Performance Reviews

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it seemed to have a decent reputation (it is included in the ‘1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die’ list among other things), I was quite eager to check it out. To be honest, it’s too bad I saw this movie on YouTube without subtitles and I have to admit that I did struggle with the dialogues. Anyway, eventually, like the other movies Nicolas Roeg would make in the 70’s, I have to admit that it was slightly too cryptic for my taste but, with his directorial debut, even if it was often pretty weird, it was always intriguing though. It was basically some kind of full frontal collision involving the dark seedy London gangster world and the dark seedy London bohemian world. I have to admit that, since Mick Jagger was displayed prominently on all the promotional material, I didn’t expect him to show up only during the 2^nd half. On top of that, his character was not really far from who he probably was at the time so you could hardly call it ‘acting’. On the other hand, there is no denying that the Rolling Stone singer was definitely charismatic and it’s too bad that he would only make a handful movies afterwards. In fact, I was above all quite impressed by James Fox who was really convincing in this role. However, I found out that the experience might have been quite traumatic for Fox since he then stopped acting for almost 10 years afterwards. Anyway, was it really clear what Roeg tried to achieve here? Not really but the end-result was still interesting and I think it is is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Nicolas Roeg’s work or if you want to see something slightly more experimental than usual.

There sure is a lot swirling around in Performance, but I’m not convinced it all adds to much of anything. Performance seems more content in throwing its ideas around and not to engage with them in any meaningful way, and it all becomes a sensory overload before the end. Although, calling it the ending makes it sound like there’s a sense of finality to the story, and there’s not so much as an ellipsis upon an ellipsis like so much of the film.

Filmed in 1968, Warner Brothers shelved the film for two years before finally releasing it. They claimed the film was incoherent, which it is, before they finally released it and it seemed destined a cult film from the beginning. I suppose they thought the presence of Mick Jagger, in his screen debut, was going to be akin to Jailhouse Rock or A Hard Day’s Night but with a patina of Easy Rider on top, and boy were they wrong.

Performance begins by comparing English gangster life to the hedonism of the rock star lifestyle, then it transforms into a heady examination of the performative nature of gender, identity, and sexuality. There’s a hazy narcotic glamour, but one that’s been left to rot, and a weariness has set in. the comedown of the counter-cultural movement is written all over the sleepy eyes of Jagger’s hermitic rocker. Yet it’s his inebriated, pseudo-shamanistic charisma that proves the inferno to James Fox’s gangster-cum-moth to the flame.

One intriguing setup that gets a minor payoff is the idea that Jagger’s character has retired since he’s lost his “demon.” Enter James Fox’s gangster in hiding to his polyamorous lifestyle and regular supply of drugs. Fox disguises himself as someone else and slowly loses sight of his original identity throughout as he gets lost in the performance. He eventually subsumes Jagger and gets lost in the newly performed and drafted persona. There are layers there, but it’s the only idea that the film manages to payoff along the way.

It’s as if all of the viscera of the film, all of the frantic editing, the exploitative sex and violence, the magnetism of Jagger, wind up canceling each other out and Performance is ephemeral. It can feel more like work to get through it all, but there’s still the occasional flashes of brilliance. There’s just so much goofy, druggy 60s shit to get through to find it.