The December issue of Empire Magazine has a feature story on Performance. A good article chronicling the making of the film and the reactions to it when it premiered, after numerous delays and recuts. The drugs and sex that surrounded the film and some of the urban legends associated with it as well. A good read.

As a film how is it? I like it. Very dark and very end of 60's feel to it, the decadence seeping through, and a definate departure from the style and feel of 60's. Mick is good in it, but probably didn't have to act much, he was basically playing himself. There is an iteresting bit in the article that talks about how Keith wanted to have the stones do the soundtrack but Jagger vetoed it and wanted this strictly as a solo project. Yet they released Memo From Turner as a Rolling Stones song, but only Mick is on it?? Strange.

Any thoughts about the movie?

I'll look for the article as soon as it get released. I love this Swinging London's icon-movie.

Performance blends gangster movie with the arthouse and sex and drug fuelled excesses of the time and manages to do so extraordinary thanks to Roeg and Cammell's vision. Jagger is superbly good (especially in the musical sequence, and as you said, he was just playing himself, and that's the reason why) but Fox puts in a brilliant 'performance'. Visceral and shocking, even by today's standards with an underlying theme about identity that draws comparison with David Lynch's more recent work, though pre-dating it by thirty and more years.

It's a sensational debut feature by Roeg, a deconstruction of the British Gangster film and an exploration into sexual roles and identity. Daringly shot with a great score.

For now, there's an interesting documentary divided into three parts on youtube with interviews with cast and crew members.

Wow you sure know your performance.
I think you wrote a great synopsis. The article has some interesting stuff about Cammell and his suicide. Also, about Fox not acting for quite a bit of time after Performance, supposidly the film totally messed his mind.

Quote
whitem8
Also, about Fox not acting for quite a bit of time after Performance, supposidly the film totally messed his mind.

That's right, the whole movie, actually, is surrounded by strange and bizarre stories. You made a very well remembered quote about Fox, which left the Cinema to dedicate himself to a religious life (is this mentioned on the article or it's just a rumour?), but there're also many other facts that surround the other actors, such as our well known Anita, who furiously plunged into the drugs after the movie and the disappearance of Michele (which, some say, would have died from an overdose, turned prostitute or is unknown in Germany).

What's worth saying is that Performance is a tremendous story of an era, and that anyone who wants to understand what was the cultural-existential roller-coaster of the 60s, need to take a look at the film. In addition to the psychedelic character, the film includes long crazy theories about "internal demons", references to people like the Bluesman Robert Johnson (whose "Come on in my kitchen" is played by Mick) and the pope of magical realism, the writer Jorge Luis Borges, who inspired much of the script and whose image appear in the film.

In the 90's a journalist found Michele Breton somewhere in Europe (I believe it was either France or Germany). When she was asked what she did since the 60's she answered something like "I somehow managed to do absolutely nothing with my life".

I love Performance. Great flick with a fantastic vibe and an outstanding Jagger.

Quote
whitem8
Mick is good in it, but probably didn't have to act much, he was basically playing himself.

I am not so sure about that statement. I think we, the viewers, are ready to believe Turners
exorbitant life was close to the way Mick lived. But could it not be the other
way around?
Maybe Turner was created first and Mick just fed the conviction that his actual life resembled
the fiction that was created in the movie?

I have read somewhere-it may be a quote from Mick, that he based the Turner character on "two very close friends".
These being :Keith -who played the cool side of Turner; and Brian who reflected the more tortured soul.
I think its a good movie (of its time) and Mick's best cinematic effort.
Cammell did next to nothing of note after the movie - pretty much a one trick pony, but Nic Roeg has proved to be a great Director.

Very interesting hypothesis about Turner being a mixture of Brian and Keith! Very cool...never thought of it that way.

Quote
whitem8
Very interesting hypothesis about Turner being a mixture of Brian and Keith!

With perhaps a bit of Mick Jagger thrown in too...

I agree with James Fox giving a great, great performance and also with the David Lynch comparisons and the "decadence" of this movie. Most discussions about these circumstances stress Donald Cammell's role in the making of Performance. But Roeg might also have a hand in that. Just look at "The Man Who Fell To Earth" and you'll find many of the same elements at work there. Another strange and disturbing movie, staging a similarly "affected" David Bowie, who didn't get to finish his own movie soundtrack, just to be replaced by a similarly worn out John Philips.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-10 15:07 by Greenblues.

Quote
jlowe
I have read somewhere-it may be a quote from Mick, that he based the Turner character on "two very close friends".
These being :Keith -who played the cool side of Turner; and Brian who reflected the more tortured soul.

I first read it in Philip Norman's book "The Stones" (1984) in which he writes about Jagger's struggle with the Turner character: "Then, as always, his (Jagger's) mimic's gift came to his rescue. The Turner he chose to play was an amalgam of two close aquaintances. In appearance, dead black and brooding, festooned with outsize sliver belts and baubles, Mick turned into Keith Richard (sic). In manner, her turned - almost uncannily - into Brian Jones." (p. 293)

The whole book is one of the best I've ever read about the Stones. He is neither too pro, nor too con, but gives a pretty balanced view of their career and personalities up to that point - straight after the tours of 1981/1982 finishing with a mention of "Undercover" on the very last page.

I was always big into "Performance"; IMO a great film. But what xpanded my view of the film, of Cammell, and of the whole mystique surrounding it, was the book by McCabe. Anyone interetsed in "Performance" might try and give it a read.

Great recommendation, haven't read it.

Yeah, I like the above comment about The Man Who Fell To Earth...another movie of duality of personality... Bowie was slowly loosing his mind as well during the making of that movie. He was deeply addicted to coke, and was into mysticism. He had grown accustom to having only his urine and milk in his fridge. Was fascinated with ancient mystic ruins, and making Low right after The Man Who Fell To Earth. Roeg sure brings out the best in his actors.

