Performance (1970) User Reviews

Sex and violence in swinging London!

[James.S.Davies · 8/10 · 3 April 2000]

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'.

Intriguing, Weirdly-Made, Gangster Meets Burned-Out Rockstar Oddity

[ShootingShark · 6/10 · 8 January 2006]

Chas is a London gangster who goes on the lam after he ignores advice from his boss and a personal vendetta gets out of control. He hides out in the Notting Hill Gate house of Turner, a strange, reclusive, bohemian musician with two girlfriends, and soon their hedonistic hippy quasi-philosophy starts to affect his wideboy personality.

This is an odd movie, which is either extremely clever or a load of drug-induced cobblers, and I can never make up my mind which. It doesn't really have much of a coherent plot, and the style is so freaky (jarring jump-cuts, lurid hand-held closeups, inaudible dialogue, near-subliminal images, static on the soundtrack, a sudden burst of animation, lots of complicated montage) that you could be forgiven for assuming both the editor and the sound-mixer were stoned (which they probably were). Equally unsettling is that it's really two pictures stuck together; Chas' kitchen-sink gangster drama that takes up the first half-hour, and then Turner's new-wave art film. It feels like a character from one film has accidentally wandered into another and can't get back. There are two aspects which make it highly watchable for me. One is Fox's performance, which is intermittently stunning - with his spiky red hair, tight clothes and thug stylings, he's a punk-rocker six years before punk-rock was invented. The second is just the sheer variety of experimental techniques (both cinematic and artistic) on view, which is pretty amazing in a major studio movie - in what other film can you see a bullet fired into someone's head from the bullet's point of view or have a scene where the leading lady injects peyote into her butt ? Both directors - writer Cammell and cameraman Roeg - are great visual stylists (Cammell was a great elusive director- he made a couple of good horror films after this, but then tragically committed suicide, much like Michael Reeves), there is an interesting eclectic soundtrack supervised by Randy Newman and there are good supporting performances from Shannon and Colley. However, whilst there is a lot to like in this film, I'm afraid I can't rate it that highly - it's good, but it's self-indulgent, lacks any kind of dramatic structure, and is frequently unnecessarily confusing. Compare it to A Clockwork Orange for example, made around the same time and with several similarities in theme. The Kubrick film is equally stylish and audacious, but is also timeless, elegant, highly influential, exquisitely put together, and a very moving story. Performance is a unique movie, but for me its excesses are no substitute for the basics of movie-making; drama, suspense, excitement and entertainment.

Unique and Fascinating, But Also A Drag At Times

[ArmandoManuelPereira · 6/10 · 11 March 2020]

The first part of the movie, has to do with Chas the gangster (James Fox.), and is fairly interesting. Then the next hour or so is devoted to a drug fueled night of debauchery which includes scenes of nudity, magic mushrooms, hints of homoeroticism and Mick Jagger, of course. It has its moments, but is puzzling as well. Then it ends with the gangsters again. I want to be kind to the movie and honor its adventurism, and originality. But at the same time the film drags at times and becomes indulgent.

Psychedelic Borgesian masterpiece!

[Infofreak · 30 November 2001]

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.

I need a bohemian atmosphere

[AAdaSC · 7/10 · 15 April 2017]

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….

Bizarre Enough To Remain Watchable

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 3 January 2006]

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 porn 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

Not for everyone but definitely original

[francheval · 10/10 · 10 February 2006]

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".

PERFORMANCE is more stultifying than stupefying from the POV of a first-time viewer in the 21st century

[lasttimeisaw · 7/10 · 3 September 2017]

Wringing the ethos out of the vestige of beatnik and swinging 60s, Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg's hallucinogenic cult film PERFORMANCE (which marks both filmmakers' directorial feature debut), was made in 1968 but mothballed by the studio for two years due to its obscene sexual contents and explicit violence.

