Yesterday, whilst tidying up for a friend's imminent arrival, I decided to switch on the TV for a bit of background relief and on came "Murder, She Wrote" - the long running detective series starring Angela Lansbury as super-sleuth Jessica Fletcher.
I have long been fascinated by this show for it's sheer ridiculousness. Week after week, Jessica gets a call from some nephew, niece or friend she knows either in the US or beyond, and off she trots to meet them. Mere minutes after touch down, she's falling over a dead body.
Presumably, anyone with sense would put the phone down on her as soon as she rang. No amount of "touching wood" can escape her deathly lure. I'm surprised she has any friends at all, as they're either dead, suspects or as good as both, because they're about to get a visit from "dear Jess".
This particular episode, which was feature length, saw Jess outwitting even the FBI. When two agents questioned her over something suspicious that she was involved in, she persuaded the two hapless men to "give me 24 hours" so she could find them their man. They duly obliged like two lap dogs and, true to her word, she handed over the killer ahead of schedule.
Er, this was not before a little "phew" moment though, when Jess was confronted by the killer and almost got the bullet herself. Many an episode finishes with the weapon being turned on her, as she's sniffed out the killer and we've been presented with a lovely flashback sequence filled with close-ups on gloves, twisting door knobs and frantic feet. The killer then realises that nobody else is bright enough to work anything out, including various police forces from US states and Interpol, so if they finish her off now, who's to know? Just as well someone arrives just in time and saves her. Usually it's the unfit local sheriff, who somehow keeps his employment despite lacking in any common sense or training. The only thing he's good for is popping round to see Jess at the end of each episode for a slice of cake, and even then he's interrupting the typing of her next novel.
Then the best bit, as the credits start to roll and the music kicks in, we're treated to a freeze frame of Jess laughing uncontrollably at the sheer insanity of it all and Angela Lansbury, no doubt behind the mask, chuckling for real, not believing her luck that she's getting paid to do all of this and people like me are daft enough to watch it.
Monday, 14 January 2008
Sunday, 13 January 2008
"On the getaway day I try for amnesia"
I think it's crucial that all of us get a day away, or longer, if time allows. I have always tried to dedicate a day a week just to do totally selfish things, like visit an art gallery, order a slice of my favourite cake, lie-in, or just wander, without any destination in mind. It's also crucial that I do all of these things alone and without any guilt.
All of them can be done with others, of that I'm not denying, but my point is that we should all enjoy time with ourselves.
The above quote is by the wonderful author, Maya Angelou, and in her book "Wouldn't take nothing for my journey now", she argues, for want of a better word, that it's not irresponsible to step away from our duties for a time. Time away often gives us a sense of renewal and a new perspective. I would go further in saying that stepping out of our routines, if only for the shortest of times, is necessary in order to gather thoughts, make decisions and change direction.
The rest of my own life is relatively ordered and many of us feel "in-demand" by modern pressures; society in general. The fact is, we're all replaceable, and the sooner people let go of their martyrdom when it comes to work, the better. I know of a person who had given 40 years of service to their employer only to receive a pot plant upon leaving, and they were replaced within days. Life moves on and often far too quickly.
I don't want to give the impression that life isn't about sharing; if anything it's about communication, but spend that precious time with people who matter, your closest friends and family, not forgetting to enjoy doing the things that YOU want to do from time to time.
Missed days and past opportunities lost tend only to breed resentment in the today.
All of them can be done with others, of that I'm not denying, but my point is that we should all enjoy time with ourselves.
The above quote is by the wonderful author, Maya Angelou, and in her book "Wouldn't take nothing for my journey now", she argues, for want of a better word, that it's not irresponsible to step away from our duties for a time. Time away often gives us a sense of renewal and a new perspective. I would go further in saying that stepping out of our routines, if only for the shortest of times, is necessary in order to gather thoughts, make decisions and change direction.
The rest of my own life is relatively ordered and many of us feel "in-demand" by modern pressures; society in general. The fact is, we're all replaceable, and the sooner people let go of their martyrdom when it comes to work, the better. I know of a person who had given 40 years of service to their employer only to receive a pot plant upon leaving, and they were replaced within days. Life moves on and often far too quickly.
I don't want to give the impression that life isn't about sharing; if anything it's about communication, but spend that precious time with people who matter, your closest friends and family, not forgetting to enjoy doing the things that YOU want to do from time to time.
Missed days and past opportunities lost tend only to breed resentment in the today.
Friday, 11 January 2008
The Merry Wives of Tudor
Aristocracy has always intrigued me. It's a dramatic world filled with dashing characters bigger than life, awash with stolen whispers, treacherous double-crossing, adulterous affairs mixed in with lashings of jealousy and shameless overindulgence. Lavish costumes and jewels blend seamlessly into palatial settings.
Of course, that's merely scratching the surface and the truth is much more multi-layered and endlessly complex. Add in some rotten teeth, incurable disease and we're nearing a more realistic picture. One must always be aware of the "reality" and with any documented history filled with second-hand accounts, there is always an agenda at work.
Yesterday evening, I indulged in the historian David Starkey and specifically his series "The Six Wives of Henry VIII". He is a quite brilliant, captivating presenter and a tyrant of knowledge, who conveys his messages with more spirit than say, Simon Schama, another popular historian who, in my opinion, does not push quite the same buttons - though his "Power of Art" series was, in places, really exceptional. I believe the secret of Starkey's success is in his delivery, which is considered and direct. There is no messing around; I was just as distracted by him as I was engrossed by the content of the series he was fronting. It also explains why I never fell asleep once during Starkey, but have drifted off several times during Schama's account of "A History of Britain".
But this was to be the story of women, and the opportunities as well as limitations of the time in which they lived. And so, the 6 wives of Henry (and their fates) were as follows: Catherine of Aragon (divorced), Anne Boleyn (beheaded), Jane Seymour (died as a result of complications from childbirth), Anne of Cleves (Divorced), Catherine Howard (Beheaded), Catherine Parr (Survived). Note that Anne of Cleves also "survived" Henry VIII, though they were estranged by the time of his death, and a long time before that.
By far the most intriguing wife was Anne Boleyn, who plotted her way to the top and possessed a ruthless ambition. She came unstuck eventually, framed for adultery, but her passion and fiery nature was daring for the time when males held precedence over the supposed "weaker sex". She is also notable for being the mother of Elizabeth I, who was arguably England's greatest ever ruler. She was an intellectual in every sense of the word and was not afraid to speak her mind. Because of her protestant beliefs, totally at odds with her predecessor, the Catholic Catherine of Aragon, she played a major role in the English Reformation - when the English Church broke away from the authority of the Pope and thus, Roman Catholicism.
In essence, much of this came about because Henry wanted to divorce his first wife and marry Anne, but the Pope would not allow this to happen, as there was no valid reason. Much of this is well known and documented, and does not need to be repeated here. Most central to her story was Anne's incredible spirit, infamously finding wit in the darkest of moments. Whilst imprisoned in the Tower of London, she joked before her execution that it was fortunate that she had such a small neck. Later, she was beheaded!
Just as arousing was the era in which these women lived. There was a constant danger, as all of his wives discovered. Even Catherine Parr, Henry's last wife and who survived him, narrowly escaped death when it was claimed that she was a heretic, for her supposed anti-Catholic beliefs. Whether this was true or not, she was certainly not afraid of giving her opinion, as outlined in her book "Lamentations of a Sinner" and according to Starkey, she also debated religion with Henry regularly. Her outspokenness almost proved her undoing, but when the day arrived for her to be removed from court at the request of conspirators close to Henry, she had already successfully argued her corner with Henry only the night before, persuading him that she merely discussed religion with him in order to distract him from the burden of his ills, which by this stage in his life were plentiful.
By far, Henry's longest marriage was with his first wife, the likable Catherine of Aragon and mother of Mary I, which lasted more than 20 years. Originally married to Henry's brother then widowed, she was highly sought for her powerful connections to Spanish royalty and her nephew, Charles V, who later conquered Rome. It seems her downfall (and of no fault of her own), was her inability to produce a surviving male heir, though she had several miscarriages. At the time, there had been no female ruler and a male heir was preferable.
Henry became increasingly concerned as Catherine approached menopause that he would not get his wish, hence his desire to marry the younger and nubile Anne Boleyn. Ironically, at the time, Henry was considered to be a devout Catholic. Upon reading Leviticus, as part of the old testament, which stated if a man married his brother's wife then they would remain without child - unfortunately for Catherine, he took it literally. He would use this as the basis for getting out of his marriage.
However, it was a widely held belief that Catherine of Aragon had never had her marriage with Henry's brother consummated, but Henry, searching for answers as to why he had never had a male heir, suspected that this was not the case. When the Pope would not budge, Henry's answer was to ignore him. He, with the help of the cunning Anne created their own church and thus their own rules, and poor Catherine was banished, albeit with her popularity still intact (and also her head).
Starkey argued that the most successful marriage, or rather "wife", was that of Jane Seymour. Dignified and respected, she died young as a result of complications from childbirth. The difference with her and the others? She produced a son in Edward VI, who went on to rule England after his father, though his reign was to be short lived. All three of Henry's offspring would indeed go on to rule.
Henry, perhaps surprisingly, not the central focus of the series, came across as a background character, yet held all the cards. As the Supreme Head of the newly formed Church of England, he flaunted his authority and imposed his powers on others.
I applaud Starkey for avoiding active comment on Henry himself, instead leaving the viewer to make up their own mind. Starkey, like any skilled historian, provides only his own point of view of the events, and certainly this is what makes history so interesting, as it can be interpreted in so many ways with characters re-evaluated and dissected over time as new information comes to light.
My reaction to the programme was that Henry was a flawed individual, but who isn't? Wandering aimlessly from one marriage to another with masculine bravado, he enjoyed numerous affairs with ladies in waiting (a status from which some of his wives originated). Some of his wives were canny enough not to argue with him, for ultimately their fate rest with him. Admittedly, Henry had a number of advisers who influenced him (sometimes with their own motives), but he was also stubborn and set in his ways and could (and would) outlaw them.
Of all Henry's wives, his fourth in Anne of Cleves, was the most short-lived. Desperate for marriage following previous scandals, but with advancing years and a reputation that proceeded him, he was hardly flooded with offers. The King's Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, suggested the German Anne of Cleves. She was of good stock and had protestant leanings. Famously, Hans Holbein the Younger (an accomplished painter worthy of a blog in himself), was dispatched to paint Anne, in order to present her image to Henry. Initially impressed, he wished to meet her, and what Henry wanted, Henry got. Unfortunately for her, he took an instant dislike. In his eyes, she lacked the refinement of his previous partners (apparently only proficient in needlework), in addition to being more buxom than he was used to. The poor woman, not "up to scratch", was given her final orders only months later and suffered the indignity of eating at the same table as his next wife.
Catherine Howard, Henry's fifth bride, was a former Lady in Waiting, and her time "in waiting" gave her access to many attractive suitors, though there was no law that restricted sex before marriage, even if it was royal. Despite her teenage years, her carnal knowledge appeared advanced for her age. She made the mistake of continuing her affairs whilst Queen and appeared to get caught up in the trappings and perks of the job. Of course, nobody, apart from Henry, it would seem, was untouchable and especially not a Queen. Admittedly, she may have done wrong, but Henry enjoyed numerous affairs whilst married, and the same rules did not apply to him. For a young and surely impressionable woman, overwhelmed no doubt by the riches that surrounded her, she paid the ultimate price with her head.
The story of Henry and his six wives reads like a soap opera and, looking at the bigger picture, it's true that some of his wives showed flashes of the modern woman, with the confident attributes that have enabled the gender to rise and overcome its unjust suppression over time. Women have always had these attributes of course and it simply suited men from a power point of view, to keep them in their place.
I would say that the six wives of Henry all had their own individual "pros and cons" who were ultimately victims of the time and circumstances in which they lived. Likewise, their era enabled them to capitalise on the opportunity to become Queen and influence those around them, especially in the role of "regent" - allowing them to run the country in the King's absence. This happened when Henry left for France and James IV of Scotland used the opportunity to invade England. In retaliation, Catherine of Aragon, who was acting regent, sent an army to defeat the Scots and succeeded in doing so. She excelled in her temporary role, relishing the opportunity to take charge and proving, importantly, that a woman was more than up to the task.
Ultimately, the characteristics in the personalities of Henry's varied wives must surely have impacted and influenced Elizabeth I. Certainly, she enjoyed a close relationship with his last wife, the enthusiastic learner and four-times married, Catherine Parr. Perhaps most of all, Elizabeth observed mistakes and how to avoid them, especially when it came to men, and this adds fuel to why she may have became known as "The Virgin Queen".
Of course, that's merely scratching the surface and the truth is much more multi-layered and endlessly complex. Add in some rotten teeth, incurable disease and we're nearing a more realistic picture. One must always be aware of the "reality" and with any documented history filled with second-hand accounts, there is always an agenda at work.
Yesterday evening, I indulged in the historian David Starkey and specifically his series "The Six Wives of Henry VIII". He is a quite brilliant, captivating presenter and a tyrant of knowledge, who conveys his messages with more spirit than say, Simon Schama, another popular historian who, in my opinion, does not push quite the same buttons - though his "Power of Art" series was, in places, really exceptional. I believe the secret of Starkey's success is in his delivery, which is considered and direct. There is no messing around; I was just as distracted by him as I was engrossed by the content of the series he was fronting. It also explains why I never fell asleep once during Starkey, but have drifted off several times during Schama's account of "A History of Britain".
But this was to be the story of women, and the opportunities as well as limitations of the time in which they lived. And so, the 6 wives of Henry (and their fates) were as follows: Catherine of Aragon (divorced), Anne Boleyn (beheaded), Jane Seymour (died as a result of complications from childbirth), Anne of Cleves (Divorced), Catherine Howard (Beheaded), Catherine Parr (Survived). Note that Anne of Cleves also "survived" Henry VIII, though they were estranged by the time of his death, and a long time before that.
By far the most intriguing wife was Anne Boleyn, who plotted her way to the top and possessed a ruthless ambition. She came unstuck eventually, framed for adultery, but her passion and fiery nature was daring for the time when males held precedence over the supposed "weaker sex". She is also notable for being the mother of Elizabeth I, who was arguably England's greatest ever ruler. She was an intellectual in every sense of the word and was not afraid to speak her mind. Because of her protestant beliefs, totally at odds with her predecessor, the Catholic Catherine of Aragon, she played a major role in the English Reformation - when the English Church broke away from the authority of the Pope and thus, Roman Catholicism.
In essence, much of this came about because Henry wanted to divorce his first wife and marry Anne, but the Pope would not allow this to happen, as there was no valid reason. Much of this is well known and documented, and does not need to be repeated here. Most central to her story was Anne's incredible spirit, infamously finding wit in the darkest of moments. Whilst imprisoned in the Tower of London, she joked before her execution that it was fortunate that she had such a small neck. Later, she was beheaded!
Just as arousing was the era in which these women lived. There was a constant danger, as all of his wives discovered. Even Catherine Parr, Henry's last wife and who survived him, narrowly escaped death when it was claimed that she was a heretic, for her supposed anti-Catholic beliefs. Whether this was true or not, she was certainly not afraid of giving her opinion, as outlined in her book "Lamentations of a Sinner" and according to Starkey, she also debated religion with Henry regularly. Her outspokenness almost proved her undoing, but when the day arrived for her to be removed from court at the request of conspirators close to Henry, she had already successfully argued her corner with Henry only the night before, persuading him that she merely discussed religion with him in order to distract him from the burden of his ills, which by this stage in his life were plentiful.
By far, Henry's longest marriage was with his first wife, the likable Catherine of Aragon and mother of Mary I, which lasted more than 20 years. Originally married to Henry's brother then widowed, she was highly sought for her powerful connections to Spanish royalty and her nephew, Charles V, who later conquered Rome. It seems her downfall (and of no fault of her own), was her inability to produce a surviving male heir, though she had several miscarriages. At the time, there had been no female ruler and a male heir was preferable.
Henry became increasingly concerned as Catherine approached menopause that he would not get his wish, hence his desire to marry the younger and nubile Anne Boleyn. Ironically, at the time, Henry was considered to be a devout Catholic. Upon reading Leviticus, as part of the old testament, which stated if a man married his brother's wife then they would remain without child - unfortunately for Catherine, he took it literally. He would use this as the basis for getting out of his marriage.
However, it was a widely held belief that Catherine of Aragon had never had her marriage with Henry's brother consummated, but Henry, searching for answers as to why he had never had a male heir, suspected that this was not the case. When the Pope would not budge, Henry's answer was to ignore him. He, with the help of the cunning Anne created their own church and thus their own rules, and poor Catherine was banished, albeit with her popularity still intact (and also her head).
Starkey argued that the most successful marriage, or rather "wife", was that of Jane Seymour. Dignified and respected, she died young as a result of complications from childbirth. The difference with her and the others? She produced a son in Edward VI, who went on to rule England after his father, though his reign was to be short lived. All three of Henry's offspring would indeed go on to rule.
Henry, perhaps surprisingly, not the central focus of the series, came across as a background character, yet held all the cards. As the Supreme Head of the newly formed Church of England, he flaunted his authority and imposed his powers on others.
I applaud Starkey for avoiding active comment on Henry himself, instead leaving the viewer to make up their own mind. Starkey, like any skilled historian, provides only his own point of view of the events, and certainly this is what makes history so interesting, as it can be interpreted in so many ways with characters re-evaluated and dissected over time as new information comes to light.
My reaction to the programme was that Henry was a flawed individual, but who isn't? Wandering aimlessly from one marriage to another with masculine bravado, he enjoyed numerous affairs with ladies in waiting (a status from which some of his wives originated). Some of his wives were canny enough not to argue with him, for ultimately their fate rest with him. Admittedly, Henry had a number of advisers who influenced him (sometimes with their own motives), but he was also stubborn and set in his ways and could (and would) outlaw them.
Of all Henry's wives, his fourth in Anne of Cleves, was the most short-lived. Desperate for marriage following previous scandals, but with advancing years and a reputation that proceeded him, he was hardly flooded with offers. The King's Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell, suggested the German Anne of Cleves. She was of good stock and had protestant leanings. Famously, Hans Holbein the Younger (an accomplished painter worthy of a blog in himself), was dispatched to paint Anne, in order to present her image to Henry. Initially impressed, he wished to meet her, and what Henry wanted, Henry got. Unfortunately for her, he took an instant dislike. In his eyes, she lacked the refinement of his previous partners (apparently only proficient in needlework), in addition to being more buxom than he was used to. The poor woman, not "up to scratch", was given her final orders only months later and suffered the indignity of eating at the same table as his next wife.
Catherine Howard, Henry's fifth bride, was a former Lady in Waiting, and her time "in waiting" gave her access to many attractive suitors, though there was no law that restricted sex before marriage, even if it was royal. Despite her teenage years, her carnal knowledge appeared advanced for her age. She made the mistake of continuing her affairs whilst Queen and appeared to get caught up in the trappings and perks of the job. Of course, nobody, apart from Henry, it would seem, was untouchable and especially not a Queen. Admittedly, she may have done wrong, but Henry enjoyed numerous affairs whilst married, and the same rules did not apply to him. For a young and surely impressionable woman, overwhelmed no doubt by the riches that surrounded her, she paid the ultimate price with her head.
The story of Henry and his six wives reads like a soap opera and, looking at the bigger picture, it's true that some of his wives showed flashes of the modern woman, with the confident attributes that have enabled the gender to rise and overcome its unjust suppression over time. Women have always had these attributes of course and it simply suited men from a power point of view, to keep them in their place.
I would say that the six wives of Henry all had their own individual "pros and cons" who were ultimately victims of the time and circumstances in which they lived. Likewise, their era enabled them to capitalise on the opportunity to become Queen and influence those around them, especially in the role of "regent" - allowing them to run the country in the King's absence. This happened when Henry left for France and James IV of Scotland used the opportunity to invade England. In retaliation, Catherine of Aragon, who was acting regent, sent an army to defeat the Scots and succeeded in doing so. She excelled in her temporary role, relishing the opportunity to take charge and proving, importantly, that a woman was more than up to the task.
Ultimately, the characteristics in the personalities of Henry's varied wives must surely have impacted and influenced Elizabeth I. Certainly, she enjoyed a close relationship with his last wife, the enthusiastic learner and four-times married, Catherine Parr. Perhaps most of all, Elizabeth observed mistakes and how to avoid them, especially when it came to men, and this adds fuel to why she may have became known as "The Virgin Queen".
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Just take a walk down lonely street to Heartbreak Hotel...
Upon arrival at the Heartbreak Hotel, the official accommodation affiliated with Elvis Presley's Graceland in Memphis, Tennessee, it became apparent with his music blasting from the front entrance and into the foyer, that "The King" was still very much alive. Arguably, he is more active now in the hearts and minds of millions of fans than in his heyday, for people like myself, born four years after his death, have discovered his music post-humously. Certainly, alongside other long-gone stars such as Kurt Cobain and John Lennon, he still manages to amass a fortune each year in sales.
Graceland, his family home, is smaller than I imagined, though no less grand for it. I think, because the man was larger than life, that I expected his house to equal such gravitas. But Graceland-at odds to the ''big is better'' American way of life-has an atmosphere that far outweighs its size. Elvis bought it for a modest $100,000 in the 1950s, and though he owned other property, this remained his primary home right up to his death in 1977. Adding to his affection for the place, he is buried in the grounds alongside his mother, grandmother, and father. There is also a moving plaque dedicated to the memory of his twin brother, who was stillborn.
My visit coincided with the last day of 2007, which also meant, with evening plans ahead, that the visit was rushed at best. Not that the tour guides rush you along, to the contrary, they encourage you to stay as long as you wish - especially if you go for the wallet-busting VIP package, which includes unlimited trips to the house, a look around Elvis's extensive collection of costumes and vehicles, a behind-the-scenes tour, as well as access to his private jet, titled "Lisa Marie" - after his daughter, and a rather odd exhibition called "After hours" devoted to his nocturnal activities. Elvis, we learn, was an insomniac. Even his concerts sometimes began at the midnight hour.
Like many a tourist attraction, which Graceland undoubtedly now is, there is bias in the information presented and clearly Elvis, the man, was a great deal more complex than any information plaque would lead us to believe. There was the breakup of his marriage to Prescilla Presley, and later the drug and food binging and, as mentioned, the fact he couldn't sleep. Likewise, he was universally adored, he reached the echelons of fame that befitted his talent and influence, and perhaps Graceland isn't the place to discuss the darker aspects of his life, but this is what I was most interested in.
Having never been a fan of Elvis in any sense of the word, my trip to Graceland, indeed Memphis as a place, changed all of that. It instils a respect.
Born Elvis Aaron Presley in 1935, the man that would grow up to be arguably the most influential modern music artist in history, came from humble beginnings. I will not bore you with a recounting of his early life-I never have much time for the childhood bits of biographies, only the juicy bits-and the fact he cut his first record at Sun Studios as a gift to his mother, implying almost that his talent was discovered almost by accident, only adds to the enigma. What if there had been no Elvis? I recall Lisa Marie, upon hearing about her father's death, immediately expressing how would the world cope WITHOUT The King around?.
Like any high profile death (Monroe, Diana, JFK, Luther King), the world stops for a moment and inevitably moves on - because of course it has to. Also, dying young tends to make a martyr of someone, canonizing them into an object of reverence.
Perhaps then, the most interesting element to Elvis, certainly for me, is the impact he had (and continues to have) on people around the world. For some, a trip to Graceland is like a pilgrimage, almost a religious experience. Why is this? Yes, there was the music, but this is only part of the story. Why is he impersonated? Did men want to be him and women want to sleep with him? Absolutely. In many ways he's an idealised form, almost unreal. Even the decor to Graceland is fabulously OTT, bordering on tacky and tasteless, but strangely apt and enduring.
Much of what I say has been endlessly debated I'm sure, but none of us will ever get to walk in his shoes (notice I resisted the temptation for blue suede there), and most of us are unlikely to garner the level of reaction and adoration he enjoyed. Though he died in his early 40s, he had achieved everything the majority of us will only ever dream of and had nothing left to prove. Yet, by dying young, he was denied the fruit of his labour and ultimately, we were all robbed of this incredible man and musician.
