. Its text features reviews of Elvis’s 31 theatrical films, his 2 stage documentary films, and “This Is Elvis,” a documentary film released after his death. Also included are 17 other articles dealing with various aspects of Presley’s Hollywood career. None of those background articles are available on this website or anywhere else. Taken together, the book’s 51 articles run over 65,000 words.
But at the heart of “Elvis: The Movies” are the photographs from Erik Lorentzen’s files. Amazingly, there are over 500 pictures of Elvis Presley in this book, 155 of which are full-page pictures. How many of them have never been published before, I couldn’t say for sure, but it must be a high number. The pictures jump out at you from everywhere. In fact, of the book’s 432 pages, only 10 pages do not have at least one picture of them! And two of those pages are the Contents pages at the start of the book.
Erik tells me that he only had 700 copies of “Elvis: The Movies” printed. I suppose later it could be reprinted if demand was great enough, but more than likely the 700 copies are all that will ever exist. So I suggest you purchase a copy of this mind-blowing book when you find one available. You won't be disappointed.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
LOVE ME TENDER (1956)
Elvis Movie #1
Twentieth Century Fox | 1956
"Twentieth Century Fox was uncertain whether to feature Elvis in the film as a singer or as an actor. So they tried to have it both ways."
I was in the second grade in 1956 and so wasn't paying attention when Love Me Tender opened in theaters around Thanksgiving time that year. It wasn’t until six years later that I first saw Elvis’s debut movie when it aired on TV. Having previously seen several of Presley's later movies in the early 1960s, Love Me Tender seemed then a rather odd Elvis film to me.
First of all, it was a traditional Western, one of only three Elvis would make. (Flaming Star and Charro! were the other two.) It was also the only movie in which Elvis played second banana. Oh sure, he received top billing, but in the film itself he was clearly a supporting actor to Richard Eagan's lead. In fact, it was 20 minutes into the film before Elvis made his first appearance, trudging along behind a horse and plow. In retrospect, it's obvious that Twentieth Century Fox was uncertain whether to feature Elvis in the film as a singer or as an actor. So they tried to have it both ways. As Clint Reno, Presley had a dramatic role as a hotheaded, jealous husband. Hedging his bet, however, director Robert Webb inserted four songs, all in a brief window in the middle of the film.
Swiveling Hips Out of Place
"Love Me Tender," performed on the porch of the Reno ranch house, somewhat fits the time period. While Elvis's fans no doubt loved them, however, the shaking shoulders and swiveling hips as Elvis sang the other three numbers ("We Gonna Move," "Let Me," "Poor Boy") seem ridiculous in a film set in 1865. But then, the film's obvious goal was to capitalize on Elvis's exploding popularity as an exciting stage performer. Variety acknowledged as much in its November 21, 1956, review of the movie. "For the benefit of the hordes of teenagers who’ve made a national figure of rock 'n' roll singer Elvis Presley and who’ve been buying his RCA Victor platters by the millions, Twentieth-Fox has whipped up a minor league oater (and oncer) in which to showcase one of the hottest show biz properties around today."
That being the case, Variety's reviewer didn't spend much time evaluating Elvis's acting ability: "Appraising Presley as an actor, he ain’t. Not that it makes much difference. The presence of Presley apparently is enough to satisfy the juve set." Watching the film years later, I was struck by Elvis's voice as he delivered his lines. His high-pitched, strident, sometimes hayseed tones stood out in contrast to the measured voices of his more experienced fellow actors. In analyzing the cast, Variety at least gave Elvis credit for enthusiasm. "Eagen is properly stoic as the older brother, while Miss Paget does nothing more than look pretty and wistful throughout. Mildred Dunnock gets sincerity into the part of mother of the brood, an achievement. Nobody, however, seems to be having as much fun as Presley."
A Film With Major Consequences
As simple as Love Me Tender is, however, it had a major impact on the future Hollywood career of Elvis Presley. Because of his presence in it, the movie was considered a "juve" film, since it expected to draw a primarily adolescent audience. It was for that reason that it opened over the Thanksgiving weekend, when teenagers would be out of school a couple of extra days. When Elvis came along, "juve" movies were rare in Hollywood. The major studios believed that the teenage crowd, even if it came out in force for a film, would not be strong enough to fill the theaters, especially for evening showings during the week. With the cost of making movies rising, studio execs had been reluctant to take on risky "juve" projects.
Twentieth Century Fox decided to take a chance with Presley, however, because it felt the low-budget Love Me Tender would clean up with the teenage crowd and draw some adults as well. According to a Variety article a month before the film opened, "Twentieth figures there’s a good deal of curiosity value in Presley among the older folks." There was another reason Hollywood was willing to take a shot at "juve" films in the mid-fifties. On the day Love Me Tender opened nationwide, Variety reported a feeling in the film industry that, "the return of the films with juve appeal is an absolute necessity if the young audience is to be weaned away from the tv sets."
What happened during the first week Love Me Tender was in theaters changed the industry's attitude about films aimed at teenagers. "We did two weeks' business in one," a Twentieth Century exec told Variety. The adults stayed away, but Hollywood learned that if the incentive was there the teenage crowd could fill the theaters and put a movie over the top. According to Variety, the industry then started "to develop players and subject matter to bring out the juvenile audience sector." In this respect, Elvis and Love Me Tender opened Hollywood's door for other rock 'n' roll entertainers. And what did it mean for Elvis Presley? Forget the supporting roles and trying to appeal to adults. He would be brought front and center in future films, which would feature his rock 'n' roll music and lots of it. That would be the formula for his next three films. And even when Elvis returned after his army stint, the lessons learned from Love Me Tender were not forgotten by Hollywood. In the end, it was a simple movie that had major consequences for the film career of Elvis Presley.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
LOVING YOU (1957)
Elvis Movie #2
Paramount | 1957
"Elvis's acting had clearly improved over his first film, and any doubts industry executives might have had about his ability to carry a film faded away."