For a new audience, it is fairly natural to get dumbfounded by the film's frenetic editing of montages from the very start, amalgamating graphic sex sequences between our protagonist Chas (Fox) and his casual bed-mate Dana (Sidney) with manifold clumps of irrelevant scenes which later rig up a flimsy narrative, it is a sharp, disorientating gambit, but seems too divisive by half (it is a post-production last resort to mitigate the smutty images at the expense of its own impetus and coherence as a dauntless cause célèbre by this reviewer's lights).

Chaz is an aggro-prone tearaway working for the gang of Harry Flowers (a corn-fed Johnny Shannon), but before long he needs to lie low after rubbing out an attacker of bad blood out of self-defense, since Harry wants him vanish as well. So he hangs his hat in the basement of a decrepit residence owned by a former rock star Turner (Mick Jagger's acting debut), who has lost his demon in what he does and secludes himself from the outside world, co-habits with his lover Pherber (the late Pallenberg, a là Warhol's Factory Girl) and a young French girl Lucy (a tomboyish Breton), the equilibrium of their boho ménage-à-trois will dutifully be ruffled (not exactly challenged as we tend to surmise judging by its cover) by Chaz, an unbidden outsider under the pseudonym of Johnny Dean.

The premise sounds promising for making a heavy weather of the underlying discrepancy/assimilation between two male ids: Chaz's macho/gangsta make-up and Turner's androgynous and lackadaisical stagnation, but in reality, however visually psychedelic the film looks (Dutch angles, a distorted God's viewpoint shot, mesmeric mirror images, that creepy identity-shifting moment in the end, just to name a few), the fundamentals are only scratched skin- deep, often to one's aggravation, instead, it evolves into a dashing and dazing shindig of excesses (nudity rather than sex) and a madcap platform for Turner/Jagger's superstar glamour (who performs the theme song MEMO FROM TURNER in the MTV style, avant la lettre).

Notorious for its under-the-influence verité carried out during the filmmaking (there is literal acid involved in the plot where Chaz and co. terrorizing a hapless chauffeur), PERFORMANCE ultimately comes off as a short-range stunner and an experimental novelty which cannot elevate its own perversity and subversion into something significantly revolutionary and groundbreaking, although James Fox is arguably in his most absorbing and ambiguously sensual form here. At odds with the state of those participated, PERFORMANCE is more stultifying than stupefying from the POV of a first-time viewer in the 21st century, that ship has long sailed, save for its skirling soundtrack, operatively transmitting those signs of bygone times into one's nostalgic delirium.

"Time for a Change"

[ashleyallinson · 10/10 · 8 February 2005]

Just recently released on DVD, this film is, no doubt, about to have a whole new group of fans.

Here, questions of gender and sexuality are marred by the influence of drugs in the hippie enclave of Powis Square in '60s London. After a rapid fall from power within local crime syndicate, James Fox flees the mafia and finds refuge in the eclectic house of Mick Jagger. Jagger is living the life of the failed superstar with a small entourage of women; a recluse, whose appetite for sex and drugs is fueled by his royalty cheques. When this young gangster stumbles into his house, Jagger involves him into his kinky games, transforming him into one of his own. There is plenty of subtext here, if anyone is interested in digging deeper.

Perhaps the biggest letdown of the recent DVD release is that it was released in mono Dolby. Seeing as the soundtrack was released on stereo CD, why couldn't the audio, at least during the music sequences, have been similarly remastered?

The Stones rarely played "Memo From Turner" due to their "women troubles" that stemmed from the film. Jagger was sleeping with Richard's girlfriend on the set, or something to that effect. Anyway, "Memo From Turner" was released on the album "Metamorphasis" in 1976. The intro on the 1976 version is great, but the 1970 version on this album is one of the hottest tracks the Stones ever recorded without Mic Taylor. This song proves to be one of the first music videos ever made, as it appears in its entirety in Roeg's film.

The Missing Link?

