Review of Performance (1970) by Will W — 07 Oct 2016

"Performance" is neither a bad or good film, but somewhere in between. The word that gets used about it a lot is "decadence," and that seems fitting. The film revels in its amoral setting of violent gangsters and sex-centered pad living. Roeg's photography and color is typically extravagant despite the lack of diversity in setting. The editing calls a lot of attention to itself and can be quite exhilarating. Jagger's performance is interesting because it's him, but if it were anyone else it would be lazy and forgettable. The film has a lot to say about identity and the convergence of personalities, but it all comes out a lot more muddled than it should be. It's like an amateur's take on Bergman's "Persona.".

The film elicits a wide range of responses. I've seen many claim its one of the masterpieces of cinema and many say it's totally rubbish. It's certainly not as great as all that and I would lean more towards the bad side, but I see why it has remained a cult favorite. I think there's a lot to be learned from this as a filmmaker of both what to do and what not to do when pushing the envelope and experimenting. It's dated, but has remained influential and is certainly a catalyst for cinematic debate. I would side with Danny Peary and Ebert who both felt it was interesting but lacked too much to even really be good.