Loving You was one of the 10 Elvis movies made before I became a Presley fan in 1962. It wasn't until several years later that I finally got a chance to see the movie on TV. While viewing the film recently, I was struck by the differences between it and Love Me Tender, which had been released a mere seven months before. Of course, Loving You was filmed in color and so is much more visually striking than Elvis's first film. But it's how Elvis is presented that is the fundamental difference between the two films.
It took 20 minutes for Elvis to make his first appearance in Love Me Tender; he shows up driving a hot rod only four minutes into Loving You. And he's singing just six minutes after the opening credits, while it took 50 minutes for him to pick up a guitar in his first movie. And while Elvis's four songs in Love Me Tender were bunched together in the middle of the movie, he sings 10 times evenly spaced throughout Loving You. After "Got a Lot o’ Livin’ to Do" at the six-minute mark, he adds "Party" 11 minutes later, and a medley of songs less than two minutes after that. Then come "Lonesome Cowboy" and "Hot Dog" before the film is 30 minutes old. The interval to "Mean Woman Blues" is about 10 minutes, with "Teddy Bear" just five minutes after that. There are still other numbers, but you get the picture. Hal Wallis had decided the way to feature Elvis on film was to have him sing early and often. When high box office receipts validated Wallis's strategy, it set the formula for most of Presley’s later movies.
Elvis Debuted Greasy, Black Hair
Elvis's physical appearance in Loving You had also changed. He seemed to have added a few well-placed pounds on the lean frame seen in Love Me Tender. The most notable change, however, was in his hair, now greasy and black instead of wavy and brown as in the earlier film. The black hair better suited his character’s sullen, bad boy look, but the "greasy, kid’s stuff" seemed a bit overdone at times. At one point in the movie, his hair is so stiff that it projects straight out over his face like the bill of a cap.
Early in Loving You, Tex Warner (Wendell Corey) is shown reading an issue of Variety. That show business weekly gave Loving You extensive coverage in 1957, including pre-production, bookings, and box office results.
Variety previewed Loving You at the Capital Theatre in New York on June 20, 1957, and its review appeared in its July 3, 1957, issue, six days before the film's official release date. The review opened with the following two-sentence summary: "Elvis Presley returns in a picture tailor-made to his talents. It’s a rock 'n' roller with a good story-line that shapes as a juve trade natural."
Variety's reviewer (identified only as "Hift") opened with a brief dirge for rock 'n' roll before handing Elvis a compliment … well, sort of. "Though the rock 'n' roll craze perhaps passed its peak, there's little question that a sizeable part of the citizenry will welcome Elvis Presley back for his second screen appearance. An easy guess that customers will be young in years appearance. An easy guess is that have to be if they're to match the rock 'n' roller’s own lungpower in the picture itself." (Honest, that’s the reviewer's language!)
Hift praised producer Hal Wallis for starring Elvis in a simple story that can be believed. The story, he said, has Elvis doing what he does best, "shout out his rhythms, bang away at his guitar and perform the strange, knee-bending, hip-swinging contortions that are his trademark and that, for unfathomable reasons, induce squealing noises from his young fans." Hift was obviously trying to do what many other writers had to do in 1956 and 1957: review a phenomenon in the entertainment business that he simply didn't understand.
The reviewer did admit, however, that Presley's acting had improved since his first movie. "It’s not a demanding part," he explained, "and, being surrounded by a capable crew of performers, he comes across as a simple but pleasant sort." Herbert Baker and Hal Kantor's script was judged as simply "okay," with its "folksy humor," "sentimental strains," and "corny aspects." Kantor's direction "consciously pitches the proceedings to the teenage mentality."
Co-Stars Scott, Corey, and Hart Given Some Credit
Co-stars Lizabeth Scott and Wendell Corey were credited with "delineating definite characters and doing well in the laughs department." Hift singled out newcomer Dolores Hart for special praise. "The young actress conveys a very pleasing personality and handles her chores with charm. She ought to be seen again." (And, of course, she was, in King Creole the following year.) The review downplayed the film’s seriousness but predicted financial success. "It’s all highly exploitable stuff," Hift wrote. "Film shapes as a bangup attraction for the hinterlands and should be a crowd-pleaser in the keys where Presley is still a draw with the youngsters … There'll always be those who'll find the whole Presley phenomenon either laughable or even disgusting, yet these probably won't be those who'll go to see the film anyhow. It's surely not a critics' picture, but, from the looks of it, it's boxoffice. And who's to quarrel with that in 1957?"
Hift closed his lengthy review with praise for Elvis's manager. "Col. Tom Parker gets credit as Technical Adviser, and take that literally and seriously. He's an expert property developer."
Publicist and Parker Have Similarities
Speaking of the Colonel, I wonder if he noticed any similarity between Lizabeth Scott's role in Loving You and his own role as Elvis's manager. I did. As an ambitious publicity gal, Scott's character generates a series of phony publicity stunts to promote Deke Rivers, Elvis's character. She even lies to him about her activities on his behalf, and gets him to sign a personal contract giving her 50 per cent (sound familiar?) of his future earnings. She is, as the Variety review called Parker, "an expert property developer."
Finally, according to Scotty Moore’s book, Elvis deserves the credit for getting all of his side-men in this film, after they all were left out of Love Me Tender. Scotty, Bill Black, and DJ Fontana are seen frequently as members of the hillbilly band backing Deke Rivers throughout Loving You. Black even has a couple of lines, while Fontana has his own brief scene taking a poster off a wall. The Jordanaires are on stage with Elvis for the nation-wide television show at the movie's conclusion. And, of course, Elvis's parents are shown sitting in the audience during the movie's final production number.
