BAZ LUHRMAN’S “ELVIS” has made thousands of know-nothings into overnight experts on both Presley and Tom Parker. While I loved the movie (and appreciate the Hollywood Foreign Press Association recognizing Austin Butler’s phenomenal performance), Luhrman took some serious “artistic license” with many facts about both men’s careers. So here’s a little truth about Colonel Parker.
Unfortunately, the many liberties taken with the facts have led to a flood of misinformation about Presley and Parker on the internet. Given the staggering amount of incorrect “information” already there about all things Elvis, this has made finding the truth for most folks a difficult task.
Here’s some truth about Colonel Parker that debunks a few nasty rumors about the man.
Michael Werner delivered the two-part article “A New Light On Colonel Tom Parker” to the Elvis Australia website in 2018. Among the “loads of the worst imaginable stories and rumors are being told about the man who directed Elvis’ career,” Werner sought to answer what is truth and what is false.
“It’s about time to take a closer look at the most prevalent stories, rumors, claims, and opinions about this enigmatic and flamboyant personality. This article explicitly targets fans who are willing to take on a different perspective and face some sturdy facts.”
Below I listed twenty-three rumors and misunderstandings that Werner presented in his article. His conclusion for most of them is that they are not true.
Colonel wasn’t a real Colonel
Werner’s introduction to the first section of his article included this statement:
“Just as his client is possibly the most famous entertainer of all time, Parker is the publicly best-known artist manager, besides perhaps the Beatles’ Brian Epstein. In contrast to Epstein, however, Parker always ‘enjoyed’ an extremely bad reputation among his client’s fans; loads of the worst imaginable stories and rumors are being told about the man who directed Elvis’ career.”
In the mid-’60s, I was a regular reader of the UK magazine Elvis Monthly (and how it found its way to Leo Matus’ newsstand in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, back then I never understood.) In its pages, Parker was revered as a key part of Presley’s success for most of the singer’s career by fans and writers alike.
We had nothing similar to this publication in the US but I also followed Billboard, Cash Box, Record World, and Variety and any mention of Parker was usually one of respect. Questions of the Colonel’s effectiveness didn’t really crop up regularly until the ’70s and his ensconcement of “his boy” in Las Vegas.
Of course, that’s been more than fifty years, so it may seem like the Ciolonel has been the bad guy for longer.
I have listed five of nine issues addressed in Part 2 (and I made minor changes in a few questions, usually for stylistic purposes):
• Colonel Parker was an illegal immigrant and held this status until the end of his life.
Yes and no.
• Elvis’ world tour failed because the Colonel didn’t have a passport.
Not true.
• The Colonel wasn’t a real Colonel.
Not true (depending on your acceptance of the title as an honorary gesture).
• Without Elvis, the Colonel would never have been successful.
Not true.
• Elvis would have made it big with any other manager.
Unknowable but probable.
Werner closed this first part with a general statement about Parker’s role in Presley’s career:
“Parker wasn’t Elvis’ surrogate father, nor his pastor, nor his therapist, nor his musical consultant. Elvis had more than enough people around him to fulfill these needs. Colonel Parker was the business manager of Elvis Presley; his only job was to get the highest amount of money possible out of whatever Elvis did artistically. That’s exactly what he did. Not more, but also not less.”
Please understand that I reduced the 2,100 words in the first part of Werner’s article to a handful of“Yes” and “Not true” responses above. To read the responses to the topics above, click here.
Money came first for Elvis
“By the way, even if most fans might not like to hear this: Money came first for Elvis, too, so in most cases when he had to choose between artistic claim and commercial success, he would rather take the money. Also, he surely wouldn’t have hired Colonel Parker as his manager if he hadn’t cared that much for financial profit. A lifestyle as costly as Elvis’ had to be paid for somehow.”
I have listed five of fourteen issues addressed in Part 2:
• After the army, the Colonel drove the rocker out of Elvis and softened him.
Not true.
• Since 1967, Parker collected half of Elvis’ earnings.
No.
• Elvis was offered merely inferior song material because Parker forced songwriters to give a part of their royalties to Elvis.
Not true (although few songs were recorded by Elvis unless writers agreed to give up half of their publishing rights—not songwriting royalties—to one of Presley’s publishing companies, Elvis Presley Music and Gladys Music).
• The Colonel did nothing or not enough to get Elvis away from prescription drugs.
Not true.
• Because of Colonel Parker, Elvis had to make undemanding movies in the ’60s.
Not true.
Werner closed the second part with this observation about Presley’s lack of quality films:
“If Elvis had wanted to shoot a critically acclaimed movie, he could have produced one at any time that would have been tailor-made for him. Instead, he never rejected a contract for an undemanding but well-paid movie.
The bottom line is, he obviously wasn’t as dissatisfied within his movie career as is often claimed, or at least, he just didn’t care enough for becoming a serious actor to even take the smallest risk.”
I made a few comments about Elvis and money in the captions of the photos on this page. I hope the condescension is easily understood.
Please understand that I reduced the 2,900 words in the second part of Werner’s article to a handful of “Yes” and “Not true” responses above. To read the responses to the topics above, click here.