[steven-222 · 7/10 · 16 December 2009]

In my college days, this movie was ubiquitous on the "midnight movie" circuit, but somehow I missed it until now (a broadcast on TCM). In retrospect, I can see that its impact on other filmmakers, especially in Britain, was powerful and immediate. Arriving in 1970, this movie was a keynote for the decade to come. Here we see a precursor to the hip ultra-violence of A Clockwork Orange (out the next year), to the gender-bending induction/seduction of the outsiders in Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), and of course to Roeg's own later The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), starring Mick Jagger's rock star doppelganger David Bowie.

The blatant homoeroticism of the gangster milieu in Performance was obviously inspired by the gay gangster Ronnie Kray, who with his twin brother Reggie (another double!) was the stuff of legend in England at the time.

The film reminds us of the long and extraordinary career of James Fox (yet another double, with his actor-brother Edward), and also features an early appearance by Anthony Valentine, later to play Raffles on TV. We were all young and beautiful once...yes, even Mick!

Faded glitter...subtext without substance

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 12 June 2010]

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 ****

You shoot too much of that s***, Pherber.

[dondutton · 10/10 · 17 February 2004]

This film operates on multiple levels and in cultures that we barely knew existed in 1970. The East End London mobster culture being one and the London counter-culture of drugs and music another. To further lend a surreal air, Nicolas Roeg and Donald Cammel (who co-directed the film) present metaphors and psychological homologies- sadism, homosexuality, hierarchy in gangs and organizations- all stemming from central psychological needs for power and dominance combined with and expressed through sexuality. The first half of the film seems to anticipate Guy Ritchie- a glimpse into Cockney gangsters and "poofs" and then, Chas steps into Turner's lair and the film alters along with our consciousness. Suddenly, underneath the gangster/rockstar theme another, more deeply embedded theme emerges about identity and the part of others that we share in common(the deeper motivations and identities). Turner and Chas sense it in each other's "performance", all four main characters (arranged on a sexual continuum from the very female Pherber through 2 personae of androgyny to the very male Chas) explore their other parts as when Pherber puts a mirror, reflecting her breast on Chas. The shared motivational part comes from the "performance" of violence or art that Chas and Turner are fascinated by in each other. Add in some very strange camera angles and you have one of the very few films that ever did the impossible- represented altered consciousness to an audience (mainly) in straight consciousness. That last part depended on what year you saw it in theatres. In all, a very profound movie. Donald Cammell was a genius who never got his proper due.

Identity crisis

[zacharymorg · 7/10 · 2 April 2020]

One of the most infamous and controversial british films ever. The use of real east end gangsters as extras was a masterfully done touch added to the film. Originally released in late 60s it was shelved a couple years before release due to the fat cats at warner bros hating it. Main plot of the film is about a psychotic and sadistic east end gangster with a bit too much ambition disobeyes orders from his boss Harry flowers(wonderfully portrayed by johnny shannon) and knowing exactly what will happen next so to avoid his imminent fate being murdered by the flowers gang he goes on the run and ends up in the seedy notting hill area renting a room from burnt out rockstar turner(mick jagger). The film then becomes a trippy exploration of identity and gender intertwined with sex and drugs!!

Just wasn't ma cup o' tea guvnor.

[DamonLewis92 · 5/10 · 15 August 2017]

I went in doing all my research on this movie. I read where it didn't good reviews when it first came out, it was violent and some lady vomited at the premiere. I don't know why that sticks out to me. But I knew it was gonna be either a love or hate movie, no in the middle. It started off good sure, a petty thief crosses his boss and goes on the run from the boss and ends up at Mick Jaggers house where it all falls apart. I hated the movie yes but I am still giving it a 5 star review out of 10. I like these late 60's early 70's British underworld crime movies. The Italian Job and Get Carter both come to mind. The cockney accents and just London at that time was the place to be. It was like looking in a time voretx of London in the 60's. Thats all the movies had going for it. But Mick Jagger and the other fellow dressing up like women and having gay sex. Nah just wasn't for me.

Cammell's masterpiece....not Roeg's

[AtillaTanner · 2 May 2002]

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.

