I am writing this from memory (I saw the film a month ago). Why do we start on Priscilla Presley’s feet? This might seem like an inconsequential shot, but I find this to be an example of the completely thoughtless directorial approach by Sofia Coppola. In another example: why, in a film entirely about Priscilla Presley, do we get a POV shot from the bus as Elvis drives away from Priscilla and their daughter? This is a kind of perspective change that is significant—for whom is she becoming smaller? In Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears, Vladimir Menshov does a similar pan out from Katerina’s character when she’s sat pregnant and abandoned on a bench. But, the camera is not adopting anyone’s perspective, especially not that of an inanimate locomotive. In Menshov’s case, Katerina’s world is closing in, leaving her with a bastard child and sob-inducing loneliness. In Coppola’s case…I am not sure what she is trying to say. If it is Elvis’ perspective then the question remains…why? And, why now? And…why never again?
Another thing—it goes without saying that Elvis’ desire for a 14 year old child is grotesque. However, you cannot rely on modern sensibility to propel the audience through the film. There is a point where the point’s been made. If the focus of the film was the age issue, then the approach was distracted and cursory. We never truly dissect Priscilla’s character, and she is impossible to latch onto. Again, your hero cannot entirely rely on the audience’s pity. If the focus of the film was Priscilla as a heroine, then…what explains her importance in the viewer’s life? Was Priscilla a good mother? Was Priscilla particularly smart or talented in anything? Other than her briefly shown athleticism, where are her defining, unique traits? What makes Priscilla our hero? Just because the story is bound to historical truth does not mean it cannot be fascinating. Whatever restraints Coppola was working under, if there really were any at all, they were detrimental to the film’s success.
back to home