Sweet Sue

(Btw no Wikipedia page yet; cripes. Only this about an old play – a version of the Phaedra myth – which might actually have been at least some inspiration for this film.)

One of those lovely poignant comedies at which arty cinema so excels: see Fremont, Fallen Leaves et al. This one’s great: lonely middle-aged woman hooks up with a biker called Ron she meets at her brother’s funeral. Ron’s son, Anthony (with a θ) is a hugely camp and glam dancer and influencer, whom we meet in very funny scenes with his sugar daddy. Things go wrong when some laughing happens – see below.

The film’s about how much hurt can be caused by laughing at other people. The first scene has Sue in her party shop looking miserable, while two shoppers are in hysterics mucking around with masks and balloons; they’re not quite laughing at Sue but it feels like it. At a later dinner Sue and Anthony upset Ron by laughing at him, and then it’s Anthony’s turn to be a laughter-victim when Sue watches him rehearse his dance moves and can’t control the giggles.

Anthony then changes his social-media portrayal of his new step-mum from ‘wow isn’t she cool’ to a ‘she is the most manipulative person in the history of the universe’ vibe; a rather unconvincing volte-face imho but necessary for the plot.

All ends well, however, when Sue comforts Anthony after he has a tiff with his sugar daddy, and all ends reasonably well – though, as one reviewer commented, it’s not fully resolved and we imagine the tensions in these relationships are going to continue in similar vein.

So in some ways it’s comedy at the expense of emotionally-challenged people.

Priscilla

(I didn’t like this; perhaps the worst of all the many films I’ve seen since the summer. Sorry Priscilla and Sofia.) [News just in: friends liked it, and have persuaded me it wasn’t as bad as my initial reactions. It all depends – as with Saltburn – on how self-aware one feels the film is… Irony has to be perceptible.]

This reminded me in its limitations of Rocket Man, which was clearly (just) Elton’s version of his story. Here is Priscilla’s chance to give her side of her relationship with Elvis, but unlike Elton, and unfortunately, she included for obvious reasons hardly any musical performances. The first half of the film is effective, albeit in a creepy way, as Priscilla shows/claims how Elvis basically groomed a naïve 15-year-old to become his girlfriend, and then kept her a virtual prisoner back at Graceland to ‘keep the home fires burning’, while he had affairs, including with his co-leads in his movies [though we’re never quite sure if these affairs were little more than publicity stunts to keep him in the magazines and tabloids].

Elvis’s world is effectively portrayed as Priscilla would have seen, and did see, it. An example is the gang of goofy mates which always surrounds him: a source of comfort for the insecure Elvis, but for Priscilla a barrier which keeps her from getting to know her partner properly.

How they are related

Two unhappy women. Both get involved in happy romances which go wrong. Beyond that they’re not really very similar at all: Sue is in no way controlled in the way Priscilla is; in fact she dominates her relationship with the subservient and strangely taciturn Ron. But it’s the endings which, as so often, show the difference in quality between the films. Priscilla tried to end neatly with her walking out of the relationship to Dolly Parton’s I will always love you, but there’s no indication of what will happen to their child, or how either of them feel about it. And it’s corny as hell. Sue, on the other hand, ends with her relationship with Ron over (I think), but her reconciliation with Anthony shows a nuanced approach to the story might develop from here. Their lives continue.