Quote
mickschix
I saw it when it first came out & I found it hard to separate Mick the STONES lead singer from the actor....but since then I bought the dvd and have watched it many times...it is a very clever, dark psychological thriller, well done, especially for 1970! The soundtrack is brilliant with Ry Cooder showing off some of his best stuff. Mick is the perfect Turner....the reclusive, washed-up rock star...and Anita...well, she plays the whore...not much of a stretch for her! Donald Camell must have had a fun time directing that cast! It IS a must see film!

I could see it slotted on the "Let It Bleed" album, or stuck between it and "Sticky Fingers"

I like the scene where Mick/Turner greedily smokes a joint in the bathtub. It’s a great performance but I’m not sure Mick’s doing any more acting than usual – it’s just Mick being Mick for the cameras. But that’s basically what the role calls for so it was good casting…In fact, I can’t imagine getting through this film once let alone the dozen or so times I’ve watched it if Mick weren’t in it.

I find the ending rather disappointing. Up to point when Chas shoots Turner in the head I’m completely riveted by Turner’s androgynous, druggy lifestyle even if there are times when I struggle to process the madness of it all but when I see Turner’s face in the car I realize I’ve been duped – left with the feeling that, damn, after all this was nothing but amateurish avant-garde silliness.

Quote
mickschix
Floodonthepage, yup, I stand by my opinion. I AM entitled to my opinion, am I not?? She ran to Keith when Brian was using her as a punching bag, and later used Mick to make Keith jealous when she slept with Mick during Performance....I saw her as a user who was clever at manipulating most of the band members. Fine if you disagree! She had them under her spell...does she get a medal because they wrote a few songs with her in mind...not in my book! I still believe her influence was NOT healthy!

Mick and Keith are their own people, I can't imagine them being under the spell of anyone, particularly the fairer sex.
They were certainly taken in by Allen Klein...but they were 21 at the time.
Poor business judgement which eventually they learnt from ("price of a good education").
Don't forget Keith was happy to have a 2 month holiday in South America late 1968 with Mick and their ladies. If he was that insecure/angry...why go on holiday with him?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-24 17:59 by jlowe.

Quote
Swayed1967
I find the ending rather disappointing. Up to point when Chas shoots Turner in the head I’m completely riveted by Turner’s androgynous, druggy lifestyle even if there are times when I struggle to process the madness of it all but when I see Turner’s face in the car I realize I’ve been duped – left with the feeling that, damn, after all this was nothing but amateurish avant-garde silliness.

The movie starts out like SUNSET BLVD. with Chas (like William Holden's character) seeking refuge in a reclusive star's decadent and bizarre household. The ending works beautifully for me, because like SUNSET BLVD. it descends into madness.

By the end, Chas has become everything he despised in Turner, his peer by generation only. He's also watched Turner effortlessly step into Chas' world and control the mobsters who run the record business. Chas being seduced by a decadent life as he loses himself is one thing, watching Turner best him by one-upping the older generation's hardened mobsters/businessmen is too much for Chas to bear.

Chas descends into paranoid schizophrenia as he already feels he's become two different people and thereby compromised his already compromised principles (after all, the gangster's thug judged the decadent rock star as his moral inferior). Now, in his delusion, he believes Turner has stolen his old persona from him.

Turner and his women have seduced and victimized Chas, the very feeling a street thug is supposed to protect himself from by his command of violence. Now Turner has proven himself stronger in Chas' world than Chas could ever be for Turner controls the room as the Performer while Chas is a soldier at best and expendable at worst. Turner makes him realize all soldiers are expendable and has exposed his belief that violence is power to be self-deception.

Turner, as a truly Satanic figure, embraces madness because his world is chaos over order, darkness over light. So in an effort to restore the perceived imbalance, Chas kills Turner, but in Chas' mind this completes the transference and he retreats into Turner by performing his murder.

Chas accepts that the one thing stronger than the illusion of violence as power is the belief that madness and chaos control the world. It doesn't matter that Chas is being driven off as a condemned man prepared to meet his fate, in his mind he is now Turner and has won by escaping reality forever. The performance achieves madness.

In its own messed-up way, it's a logical and nearly flawless film.

Quote
Rockman
….. awwww come on Rocky …
From down here they all look the same size ...

Just a bit of fun for the Cotchford Farm crowd.

If anything, they're probably Jorge Luis Borges titles.

Carnaby, I wouldn't say Brian ended up so great after his affair with Anita, Keith ended up with her after the road trip to Morocco, when she told him how Brian was beating her up...I think this lead to even more serious drug use by Keith...I will NEVER AGREE that Anita was a positive influence on ANY of them.....Charlie had the good sense to stay away from her! He never fell " under her spell"....yes, I WILL call it that.

Anyone with a serious interest in the film should also check 'The Servant', the Joseph Losey 1963 British film. Very similar themes, especially about the class system at the time
Stars James Fox (again), as the young Aristocrat, Dirk Bogarde as his manservant and his 'friend' a very young Sarah Miles.
All are superb in the film. The early 60s were certainly a very creative time in British cinema.