I remember seeing Performance when I was in high school and thinking it was one of the most compelling and erotic things I had ever seen. Yeah, sheltered boy pre internet. I loved the movie poster of Jagger, and loved the leather belt, which he discovered during Midnight Rambler. Great pressure cooker of inspirations for all the boys during that time. They were really pushing it to the maximum in all aspects of their lives, artistically, spiritually, and carnal. To be a fly on the wall then! Again another reason they need to really buckle down and maker their anthology and not soft sell it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-10 14:40 by whitem8.

ALso, sorry to bring this down to such a man orientated basement level, but Anita looks so damn foxy in Performance!

She's never been a good actress, but her looks, mannerisms and kinky voice suit that film to a T!

Incidentally the Performance book has a different ending from the movie.

I have two very different edits of Performance - one which is far more psychedelic than the other in that it has split second image flashes. The latter was available as a Warner Brothers VHS in the 80s, the other I got off UK TV. I understand that cuts were made to make it more comprehensible to a wider television audience. Does anyone know anymore about this?
By the way, Donald Cammell, who took his life in April 96, made the bizarre Demon Seed, Sci-Fi horror movie in 77.
Two years ago they showed Performance at the Electric Cinema, Portobello, about 50 yards from the house in Powis Squasre used in the film.

Quote
Silver Dagger
I have two very different edits of Performance - one which is far more psychedelic than the other in that it has split second image flashes. The latter was available as a Warner Brothers VHS in the 80s, the other I got off UK TV. I understand that cuts were made to make it more comprehensible to a wider television audience. Does anyone know anymore about this?

Interesting. I have the official remastered DVD, but I'm not sure which version this is without checking (anyone?).

Yes I also have diferent edits of the film.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
Yes I also have diferent edits of the film.

And which one is on the official DVD?

>But what xpanded my view of the film, of Cammell, and of the whole mystique surrounding it, was the book by McCabe. Anyone interetsed in "Performance" might try and give it a read.

Ditto -- great read for anyone interested in this endlessly intriguing film. One thing I love about the DVD is the ability to turn on the captions and actually follow some of the swift dialogue that was previously (for me) hard to understand accents (like Mick's whole speech about the guy being a performer in Persia...).

I'll add that there's an essential film documentary on Cammell, THE ULTIMATE PERFORMANCE. A must for anyone interested in this film (even Mick acquiesced for an interview, which imo shows his regard for Cammell).

This film ruined Jagger's career. He could only play a caricature of himself after that... Name one good film he ever made... At least Bowie made a few with different roles...

Man of Elysian Fields isn't that bad but still far from great. Performance was by far Jaggers best role. Freejack was nothing more than embarrassing.

Jagger's not an actor.

Quote
Bimmelzerbott
Man of Elysian Fields isn't that bad but still far from great. Performance was by far Jaggers best role. Freejack was nothing more than embarrassing.

Jagger's not an actor.

Running Out Of Luck was OK, though he was basically playing himself.

Great film, terrific soundtrack!










"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

My favourite movie of all time! Seen it 38 times and counting. In fact, sadly, I am sitting typing this in my shrunken Performance t-shirt.

One of the "different edits" that people have talked about is presumably the one with all the dreadful dubbing of Harry Flowers's voice to make him understandable to an American audience. There's some interesting chat about this on the imdb site. I don't think I have seen a version at the cinema or on tv without the flash frame edits although interestingly the editor has said that this was all put in when they had to re-edit it for the studio. I didn't think the original cut without the flash frames had been shown.

As well as the McCabe book there is a very interesting pocket guide to the film by Mick Brown.

Quote
Tseverin
My favourite movie of all time! Seen it 38 times and counting. In fact, sadly, I am sitting typing this in my shrunken Performance t-shirt.

One of the "different edits" that people have talked about is presumably the one with all the dreadful dubbing of Harry Flowers's voice to make him understandable to an American audience. There's some interesting chat about this on the imdb site. I don't think I have seen a version at the cinema or on tv without the flash frame edits although interestingly the editor has said that this was all put in when they had to re-edit it for the studio. I didn't think the original cut without the flash frames had been shown.

As well as the McCabe book there is a very interesting pocket guide to the film by Mick Brown.

Seems there was originally a very different (& more explicit) edit:

[www.independent.co.uk]

Is this the December issue or the January issue? The UK December issue is on the shelves now and I can't see any sign of a Performance article.

I took a friend (who unfortunately didn't become a GIRL... friend) to a cinema. She was no Stones fan though but liked the movie very much and told me - and the other friends who watched the movie too (there is a special expression in English of a person who accompanies someone going out with someone else... sorry, forgot the word) - that now she knows why the Rolling Stones are likeable. - I know terible translation but she referred not to me why I like them but what the band makes interesting, so to say.

"When the finished cut was screened in Los Angeles it caused one of the Warner executives' wives to throw up, didn't feature Jagger until halfway through and, instead of being the groovy London pop-meets-wisecracking gangland feature that Warner expected, was a homoerotic, sadomasochistic, sexually fuelled, venomous and violent London gangster flick. And so they demanded a re-edit. The resulting reworking of the film, overseen by Cammell (Roeg had gone to Australia to do Walkabout) and performed by Frank Mazzola (a former gang member who showed James Dean exactly how to wield a switchblade in Rebel Without a Cause), employed a series of rapid cuts that, designed to lose much of the offending sex, drugs and violence, gave the film its breakneck pace, upped the tension and revolutionised the art of film-making."

This was the original cut I referred to but it seems like it only got seen by the LA preview audiences.

There's soooo many folks I know who love Memo From Turner, yet have never even heard of this film!

[thepowergoats.com]