This film was always being talked about when I was younger,because Jagger was in it and because of the underground fell of the film,but actually watching it is a frustrating business I find.
Another thing I never could understand,how can 2 people direct the film,did they really both direct it? does anybody know?
offically, as i understand it, roeg handled the technical side of things, lenses, lense filters, camera angles, lighting setups etc while cammell was more of aconceptual/ideas man. rumours persist, though, that it was pretty much roegs film (critics often point to the comparisons in quality of the two mens subsequent output )
share"Rumours persist, though, that it was pretty much roegs film (critics often point to the comparisons in quality of the two mens subsequent output )"
It is definitely Cammel's film. Critics love to point and compare their subsequent output when trying to tag the film on Roeg, but that Cammell was a lesser talent is b.s. Definitely he never had the clout or opportunity Roeg had, but he proved himself just as talented when he was allowed to. Demon Seed is a great, underrated film, despite all the studio interference. White of the Eye is one of the great film of the 80s, denigrated by critics as most just saw it as a "slasher film". Wild Side was screwed over by his producers, taken away in the editing room, the very place thats the most important stage for Cammell's film. If you ever see the Director's Cut (available in the UK), and compare it to what eventually came out, the difference is night and day, taking a terrible, sleazy made-for-cable movie and turning it into one of the great films of the 90s.
Even the "Roegian editing" style seems to be borrowed from Donald Cammell and Frank Mazzola, with a great deal of influence of Anthony Gibbs. It was Gibbs who first started with the Resnais-esque editing in Petulia, and after the first (mostly linear and conventional) Cammell-Roeg-Gibbs cut of the film was rejected, and Roeg was forced to leave for other work, it was Cammell and Mazzola who turned the film inside out the way it is now, and quite clearly Roeg took note from this and imitated it the rest of his career. I've even heard stories that Roeg asked to tone down some of the first experiments in the editing room when they were putting together the first cut.
Roeg is definitely responsible for the "look" of the film, which is indeed a big part, but the actual idea, story, soul of the film was all Cammell.
[deleted]
ib, I agree with you on this. I watched it for the first time tonight on the basis it was given 5 stars out of 5 in a Radio Times film guide I hold and named as one of 1001 movies to see before you die in another book I have. Its artsy, psychedelic and rich in colour, stereotypically (looking back) 60's and showcases Jagger's performance capabilities in an era before MTV. Despite this I still think the film is a sprawling mess and was left scratching my head not just at the illogical conclusion but as to why critics feel this is a masterpiece. I don't have any particular agenda of trying to hate a film. In fact, I've probably watched 300+ films already this year and only this, The King of New York, Man with the Movie Camera and Hamlet have I particularly disliked.
shareI'm inclinced to agree. I did try to like it, and although I thought some ideas were genius and the perfermonces were pretty strong, the whole things lacked direction and was more than a little incoherant.
To the OP, if you're interested in two directors sharing a film, look at Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's Sin City.
On a sidenote, BwlBoy, which version of Hamlet did you see and dislike?
didnt robert rodriguez give frank miller a co-director credit because he basically used the comic panels as a storyboard?(seriously pissing off some union or other) i dont think miller was actually on set was he?
shareMiller was on set, he actually gave a lot of dialogue direction to the actors portraying his characters. And, as you say, the shots were taken more or less verbatim from Miller's comics.
It pissed off the Directors Guild of America because they refuse to recognise split directing credits unless for an established team, such as the Cohen brothers or the Wachowski brothers. When he couldn't get Frank Miller recognised as a co-director, Robert Rodriguez attempted to give him sole credit, but he wouldn't accept. With neither of them prepared to take sole director credit out of respect for the other's input Rodriguez simply left the DGA.
Not overrated... a true work of Art.
shareI think this is a great movie, but it's an acquired taste. I first saw it in a theater in Leamington Spa (in Northern England) in 1971 and actually walked out halfway through. Hey, I was 17 at the time.
I didn't see it all the way through until I got it on tape in the 80s. I appreciated it more each time I saw it, but I can still understand why a lot of people wouldn't have any use for it.
This is a surrealistic picture and naturally some will find it incoherent, muddled, or nonsensical. It struck me that way at first, but giving it another chance was helpful.
Definitely not a film for all viewers.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
I think you've got a good point. I spent much of the film thinking the film was interesting, but not fantastic, but once the mushrooms started to work the film went to a new plane - and just at the moment I was expecting it to be tired and cliched. I already want to see it again. There aren't many films that just seem to have something a little different about them.
I live in Warwick, and I'm not sure you'd call Leamington Northern England though...
You're right ... It *was* 37 years ago and it's been a while since I looked at a map. Looks like Warwickshire is more Central England. I suppose Newcastle would be more what you'd call the North.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
I find "Performance" one of the most underrated films in movie history. A timeless visionary feat in terms of bold concept and ground-breaking execution. It looks especially gorgeous on a recently released remastered DVD.
As per your question, in the interviews included on this disc, the people involved in this project refer to Donald Cammell as the main visionary force behind this. I was very surprised, since I thought that the picture bears an indelible stamp of Roeg's style. According to Anita Pellenberg and the film's producers and editors, Roeg was more on the technical side, setting lights, etc., it was Cammell, who directed this wild imaginary and visual cinematic feast.
This one obviously requires a new breath of life.
Another thing I never could understand,how can 2 people direct the film,did they really both direct it? does anybody know?
The general information about the production is that Donald Cammell is the auteur of the film. What that means is that his conception of the film was what determined or approved how it looked, he directed the actors and he wrote the script.
And in any case two people can direct a film like the Coen Brothers for instance. Then there's the greatest film-makers in British Cinema - Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. In that instance Powell was the director that is he was the one who worked with the actors and the crew but Pressburger overlooked the editing, worked with Powell on the music. Pressburger also was the chief screenwriter on their films but Powell would help with the dialogue. They credited themselves jointly. Powell also directed two solo masterpieces - The Edge of the World and Peeping Tom.
"Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs." - Nathanael West
It was definitely Cammel's film. "The Roeg style of editing" is BS; Cammel did that stuff on all his films, most amazingly on the masterpiece White of the Eye..
-
pre·ten·tious: characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.
I agree about "White of the Eye," but compare Roeg's "Don't Look Now" or "The Man Who Fell to Earth," or "Bad Timing" to something like Cammell's "Demon Seed." "Performance" is definitely a Roeg film! And even if, as you suggest, Cammell devised the style (I doubt it), Roeg did a better job of carrying it out in subsequent films. Besides, the "look" of the film (more than the actual story) is what truly makes it memorable, and Roeg is supposed to be responsible for this. All that said, I suspect that editors Antony Gibbs, Tony Lawson, and Frank Mazzola are the true innovators.
share