Thanks, jlowe! I will check that one out, it's a new one to me.

Quote
exhpart

Quote
mickschix
Aquamarine, just calling it like I see it regarding Anita. I believe the Stones would have been much better off without her interference....she caused a lot of problems between Keith & Brian, played one off the other, played the victim card...I don't know what her objective was really but she was not a positive influence in any regard...in my honest opinion. That period was, obviously a very decadent one, they lived by the motto " anything goes", one drug bust after another and there was Anita..right in the middle of things. I know the Stones were far from saints but I often wondered what would have gone done had they never met her. She maybe suited their lifestyle then but I always thought she took SLEAZY to a whole new level.

And then she shot a young boy.

Er, no.

Quote
mickschix
Carnaby, I wouldn't say Brian ended up so great after his affair with Anita, Keith ended up with her after the road trip to Morocco, when she told him how Brian was beating her up...I think this lead to even more serious drug use by Keith...I will NEVER AGREE that Anita was a positive influence on ANY of them.....Charlie had the good sense to stay away from her! He never fell " under her spell"....yes, I WILL call it that.

Brian had a habit of beating women up. But according to you it was Anita "playing the victim card". This forum sometimes seems an alt-right forum. Revolting.

Anita was part of their golden period and her influence considerable. I have a feeling things would have been very different if they had never met her, probably not for the better musically or imagewise.

Quote
mickschix
Floodonthepage, yup, I stand by my opinion. I AM entitled to my opinion, am I not?? She ran to Keith when Brian was using her as a punching bag, and later used Mick to make Keith jealous when she slept with Mick during Performance....I saw her as a user who was clever at manipulating most of the band members. Fine if you disagree! She had them under her spell...does she get a medal because they wrote a few songs with her in mind...not in my book! I still believe her influence was NOT healthy!

You certainly are entitled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-25 19:22 by floodonthepage.

Quote
matxil
But according to you it was Anita "playing the victim card". This forum sometimes seems an alt-right forum. Revolting.

mickschix doesn't like Anita. She's been consistent in her dislike of her over the years. It's an opinion. It doesn't make her an extremist. Hairball and I often take opposing viewpoints on just about everything. If everyone was a cheerleader for the same side, the board would make for pretty dull reading.

Personally, I'd say every one of them has done plenty to make them people worth shunning. The same is true of me, but happily most of my misdeeds are not public record.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
matxil
But according to you it was Anita "playing the victim card". This forum sometimes seems an alt-right forum. Revolting.

mickschix doesn't like Anita. She's been consistent in her dislike of her over the years. It's an opinion. It doesn't make her an extremist. Hairball and I often take opposing viewpoints on just about everything. If everyone was a cheerleader for the same side, the board would make for pretty dull reading.

Personally, I'd say every one of them has done plenty to make them people worth shunning. The same is true of me, but happily most of my misdeeds are not public record.

True enough. Different opinions are important and needed. But it's one thing to dislike someone, it's another thing to name call. Calling someone a whore is more than an opinion and is actually extreme to me. Must be nice for her to sit on such a judgmental mountain. I'm not advocating for "cheerleading" for the same side, but I will "cheerlead" for decency.

I understand the sentiment, but it's a bit like being upset for Mick and Keith's use of whores and bitches and worse actually in talking about (some) women in their lyrics. Is it rude or offensive? Sure, but a Stones site asking for political correctness seems a bit hypocritical. mickschix has as much right to express her view as the Stones do theirs.

While I personally don't have a problem with Anita, I think she was an essential muse in the 1960s. I find her personality and interests fascinating, at times she was incredibly seductive just to watch her move. I also understand others being repulsed by her and viewing her as a toxic person in anyone's life.

ROCKMAN

ROCKMAN

I dont think any German would describe Hoffman as an 'obscure novelist'!
To a Brit like Christopher Gibbs, be certainly would be of course.

Hank Williams read cowboy comics
but look at the lyrics that come outta da boy ……..



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rocky Dijon
I understand the sentiment, but it's a bit like being upset for Mick and Keith's use of whores and bitches and worse actually in talking about (some) women in their lyrics. Is it rude or offensive? Sure, but a Stones site asking for political correctness seems a bit hypocritical. mickschix has as much right to express her view as the Stones do theirs.

While I personally don't have a problem with Anita, I think she was an essential muse in the 1960s. I find her personality and interests fascinating, at times she was incredibly seductive just to watch her move. I also understand others being repulsed by her and viewing her as a toxic person in anyone's life.

The issue isn't whether someone has the right to express their view or not, I think I was pretty clear that it was about the name calling. I don't think refraining from name calling is politically correct, it's just a decent thing to do. It's also not a hypocritical thing to say, as a Stones fan or a fan of anything. It isn't decent for them or anyone else to say it either. I'm a huge fan of the Stones...and they have done and said some indecent things. I'd say the same thing about those instances when it happens. Hell, they may even say it in hindsight or acknowledge it in some cases, I don't know. I get that it happens, but it is what it is, and it's hardly hypocritical to point it out when it happens.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2019-12-26 18:15 by floodonthepage.