Loving You was a big step forward in the Hollywood career of Elvis Presley. His acting had clearly improved over his first film, and any doubts industry executives might have had about his ability to carry a film faded away. In the future there would be a few attempts to feature him as a dramatic actor, but in the end, box office receipts always dictated a return to the music-based formula first used in Loving You.
While making Loving You, Elvis went out with Yvonne Lime, an actress in the movie. Yvonne revealed what it was 'really' like to date Elvis in the movie.
He was the perfect gentleman, devoted to his mother, and liked to sing religious songs at parties. His rock 'n' roll image, long hair, and sideburns were explained away as a case of nonconformity.
In 1956, Lime made her big screen debut in The Rainmaker, which starred Katherine Hepburn and Burt Lancaster.
In 1957, Yvonne was chosen to co-star with Elvis Presley in Loving You in which she played the role of Sally. Elvis and Yvonne developed more than a professional interest in one another ─ and they dated some during the filming.
On Easter weekend of 1957 she even went to visit him at Graceland. The girl recalled that Elvis was a very nice young man and that she had a fun time making the film.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
Jailhouse Rock (1957)
Elvis Movie #3
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer | 1957
“Film is packed with the type of sure-fire ingredients Presley followers go for, and it’s likely a considerable portion of the populace, particularly the cats, will find this Metro release in their alley.”
I was only eight years old and not an Elvis fan in 1957, so I first saw Jailhouse Rock sometime during the mid-1960s when it was re-released in theaters. It was a strange experience for me. I had become an Elvis fan a few years earlier and had become very familiar with Elvis’s soundtrack recordings from the movie. Often I tried to imagine what Jailhouse Rock would be like and how the music would fit into it. Of course, the movie was quite different than my teenage imagination pictured it. Still, on first viewing, I found the film amazing, especially compared to the type of movies Elvis was doing in the mid-sixties. Jailhouse Rock is still one of my favorite Elvis movies.
Jailhouse Rock today is considered a classic early rock ’n’ roll film. It’s interesting, though, to go back to the fall of 1957 and see how some of the nation’s top film critics reviewed Elvis’s third movie when it first opened. Variety’s review of October 16, 1957, noted that the film was clearly aimed at a receptive audience. “Film is packed with the type of sure-fire ingredients producers know Presley followers go for,” observed Variety, “and it’s likely a considerable portion of the populace, particularly the cats, will find this Metro release in their alley.”
It’s All Presley Front and Center
In 1957 most reviewers recognized Jailhouse Rock as a step up in Presley’s Hollywood career. Unlike his two previous movies, this one was built entirely around Elvis. He makes his first appearance just 15 seconds after the opening credits and is front and center in nearly every scene throughout the movie. Judy Tyler, the female lead, isn’t seen until 26 minutes in, and the other main actor, Mickey Shaughnessy as Hunk Houghton, is off camera for a half hour in the middle of the film. For the first time, the success of a major motion picture was placed squarely on the shoulders of Elvis Presley.
That being the case, reviewers zeroed in on Presley’s work in the film. The New York Times was unkind in its November 14, 1957, review. It started out by taking a shot at the star’s diction. “Uh got wars [wires] ’n’ letters from all over the wurl,” the Times quoted one of Elvis’s lines from the film. The reviewer then went on to criticize Elvis’s weak characterization as follows. “Elvis stays front and center, of course, muttering his lines sheepishly, and wooing Miss Tyler by collapsing like a rag doll and hooking a chin on her shoulder.”
Other reviewers, though, at least gave Elvis credit for improving his acting over his previous movies. Variety’s reviewer noted that, “Presley is still no great shakes as an actor but gets by well enough, although role isn’t particularly sympathetic.” “I liked the kid,” wrote Hortense Morton in her San Francisco Examiner review on October 31, 1957. “Frankly, I think Presley will turn into quite an actor. It isn’t going to happen tomorrow or next year. But, it will happen.”
Elvis even had to act while singing in Jailhouse Rock. Since his character of Vince Everett starts out as a novice singer, Elvis had to deliver his initial songs in deadpan voice. It isn’t until the film is over half over that a first real Elvis performance, “Treat Me Nice,” is heard.
The New York Times credited the film’s musical soundtrack, although the reviewer couldn’t resist making fun of Elvis’s signature body language. “The sound technicians must have closed in, for this time most of his singing can actually be understood. And in two numbers, ‘Treat Me Nice’ and the title song, done as a convict jamboree, Elvis breaks loose with his St. Vitus specialty. Ten to one, next time he’ll make it—finally getting those kneecaps turned inside out and cracking them together like coconuts. Never say die, El!”
Reviewers Questioned “Bad Boy” Role for Elvis
By late in 1957, many parents and critics were losing patience with rock ’n’ roll. Continued reports of riots at rock ’n’ roll events across the nation had convinced many community leaders that instead of hoping the teenage music would fade away, they should take some action to make it go away. In the face of such public opinion, some reviewers questioned the wisdom of making a film like Jailhouse Rock.
The Los Angeles Times saw Jailhouse Rock as further damaging the reputation of rock ’n’ roll in general and of Elvis Presley in particular. The following appeared in the paper’s November 14, 1957, review of the film.