Disturbing art movie from '68-70

[mark-rojinsky · 7/10 · 5 January 2021]

A disturbing psychedelic gangster movie filmed in 1968 and released in cinemas in 1970 - two dizzying hippy years to say the least. NME's Don Watson wrote that this was in his words -'..the best British film ever made..' as it explored themes of 'class and British style violence'. Rich in voluptuous erotic psychedelism and 'Eastern promise'; the cinematographer Roeg shows flair with 'time, space and truth' which he later showed with The Man who fell to Earth (1975) starring David Bowie. Mick Jagger is 'Turner' - a rock singer who has lost his 'duende' and plays mind games with an enforcer called 'Chas' -(tall,sandyhaired Old Harrovian actor James Fox) on the run from the London mafia who hides out in Turner's Chelsea lair. Some of the imagery is fascinating - Jagger strutting with flair while brandishing a long fluorescent light-strip; a sensual naked menage-a-trois between Jagger, Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) and Lucy (thin chestnuthaired French actress Michelle Breton) in a bath; images of comely blonde German-Italian sex-pot Pallenberg; oriental props and patchouli atmosphere etc. London actor Johnny Shannon who plays gangster boss, Harry Flowers, starred in Slade in Flame in 1974 playing the agent Mr Harding. Donald Cammell had invited Brando to play the part of the gangster but the American star preferred to be involved with Burn! (Queimada!);'..everything with Marlon takes forever', Cammell was quoted as saying.

Was absolutely loving the first half but the second one, not so much.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 4 June 2012]

This movie is a real mixed bag for me. I was totally into its first half and was absolutely loving it for its creativity but the about half way through the movie starts to become a totally different movie, the moment Mick Jagger makes his appearance.

Thing that made me love its first half, was that it was being a very British crime flick, focusing on criminals, that got shot and told beautifully. Truly in an artistic manner, with some experimental camera-work and editing, that all worked out well and captivating for the movie.

I was so disappointed that not the whole movie was being like this. The second half of the movie is far more psychedelic and doesn't really seem all too concerned about telling its story. So disappointing, since everything that got buildup in the first half of the movie was being very promising and I was anxious to see what would happen next. But it's almost as of halfway through the movie comes to a stop and after that the movie hardly progresses any more story-wise. It becomes more a movie about its characters, which was just all less interesting to watch, in my opinion.

In a way you could say that Jagger ruined the movie for me but I don't blame just him. It more was the story and the different approach of its second half that it all less interesting to watch and caused his character to work out as mostly an annoying one.

James Fox was definitely better. He is not a big name actor but chances are you have already seen him in something. He doesn't always play leading roles, as he does in this movie but he definitely is a more than capable actor, that also has plenty of charisma to him.

I still rate the movie quite highly, simply because of the reason that it's being a very original and creative movie, that also still works out for most part as well.

So in short, it has a great and artistic first half and a less impressive and more messy second one. But overall the movie remains a more than good and original watch, though it's most definitely not a movie for just everyone.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A great film, well worth the wait

[gray4 · 9/10 · 23 June 2004]

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.

Privilege better sums up the era perhaps?

[ib011f9545i · 6/10 · 14 April 2020]

This what they call a cult film,which sometimes mean that it is a film more talked about than actually watched. I remember in the late 1970s trying to get my older brother to take me to a late night showing of this film and Gimme Shelter. He refused to go and having seen both films since I think he was right,poor films.

So Performance,a film of 2 parts. The first half is fascinating gangster film,the second half is pompous and unfocused. The film is impressive at times but not a great film and certainly not a great British gangster fim.

I don't understand why some people say that Fox's performance is poor,to me it is the best thing about the film. But I am a huge Rolling Stones fan and gangster film fan so the film interests me. But for 1960s rock star acted madness I prefer Privilege. I am drinking hot chocolate as I write this.

One of the greatest films ever made, period.

