University of Virginia Library

CINEMA

You Can't Always Get What You Want

By Paul Chaplin
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

It seems to me that there is a
prerequisite before anyone sees
"Performance." You almost have to
have some familiarity with the
concept that Mick Jagger is the
devil incarnate. I sometimes wonder
who is responsible for spreading
this idea, but this film does more to
advance the issue than any number
of listenings to "Let It Bleed," or
"Beggar's Banquet." The full effect
of Jagger is only available in a live
performance, which is where
Warner Brothers must have found
their title.

Nice Change

Jagger is not the top-billed star,
however. James Fox is. It's a nice
change to see Fox in an evil role,
and he does a credible job of
playing a degenerate perverted
henchman. Jagger enters the plot as
the landlord of a building Fox is
using for shelter. Unfortunately for
Jagger and Fox, and as we all
should know, "it's just a shot
away."

Fox's character, Chas, is
apparently going mad. The ads tell
us the film is "about fantasy, and
reality, vice and versa." This is fine
if the film could really accomplish
this end. The script by Donald
Cammell and Nicolas Roeg could be
strengthened in places, especially in
the opening sequences which are
important in establishing Chas's
revolting personality. The whole
first hour of the film is
uninteresting, and this is also due to
anxious waiting for the appearance
of Jagger.

Donald Cammell's direction is
also responsible for an hour of
boredom. There are nice flashy uses
of different film stocks, rapid
montage, and really swell fish-eye
lens shots, but why use them? If
technique is used with some
purpose, rather than being used to
create avant garde effects, then the
use is justified.

The film picks up momentum
with the addition of Jagger. Of
course his character is far more
interesting, being a combination of
both male and female sexes. And
the physical setting is visually more
impressing than Chas's white plastic
apartment. Christopher Gibbs's set
decoration adds considerably to the
feeling of evil, sensuality, and dark
foreboding.

Three Conclusions

In a final analysis, I have three
conclusions about "Performance."
First, the advertising, as well as
word of mouth, leads one to
expect to see more of Jagger than is
shown. One of these days,
somebody will cast Jagger in a part
in which his limited acting abilities
are surpassed by an excellent script.

Second, as Rolling Stone
magazine suggested, this is not
another "Fantasia," where your
enjoyment is enhanced by a
pre-movie smoke. RS implied the
film would plow your mind. Well,
yes some scenes are brutally
shocking, such as Fox's shaving a
man's head, but in totality the film
needs stronger directorial control.

This leads into point number
three: the film is not that good. Of
course, some people may still want
to get wrecked, under the belief
that a bad movie can be better. To
each his own, but "Performance"
could have been a much better film,
and as it now exists, relies too
much on the acting abilities of Fox,
and the drawing power of Mick
Jagger.

(Now at the Cinema)

Mick Jagger In "Performance"