“Why a popular teen-age idol like Presley and the contemporary musical rage of rock ’n’ roll must be associated and identified with crime, greed, profanity, vulgarity and brutality is beyond imagination. If Screenwriter Guy Trosper, Producer Pandro S. Berman and MGM want to capitalize on the tremendous popularity of Presley, more power to them; if they want to wax rich on teen-age dollars, none can object. However, it would seem to be wise to do something FOR the rock ’n’ rollers and not something TO them. The kids flock to see and hear Presley sing. Yet in this picture the leading character plays a vicious, rude and unpleasant individual.”
Elvis’ Riot-Producing Power Overestimated
The implied fear that Jailhouse Rock would lead to more teenage riots appears to have been just another overestimation of Elvis’s negative influence on young people. There’s no doubt the film’s main audience of adolescents warmed up to Elvis’s “bad boy” character in Jailhouse Rock. That is not evidence, however, that the film resulted in a surge of teenage hooliganism in the final months of 1957.
I’ve watched Jailhouse Rock many times through the years, and what I find most appealing about it now is its humor. The idea that a heel like Vince Everett could come out of the penitentiary and within a year become the millionaire idol of the nation’s youth is too fantastic to believe, even today. In 1957 the concept must have seemed completely ridiculous. Against the background of such a bizarre premise, the humorous scenes work in Jailhouse Rock, whereas they wouldn’t have been effective in a more serious plot like that of King Creole, Elvis’s next movie.
The “definitive scene in Elvis’s career” - that’s what Steve Pond, author of Elvis in Hollywood, calls Jailhouse Rock’s sidewalk scene, the one in which Vince Everett forcibly kisses Peggy Van Alden. Pond also rates Elvis’s words in that scene, “That ain’t tactics, honey. That’s just the beast in me,” as “maybe the best line in Elvis’s movie career.” Personally, I always find myself laughing as I watch that scene. Certainly the incident steals the movie, but it is so melodramatic that its appeal is more amusing than serious.
A Film With Humor and Charm
Other humorous scenes in Jailhouse Rock include Elvis slapping the Geneva Records executive in his office; Dean Jones as a DJ reading a horsemeat commercial using “Treat Me Nice” as background music; and the Hollywood movie love scene, in which Elvis and Jennifer Holden are suddenly overwhelmed with passion on the sofa.
Jailhouse Rock was certainly a step upward in the acting career of Elvis Presley. Still, it was not a serious acting challenge for him like King Creole would be. Of the two, however, it is Jailhouse Rock that I most enjoy watching. Its implausible premise and humor give the film a charm that is unique among all of Elvis’s movies. Now, when they colorized it … ah, but that's a horse, or rather a film, of a different color.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
King Creole (1958)
Elvis Movie #4
Paramount | 1958
I’ve watched King Creole a dozen times or so over the years since I first saw it on TV in the mid-1960s, and so a certain opinion of the film had become fixed in my mind. The script, the music, and the acting all came together to produce a remarkable picture, the likes of which Elvis never matched in his career. There is a dark side to the film, however, that has always disheartened me a bit. In subsequent viewings of the film, however, I’ve tried to put aside all previous judgments and evaluate King Creole objectively. In doing so, I began to notice strengths and weaknesses in the movie that evaded me before.
Historically, Elvis’ acting career clearly took another step forward and upward in 1958, as it had with each successive film after his weak debut in Love Me Tender two years earlier. Variety’s review of May 28, 1958, gave Presley measured praise for his acting work. “Hal Wallis has attempted to take the curse off Elvis Presley, for those still resistant to his charms, by giving him an extraordinary backing in ‘King Creole,’ a solid melodrama with plenty of action and color. The Paramount presentation shows the young singer this time as a better-than-fair actor … In all fairness, Presley does show himself to be a surprisingly sympathetic and believable actor on occasion.” Writing in Billboard on May 26, 1958, Bob Bernstein noted that, “Incidents and characters of the original novel are distorted, but the plot stands up well and the dialog is salty. As Danny, Presley exhibits improved histrionics and provides many moving and tense moments.”
"Elvis Presley can act!"
Howard Thompson of The New York Times seemed amazed that Elvis had it in him. “As the lad himself might say, cut my legs off and call me Shorty! Elvis Presley can act,” Thompson declared in his review of July 4, 1958. “It’s a pleasure to find him up to a little more than Bourbon Street shoutin’ and wigglin’. Acting is his assignment in this shrewdly upholstered showcase, and he does it, so help us over a picket fence.” Variety even liked Elvis’ music in the film. “Presley does not modify his performance from previous appearances while singing one of the other of his rock-and-roll numbers,” the reviewer explained, “[but] he also does some very pleasant, soft and melodious, singing, unlike most of his better known work.” Billboard agreed: “Presley sings … with verve and welcome variations of style against brass backing unusual for him.” Of course, by this time in his career, it was already clear that any Elvis Presley picture was going to feature his singing. Even with its dramatic plot, King Creole does a fair job of incorporating Presley’s songs into the storyline.
However, even this Elvis fan has to admit that he sings too much in a serious film like this one. In particular, there’s the corny scene in the “five-and-dime” that has Elvis singing as a distraction while his hoodlum accomplices stuff goods in their leather jackets. And in his first nightclub appearance, the viewer is expected to believe that in the less than two minutes it takes him to sing “Dixieland Rock,” the club audience goes from complete indifference to total, swinging-in-the-aisles rapture. “Put his name up in lights!” announces the club owner after just one song.
