It's been over a year since we went out to see a movie. We saw "Nomadland" in April 2021, and when we saw that it had been over a year since we'd gone out to see a movie. Covid has been part of these long gaps, but not all of it.
I'm not sure I will ever want to see a movie in the theater again. My #1 problem is that you are bound to sit through it. You can't pause. You can't walk away and come back later. That can be a positive. You've committed to sit through it and you almost certainly will. It's now or never.
Ha ha. Guess what move we saw? Yes, you're right. It was Baz Luhrman's "Elvis":
I would have enjoyed this so much more on my TV. In fact, I would have enjoyed it much more if it had been made as a TV mini-series with 5 or 6 hour-long episodes. Because this movie was too long and too short. There were so many ideas that could have been worked through. There were 2 big themes: Elvis's relationship to black people and their music and Elvis's bondage to Colonel Tom Parker. That had to be compressed in the movie, and the movie was still 2 hours and 39 minutes.
I have other problems with seeing a movie in the theater. Insanely, the picture is worse. As discussed in last year's post about "Nomadland," the picture projected on the screen in this theater isn't good enough. It would look better on the TV I have at home. Is a big screen something special? I can get an equally big screen on my iPhone just by holding it close to my face. My TV at a normal distance is the same size within my field of vision as the movie screen.
What about the audience? Isn't it something special to see a movie with a group of strangers? It might be, sometimes. Yesterday, entering the theater and seeing that our seats — the best seats, chosen on line — were in big recliners — in a row that was already filled with older couples already reclined — I was a tad dismayed. This seemed more sedentary than watching TV at home. One person had brought a blanket and was already covered up. And I could have done without the singing along. It wasn't loud, raucous singing along, but a low, respectful communion with Elvis. Wise men say, only fools fall in love.... Who knows what they were feeling?
Anyway, I recommend this movie when you can watch it on TV and consume it in parts. It's just too long! But when and if you do watch it, I have some advice about how to watch it, advice that I thought up afterwards. This often happens to me: The first time through a movie is like a trial run, and afterwards I have a lot of ideas about what to look for, but then I need to watch it again. If I have the movie at home — a DVD or a streaming service — I can and often do go right back to the beginning and watch it again. I have proved over and over again to myself that if a movie turns out to have been worth watching the first time, it will be better the second time — not years later, after its impression has faded, but while it's perfectly fresh in my mind. I don't have the distraction of wondering what's going to happen, and I can notice all the details, and I appreciate things in the moment because I know what they'll connect up to later.
So here's the key to watching "Elvis." Colonel Tom Parker — Tom Hanks — is absolutely disgusting and evil. He's a monster. Elvis makes a pact with the devil and he can't get out of it. He's caught in a trap.... The monster keeps rising up again. Now, the monster Tom embodies greed. And Elvis is the artist — all about music and love. Whatever flaws real-life Elvis had, movie Elvis has located in the monster Tom. You could think of them as one person with 2 sides. It's not realistic and I don't think it's an accurate portrayal. You never see Elvis overeating cheeseburgers or indulging weird sexual proclivities. You never see the tender side of Tom. It's a grand, doomed struggle between art and money — beauty and ugliness.
ADDED: I wrote "You could think of them as one person with 2 sides," and now I'm reading there's actually a line in the movie — the Colonel says it to Elvis — "I am you, and you are me."
I'm reading that in the Boston Globe, where I'm also seeing that the original cut of the movie was 4 hours long. Maybe we'll get all that when it comes to TV.
Posts
42 comments:
Big flat screens have certainly undercut the need for movie theaters, but they still have their place.
The big screen is still great for a movie that's made for a movie theater. We went to Top Gun Maverick last night and loved it. Really glad we went. Definitely wouldn't have been half as enjoyable on my teeny tiny 50" TV.
The last time we went to the theater was also purposeful, though different. Took friends to see The Chosen Christmas Special. Couldn't really have had the same effect with 12 people in our living room.
Loved the movie!! Your thinking about Elvis and Parker...good and evil...I see that clearly, now. I have seen two movies...Maverick and Elvis... at a very well run local movie house with clear screen and great sound system. TV doesn't cut it with some movies unless you have a great home entertainment system.
At 2:35, Dune took three sittings to get through.
