'The King' A Review

The King is a documentary about superstar Elvis Presley that clumsily attempts to draw a parallel between Elvis and the American Dream as well as address our current socio-economic upheaval in real time. It fails in almost all its broader ambitions but is, at least, a competent look at Elvis's career. The conceit is that writer/director Eugene Jarecki drives Elvis Rolls-Royce around the country visiting cities Elvis lived, having musicians perform in the back seat, and have random celebrities pontificate about Elvis and the state of America. There are a handful of talking head interviews also(notably Chuck D and Van Jones who are woefully underutilized and seem confused, along with the audience, about what Jarecki is actually getting at) as well as archival footage but the edit of the film mirrors the filmmakers seeming confusion and inability to create a salient point of view.

The film seemingly has three subjects. Elvis the man who's history is delved into relatively astutely however there is a hesitance on Jarecki's part to actually critique the King only make excuses for his failings. Which begs the question, why, none of this ultimately is new information and the format is so half baked the film, even at its inception at its most simple was not much better than a film school project.

The second subject is the American Dream, Jarecki attempts to use Elvis as a metaphor, but the whole idea is based on the supposition the American Dream, at least at some point, was real. And the reality is that the "American Dream" was a marketing and political creation of the 1950's for middle class white men. From it's inception the "American Dream" was something that was only accessible to the demographic in power and was a product that was sold. Given that Jarecki naively gives this idea astounding weight, seemingly clueless to its implication and history, and has a series of white rich or upper-middle class men discuss it.

There is a moment or two where Jarecki gives normal citizens a chance to answer the question at the center of the film, and they are of course the most insightful and through provoking, but he cuts away so quickly back to Alec Baldwin or Ethan Hawke its as if he doesn't actually even understand what the country is about or who are the ones who should be speaking for it. Newsflash, it's not Hollywood elite or the affluent its real people. At one point Jarecki has a Memphis choir in his back seat and they perform a beautiful rendition of Chain of Fools the fact that is all they do, they are not interviewed, is at the heart of what's wrong with the film.

The third subject is an extension of the second and is predicated on pessimism and apathy that its deeply uninteresting, obvious, and quite frankly repugnant. As an extension of his investigation into the "American Dream" a lot of the subjects circle around what I'll call "American Ennui" this idea that the US as a country and as a culture is on the decline destined for failure on a grand scale. And perhaps that is true, who can say what the future will hold, but we have had bad presidents before, the country has been threatened from within but the idea that a single moron could be the fulcrum that crumbles the Republic, to me, is a despairing, cowardly, disgusting, hopeless view. And that is the implication to much of the film- we are doomed. But he doesn't even get that point across in any direct way with any kind of logical argument. It's all sighs and vagueness and images juxtaposed to imply something the filmmaker isn't savvy enough to actually articulate.

The job of the artist is to elevate, inspire, comfort. What The King is ultimately about is none of it's supposed subjects but it's filmmakers fear. Fear of change, fear of the present, fear of the future. Not only is his point of view incorrect its boring.

Don't See It.