[secret7 · 10/10 · 17 September 2002]

PERFORMANCE captured the perverse sub-culture of organized "working class" gangsters with an unromanticized authenticity not matched until THE SOPRANOS came along three decades later. But it's not just a gangster movie; it's a heady brew overflowing with subtle and insightful intuitions about the power and dangers of the ego, the male-female equation, power structures, sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. Mainstream viewers might be put off by the radical "rococo" editing, which was well ahead of its time -- as were the "rock video" sequences which feature some of Mick Jagger's finest musical moments (playing blues guitar; and singing and dancing at the peak of his prime in the scene where he regains his "demon.") The soundtrack also features stellar cuts from Randy Newman and Merry Clayton, a great score by Jack Nitszche, and what may be the very first "rap" song ever recorded on film, by the Last Poets. Wall-to-wall intercuts bounce us around among story points connected on the quantum level; they may seem arbitrary and confusing, but rather than trying to "get" the story as it unfolds, the first time viewer is advised to just go with the flow and absorb as much as possible, enjoying the beautifully choreographed violence, the awesome soundtrack, the quirky characters and intriguing storyline. If you get into the mystical and psychological subtext, you'll probably end watching this movie more than once, and you'll get more out of it each time. But even on a superficial level, this film has plenty to enjoy. All the performances are excellent; James Fox and Jagger are outstanding. Movies don't get any better than this. P.S. -- Although Nick Roeg is a fine director, much of the credit for this masterpiece goes to Donald Cammell.

Out of control

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 7 March 2021]

Donald Cammell was raised in a home "filled with magicians, metaphysicians, spiritualists and demons" and spent his childhood bouncing on the knee of "the wickedest man in the world" Aleister Crowley. Originally a painter, he became a screenwriter before meeting the Rolling Stones through Anita Pallenberg.

Performance was supposed to be a light-hearted swinging '60s romp, but it ended up being what John Simon of New York Magazine called "the most vile film ever made." It's the story of two men*, Chas (James Fox), a brutal street thug, and Turner (Mick Jagger), a rock star who has gone into hiding.

Chas was a member of an East London gang, a man of violence who is prized for his ability to get money for his employer Harry Flowers. However, his complicated past with another gangster and that man's murder has ostracized him from the gang and put him on the run and into the orbit of Turner and his two women, Pherber (Pallenberg) and Lucy (Michèle Breton).

By the end of the film, fuelled by drugs, cross-cutting techniques, a disjointed narrative and no small amount of magic, the two men have switched identities, with Chas displaying Turner's face and Turner, well, not having a face any longer.

Warner Brothers thought that with Jagger in the movie they getting a Rolling Stones movie that young people could go see. Instead, they got a movie filled with drugs, sex, violence and ideas about cross-dressing and sex transforming identity that would still be dangerous half a century later.

The behind the scenes events - the house in Lowndes Square used in the film was investigated for drugs, Keith Richards was outside in a car fuming because Jagger and Anita were really having sex, Fox stopped acting for fifteen years to become an evangelical Christian - are just as interesting as the film, but the movie itself is astounding.

It was almost unreleased, as a Warner exec would complain, "Even the bathwater was dirty" and the wife of one of them would throw up at the premiere. Ken Hyman, the leader of Warner Brothers, decided that "no amount of editing, re-looping or re-scheduling would cover up the fact that the picture ultimately made no sense." The film was shelved for two years until Hyman left and even then, the movie was re-edited and the Cockney accents were redubbed.

Time has been kind to Performance, a movie that points out the juxtaposition between the violent lives of East End with the rock and roll world of London. "A Memo to Turner" predates music videos. Bands from Coil to Big Audio Dynamite and Happy Mondays all referenced or sampled the movie while it's been an influence on so many directors.

As for Cammell, he struggled against the mainstream after this movie - and with Marlon Brando, who kept asking him to write films and then deciding not to make them - before making Demon Seed, a film that deals with transformative sexuality, just like Performance. He'd make White of the Eye and Wild Side before killing himself with a shotgun. Kevin Macdonald (co-director of the story of his life, Donald Cammell: The Ultimate Performance), said "He didn't kill himself because of years of failure. He killed himself because he had always wanted to kill himself."