Music breaks up slow storyline
What all of Presley’s singing does accomplish, though, is to periodically break up what is a slow moving plot. Take Elvis’ music from King Creole, and what you have left is a serious dramatic story that moves steadily forward, but with very little action until the film’s final 20 minutes. The bottom line, though, is that 50 years later, King Creole is still considered by most critics and Elvis fans alike as his best film. Why did it work so well for a young man who was still essentially an actor-in-training? It was more than Elvis’ acting job, good as it was. A number of factors came together to make King Creole an effective vehicle for Presley. First, it was a near perfect role for Presley at that time in his career. Danny Fisher was a developing character that presented a challenge. It was natural for Elvis to conjure up that smoldering look and attitude that made his character believable. It helped, also, that Danny Fisher’s love life played a minor role in the film. Nellie (Dolores Hart) pursued him and Ronnie (Carolyn Jones) confused him, but his relationship with neither caused the struggle inside him. As his later films were to demonstrate, it’s hard to develop a character with girls hanging all over you. King Creole also stands out because of the story it tells. It contains many twists and turns, and arrives at an unpredictable ending. Adapted from a Harold Robbins novel, the script is not formulaic, like those of so many of Presley’s other movies.
Elvis surrounded by talented crew and cast
Last, but certainly not least, in King Creole Elvis was surrounded by a talented supporting cast, both in front of and behind the camera. Variety praised the crew as follows: “Director Michael Curtiz and cameraman Russell Harlan have worked wonders with low-key lighting and adroit camera angles … The black-and-white camera work by Harlan is in the realistic vein and Warren Low’s editing does a fine job of matching New Orleans-locationed exteriors with studio setups, as well as keeping the pace of the picture even and consistent.”
Surrounded as he was by so many talented professionals in the cast, it is little wonder that Presley was inspired to upgrade his own performance. Howard Thompson handed out praise to all in the New York Times. “Matching, or balancing, the tunes are at least seven characterizations that supply the real backbone and tell the story of the picture. Walter Matthau plays the hero’s murderous gangster enemy; Dean Jagger, the boy’s weak, fumbling father; Jan Shepard, his sister, gently paired off with the hero’s boss, Paul Stewart; Dolores Hart, a smitten shop-girl, and Vic Morrow, a nasty young thug. Good as all these people are, it is Miss Jones, as a toughly sensitive fallen gal, who steals the acting honors.” In Billboard, Bernstein also handed out special praise to the veteran actress. “Carolyn Jones is a knockout as a fallen thrush who would like to love him; their aborted romance gives the pic its finest scenes.”
Elvis peaked as an actor at age 23
As good as King Creole is, it sadly marks the pinnacle of Elvis Presley’s acting career at age 23. He was a natural as an angry young man, but as he matured in age, he was never able (or allowed, as some claim) to find his niche as a serious actor. Oh, he tried a few more dramatic roles, but once Hollywood discovered the formula that would earn the greatest financial return from Elvis Presley, it was the end of his dream to be a serious actor. At least we have King Creole to remind us of what might have been.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
G.I. Blues (1960)
Elvis Movie #5
Paramount | 1960
"As the story rested simply on whether or not Elvis’s character could spend the night with Juliet Prowse’s character, the plot offered none of the emotional suspense that Presley’s previous films at least attempted to develop."
G.I. Blues got off to an early start. “Paramount is staking $2,000,000 on a bet that Elvis Presley will be more popular than ever following the end of his military stint next March when he resumes picture-making.” So stated Hazel Guild about Presley’s first post-army movie in her Variety article of September 2, 1959.
The film’s star still had six more months of army service ahead of him. Still, Wallis had it all worked out in his mind. He already had a title—G.I. Blues—for what he visualized as a “comedy drama” about G.I.s stationed in Germany. Elvis’ work on G.I. Blues would begin in April 1960 and last eight weeks, according to Wallis. The film would be released later that fall. Wallis told Guild that either Norman Taurog or Michael Curtiz would direct. (Taurog got the nod.)
Military theaters get early shot at film
While in Germany, Wallis received complete cooperation from the army and, in particular, the Third Armored Division, Elvis’ outfit. An acknowledgement of the army’s cooperation appeared prominently in the opening credits of the finished movie. Also, in a very unusual move, Paramount allowed military camp theaters to begin showing G.I. Blues on October 23, 1960, a full month before the film was released nationally in commercial theaters.
National reviewers, while generally agreeing the movie was trivial stuff, felt G.I. Blues had a chance to play well to American audiences. Variety’s review was the first one out on October 19. It assessed the film’s chances as follows: “G.I. Blues restores Elvis Presley to the screen in a picture that seems to have been left over from the frivolous filmusicals of World War II. On the logical assumption that the teenage following that catapulted Presley to the boxoffice top a few years back has grown older, wiser and more sophisticated in its tastes, the rather juvenile Hal Wallis ‘comeback’ production may have to depend on younger, pre-teen age groups for its chief response. But if the Paramount release is to get by at the boxoffice, it will need the support of Presley’s formerly ardent fans.”
Under the headline, “Elvis - A Reformed Wriggler,” Bosley Crowther’s review of G.I. Blues appeared in The New York Times on November 5, 1960. “Well, it’s not a question of how you like it,” he judged, “ —you older, quieter people, that is—you who will naturally like the pretty color and the occasional pleasant scenery of this film. It’s a question of how those squealing youngsters, Elvis’ erstwhile fans, are going to take to a rock ’n’ roll singer with honey in his veins instead of blood.”
A Tale of Two Presleys
Crowther spent a good part of his review comparing the new screen Presley with the one of two years before. “Honest, you’d hardly know Elvis—the pre-Army Elvis, that is—in the sweet-natured, morally straight young soldier now to be seen on the Victoria’s screen. Gone is that rock ’n’ roll wriggle, that ludicrously lecherous leer, that precocious country-bumpkin swagger, that unruly mop of oily hair. Almost gone are those droopy eyelids and that hillbilly manner of speech. Elvis has become sophisticated. He’s a man of the world—almost. To be sure, he still sings a brand of music that, to many adult ears, is downright Greek, while he whomps a guitar clamped to his pelvis and rhythmically cracks his knees. And he still gets off solemn aphorisms which are not likely to be attributed to Voltaire, such as ‘Ef people got t’know each other better, ever-thin’ll be better all around’.” In the end, Crowther decided he liked the new Elvis a little better. “His hairbrush haircut is trim and tidy, his G.I. uniform is crisp and neat and his attitude is cheerful,” Crowther observed. “Elvis is now a fellow you can almost stand.”