One short false start, I almost didn't continue, then decided to give it another shot about a week later. It did get much better, but at about 1:15 or so and seeing how much time was remaining, I gave it a few days then came back to finish.
At a theater, I might have bailed after 45 mins or so. However, the ticket price comes into play as well (sunk cost fallacy or not).
In some stills of Tom Hanks as Col Parker he looks eerily like LBJ, another great villain of the period.
Great point not he movie being too long, but not long enough to tell the story properly.
With the advent of the limited series one can stream and the willingness for great talent to work on them the cinema is not the best place to tell those stories..
I remember leaving “The Many Saints of Newark” disappointed because there were three different stories that deserved their own movie.
The economics of theatrical motion picture distribution hinge on the percentage of the population that regards in-person attendance as a non substitutible,high quality experience. This excellent post leads me to expect that many owners of movie theaters will be needing to repurpose their property.
The beautiful Elvis was a Mississippi Pentecostal boy to whom race was no issue. The Holy Spirit sees past race as totally irrelevant. Those churches are still the only integrated ones. Then Col Parker, who only saw the green of cash, took over.Those were the two ways the southern whites got over race discrimination. Then MLK added the peace and love virtue angle to integration, with a little help from the Supreme Court over ruling their own 80year old precedent.
I wasn't a fan of Elvis as a teenager but, ironically, over the past ten years, I have come to appreciate his amazing singing voice (so much range and variety in its sound... it truly was an instrument) and his willingness to indulge in a lot of good humored self mockery. Every now and then, I'll watch some segments from what I refer to as Elvis in the Round. I laugh at myself for being mesmerized.
I found it to be a perverse parody of Elvis and his life. A well-made movie to be sure, but still a perversion of reality.
I recently said a movie was pretty good, but I would have liked it better on my TV.
Whippersnapper replied frankly that I only felt this way because I am getting old.
After reading this post I wish I had been more Althousian in my reply, "Not at all. A limited-series format might have allowed the film maker to explore ideas he was only able to hint at, being constrained by a 2-hour time slot. X's relationship to Y, for example. And X's bondage to Z." I would definitely throw in the word bondage somewhere.
But alas, I only said, "Maybe."
Next time I'll be ready. Thanks, Althouse.
"Definitely wouldn't have been half as enjoyable on my teeny tiny 50" TV."
50"? lol, I remember TVs of the 1950s,
https://www.google.com/search?q=TVs+of+the+1950s&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALiCzsYPLJUKCd0ZpBMR9EBaQhIsyZKPcQ:1656250047718&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjfoIOenMv4AhVghYkEHejgC64Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1295&bih=1158&dpr=0.8
(sunk cost fallacy or not).
that's The Thing, about sunk cost fallacy; at least in regards to movies.
Some (most?) of my favorite movies, i HATED* more than half way through. Then towards the end i realized that i LOVED the move. Sunk cost ASSUMES that bad==bad**
HATED* i spend most of the movie thinking; "who CARES about these main characters? WHY didn't they make a movie about those supporting characters; that'd be nice." Then Realize, that the movie IS about those 'supporting' characters.
example: Wedding Crashers with Vince Vaughn and Isla Fisher (don't even remember who else was in it)
Assumes bad==bad Sunk Cost fallacy Says, if you've drilled a well 300' and haven't struck oil; you should quit.. Of course, the oil (IF it's there) is at 1,800'
The first time through, I was distracted by pointless notions like: Elvis needed a lawyer. If you want out of a contract, you don't just speak alone one-on-one to the person who's oppressing you. You go your whole life on a contract and you never have representation? Get a lawyer!!!
Afterwards, I thought, no, this is a dramatic device. This is a pact with the devil. It's not contracts law.
I have always viewed movies as the analog of short stories in their content. They can be impactful, but you notice the conventions after a while. There is nothing wasted. No extra characters, no unmotivated backstories. If we see a gun on the wall, the gun will go off in the second act. This makes them start to seem unnatural, once you have seen a lifetime of movies. Now we, broadly, have come to appreciate the longer-form multi-episode series. They are more like novels and provide some of the depth and discursiveness of that form. Movie theaters will not come back because the story form is not what we want as much as it used to be.
Seeing a film in a theater is an immersive experience. You get the big screen and the mass viewing experience to make the event bigger and easier to immerse yourself in, and the trade-off is that it goes on whether you want to stop it or not.
