Performance

I missed this film when it came out over thirty years ago, and have looked out for it ever since. At last, after a rare showing on BBC's arts channel, it has proved to be well worth the long wait.

It is a complex film, starting and finishing as a gripping and violent gangster movie, with the more philosophical and erotic section with Jagger and Pallenberg slotted between the gangster elements. James Fox as gangster on the run is a revelation. Why didn't he get parts like this again? He is far more convincing than his contemporary Michael Caine in this kind of role, with a scary viciousness combined with his 'Jack the Lad' charm.

Although Mick Jagger and Anita Pallenberg don't seem to be playing anything more than themselves, they are perfect foils for Fox. As they embroil Fox in their weird games, the writers/directors Nicholas Roeg and Donald Cammell create brilliantly the mushroom-based trip that they take him on and through. The film also evokes a fascinating and nostalgic picture of late '60s London and is a reminder that the "swinging sixties" had their grimy and violent side. Overall, a great film that deserves far wider recognition.

Gangster James Fox (Chas) quite correctly exacts revenge on fellow bad-guy Anthony Valentine (Joey). But, this goes against the wishes of his boss Johnny Shannon (Harry) and so he has to go into hiding to prepare his escape from the country. The police are also looking for him although they don't figure at all in this film. Fox holes up in a house owned by faded rock star Mick Jagger (Turner) which he shares with a couple of druggy hippie chicks – Anita Pallenberg (Pherber) and Michèle Breton (Lucy). These three swap philosophies and indulge in a spot of identity swapping as well as a magic mushroom breakfast. Fox goes on a trip and he and Jagger truly become one. Meanwhile the gangsters are still searching for Fox…

This film definitely has 2 parts – the beginning gangster story and then the unworldly lodgings with Jagger. The latter part of the film is quite amusing and both my wife and I commented that we should spend all our afternoons like that, especially when they are partying to the music. Let's all get a bit boho. I'm sure there are things to spot on another viewing. The cast are good although Johnny Shannon (Harry) doesn't quite cut it as top dog. His surname is Flowers, though, which suggests a pansy in charge – and the Krays are obviously given another nod in this offering by look-a-like gangsters.

Both lifestyles no longer survive – the gangster world is totally different as is the bohemian lifestyle on show. Who does mushrooms these days? Back in the day, though….

Here is a movie that cannot be classified in any subcategory. Many viewers of now and then seemed to be disturbed by its lack of evident meaning or message. Starting more or less like a gangster flick, it abruptly turns halfway through into a psychedelic trip, where Mick Jagger appears, in one of his rare screen roles, as a retired rock star.

No doubt, "Performance" doesn't do much effort to be easily understood. If you like stories with a clear plot, well defined characters and a happy ending, then skip this one. In order to enjoy that movie, you should better give up your rationality for a while. There are many interpretations one can have about it, but they will most likely come in the second run. Like a dream, "Performance" is a visual and mental shock where nothing comes as expected, and it lets you wake up dazed and confused by its so peculiar atmosphere.

What I find most puzzling about it is how far ahead of its time this movie was in every aspect. It was shot in 1968, but released only two years later because the distributors were obviously not prepared for this kind of "performance", and had not seen anything alike before. Western society was undergoing incredibly fast and drastic mutations, and the culture shock that happened in those days is at the very heart of the picture. It was "time for a change". Just like the main character, the western world would never be the same again afterwards.

Interesting fact : a mere five years before, the lead actor James Fox had played in "the Servant", a film based on a play by Harold Pinter with a story that has a lot in common with "Performance". "The Servant" appeared highly controversial by then because of its allusions to seedy sex, but it was shot in black and white with very conventional filming, editing and acting, and a very outdated jazzy soundtrack. Hard to believe it takes place in the same city (London) with the same lead actor within just a five year gap.

Nothing about "Performance" is conventional. It takes off immediately into a hectic pace, flashy colors, haunting music, and very graphic sex and violence. The London crime world is photographed with a rare accuracy. Actually, one of the guys playing the gangsters happened to be a real life gangster. Then suddenly, by a random twist of fate, the cockney villain (no heroes here) is propelled into another completely different underground scene, where "nothing is true, everything is permitted". He meets his alter ego as a has-been pop musician living secluded in a red-walled mansion covered with mirrors, together with a duet of intriguing women. Hallucinogenic mushrooms are casually served at breakfast, notions of time and space fade away, while gender, identity and truth get blurred. The two main characters gradually merge together and though both of them seemingly get doomed by their fate in the end, you don't know by then which of them is whom anymore.

I don't know of any other movie where you see a Rolls Royce burning down in an acid bath, gangsters performing a strip-tease show, or a plunging view inside a skull as a bullet is shot through it, least all of them together. Besides, the recurring use of mirrors all throughout the picture, the constant play with colors and the superimposing of faces and images don't have many parallels either in film history.

Of course, if you are a Rolling Stones fan, this movie is a must-see, but then you probably have seen it already. Like the main character, the Rolling Stones began as English street kids, and came to explore a world of sex, drugs and rock&roll where one of them actually lost his life. In "Performance" , an androgynous long-haired Mick Jagger with pouting lips is at the acme of his character, while blond and foxy Anita Pallenberg, who had affairs with three members of the band, and freckled boyish Michèle Breton fit perfectly into the scenery .

If there was to be a "pop-art" movie, that would be it. You may love or hate this film, but for sure, it is daringly creative and experimental, and anything but ordinary. To quote the character played by Jagger : "the only performance that makes it, that really makes it, is the one that achieves madness".

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.

Thirty years after its release 'Performance' still remains one of the most controversial movies of the 60s/70s. For many it is an arty pretentious bore that is only worth remembering for being a mother lode of imagery that has been mined extensively by MTV "talents" over the last twenty years. (Cammell/Roeg must be up there with Bunuel and Kenneth Anger as the most plagiarized source for rock video!)

For the rest of us 'Performance' could well be THE great movie of the psychedelic era, rivaled only by Antonioni's 'Blow Up' and Jodorowky's 'El Topo'. 'Performance' merges the hard boiled Cockney gangster world of the Kray twins (exemplified by James Fox's brutal Chas) with the freaks of the rock/drug world (Jagger's enigmatic Turner) and shows they have as much in common as they differ. Reality and fantasy blur, gender and personas get confused, and Chas and Turner become increasingly hard to tell apart.

All of this unfolds to an ultra-cool soundtrack of The Last Poets, Randy Newman, Jagger's lost classic 'Memo From Turner' and former Spector/Stones/Crazy Horse collaborator Jack Nietsche's Moog. Add to this plenty of sex, trips and Jorge Luis Borges references, and you've got yourself a mind-blowing movie experience!! Highly recommended to Grant Morrison fans.