Evaluating G.I. Blues five decades later
Over five decades after those reviews were written, I sat down to watch G.I. Blues once again. When I was a young Elvis fan in the 1960s, I enjoyed this film, as I can honestly say I enjoyed most Elvis movies back then. Now, though, I was viewing it for the first time in at least 10 years, and, as I did so, I sought to assess the roll of G.I. Blues in the developing film career of Elvis Presley. As Presley’s fifth movie, G.I. Blues had both similarities and differences with Elvis’ previous film, King Creole. Hal Wallis and Colonel Parker both learned from the 1958 movie that having Elvis sing often on screen made good business sense. Wallis learned that it brought Presley’s core fans into the theaters in droves. Parker learned a full soundtrack album could sell as well, if not better, than a standard studio LP. The strategy validated itself when it was reprised in G.I. Blues. The film fared well at the box office, and the soundtrack album of 11 songs had a long run near the top of the LP charts.
The big difference between this and Presley’s previous films was the complete lack of dramatic elements in his new movie. Elvis’ pre-army films, especially King Creole, had emotional storylines that, at times, challenged Presley’s aptitude for acting. Not so with G.I. Blues, which identified itself as a comedy in its opening scenes. As the story rested simply on whether or not Elvis’ character could spend the night with Juliet Prowse’s character, the plot offered none of the emotional suspense that Presley’s previous films at least attempted to develop. And, while G.I. Blues had some humorous moments, overall it failed to deliver as a comedy. At that point in his career, Elvis simply didn’t have the comedic chops to carry such a film. (He would fare much better two years later in his next comedy, Follow That Dream.)
Rating G.I. Blues on the entertainment scale
Since G.I. Blues is so unpretentious in its plotting, its worth as a film depends solely on its entertainment value. Does it have elements that please viewers and leave them happy and satisfied? Let’s start with the star himself. Elvis certainly looks good in this film. He obviously had physically matured during his two years in the army. Gone for good is the greasy pompadour (although, as a military veteran, I can testify that no soldier would ever have been allowed to have as much hair on the top of his head as Elvis had in G.I. Blues). I liked how Elvis smiled often during his musical work in the movie. His pelvic contortions of the fifties were replaced with less energetic twisting hips, shaking shoulders, and facial contortions. (Certainly, the gyrations of his earlier years would have seemed out of place in G.I. Blues.) Just on appearance, then, Elvis fills the bill, despite being given no real acting to do.
As for the music, which both the Variety and Times reviewers panned, to me it was overall pleasing and varied. To be sure, Elvis’ musical numbers do lack the excitement seen in his previous movies. (“Presley sings them all as a slightly subdued pelvis,” observed Variety.) Still, Elvis’ voice was strong and clear, and impressive soundtrack LP sales indicate the songs were pleasing to many filmgoers.
Juliet Prowse showed legs and acting ability
The female lead, as often happened in Presley’s career, received better reviews in the film than did Elvis. Variety noted, “Miss Prowse is a firstrate dancer and has a pixie charm reminiscent of Leslie Caron. She deserves better roles than this.” I have to admit that when I watched the film years later, I was more taken with her work in G.I. Blues than I had been in previous viewings years before. It’s difficult to take your eyes off of her legs during her two dance numbers, and she makes a believable transition from ice-hearted to vulnerable woman in the film. I found Tulsa and Lili’s day out together, during which their affection for each other builds, to be the most pleasant segment in the film. In terms of on-screen chemistry in Elvis films, I would rate the Presley-Prowse match second only to Elvis and Ann-Margret.
So, yes, despite G.I. Blues being a step backward in Elvis Presley’s dream of becoming a serious actor, I found enough entertainment value in the movie to rate it in the upper third of his films. Unfortunately, the commercial success of both the movie and its soundtrack album solidified the formula for many disappointing films to come. Within a few years, Elvis would find himself trapped in a Hollywood vortex of increasingly feeble films, the origins of which can be traced back to G.I. Blues.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
Flaming Star (1960)
Elvis Movie #6
20th-Century-Fox | 1960
"Flaming Star has Indians-on-the-warpath for the youngsters, Elvis Presley for the teenagers and socio-psychological ramifications for adults who prefer a mild dose of sage in their sagebrushers."
Flaming Star was the second of three serious Western films made by Elvis Presley. For my money, it was the best, far better than either Love Me Tender or Charro! It was another small step forward for Elvis in his goal of becoming a serious actor. (Remember, he was only 25 years old at the time and still learning his craft.) Unfortunately, after Flaming Star, box-office conscious Hollywood would offer Elvis few future opportunities to develop his acting talent.
Twentieth Century Fox pushed the film hard in the pages of Variety. In a full-page ad on November 2, 1960, the studio listed Flaming Star as one of their four main offerings for the upcoming Christmas season. That was followed up with a double-page ad for the film on November 16.
Variety reviewed the movie in its issue of December 21, the same day that it was released nationally. Variety’s reviewer, noting that the movie appealed to a much wider audience than previous Presley films, predicted box office success for the David Weisbart production. “‘Flaming Star’ has Indians-on-the-warpath for the youngsters, Elvis Presley for the teenagers and socio-psychological ramifications for adults who prefer a mild dose of sage in their sagebrushers. The plot—half-breed hopelessly involved in war between white man and Redman—is disturbingly familiar and not altogether convincing, but the film, attractively mounted and consistently diverting, will entertain and absorb the audience it is tailored for. There’s good business in store for the 20th-Fox release.”