Quote
Rocky Dijon

Quote
Swayed1967
I find the ending rather disappointing. Up to point when Chas shoots Turner in the head I’m completely riveted by Turner’s androgynous, druggy lifestyle even if there are times when I struggle to process the madness of it all but when I see Turner’s face in the car I realize I’ve been duped – left with the feeling that, damn, after all this was nothing but amateurish avant-garde silliness.

The movie starts out like SUNSET BLVD. with Chas (like William Holden's character) seeking refuge in a reclusive star's decadent and bizarre household. The ending works beautifully for me, because like SUNSET BLVD. it descends into madness.

By the end, Chas has become everything he despised in Turner, his peer by generation only. He's also watched Turner effortlessly step into Chas' world and control the mobsters who run the record business. Chas being seduced by a decadent life as he loses himself is one thing, watching Turner best him by one-upping the older generation's hardened mobsters/businessmen is too much for Chas to bear.

Chas descends into paranoid schizophrenia as he already feels he's become two different people and thereby compromised his already compromised principles (after all, the gangster's thug judged the decadent rock star as his moral inferior). Now, in his delusion, he believes Turner has stolen his old persona from him.

Turner and his women have seduced and victimized Chas, the very feeling a street thug is supposed to protect himself from by his command of violence. Now Turner has proven himself stronger in Chas' world than Chas could ever be for Turner controls the room as the Performer while Chas is a soldier at best and expendable at worst. Turner makes him realize all soldiers are expendable and has exposed his belief that violence is power to be self-deception.

Turner, as a truly Satanic figure, embraces madness because his world is chaos over order, darkness over light. So in an effort to restore the perceived imbalance, Chas kills Turner, but in Chas' mind this completes the transference and he retreats into Turner by performing his murder.

Chas accepts that the one thing stronger than the illusion of violence as power is the belief that madness and chaos control the world. It doesn't matter that Chas is being driven off as a condemned man prepared to meet his fate, in his mind he is now Turner and has won by escaping reality forever. The performance achieves madness.

In its own messed-up way, it's a logical and nearly flawless film.

Fantastic analysis and summary.

Sweet of you, Bliss. I tend to go on a bit...and then some.

ROCKMAN

if i remember correctly from keith's book, "gimme shelter" was a result of the filming of "performance".

My take - Chas knows that he lives by the sword and will probably die by the sword. That is the gangsters' code. But he tries to escape his fate and takes refuge in what he sees as a rat hole, Turner's hidden world. Out of his element and out of his depth, his defenses crumble due to the drugs he is given and the closed, unfamiliar environment. He develops a kind of Stockholm syndrome to the extent that he submits to a homosexual encounter with Turner, a horrendous act that is universally condemned in his gangster world. But he cannot escape his fate; the gangsters find him and pull him back. His last act is to murder Turner as revenge for having stolen his manhood, the cornerstone of his identity. But here too he cannot escape the consequences of his actions; like a Chinese ghost which forever follows his murderer, Turner accompanies Chas as he goes to meet his destiny.

I love the Chinese ghost bit.

I have never actually seen the movie, barely any scenes...perhaps something to do this weekend. Is it worth it??

I do quite like 'Memo from Turner'.

Quote
jlowe
Anyone with a serious interest in the film should also check 'The Servant', the Joseph Losey 1963 British film. Very similar themes, especially about the class system at the time
Stars James Fox (again), as the young Aristocrat, Dirk Bogarde as his manservant and his 'friend' a very young Sarah Miles.
All are superb in the film. The early 60s were certainly a very creative time in British cinema.

There is also another film with the same theme, "L'Homme du Train," with Johnny Hallyday. Highly recommended.

Quote
StonedAsiaExile
I have never actually seen the movie, barely any scenes...perhaps something to do this weekend. Is it worth it??

I do quite like 'Memo from Turner'.

if you have time to spare, it's interesting for a stones fan. ok film, not the best IMHO.

Quote
Bliss
My take - Chas knows that he lives by the sword and will probably die by the sword. That is the gangsters' code. But he tries to escape his fate and takes refuge in what he sees as a rat hole, Turner's hidden world. Out of his element and out of his depth, his defenses crumble due to the drugs he is given and the closed, unfamiliar environment. He develops a kind of Stockholm syndrome to the extent that he submits to a homosexual encounter with Turner, a horrendous act that is universally condemned in his gangster world. But he cannot escape his fate; the gangsters find him and pull him back. His last act is to murder Turner as revenge for having stolen his manhood, the cornerstone of his identity. But here too he cannot escape the consequences of his actions; like a Chinese ghost which forever follows his murderer, Turner accompanies Chas as he goes to meet his destiny.

Like your analysis, however:
One of the most notorious criminals of the time was Ronnie Kray (Kray twins). He was homosexual...and I think it was well known although of course illegal under UK laws. There has been a number of Kray film biopics made in the last decade. Odd how the dregs of society so often appeal to Film Producers. Money to be made out of notoriety.