I held back watching this for years, because I wanted to make sure that I was ready for it. I needed to be prepared for this film, to not use it as wallpaper or background noise. It deserved more than that. And I'm glad I waited. It was worth it.

*It's directed by two men as well, Cammell and Nicolas Roeg, who would go on to make Don't Look Now, The Man Who Fell to Earth and The Witches.

Bored to death!

[RodrigAndrisan · 1/10 · 21 January 2018]

I've been waiting for decades to see this movie and finally I've done it. My interest was very high, considering the names of the two directors and a few names in the cast. Well, I was very disappointed. Most of the other reviewers gave it 10 stars. I can not give it more than 1 star, that is the minimum possible. Because I didn't like anything, the story is particularly irrelevant, nothing makes sense. Anita Pallenberg and Michèle Breton show their empty bodies absolutely free to pass the time, almost half of the movie that's what we see. I can not even talk about their "acting" performance... I like Mick Jagger, as a singer, in Rolling Stones, but as an actor, really... James Fox is a good actor, but he has no place in this movie. Static, boredom, big waste of time!

When Worlds Collide

[bwotte · 10/10 · 18 June 2004]

A number of Nicholas Roeg's films explore the collision of two cultures: Australian aborigine vs. urban Caucasian in "Walkabout" (1971) ... English vs. Italian in "Don't Look Now" (1973) ... and alien vs. humankind in "The Man Who Fell To Earth" (1976). "Performance" (1970) explores the collision between the world of a sadistic extortion artist and the world of a retired rock star and his companions. But the plot merely serves as a vehicle to convey compelling images and music -- the film is surrealistic and imaginative rather than realistic or film noire. At one point in the film, Jagger reads from Jorge Luis Borges's short story "The South," while his consort prepares a lunch of psychedelic mushrooms. The film touchs on BDSM sex, the harder side of the gay world, extortion, art, and imagination. Reality is not always what it seems. Jagger's performance of "Memo from Turner" is a minor triumph: "Remember who you say you area / And keep your noses clean / Boys will be boys and play with toys / So be strong with your beasts."

Quirky period piece that intrigues more than entertains

[Pedro_H · 7/10 · 20 April 2003]

A tough London gangster falls foul of his boss and goes on the run. In doing so he falls in with a fading pop star and finds, to his surprise, that he has more in common with him than he first thought.

Despite being made in 1970 (and only released years later) this is really about the late 1960's rock scene in "swinging" London. It is almost as if the producers couldn't make their mind up whether to make a gangster film or a pop film and, in a flash of inspiration, decided to make it a bit of both!

Certainly the film starts out in a conventional (and pretty bloody) fashion and quickly slips in to a psychedelic haze from which it cannot break free. We even have pre-MTV pop videos!

Having Mick Jagger as the pop star is the biggest plus and curiously he is very effective, mostly because he is not asked to act merely be (he talked about becoming a full time actor around this time!)

Here he is a "has been" whose chart success has gone and who now lives in a town house in Notting Hill. Here life is merely a long round of baths, orgies and laziness - aided by a couple of empty headed groupies. It is alleged the character is based on the late Rolling Stone Brian Jones (later found dead in his swimming pool) - with whom Jagger founded the his world famous outfit.

Certainly this a film that is more about experiencing than plot and given the gangster (Edward Fox) and the pop star (Jagger) are both washed-up (in their own way) it is hard to see how we can have a happy end.

I am sure that most of today's audience would turn this film off before it reaches the half way point, confused about the point and the characters. For an American audience, maybe even the accents will alienate. Although made by a major studio a lot of the content seems art-house and vague. The hand of Nicholas "Don't Look Now" Roeg is clearly visible and this makes the whole thing even more convoluted and inside-out.

Performance is best viewed as a kind of museum piece about experimental anything-goes cinema in the late sixties and, on screen, the effects and consequences of a louche lifestyle: A generation that pretended it wanted to change the world - but actually only wanted to sit in hot baths with groupies, listening to music and blowing dope.

Poor Performance

[kenjha · 2/10 · 30 December 2011]

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).