Performance
Directed by Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg, Performance stars Mick Jagger (Turner),
James Fox (Chas), Anita Pallenberg (Pherber), Mechele Breton (Lucy), Johnny
Shannon (Harry Flowers) in a very ideologically centered and psychoanalytical
film, which questions societies roles on gender, self-identity, and violence in
general while also reflecting the rampant times that were the late sixties
early seventies. I choose to single out the listed characters above because I
feel these are the most significant characters although that is not to say
there aren’t any other important characters in the film because there are of
course, but due to the size of the research paper the listed choices above have
more impact on the overall meaning of the film. James Fox and Mick Jagger are
so great in these roles, and you can see the intimate value of having a small
cast because the interactions between Fox and Jagger is excellent, and it is
also apparent that Jagger and Pallenberg have a good standing relationship
because it shows in the realism of it all.
The intro of the film is very much a mobster flick,
and has every theme and type cast that a British mobster film would have, but
later the film becomes a sort of psychedelic mind game of trippy visuals with
colorful surroundings due to beautiful paintings on the surrounding walls of
Turners home. The viewer is often left to imagine what the director is trying
to say (to imagine their own interpretations), rather than the viewer easily
knowing what is being communicated. The entire films meaning is based upon the
viewers interpretations of scenes; this can be most recognized at the very end
of the film because the ending is not at all spelled out to leave an audience
with any meaning or resolution, in my opinion. The audience is left to try and
decide why the ending took place, and later in this paper I will discuss my
theories on what the ending was trying to communicate. This film has elements
of a gangster film, but it explores the human psyche much more both in
cognitive elements with lighting and cool editing or with ideas presented by
unique characters in unique situations. The atmosphere and amazing acting invites
audiences to so much more than just violence and mobsters, but it delves deep
into the consciousness and begs the viewer to question sexuality and gender
roles in their own habitats. Performance takes
place in London and the whole film is shot in London so the overall feeling is
very European, but can easily be relatable to anyone in the world through the
lovely auteurs touch of Cammell and Roeg. The first initial scenes of the film
are quite violent, and Fox plays a ruthless thug who seems to be down to do
anything Harry Flowers tells him.
Harry Flowers, played by Johnny Shannon in his first
acting gig and was actually originally Fox’s speech coach, is such a good representation
of a British mobster, and his goons visually fit the part as well. Harry
Flowers character has a bit of eeriness to him, because due to the scenes in
which we see Flowers the audience can assume he is a man of power, but what
makes him creepy is he is always smiling, and even at some points will look
straight into the camera (he is basically the only one who does that). Perhaps
Flowers acknowledging the camera gives the audience a sense of his overall
power and control, because after all Chas is on the run trying to avoid him for
good reason. The overall plot is very Some
Like It Hot style but there is no comedy in this film, rather the intro
scenes with Chas are very gritty, it is not until we get to Turner’s house that
the film becomes the sexually consciousness and its themes go more into
psychoanalytical and cognitive.
It was no surprise upon further research after
watching the film one time that I happened to hear that this film was delayed
upon release due to its suggestive scenes and bad editing according to Sanford
Lieberson, the producer for the film, the original cut of Performance was “a great cinematic disaster” on a documentary
titled Influence and Controversy: Making
‘Performance’. It was interesting to later find out that Donald Cammell
re-edited the film to its final version, with the help of Frank Mazzola,
additional editor to the film.
The editing style of this film is unbelievable and
very unique, I say this because when someone is watching this movie a lot of
the edits and transitions come as a surprise in my opinion. In fact Rodger Ebert can be found critiquing
the editing style of this film at rodgerebert.com to the tune of “it tries too
hard and doesn’t pace itself to let its effects sink in” and as I do respect
Ebert’s opinion I have to strongly disagree and say the editing style is timeless.
The editing style, in my opinion, is very much like a Quentin Tarantino type
film (maybe Tarantino gained some influence from this film…) mainly because the
fast transitions between scenes and choice of scenes are very gangster
movie-ish, and gritty/raw. The way in which Performance
was edited together is cinematically brilliant, in my opinion, I truly
loved the self reflexive moments when Harry Flowers (the boss mob guy) would
randomly stare into the camera; one scene in particular is when Harry Flowers
learns of Chas murdering his friend, and motions for all his goons to leave the
room and turns around and smiles towards the camera and says “my bath is
running”. I don’t necessarily know why this scene was put in perhaps to
de-intensify the violent nature of Harry Flowers and his mob or to maintain the
eeriness about Harry Flowers. Nevertheless, this film is filled with unusual
edit cuts which you would not find in a classic Hollywood narrative, often
times the effects and edit cuts are used to create a psychedelic atmosphere
especially once inside Turner’s home. From the very intro scene the shots which
are used appear to me to be unusual to say the least, I always felt like the
cameraman was trying to shoot with angles that are not common in Hollywood
narrative films, for example when Chas is calling one of his mates he is inside
a red phone booth, and as he walks out of it the camera stays in position but
zooms in past the red phone booth to focus on a posted sign; this I shot was
quite interesting and unusual in my opinion.
