In the opening scene of Sofia Coppola’s 2023 film Priscilla, the camera captures feet adorned with glossy red nail polish pacing across a fluffy rug in a high-angle shot, symbolizing a tactile and intimate introduction to Priscilla Presley’s world.
This scene, poignant in its simplicity, promises a journey into the depths of her experiences. It metaphorically invites the audience to walk in her shoes—or rather, alongside her bare feet, as she traverses the plush comforts of her life.
A Surface-Level Journey: The Film’s Struggle with Depth
The film initially filled me with hope for a meaningful journey into the life of Priscilla Presley, the woman who married a legend. However, despite my eagerness to connect deeply with her story, the film ultimately failed to live up to these expectations. This review aims to initiate a dialogue on the varied perceptions and emotions that viewers might have experienced while watching this film. As a domestic violence survivor, I acknowledge that my perspective is undoubtedly influenced by my personal experiences.
The Maze of Euphoria and Confusion: Coppola’s Directional Choices
Priscilla emerges as an enigmatic film and, in my opinion, the most disappointing amongst all the movies I viewed at the 14th American Film Festival in Wroclaw. The initial euphoria I felt during the first half of the biopic shifted into confusion by the end. The film, like encountering an invisible barrier, offers limited insight into Priscilla’s world. Coppola’s decision to closely adhere to closely adhere to the 1985 memoir Elvis and Me by Priscilla Presley, and involve Presley in the filmmaking process is commendable from an ethical standpoint. It is a daunting task to create a film about a living individual, particularly one who has experienced abuse.
Behind the Veil of Legacy: The Film’s Reluctant Revelation
However, there is a noticeable absence of depth in the film, possibly due to Priscilla’s reluctance to reveal too much. Interviews with Priscilla post-screening often showed her downplaying her suffering and focusing on Elvis’s challenging life, possibly out of fear of backlash due to Elvis’s legendary status. These are mere speculations, however.
The film seems to shield Elvis, creating a palpable barrier that I desperately wanted to break through. This protective approach might be what sets the film apart, hinting at deeper layers beneath the surface, possibly a deliberate choice by Coppola.
Sofia Coppola’s Cinematic Lens: An Examination of Privilege and Pomp
Sofia Coppola, acclaimed for her insightful depictions of the inner worlds of white and affluent women, appeared to be an ideal candidate to adapt Priscilla Presley’s 1985 memoir, Elvis and Me, for the big screen. Although I harbor ambivalent sentiments regarding Coppola’s body of work, I recognize her talent for narrating stories through a lens of privilege. Nonetheless, Priscilla, in my view, was a film that, despite its elegance, lacked substantive depth and tended towards pretentiousness. This was in stark contrast to Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis (2022), which unapologetically celebrated its essence as a grand cinematic spectacle.
While I am not an ardent admirer of Sofia Coppola’s oeuvre, I found an appreciation for Marie Antoinette (2006) due to its whimsical nature and distinctive aesthetic. Additionally, I regard The Virgin Suicides (1999) as a compelling exploration of female adolescence. Conversely, Lost in Translation (2003) struck me as tedious and overhyped. Coppola’s films frequently mirror her upbringing in an environment of extreme affluence, isolating her from the adversities faced by the working class. This privileged background may have furnished her with the unique perspective necessary to authentically portray Priscilla Presley, a woman who was thrust from her teenage years into a world of opulence.
Romanticising Grooming: The Film’s Critical Flaw
The film’s portrayal of the relationship between a 24-year-old Elvis and 14-year-old Priscilla is problematic, romanticizing what is essentially grooming. This aspect reminded me of my own adolescence and the potential for manipulation inherent in such power imbalances. The film, while showing instances of emotional and physical abuse, does so through a soft-focus lens, failing to fully capture the brutality of such experiences.
In terms of performances, while Cailee Spaeny’s portrayal of Priscilla is praised for its subtlety, it felt lacking in emotional depth to me. In contrast, Jacob Elordi’s Elvis, despite not physically resembling the singer, captures his essence more effectively. The film’s depiction of abuse, though limited, includes powerful scenes, but I yearned for a more poignant exploration of these aspects.
Concluding Thoughts: The Invisible Barrier
Ultimately, Priscilla diverges from traditional biopics, focusing not on a renowned figure but on a woman thrust into the spotlight by her association with a music legend. The film’s use of costumes and production design to tell its story is commendable, yet I couldn’t help feeling a disconnect, as if watching Priscilla’s journey from behind an invisible wall.
As a critic, I acknowledge the subjectivity of my review. My experiences and identity inevitably shape my perspective on art and film. While Priscilla offers a unique take on the biopic genre, it failed to transport me into Priscilla Presley’s world, leaving me feeling more like an observer than a participant in her journey.
Comments
2 responses to “A Critique of ‘Priscilla’ (2023): Walking in Her Shoes, Yet Left Standing at the Door”
I agree with many aspects of your review but I think it’s important to view in context of it’s time setting when prospects for single or unmarried women were less and the age gap less obviously inappropriate (or it would have unlikely been acceptable to her parents), in this respect the subtly to the inappropriateness is perhaps more favourably directed? Although as a single piece it can’t rely on this, I feel when compared to Baz Luhrmann’s version, lends a new and thought-provoking perspective.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my review! Your perspective is indeed very valuable and adds depth to the discussion. You’re right in pointing out that relationships with significant age gaps, like that of Elvis and Priscilla, were more common and socially accepted during earlier times. This context is essential to understand the socio-historical setting of the story.
However, it’s crucial to address the issue of grooming in their relationship. Elvis’s use of his power and influence over Priscilla can’t be overlooked or excused simply because of the time period. While it’s important to honor the historical context, we also need to apply our evolving social consciousness regarding such dynamics. This perspective is not about dismissing historical realities but about understanding them through a more informed and critical lens.
Regarding your comparison with Baz Luhrmann’s version, it’s interesting to see how different interpretations can offer new insights. Still, irrespective of the narrative style, the underlying issue of grooming remains a critical point of discussion.
Your comment made me reflect on my own response to the film, where I felt a sense of euphoria and thrill, reminiscent of teenage fantasies, like meeting a celebrity crush. It’s normal for teenagers to have such fantasies; they are a part of growing up. However, in reality, a relationship with a significantly older person at a young age would likely be problematic. Recognizing this distinction is important in our analysis of such relationships in films and real life.
Your point about the subtlety of inappropriateness in the film compared to modern perspectives is thought-provoking. It underscores the need to continually reassess our interpretations of historical narratives in light of current understandings of power dynamics and consent. Thank you again for your insightful comment, which contributes meaningfully to this discussion.