Talk:Performance (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.


I deleted the statement that "Memo From Turner" could be the first rock music video of all time, since it pre-dated MTV by 15 years. "Memo From Turner" was pre-dated the videos The Beatles made for Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane. My name's Nathan

Yes, fine, who cares, but you deleted any reference to Memo from Turner. Please put it back. People have been doing "musical numbers" for a looong time; doesn't really matter whether you think or I think one or the other one "could be" (note the weasel wording) the primordial one. Richard8081 09:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there are three minor misquotes in the paragraph referring to BAD's 'E=MC2':

"Putting a little stick about. Putting the fire into those flash little twerps" should be "...Putting the frighteners on flash little twerps" (?)

"I like a bit of a cavort, I don't send 'em solicitor's letters. I apply a bit of pressure." s/b "...I don't send 'em solicitous letters..."

"The man's dead, and who's left holding the sodding baby?" s/b "At the death, who's left holding the sodding baby?"

I haven't corrected, just in case I've misheard. --Grimbleshanks 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Wake Up Niggers (or you're all through)" is a very early rap song by The Last Poets. Richard8081 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The gangsters are openly gay; eg Harry Flowers saying "My bath is ready," and Harry's earlier chiding about Chaz and Joey being "double personal"; this should be added to the list of things that in 1970 or so made the release of Performance problematic and kept down the box office. There's nothing graphic, but this was back when nothing was everything.Richard8081 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary rewrite[edit]

I'm going to rewrite this plot summary (have already started). If anyone minds, please say so now. Thanks.--TEHodson 01:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


An excellent article, one of the best pieces I've seen on this film. In keeping with its subtlety of insight I couldn't help making a small edit. In the description of the initial encounter between Chas and Pherber, "ingratiates himself" is now "makes a clumsy attempt to ingratiate himself" - after all, isn't the cluelessness of his attempt to manipulate her, and her sexual manipulation of him, one of the film's most priceless comedic moments and a taste of things to come in the relationships between the characters? Two phrasings I didn't touch but suggest need more thought: Is this really, foremost, a film about '60s "identity crisis"? Most of the article suggests a less shallow take on it than that, so it was disappointing that the analysis went no farther. The other statement I wondered about is the supposed ambiguity of who/what we see through the car window at the end. Hm. No ambiguity that it's Turner's face we see. It is the meaning--or rather, the range of meanings of that unambiguous sight, that moment of shock--that is instead the most powerful question the film poses. I challenge the author of this excellent article to rise to that moment in a way it better deserves. - Tashery

Oh - and the section about critical response omits what seemed to me at the time the most important watershed: a review that originally appeared in a films studies journal but became widely known when reprinted in the book THE ROLLING STONES: An Unauthorized Biography in Words, Photographs, and Music (1972). I no longer have a copy of the review and couldn't google it up; I seem to remember the title including something like "poisonous flower." Worth finding since it was extremely insightful and treated the film seriously at the same time it was being reviled by "establishment" critics. Both responses existed simultaneously. We now know the thinking, non-knee-jerk one eventually prevailed. - Tashery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tashery (talkcontribs) 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)