Not one concrete example
A few situations call for extrapolation or inferring and I or the reader may not necessarily agree with his conclusion. For example, Parker expected songwriters to sign over half their publishing royalties in exchange for Elvis recording their songs. Fans and critics alike have assumed for decades that this cost Presley many opportunities at getting the best new material.
Werner notes that “there is not one concrete example of a song that wasn’t recorded by Elvis for these reasons and then resulted in a notable success for another artist to prove this assertion.”
This statement does not take into consideration that many writers simply never even considered submitting any of their better songs to Elvis because of this publishing-sharing. Either they found it reprehensible or, by 1962 or so, Presley’s sales had plummeted from 2,000,000 each to 750,000, a figure other artists could match.
A little truth about Colonel Parker
Werner devoted more time to the issue The Colonel didn’t believe in Elvis and didn’t support his artistic ambitions at all; he just regarded him as a product than he did to most of the other topics. There he noted:
“Parker had his principles and ethical standards that were more important to him than a few dollars more. This became most obvious when after Elvis’ death everyone who had delivered him a pizza felt appointed to write a book about Elvis. Parker could easily have earned a fortune revealing tons of private details. He never did so. His loyalty did not end with Elvis’ death; not even with his own death, as he took everything to his grave.
Parker knew about his own bad image and felt misunderstood and unfairly judged towards the end of his life. But he accepted his fate and never tried to justify anything because it was more important to him not to inflict any damage to Elvis’ memory, while most of his so-called ‘friends’ would have instantly betrayed all his secrets for a few bucks. Thus, Parker proved character, manner, and class until the very end.”
Werner also made this observation:
“Parker wasn’t Elvis’ surrogate father, nor his pastor, nor his therapist, nor his musical consultant. Elvis had more than enough people around him to fulfill these needs. Colonel Parker was the business manager of Elvis Presley; his only job was to get the highest amount of money possible out of whatever Elvis did artistically. That’s exactly what he did. Not more, but also not less.”
To which I can only say, “Doncha think it’s time we acknowledged this?”
Here’s some truth about Colonel Parker that debunks a few of the nastier rumors about the man.. Click To Tweet
FEATURED IMAGE: The “facts” and attitude of Elvis were all Baz Luhrman’s. With assistance from several others, he produced the movie and wrote both the story and the screenplay. And, of course, he directed it. His version of Colonel Tom Parker was one of almost comic book-level villainy, which Tom Hanks easily portrayed in one of his many excellent performances in an unlikely role. Someone should consider making a real biographical film about Parker because he was certainly an interesting individual.
Postscriptually
As we know, after Parker discovered the inner gambler, things went kablooie for his relationship with his client, especially in the areas of fiduciary duty and that crazy little thing called integrity. I highly recommend a thorough reading of Elvis Inc. – The Fall and Rise of the Presley Empire by Sean O’Neal.
Finally, the title of this article (“Just Gimme Some Truth About Colonel Parker”) was inspired by John Lennon’s Gimme Some Truth on the IMAGINE album from 1971.
Mystically liberal Virgo enjoys long walks alone in the city at night in the rain with an umbrella and a flask of 10-year-old Laphroaig who strives to live by the maxim, “It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know that just ain’t so.
I’ve been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate, a poet, a pawn, and a college dropout (twice!). Occupationally, I have been a bartender, jewelry engraver, bouncer, landscape artist, and FEMA crew chief following the Great Flood of ’72 (and that was a job that I should never, ever have left).
I am also the final author of the original O’Sullivan Woodside price guides for record collectors and the original author of the Goldmine price guides for record collectors. As such, I was often referred to as the Price Guide Guru, and—as everyone should know—it behooves one to heed the words of a guru. (Unless, of course, you’re the Beatles.)
Don’t agree with “Why did he do it? Money, honey!”, but on Elvis’ lack of knowledge on the Business side.
Attached quote from YouTube Elvis interview; July 1972...
“I had thought they would… give me a chance to show some kind of acting ability or do a very interesting story, but it did not change. It did not change. And so I became very discouraged. They couldn’t have paid me any amount of money in the world to make me feel any self-satisfaction inside.” — Elvis Presley
Unfortunately, Elvis didn’t surround himself with people who knew the Business side, but left all that for his dad to handle.
We know he knew that many of the movies he was making were dreadful and he hated making them.
We know that he knew that many of the soundtrack songs he was recording were garbage and he hated recording them.
But even though the sales of most soundtrack-related records plummeted after the Blue Hawaii album and the “Can’t Help Fallin in Love” / “Rock-a-Hula Baby” single in 1962, they still kept making money.
And he kept making them, year after year.
Because they kept making money for everyone.
When soundtrack singles and albums started selling less than 200,000 copies each in 1967—that is, they started not making much money for anyone—things changed in 1968.
But it was waaaay too late to salvage the so-called “Elvis Movie.”
Had Elvis taken the role of Joe Buck in 1969’s Midnight Cowboy and pulled it off instead of making Change of Habit, Elvis might have found the type of Tinseltown success he wanted.
Finally, one of my faveravest tracks from Presley’s first long-player: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjhaJLkQXLE