Terrifyingly unwatchable, somewhat pretentious, yet a film of heart and purpose. The story of Elvis Pelvis is that of a small Jamaican-British family that is on its downward spiral towards self-destruction due to their anger and confusion with their lack of identity in the modern world conquered by the ever-present entity that is the American media. It is a relevant and universal story made irrelevant by filmmaking that is mired with unforgivable flaws which include unreasonably slow pacing and muddy-looking cinematography among others. But is this a film that is still worth seeing?

The film is divided into two segments, the opening segment being “The Suit”, and the second being “The Messiah”. In “The Suit”, the character of Elvis is a boy who is constantly forced by his father to dress and behave like Elvis Presley, his father’s idol. He suffers punishment from the hands of his father if he rebels against his daily makeover while his mother, a heroin addict, plainly looks on. Yet, in some moments, a tenderness shines through when they are together, as we realise that despite their destructive natures, they still love each other. Then comes Elvis’ birthday where he receives an Elvis Presley suit and wig. Elvis, having had enough of having to have to please his father’s irrational desire of creating him in the image of his hero, destroys the costume. His furious father then whips him with his belt until Elvis decides to fight back, accidentally killing his father in the process. In “The Messiah”, Elvis has grown up, though his name has been changed to “Derek”. In this segment of the film, Derek befriends a suicidal, cancer-stricken old man. Their relationship is rather strange as Derek decides to take on the role of the old man’s estranged son, Jimi, who in a matter of coincidence, was named after Derek’s own childhood hero, Jimi Hendrix.

Why I like the story is probably because I relate to it so well and it deal with issues that I’ve always been fascinated with. Does one’s culture seize to exist in the world anymore because of how the dominating power of American commercialism and industrialism has taken over the world? Is a person not themselves if they take on the identity of another? Is the influence of one’s parents during childhood irreversible? This film, at least in terms of story structure, handles these issues well enough to prove to be though-provoking and challenging rather than boring. I suppose my dislike for the film lies in the fact that I wish a more well-made film was made about these issues. The film is about people struggling to find their identity within a world that tries to force them into becoming something that they don’t want to be yet at the same time being obsessed with becoming somebody that they admire, of which in this film both are cultural American figures. But even this simple tale will probably be impenetrable to even the most attentive of audiences because of the lack of stimulating filmmaking.

This film is a prime example of how a good story cannot do without the expertise of professional filmmakers. The image quality is so terrible that I was surprised to discover that the film was actually shot on Super 16mm film as it looks like it was shot on an old Handicam because of the incredibly grainy images. Besides the quality of the images, many shots in this film were out of focus. The editing of the film is sloppy and superficial, with dozens of scenes resorting to cutting to black to transition from scene to scene and extended sequences of minute actions. How many variations of shots do you need to show a man walking to a table to eat a bowl of cereal?

Why are we constantly having to have to see redundant scenes where the character is not doing anything terribly important to the story. Do we really need to see Elvis’ father urinating into a sink before masturbating into it at the heat of the moment? Why were these scenes even shot in the first place? And did the split screen technique really have to be employed during certain scenes. It seems that when this technique is utilised in the film, the two images do not seem to share a connection. At most, they only complement each other in the most superficial of ways and are sometimes even unintentionally funny.

This film was made over a period of four and a half years with the production being funded by money the director and his wife personally raised. After the first year or so, their money ran out, with not a single cent to their name. This was obviously a film made with great passion and determination and it is a pity that their film cannot be made more presentable to a wider audience outside of limited screenings at film festivals.