Performance

Oh what a strange film PERFORMANCE is . It often gets praised to the high heavens but much of this praise is unworthy . It certainly deserves its reputation as a strange avant gard movie but believe me it's no masterpiece . James Fox plays London gangster Chas and it's a hoot seeing Fox trying to play some tough working class cockney bloke . No doubt Michael Caine was written with the role in mind but decided he didn't fancy the location filming in rainy old London town . Certainly Fox fails to convince as a tough guy but this adds some much needed watchability to the proceedings The best thing about PERFORMANCE is the portrayal of old school London gangsters . The movie was actually shot in 1968 but wasn't released until 1970 and one can't help thinking the trial and subsequent jailing of the Kray firm might have had something to do with the delay . I mean it's obvious the gangsters seen here are a bunch of violent homosexuals who stay stay in bed all day lusting over pictures of gay * and it's obvious they're based on Ronnie and Reggie Kray . One can't help believing that if the Krays were found not guilty of the murders of McVitie and Cornell in 1969 this movie's release would have been delayed even longer After a torture scene so camp you'd think it was filmed at a trailer park ( " Oh you like this you twerp " ) Chas finds himself taking on the identity of a juggler and staying at a safe house owned by a rock star played by Mick Jagger and it's at this point the film loses much of its entertainment value because Mick Jagger can't even play Mick Jagger convincingly and the vague story becomes static A lot of people consider PERFORMANCE to be some sort of masterpiece but to be honest it's a slightly irritating art house movie with some crazy editing technique . Much of its reputation is built upon its homo-erotic air which no doubt shocked audiences at the time but seems pretentious and a little tame nowadays . Perhaps the only thing a mainstream British audience will notice about it now is that actor Billy Murray looks far older as a 27 year old than he does as a 60 something in 2006

The oddly symbiotic relationship between a British hood hiding out from his cronies and a young, retired pop singer living with his female playthings in a decadent mansion. Cinematographer extraordinaire Nicolas Roeg also served as director (with assist from screenwriter Donald Cammell, who also co-produced); Roeg is mad about digging below the surface to see how things tick, but what's on the surface should be important to him as well and it isn't. The conversations between the two protagonists are amplified with visual minutiae, but is this to keep our attention or to distract it? There's a menacing sexual undercurrent bubbling under the film, but nothing too dangerous comes of this (we see flashes of nudity but no actual fornication). Mick Jagger's Turner is described as 'weird' and 'kinky', yet--aside from his androgynous garb and penchant for pouting in close-up like an old-time movie star--we don't sense this (the follies of his sexual appetite are somewhat muted). James Fox's gangster offers a bit more punch than Jagger's celebrity, however both perform under their own intricately stylized bell jar. We hear and see action through the glass but are intrinsically cut off from it. ** from ****

I saw Performance for the first time when I was 13 years old. I sat through it twice and a little theatre in the East Village. Then I watched it again about six months later. My friend and I sat through an entire day of showings. It was 1973. It's the film that messed me up for life: it turned me into a bisexual hedonist. Thank you, Donald Cammell, whatever realm you now inhabit. I wonder how many other people had their lives shaped or shaken up by this film. Even today, when I can watch it on VHS any time I want, I see something new in the film whenever I see it. The hardest part about showing friends this film is explaining to them that they have to sit through it at least twice to begin to "get it." It has the most beautiful sex sequences ever put on film. Roeg's cinematography is rich and sensuous. A beautiful mindf**k.

Visually compelling and disturbing look at two diverse sides of 1960s London; the criminal underworld and hippie culture, respectively symbolised by Fox's Chas, the wayward gangster, and Jagger's Turner, a semi-retired bisexual rock musician. It's Chas' world we are first introduced to during a highly charged furiously paced scene of gangland violence. It soon becomes clear to us that he is not only an outcast to society but also dangerously individual within his own mob circle. On the run from both the law and the mob he takes refuge in a Notting Hill home which he finds is occupied by Turner, his junkie girlfriend, Pherber, and her French lover, Lucy. Tunrer becomes infatuated with Chas' violent charisma and his "vital energy" he himself feels he has lost. As the title suggests the film is all about performances. Chas is initiated into Turner's underground world of drug experimentation and gender bending. Turner's name in itself is symbolic of the way he tries to play with and turn Chas' psyche around. It is ultimately the "performance" of Turner which brings the two worlds together, as he poses as Chas' mobster boss, Harry Flowers, in a scene shot similarly to a modern day music video. Some critics had felt the film lost its way once Chas entered Turner's world. Yet surely such disorientation is indicative of how the film successfully explores Chas' own uneasiness in confronting his own subconscious in an alien atmosphere. The film is full of visual flourishes as one might expect from Roeg, who had been cinemaphotographer on films such as 'Fahrenheit 451'. Fox is mesmerising playing out the evolving identities of Chas, whilst Jagger's persona is exhibited to its full potential. Roeg was again to explore the theme of alienation using a rock star (this time David Bowie) in a more literal sense in his landmark science fiction film 'The Man Who Fell To Earth'.

Reading the various comments posted, I'm saddened to see that Nic Roeg is receiving the credit for this amazing film. Granted, Roeg did provide his always stunning camera work to the film, but it was Donald Cammell who wrote, directed the actors, and edited (along with Frank Mazzola) PERFORMANCE. Roeg acted as DP on the film, blocking the camera movements as Cammell worked with the actors. In fact, according to Cammell, they worked so well together that people would comment "...the two director approach is the wave of the future." Cammell also revealed that his admiration for Roeg's work was somewhat tempered by the fact that Roeg was often solely credited for PERFORMANCE, something that just isn't true. Don't get me wrong, I think Nic Roeg is a wonderful director and a brilliant DP. DON'T LOOK NOW, THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH, and BAD TIMING are some of my favorite films, but PERFORMANCE is Cammell's vision more than Roeg's. In fact, given the ironic and tragic life that Cammell led, perhaps it's only fitting that he would be overlooked for his work on PERFORMANCE, which displays his obsessions for Borges, gender/identity, and sexuality. Any interest? Seek out DONALD CAMMELL: THE ULTIMATE PERFORMANCE for a fascinating look at this brilliant artist.

I went to see this stinkbomb back in 1971 or 1972 (when I was in my late teens), and it was showing at Indiana University's university theatre. I was expecting something on the order of "A Hard Day's Night," only with The Rolling Stones starring instead of the Beatles. What I got was a boring and embarrassing glorified skinflick with a gibberish-style plot. It's a toss-up as to whether this waste-of-good film or The Silence of the Lambs is the top-stinker!

source: Performance

Trailer—Performance

Performance

Fox is a London gangster who runs afoul of his mates and must hide out in the home of reclusive musician Jagger and his groupies. The film jumps into the story (there's minimal plot) without any exposition, leading to confusion, and the rapid cutting doesn't help matters. Once Fox reaches Jagger's place, the pace slows down but little of interest happens to hold one's interest. With his effeminate looks, Jagger is an intriguing screen presence, but is given little to do other than look androgynous. Pallenberg, quite a beauty, plays a drugged out groupie. This is an exercise in indulgence for debuting directors Cammell (whose career went nowhere) and Roeg (who went on to make some notable films).