I first saw Flaming Star on television during the summer of 1967. Due to the scarcity of Elvis songs, it had never been one of my favorite Presley movies. Watching it again after the passage of many years, I was pleasantly surprised that the movie’s overall impact and Elvis’ performance in it were much better than I had remembered them.
Sceenplay “taut” and “gripping”
Tension on several levels is developed early on, and the story moves along quickly with lots of action, some of it very violent for its time. Variety called the screenplay “taut, plain and gripping,” and A. H. Weiler, in his New York Times review of December 17, 1960, judged it overall a generally pleasing film. “‘Flaming Star’ is an unpretentious but sturdy Western that takes the time, the place and the people seriously,” Weiler noted. “Although it is not electrifying, ‘Flaming Star’ makes a neat and satisfying adventure.”
As for Elvis, he never looked better in any of his films either before or after Flaming Star. Lean, tough, and handsome, he was given plenty of opportunity to show off his athletic build while running around shirtless late in the film. “Physically, he is thoroughly believable,” stated Variety, “and athletically he is well-endowed for the part’s masculine demands.”
While praising Presley’s appearance, Variety was less laudable about his acting ability in Flaming Star. “The role is a demanding one for Presley. The film relies heavily on his reactions as an explanation for its dramatic maneuvers and thematic attitudes. But, at this stage of his career, Presley lacks the facial and thespic sensitivity and projection so desperately required here … And one other thing can be said for Presley’s approach—he’s never guilty of over-acting.” In the Times review, Weiler gave Elvis passing marks. “Although he is not called on to carry a histrionic load,” he wrote, “Presley, thanks to fine makeup and the color cameras, is a passable red youth … He sits a horse well and is properly brave and stoic, even to the point where he sees the ‘flaming star’ of death.”
Like in his first Western, Love Me Tender, Elvis’ character dies at the end of Flaming Star. This time, though, he rides off into the hills to perish discreetly off camera. Variety’s review termed the ending “contrived,” but Weiler saw some meaning in Presley's final ride into the closing credits. “The warfare destroys all but one of the Burtons in an unhappy ending that seems to underline the sadness of the period when the Indian began to vanish.”
Elvis’ singing limited to one scene
Only in his later Western, Charro!, did Elvis sing less on screen than he did in Flaming Star. As Pacer, he sang only one time, other than the title song over the opening credits. “A Cane and a High-starched Collar” was gotten out of the way within minutes after the opening credits ended. The film than settled down into a straight, action Western the rest of the way. Elvis recorded two other songs that were intended for use in Flaming Star. The film’s double-page ad in Variety on November 16, 1960, promised theater owners that the film would feature “Elvis singing the song his fans will love most—‘Flaming Star’—and 3 others!” Scenes with Presley singing “Britches” and “Summer Kisses, Winter Tears” were filmed, and a preview of the four-song version of the film was shown at the Academy Theater in Inglewood, California, on November 25, a month before general release. According to the “Behind the Scenes Notes” in RCA’s 1995 Double Features CD release, “Apparently, there was laughter during the ‘Summer Kisses, Winter Tears’ segment where Elvis was singing to Indians around the campfire—hence its hasty deletion!” The “Britches” scene suffered the same fate.
While viewing the film’s final two-song version, it’s easy to identify where the two dropped songs were originally placed. From a dramatic point of view, pulling those two musical sequences was the right call. One only has to go back and observe how several Elvis singing scenes effectively chopped up the dramatic story line of Love Me Tender to realize what similar damage Flaming Star’s narrative would have suffered with the same treatment.
Flaming Star suffered by comparison
Although Flaming Star was a step forward for Elvis, in the end the film delivered a body blow to his aspirations of becoming a good actor. It opened in theaters on December 21, 1960, exactly four weeks after G.I. Blues was released on November 23. Hollywood execs, along with Colonel Parker, were able to compare side-by-side the performance of the light, song-filled comedy with that of the serious, song-sparce Western. The contrast was stark. That holiday season G.I. Blues reached as high as number two in Variety’s weekly list of top-grossing films and finished 14th in the publication’s list of annual box-office ratings. Flaming Star, by comparison, peaked at number 12 in the weekly listings and finished far down among the year’s top grossers.
The 11 songs in G.I. Blues fed sales of the film’s successful soundtrack album, which, in turn, led to multiple viewings of the film by the Presley faithful. It was a double-punch combination that spelled success for both Hollywood and RCA. If Colonel Parker hadn’t known it already, the G.I. Blues - Flaming Star face-off must have convinced him that his boy’s future in Hollywood was in song-filled comedies. Wild in the Country was already in the works, but after that there would be no more of this “serious actor” stuff in Elvis Presley’s future. At the box office, Flaming Star proved that his fans did not share Presley’s most cherished dream.
Alan Hanson's ELVIS: THE MOVIES
Wild In The Country (1961)
Elvis Movie #7
20th Century Fox | 1961
"For the easygoing, less discriminating patron of the cinematic arts, ‘Wild in the Country’ should be acceptable as a slickly-produced, glamorously-cast hunk of romantic fiction that won’t trouble the mind."
As Glenn Tyler in Wild in the Country, Elvis Presley took on the most challenging dramatic role of his film career. Only during a couple of short musical scenes was Elvis able to take a break from his role’s histrionic demands. For Presley, the role must have seemed a logical step forward in his dream of becoming an accepted dramatic actor. Unfortunately, the major film critics, who had given Elvis passing grades for improvement in his previous films, were nearly unanimous in their opinion that Elvis’ reach exceeded his grasp in Wild in the Country.