The soundtrack in the beginning of the film uses
electric noises, non-natural sounds like a synthesizer; to create a chaotic
atmosphere as the audience watches Chas do his dirty work. This was especially
nice for me, because right away I assumed this film was not going to follow a
lot of the cinematic norms many films do, for example the intro music is so
random and strange at first one might wonder if they’re TV is working. Overall,
I appreciated the electric noises, because I really feel like it compliments
the anarchy that is going on in the scenes as Chas pours acid on a persons car
and shaves a mans head or during fight scenes, or during any kind of violence
at the beginning of the film featuring Chas there seems to be some sort of
crazy or abrupt sounds to indicate chaos. The spotting selection of music is
masterful and devised perfectly for each character, as their personality would
entail. So while they show Chas first, the music is electric made and very
chaotic, but as Chas is trying to escape the city we begin to hear a bluesy
electric guitar playing, which I absolutely loved because for me this was an
indicator that Mick Jagger was going to be making his appearance soon. I liked
the soundtrack when Chas is at Turners home, because the guitar becomes
acoustic and there is no more electric guitar, yet a bohemian naturalist
sounding guitar provides in helping create the lifestyle of Turner and his two
ladies in their stellar pad. The initial song that is playing when Chas is
looking around Turners house is titled “Wake Up Nigger” by The Last Poets, this
choice of music was indented to try and put you in the mindset of Jagger and
his ladies euphoric and righteous mindset. Although they are not black, the
prejudice of anyone who chooses to be different is very similar to the racism
towards black people because each is a judgment of one’s character based upon
appearances.
The direct sound of Mick Jagger on guitar when he
plays “Sympathy for the devil” is so rock and roll, and really lets you see
Turner’s characters artistic side. Also the sort of randomly placed music video
type scene in which Jagger sings a song “Memo For T (Turner’s Song) is a bit
off putting but the message is basically what Turners character is all about,
Before he sings the song Turner says a famous quote that may justify why he
himself is so mad, “The only performance that makes it, that makes it all the way,
is the one that achieves madness”. Jagger’s musical influence is very
noticeable in the film even before the music video; the sort of bluesy rock and
roll sound is totally of Rolling Stones influence.
Jagger and his lady friends are perfect symbols of
the flower children of the sixties and seventies due to their alternative
lifestyle to which is predicted through the scenes that takes place in Turners
home. The mellow music along with the stunningly impressive production design
of Turner’s home, decorated so elaborate and psychedelically to please to
viewers wondering eye, is stacked full of random art. However, upon watching the
documentary Influence and Controversy:
Making ‘Performance’ the art is not random in fact Cammell and Roeg applied
their creative design and knowledge of art to create the wonderful surroundings
of Turner’s home. One particular artist is Bacon whose paintings can be seen
all throughout the house. In one particular scene, and a very random one at
that in my opinion, two oddly dressed men walk into Turners home and begin
talking to Turner about a painting on the wall; the painting is a Bacon piece
and Turner ends the scene by announcing to the gentlemen that he doesn’t like
it and has no money for the painting. The influence of the director’s love for
art creates such a cool atmosphere for Jagger’s character (Turner) to thrive
in, and the audience can really gasp the sense of how truly out there Turner is
by not only watching his antics but also observing his weird, but totally
groovy art collection. There is obvious contrast between the main characters,
gangsters meets rock star, straight edge, meets hippie, but there are scenes
and editing techniques that visually allow audiences to make the assumptions
that the main characters are the same person.
Through cross over shots and transparently placing
faces over faces through editing, or using mirrors to show two faces as one
create the idea one person, one consciousness. This contrast between characters
not only ideologically examines people and their roles in society, but also
allows the audience to see how each character interacts differently to their
surrounds drawing a very distinct line between Jagger’s character and Fox’s
character. James Fox plays Chas who is a crazy mobster who appears to have no
remorse for anyone and ends up being on the run after he kills an old
childhood. Chas overhears a black guitarist talking about an empty apartment
(sort of looks like a hippie Jimmi Hendrix type) and pursues the location and
manages to hide out for a day at the location. Mick Jagger plays Turner, who is
a retired rock star looking to regain his star quality and the owner of Chas’s
desired hideout pad. Once these two characters meet the film begins depicting
themes of self-identity, gender roles, and societies roles of people in
general. Turner, who is referred to as being both a man and women by one of his
girlfriends, is very in touch with his feminine side and this can be seen by
the way he carries himself, but also the way he dresses and his eye mascara.
Chas, could not be more opposite than Turner and this fact is made apparent in
a scene in which Pheber (Anita Pailenberg) is attempting to see how feminine
Chas really is by teasing him and trying to make him release his inner women to
which Chas replies in a rather freaked out way and acts offended at the idea.
Chas’s reaction is ideologically what an audience member would come to expect
from a straight shooter like Chas, although he is a dangerous thug, he is a
man’s man and is not as comfortable with stretching his sexual boundaries as
Turner appears to be.
