Elvis, The Fabelmans Oscar Bait But Left In Tacklebox

Both Elvis and The Fabelmans might have been Oscar darlings in award seasons past. Yet, in 2023 they are both at the back of the Best Picture pack. Let’s do a last-minute look at both.

Elvis ticks many Oscar boxes: Biopic, flashy cinematography, borderline musical. But the odds are stacked heavily against Baz Luhurmann’s movie about the King of Rock and Roll.

After watching the two-hour and thirty-nine-minute-long Elvis, I understand why.

The story is very sympathetic to Elvis. One could even call it a love letter. The choice to have the story told from the villain’s perspective was odd, though. This goes double since the movie hits us over the head because Tom Hank’s Colonel viewed Elvis as his cash cow and abused him physically and financially. The Colonel even abused us, the audience, suggesting more than once we’re culpable in The King’s early demise. It was hard to rationalize such emotion from such a calculating character.

Before seeing Elvis, I was surprised that Tom Hanks was not in the Oscar conversation as a supporting actor. He did have to put on prosthetics for a role, and that’s the male equivalent of a woman not wearing any makeup for a role (aka, award shoo-in). Afterward, it makes more sense. Tom Hanks is a favorite of mine, but I don’t think his performance was anything more than his standard fare. He was good, don’t get me wrong. But Tom Hanks would not stand a chance in the field of nominees tonight.

The movie was bloated, and the story sagged and dragged. The Las Vegas stint and the TV special sections of the film, in particular, were drawn out. Luhrmann spent far too long underscoring facts about Elvis’s career that history already gave the audience. If the film had been edited down to the two-hour fifteen mark, the movie would have hit harder and cleaner.

While the movie isn’t getting a lot of buzz, Austin Butler certainly is. He and Brendan Fraser are the favorites in the Best Actor category. Since I am not an actor and don’t pretend to be one, I can’t say if there are advantages to portraying a contemporary figure, especially one of this magnitude.

Does Butler have an easier time creating his performance because he has mountains of footage to use, whereas Fraser doesn’t? Or is that harder? That’s probably a question for another day. Or a question to be answered by tonight’s broadcast.

Butler gives a spectacular performance as The King. By the movie’s end, I had a hard time distinguishing when Bulter’s performance ended and the actual footage started.

In addition to the Best Actor category, Elvis will be a contender in the technical categories for which it’s nominated. I’d expect no less from Luhrmann. His signature trademarks are beautiful costumes, decadent scenery, and fabulous scores. His Elvis has all three.

Luhrmann and Elvis make a feast for the eyes and ears, not a Best Picture win.

The Fabelmans descends into many of the same pitfalls as Elvis. The movie isn’t a biopic but is loosely based on Speilberg’s life. We are presented with another love letter, this time to the pursuit of art instead of to a specific person, which should be a more significant boon to the film.

I went into the movie thinking this would be about the pursuit of Hollywood success. But it wasn’t. The central tension in the film is between the Fabelmans who are artsy, and those who are not. Sam and Mitzy are set apart from the rest of the family because of their passions. Anyone who’s ever found themselves in this dynamic knows it’s an uphill battle to find common ground. However, Sam eventually successfully navigates to common ground with his father, at least.

Mitzy isn’t so lucky. Which is why Michelle Williams finds herself once again nominated for an acting Oscar. Her performance brings chaos to an otherwise overall up-beat, kid-conquers-all story. While I don’t think she’s going to win, she definitely deserves recognition.

Judd Hirsch is also up for his scene-stealing performance as Uncle Boris. Yes, he’s only in the movie for maybe ten minutes; however, his performance puts Judi Dench’s Queen Elizabeth performance (and win) to shame.

And despite all of this, it would be considered an upset win if The Fablemans won.

Why?

My answer would be the same for this movie as it was for Elvis- the runtime. The movie didn’t need two hours and thirty-one minutes to tell this story. Having the extra time led to a drag in the narrative. The Fabelmans would have benefitted from snipping fifteen minutes or so from the final cut. And then maybe we wouldn’t be talking about a movie with good performances and not enough stuff to be in contention.

But those are my thoughts. What are yours?