You can't stop or rewind real life, can you? You can't do it to a play or a live concert. Yes, you can do it to a novel, and that encourages interiority, being in one's own thoughts, rather than entirely in the experience.
Just as film brought fixity and repeatability to theatrical performances, video gives a film pause and rewind, changing the experience. Today's long arc television dramas end up being more like novels than plays or traditional films, in part due to home viewing.
There's a place for both kinds of experiences. Take in the happening while it happens and reflect on it later. We'll always have the home version (though eventually DVDs will become obsolete, like records and tapes and videocassettes).
For me, the temptation to just shut the movie off and do something else is too great, like the temptation to put down the novel and go to sleep, so I appreciate that cinemas don't give you that option. I don't like today's movie theaters either, but miss the days (before I was born) when people went to the movies every week.
We saw the new Maverick a week ago. It was pretty good but not as good as the original. It's been two years since there was anything worth seeing. One of the last ones we saw was "Unplanned." Sort of appropriate now.
Thank you, thank you very much.
The last movie I saw in a theater was Witches of Eastwick. I hate going to a theater,and much prefer to watch at home when it comes out. I cannot WAIT to see this movie.
In fact, I would have enjoyed it much more if it had been made as a TV mini-series with 5 or 6 hour-long episodes.
I've gotten to where I don't care for movies much anymore. 90-120 minutes and just as it is starting to get interesting, it's over.
6-10 ep series give a lot more time to develop stories and characters.
And I don't have to spend 10-15 minutes the next time finding something to watch.
John LGBTQ Henry
Question for AA: Was Elvis seen wearing a chai around his neck?
Haven't been to a movie since . . . 1917 (the movie).
I'll end up seeing Elvis at home, if at all. I expect to groan a lot, as I do at all movie depictions of the Southland and its peoples.
Comedies, assuming they're actually funny, are better seen in a movie theater. Having an audience laugh adds to the pleasure. Musicals can also be better on the big screen. And action movies. I love Star wars, but it was better in the theater. Same with Ben Hur.
But dramas are better at home. BTW, having the audience sing along with elvis is rather odd. But I guess it better than people constantly commenting on the story.
The idea of Elvis talking about black people bores the fuck out of me.
Elvis's relationship to [Christian] church people and their music.
Prior to this most recent entry to the Althouse chronicles, I had absolutely no interest in Colonel Tom Parker other than as a point of reference in the deconstruction of a rather maudlin Simpsons episode: Homer befriends a talented but impoverished country music singer, and coming to the rescue promotes and manages her career as "Colonel Homer Simpson" by putting on cowboy duds, thereby signaling their relationship to the audience. The end.
Fast forward to now. According to Hollywood, Tom Parker is Mephistopheles, ergo interest piqued. I must see this face. Google. Not disappointed. An ugly fat face with a nasty stub cigar shoved in an ugly sneering maw, topped by an absurd parody of a hat. Wow. Was this real? Was Elvis real? NO! Can't be. Adonis in thrall to Hephaestus... sounds like an abandoned Euripides script... The goddess of Reality asserts herself. Not real, not a bit of it. Tom Parker. Fake name. Fake nationality.
Fake military rank. Genuine POS. And Elvis? Mostly fake. There was an Elvis Pressley, but like Tolkien's elves, he diminished and faded into the West, to the Undying Land where there is light without sun. Yes, suitably mythological. Hey, You-Rip, my man, come back. I got a script idea...
On the topic of honorifics, they are bestowed equally on the deserving and the undeserving, like acne. Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain/Colonel Tom Parker. Doctor Norman Borlaug/Doctor Jill Biden. Doctor Dré/Doctor Pepper. Sir Isaac Newton/Sir Tony Robbinson.* Corporal Klinger/Corporal Punishment.
* Sorry, Sir Tony, but I couldn't resist the contrast. I really like and enjoy your work. But I'm still slightly peeved about the knighthood. If one rises to fame by means of a character like Baldrick... you know better than all of us.
@gilbar,
"that's The Thing, about sunk cost fallacy; at least in regards to movies."
My favorite part was when the upside down head became a spider.
Try Downton Abbey. It is worth a theater experience.