The main chemistry and motif lies between the
dialogue and interactions of Chas and Turner, they could not be more different
from one another, and this allows for a great tension between the two of them.
The obvious visual difference of the two main characters is painfully obvious,
because Chas dresses like a businessman/gangster, while Turner dresses like a
hippie rock star, or as Chas calls Turner in the film a “beatnik”. “Your going
to be a funny geezer when you older”, said Chas to Turner in one of the first
initial scenes of their meeting. Both main characters personalities and
lifestyles are directly ideological for the times in which this film was made,
for example, Turner is a classic representation of a seventies rock star, or a
bohemian person of the seventies, and Chas is a representation of a well suited
gangster who dresses like a businessman. In essence, Turner and Chas are a good
representation of the type of men who made up a majority of England’s
population during the rolling seventies, and could essentially represent any
culture in the world at any given time (because in most cases, people are
either straight edge and proper (like Chas) or they are more free spirited
(like Turner). Of course my assumption of how people were in London in the
seventies are is purely based on what I have seen on films and is very black
and white, but I believe it is safe to say that Turner and Chas were created to
represent a larger majority of personalities in London. Both characters are
very different, but both characters kind of live similar lives in the sense
that they are very charismatic and free spirited, although they couldn’t be
more different.
From a feministic point of view women are sort of
objects in this film, however there is a higher intellectual thought and idea
of two sexual identities for a person, a reoccurring theme of asexuality (we
are both, female and male). For example through cross cutting and image
pressing there are scenes which draw on this very idea of asexuality visually,
and the infamous mirror illusion in which the shot shows Turner’s face
alongside Pheber’s face with the use of a mirror suggest this as well. There is
a scene when Turner and his lady friends are taking a bath and Turner asks them
“should I wash my hair”, and he waves his long hair around. To conservative
Britain and America longhaired people in the sixties and seventies seemed to
always be “hippies” or “beatniks” and this scene basically introduces Turner’s
and his ladies as a three set and what a better way inside a tub. Anita Pailenberg’s
character, Pheber, is basically Turner’s female opposite, and although the does
not have sex with Chas; she sort of sexually takes control of him in an epic
scene of gender identity and roles. In a close textual analysis of the scenes
when Chas is alone with Turner and Pheber during the time when he is trying to
disguise himself for his new passport picture showcases how Chas is beginning
to transform to be like Turner and Pheber; they dress Chas in a series of
outfits until they end with him with a long haired wig on. Prior to this scene
Pheber gave Chas mushrooms so he is sedated leaving him vulnerable. From a
feminist point of view Pheber is a take charge women, and when she is in bed
with Chas she is very much in control, however when Lucy gets in bed with him,
Chas has a little more control of the situation and even calls her out for
having a “boyish” body type. I think the directors purposely picked Lucy’s
character to have this body type, because in many scenes with Turner and Chas
they are being compared for their personalities and the same can be said with
Turner’s ladies both are women yet one is a little more feminine in body type
while the other sort of resembles a boy. The way in which Mick Jagger’s
character Turner is dressed and carries him self is not masculine, but has a
touch of femininity, and this was of course on purpose to show that Turner is
much more in tune with him women instincts then close minded Chas. During the
scene with Chas and Pheber in bed, they discuss gender roles and the idea that
Turner is both female and male, in which Pheber begins taunting Chas to try and
bring out his inner women, to which Chas is not enthusiastic. This convo alone
after close textual analysis will prove that the film makers wanted the
audience to question sexuality and societies norms and regulations, the film
questions where is the line drawn between a male and female?
In a close textual analysis of the final scene in
this film when the mobsters find Chas at Turner’s home, during the time in
which Chas shoots Turner in the head after a short conversation and as we see
Harry Flowers pull away in the car there is a glimpse of what the audience
thinks is Chas but actually it is Turners face. So, throughout the film there
are moment when Turner and Chas come face to face and sort of stare one another
down, there is even cross edit cuts to converge their faces, all of this is
used to create the illusion or possibility that they are the same person. There
are some scenes where Chas wears a wig, and Turner slicks his hair back another
indication that the two lads are morphing into each other merely by their
presence and influence or is it a deeper psychological reason. Turner insists
to Chas that he wants to get inside Chas’s head, which initially Turner and
Chas don’t get off on the right foot but as time goes on it seems they grow
fond of one another. Why the comparison of the two?, what is the overall
meaning? I am not sure, I was very confused with the ending I had to re watch
it a few times to come to my conclusion. Basically, in the final scene Turner
and Chas complete a body switch, possibly during the whole film the scenes
could be indicating that a transformation is happening, perhaps each scene
where Chas interacts with his new house mates is the next step in the transformation.
When Chas shoots Turner in the head, the camera follows the bullet down Turners
head and it hits a picture inside his head, perhaps killing his artistic side
and evolving him into a gangster like Chas. The ending to this film is very
open ended an audience member can walk away with their own interpretation of
what happened rather than be spoon-fed the ending.