It's interesting that we can all live on in music, on film, in pictures and (ahem) in Elvis's case, through merchandise, though the latter can ultimately cheapen a legacy. Not so with Elvis. For the ill informed, he is a caricature, but to the rest of us, he is much more than that, living on in the minds (and dancing feet!) of many, and crucially, affecting generations yet to come.
Graceland, his family home, is smaller than I imagined, though no less grand for it. I think, because the man was larger than life, that I expected his house to equal such gravitas. But Graceland-at odds to the ''big is better'' American way of life-has an atmosphere that far outweighs its size. Elvis bought it for a modest $100,000 in the 1950s, and though he owned other property, this remained his primary home right up to his death in 1977. Adding to his affection for the place, he is buried in the grounds alongside his mother, grandmother, and father. There is also a moving plaque dedicated to the memory of his twin brother, who was stillborn.
My visit coincided with the last day of 2007, which also meant, with evening plans ahead, that the visit was rushed at best. Not that the tour guides rush you along, to the contrary, they encourage you to stay as long as you wish - especially if you go for the wallet-busting VIP package, which includes unlimited trips to the house, a look around Elvis's extensive collection of costumes and vehicles, a behind-the-scenes tour, as well as access to his private jet, titled "Lisa Marie" - after his daughter, and a rather odd exhibition called "After hours" devoted to his nocturnal activities. Elvis, we learn, was an insomniac. Even his concerts sometimes began at the midnight hour.
Like many a tourist attraction, which Graceland undoubtedly now is, there is bias in the information presented and clearly Elvis, the man, was a great deal more complex than any information plaque would lead us to believe. There was the breakup of his marriage to Prescilla Presley, and later the drug and food binging and, as mentioned, the fact he couldn't sleep. Likewise, he was universally adored, he reached the echelons of fame that befitted his talent and influence, and perhaps Graceland isn't the place to discuss the darker aspects of his life, but this is what I was most interested in.
Having never been a fan of Elvis in any sense of the word, my trip to Graceland, indeed Memphis as a place, changed all of that. It instils a respect.
Born Elvis Aaron Presley in 1935, the man that would grow up to be arguably the most influential modern music artist in history, came from humble beginnings. I will not bore you with a recounting of his early life-I never have much time for the childhood bits of biographies, only the juicy bits-and the fact he cut his first record at Sun Studios as a gift to his mother, implying almost that his talent was discovered almost by accident, only adds to the enigma. What if there had been no Elvis? I recall Lisa Marie, upon hearing about her father's death, immediately expressing how would the world cope WITHOUT The King around?.
Like any high profile death (Monroe, Diana, JFK, Luther King), the world stops for a moment and inevitably moves on - because of course it has to. Also, dying young tends to make a martyr of someone, canonizing them into an object of reverence.
Perhaps then, the most interesting element to Elvis, certainly for me, is the impact he had (and continues to have) on people around the world. For some, a trip to Graceland is like a pilgrimage, almost a religious experience. Why is this? Yes, there was the music, but this is only part of the story. Why is he impersonated? Did men want to be him and women want to sleep with him? Absolutely. In many ways he's an idealised form, almost unreal. Even the decor to Graceland is fabulously OTT, bordering on tacky and tasteless, but strangely apt and enduring.
Much of what I say has been endlessly debated I'm sure, but none of us will ever get to walk in his shoes (notice I resisted the temptation for blue suede there), and most of us are unlikely to garner the level of reaction and adoration he enjoyed. Though he died in his early 40s, he had achieved everything the majority of us will only ever dream of and had nothing left to prove. Yet, by dying young, he was denied the fruit of his labour and ultimately, we were all robbed of this incredible man and musician.
It's interesting that we can all live on in music, on film, in pictures and (ahem) in Elvis's case, through merchandise, though the latter can ultimately cheapen a legacy. Not so with Elvis. For the ill informed, he is a caricature, but to the rest of us, he is much more than that, living on in the minds (and dancing feet!) of many, and crucially, affecting generations yet to come.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)