On the surface, it appeared this character was right up Elvis’ alley. After all, he was playing another angry, young man, something he had done with moderate success in five of his six previous movies. But portraying Glenn Tyler was much more challenging than Danny Fisher in King Creole or Pacer in Flaming Star. Each of those characters developed in a straight line, while Glenn Tyler continually vacillated back and forth between anger, understanding, self-pity, and tenderness.
Story’s plot called “nonsense”
According to the film’s reviewers, Elvis had two strikes against him from the start. The premise of the film was simply not believable. Writing in The New York Times, on June 10, 1961, Bosley Crowther lamented, “In this seamy, sentimental lot of nonsense … our nemesis plays a kid who has all the education and social presence of an underprivileged resident of Tobacco Road … Nonsense, that’s all it is—sheer nonsense.” Variety’s review of June 14 was equally critical of the film’s storyline. “Dramatically, there simply isn’t substance, novelty or spring to this wobbly and artificial tale of a maltreated country boy (Presley) who, supposedly, has the talent to become a great writer, but lacks the means, the emotional stability and the encouragement until he comes in contact with a beautiful psychiatric consultant (Hope Lange) who develops traumas of her own in the process … It is difficult to accept the character as a ‘potential literary genius’ and, for that matter, the lovely and sophisticated Miss Lange as a lonely, learned widow with surprisingly few male admirers but a penchant for resurrecting lost, young, boyish souls.” In the Times, Crowther obviously felt Elvis should have stuck with a less challenging role. “Apparently the good, clean Elvis Presley who returned from the Army to the screen in ‘G.l. Blues’ was not what the teen-agers wanted the guitar-playing lover-boy to be,” Crowther wrote tongue in cheek, considering the financial success of that movie. “And so, in ‘Wild in the Country’ … Elvis is back as a problem for himself, the parole board and us.”
Reviewers panned Presley’s acting
It is not surprising that Elvis’ acting in Wild in the Country impressed neither reviewer. Variety offered conditional praise. Considering the creaky plot Presley and Lange were given, the show biz publication allowed that, “It’s a credit to both that they do as well as they do. Presley, subdued, uses what dramatic resources he has to best advantage in this film.”
In keeping with his reputation for brutal honesty, however, Crowther announced that Elvis’ acting ability had headed in the wrong direction. “Mr. Presley, who did appear to be improving as an actor in his last picture [Flaming Star], is as callow as ever in this. The few times he sings are painful—at least they are to our ears—and his appearance is waxy and flabby. Elvis has retrogressed.”
Elvis sings so infrequently in Wild in the Country that it’s hard to believe Crowther’s sensitive ears were so offended. The informal duet with Lange, as the two drive along a country road, fits smoothly into the storyline, but the film’s other two numbers, “I Slipped, I Stumbled, I Fell” and “In My Way” do seem to have been gratuitously inserted to capitalize on Presley’s fame as a singer. That’s especially the case with the former number, the music for which just happens to be playing when Elvis turns on the radio in his uncle’s truck. The source of Glenn Tyler’s musical ability, which has nothing to do with the film’s story, is briefly credited to his long dead mother having taught him how to play the guitar.
Co-stars fared better than Elvis
As usual to that point in his career, Elvis’ co-stars in Wild in the Country received better reviews than did the film’s star. Variety rated the other performances as follows: “Miss Lange, for the most part, plays intelligently and sensitively. Tuesday Weld, steadily improving as an actress, contributes a flashy and arresting portrait of a sexy siren enamored of Mr. P. A third romantic entanglement is portrayed adequately by Millie Perkins, who returns to the screen after an almost 30-month absence since her debut as ‘Anne Frank’ … There is an especially fine supporting performance by William Mims [Uncle Rolfe]. Philip Dunne’s direction is responsible for several vivid, engrossing sequences. But the whole canvas is not stable or uniform. Some of the key scenes seem rushed, some of the lesser ones protracted.”
Call me a “less discriminating patron”
Variety’s 1961 review opened with a slightly pompous and clearly condescending paragraph aimed at the average viewer of Wild in the Country. It reads in part: “For the easygoing, less discriminating patron of the cinematic arts, ‘Wild in the Country’ should be acceptable as a slickly-produced, glamorously-cast hunk of romantic fiction that won’t trouble the mind when one leaves the theatre. What with Elvis Presley’s name to grace the marquee … the Jerry Wald production for 20th-Fox appears to be on safe commercial ground. But all this Simoniz cannot quite make a new car out of an old Model T.” Call me a “less discriminating patron,” then, since I’ve rather enjoyed Wild in the Country on the several times I’ve viewed it over the years. Certainly, it was a stretch for Elvis as a serious actor. And the film itself is rather depressing, what with nearly every character in the end either dead, having tried suicide, romantically rejected, or just plain angry with everyone else. Still, I can’t get away from the fact that I’m an Elvis Presley fan. Is it pride I feel each time I see him attempt so much in Wild in the Country, even though he came up short, according to the critics?
If there’s one thing this movie reveals about Elvis Presley, it is that if he really wanted to be a serious actor, he needed to be willing to get some professional training. The on-the-job training route he chose simply did not produce results. Still, Wild in the Country is a mere footnote in his film career. His future in Hollywood was determined six months earlier with the financial success of the less challenging G.I. Blues. The door on his hopes of being accepted as a dramatic actor would be slammed shut by the phenomenal success of his next movie, Blue Hawaii. Wild in the Country will live on for Elvis fans as a testament to his courage as an actor in reaching for that golden ring, which, in the end, proved just out of his grasp.