Dolly Parton wisely turned down Elvis' offer to record "I Will Always Love You" because of Col. Parker's demand for 50% of the royalties.
Did You Know that Dolly Parton has Turned Down Elvis Presley?
"It happened in 1974, just after the release of Parton’s hit single “I Will Always Love You.” Presley’s manager Colonel Tom Parker made an effort to reach out to Parton with an offer in exchange of Presley recording her song. That offer would have taken half of Parton’s songwriting rights. She was torn, for real. It broke her heart that she has to turn down Presley. Sure she knew how far her song could have gotten had the Rock and Roll King recorded it. Yet, she also believed in her talent so she kept the rights to the song to herself."
"My #1 problem is that you are bound to sit through it. You can't pause. You can't walk away and come back later. "
It's why I seldom watch anything on network TV anymore.
Must see Top Gun Maverick in a good theater with excellent sound! I think it was the equal of the original, and this movie may have saved theatrical exhibition for the time being. Sadly, it may not be Ann’s cup of tea…but Meade will completely love it.
- Krumhorn
"In some stills of Tom Hanks as Col Parker he looks eerily like LBJ, another great villain of the period."
Why do you hate The Great Society?
Amazon Prime's "The Wilds" is a fantastic series and wouldn't have been had it only been a two-hour film. The first several episodes are each solely focused on the development of one individual character. In total, that took at least a good seven hours to do that as well as they did.
"The idea of Elvis talking about black people bores the fuck out of me."
I always appreciate meta-humor. Thanks.
Great movies are better in the theater -- dramas are more absorbing, comedies are funnier with an audience laughing along, and special-effects blockbusters are made for the big-screen experience. But... mediocre movies are much better at home. Some ultra-high-def 75-inch TVs are amazingly affordable, sitting on your own furniture without 200 chomping, gabbing, phone-scrolling neighbors is far more enjoyable, and home snacks are cheap and plentiful. And MOST movies are mediocre. I'm happy to keep theater-going as an occasional indulgence, best for date night and the few films that may be worth it.
Tom Hanks as Col Tom Parker: Look familiar?
Wild horses. As in, you don't have enough wild horses to drag me into a theater ever again.
Aside from dealing with all the usual crap (phones, talking, kicking chairs, etc), why would I voluntarily pay money to an industry that hates my guts?
Another vote to see Top Gun Maverick in the theater. Even my wife enjoyed it, and she usually hates those type of things.
Just read the Wikipedia entry on "Colonel Tom Parker." It is not as defamatory as I expected. Apparently, he received an honorary appointment as a colonel in the non-existent Louisiana State Militia from the governor of that state. Interesting.
The accounts of the business transaction are complex, and not at all one sided.
No interest at all in the Elvis movie but Althouse suggests rightly, commendably I think why a series in multiple parts may be better for some subjects than a single movie viewed at one sitting. And, for myself, I've noticed that 90 (really ~80) minute episodes work better for me than 60 (really ~50) minute episodes; not sure why that is. I can't remember which movie I last saw in a theater; I think it was one I abandoned half-way through.
Saw the trailer right before watching Top Gun: Maverick… Hanks sounded like the wheelchair-bound Peter Sellers character in Dr. Strangelove.
Not of interest to wife and I and she was an Elvis fan…
I agree with the Professor.
I recently watched, for the first time, "The Usual Suspects" on my home entertainment system (large flat screen with sound bar). I was mesmerized. When the ending came, and I finally realized who was the real villain, I immediately had to re-watch the entire movie. I could never do that in a movie theater. (Plus I like to rewind, take bathroom breaks, get another beer, use close captioning if needed, and make snacks which are way more tasteful and cheaper than the artery clogging movie popcorn or candy. And I don't have to put up with overly loud movie theater sound systems, people talking, people walking in front of me going to the bathroom or concession stand, or people using their cell phones).
I don't think I will ever go to a movie theater again. (And yes, Get Off My Lawn!)
Peter Guralnick has a great two volume biography of Elvis. The first volume Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley is beautiful. Really gives vivid detail of the poor south in the 40's and 50's. The second volume is well researched but a very sad story. You can get more detail than you would ever want about "The Lying Dutchman." (Which reminds me that Mark Knopfler's Back to Tupolo is a great 4:28 biography of Elvis.)
Hollywood needs to make BETTER movies!
Post a Comment