--- title: "Performance." year: 1970 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/performance" fi1m_score: 81 critics_score: 79 critics_reviews: 10 published: "2026-09-16T10:56:11.820563+00:00" updated: "2026-09-16T10:56:12.171782+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Performance. (1970) Directed by Nicolas Roeg, Donald Cammell · 1h 46m · MPA R · Crime, Drama **Fi1m score: 81** · Critics 79 from 10 reviews *In a sentence:* A gangster chooses a rock star for shelter, suggesting criminal expertise has its limits > Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg make a gangster’s search for shelter frightening, seductive and occasionally tiresome. James Fox and Mick Jagger keep *Performance.* worth the effort when its psychedelic interruptions grow too pleased with themselves. ## Synopsis Chas (James Fox) is a London gangster on the run, looking for somewhere to hide. The world he knows runs on threats, violence and ritual humiliation; escape means leaving that familiar order behind. His search brings him into contact with Turner (Mick Jagger), a reclusive rock star. Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) is another figure in this London of crime, sex and drugs. Chas wants safety, but his encounter with the counterculture puts him among people whose ways he does not understand. ## Review *Performance.* is a violent, absorbing crime film, though some of its psychedelic flourishes try our patience. Donald Cammell and Nicolas Roeg use a gangster’s encounter with a fading rock star to ask how much of a man’s authority depends on other people believing in it. That could have produced a smug exercise in spotting similarities between two disreputable professions. The violence prevents that comfortable distance: these men hurt people, and the film makes their appetite for power frightening. James Fox gives Chas enough conviction to make the criminal business frightening before the film starts questioning him. We were repelled by the early gangster humiliations, because the bullying is treated as routine work rather than a thrilling interruption to it. Fox makes Chas’s assurance seem so deeply ingrained that the prospect of taking him out of familiar company carries its own tension. Gangster films often invite us to enjoy watching a professional do his job; this one makes that invitation difficult to accept. Mick Jagger’s Turner is the reason the change of company works. He gives the reclusive rock star a self-possession that makes Chas’s certainty look suddenly effortful, without making Turner seem remotely dependable. We kept watching him for the suggestion that his interest in another person might become an experiment at that person’s expense. Jagger supplies enough curiosity and cruelty to make Turner someone whose attention we would hesitate to encourage. Nicolas Roeg’s photography makes these unpleasant people disturbingly attractive. The sexual display has a pull even when the cutting makes it difficult to settle into looking, and that combination keeps the encounters uncomfortable. Editors Frank Mazzola, Tony Palmer, Antony Gibbs and Brian Smedley-Aston repeatedly break scenes apart, denying us much time to get our bearings. At its sharpest, the abrupt cutting makes the threat difficult to predict, even when the people involved appear sure of themselves. Jack Nitzsche’s music helps hold the film together through its changes of pace and mood. It suits the dangerous pleasure of the encounters without making the cruelty easier to enjoy. Donald Cammell and Anita Pallenberg’s screenplay is strongest when it keeps the two men’s competing demands in view. They are accustomed to provoking a response from other people, and their difficulty in knowing what to make of each other gives the film enough tension to survive its more wayward passages. The trouble comes when another jolt of imagery arrives before the previous one has done much beyond announcing how strange the film can be. The psychedelic passages sometimes made us impatient; the actors had already made these people difficult to read, and the extra confusion did not always deepen our interest. Some of the disruption begins to feel automatic, which is an unfortunate result for a film working so hard to surprise us. Even there, the tension between James Fox and Mick Jagger gives us a reason to stay. At 106 minutes, this requires attention, and there are stretches where the effort feels insufficiently rewarded. The performances are persuasive enough that we recommend accepting that frustration, particularly for anyone interested in a crime film prepared to abandon familiar comforts. See it for James Fox and Mick Jagger; save the promise of a relaxing evening for something else. *Fi1m score 81, published 16 September 2026.* ## What the critics say Most critics respond warmly to Performance, praising its collision of gangster violence, rock-star glamour and experiments with identity. The praise clusters around Nic Roeg’s camerawork, the disruptive editing and the way the film connects crime, class, sex and fame in its portrait of London. Mick Jagger’s performance draws particular admiration, while several reviews find the fractured storytelling and psychedelic sequences rewarding rather than merely difficult. The spread runs from emphatic enthusiasm to qualified approval, with one mixed assessment and no outright rejection. RogerEbert.com supplies the clearest dissent, finding the connection between gangsters and pop stars disconnected and only partly successful, while still admiring Jagger’s psychological complexity. The Playlist also finds the film disjointed and sometimes unintentionally funny. The reservations centre on coherence and accessibility: most critics value the experimentation, but the reviews leave little suggestion of an easy watch. ### Reviews we read (10) - **Evening Standard**, Colin MacCabe (95/100, inferred): The critic calls Performance the greatest British film ever made for its daring mix of music, art, class, sex, crime and fame. They single out its definitive portrait of late-1960s London and its groundbreaking gangster realism in the first half. [Read](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/is-this-the-best-british-film-ever-7225139.html) - **The Guardian**, Michael Holden (90/100, inferred): The critic describes Performance as a masterpiece of cinema unlike any other, a fractured experimental work whose every aspect informs its energy. They single out its mind-expanding quality, like the drugs that pervade it, and praise the technical excellence brought by co-director Nic Roeg. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2004/may/01/hayfilmfestival2005.guardianhayfestival) - **Slant Magazine**, Budd Wilkins (85/100, inferred): The critic views the film as a perfect encapsulation of Swinging London's counterculture that also signals its demise, praising its status as one of the greatest British gangster films and its mind-bending exploration of identity, performance, and existential themes through jarring edits and psychedelic sequences. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/performance-4k-uhd-blu-ray-review-donald-cammell-nicolas-roeg/) - **Empire**, Kim Newman (80/100, inferred): The critic describes the film as a rewarding exchange-of-personality piece that improves on repeated viewings. They single out its enduring cinematic sensibilities and unmatchably astonishing moments amid the era's sexual decadence and psychedelia. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/performance-review/) - **The New York Times**, Peter Schjeldahl (80/100, inferred): Performance is a violent movie with literal and social-psychological violence in its two main characters, featuring inspired acting especially by Jagger and Fox, and Roeg's ravishing camera work that creates a hypnotic texture. One emerges feeling scorched but convinced of having spent time in the presence of something extraordinary. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1970/08/16/archives/one-emerges-a-little-scorched-but-one-emerges-feeling-a-little.html) - **The Times**, Kate Muir (70/100, inferred): The critic calls Performance one of the weirdest slices of Seventies London around, combining gangster violence and ritual humiliation with decaying rock-star glamour. They single out Mick Jagger as electrifying in the role of the reclusive rock star Turner. [Read](https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/uk-travel/england/london-travel/classic-film-of-the-week-performance-1970-cf23c5sc0pq) - **Time Out**, TM (70/100, inferred): The film is a virtuoso juggling act that manipulates visual and verbal imagery to blur reality and fantasy. The first half is a straight thriller about a gangster on the run who then becomes entangled with a fading rock star in a drug-fueled exploration of power, identity and performance. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/performance) - **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (60/100, inferred): The film is a bizarre, disconnected attempt to link pop stars and gangsters that isn't altogether successful but has frantic energy. The surprise is Mick Jagger's performance, which comments on his life and style in a complex psychological way. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/performance-1970) - **Eye for Film**, Jennie Kermode (80/100, inferred): The critic views the film as a legendary, boundary-challenging work born from undiluted vision that blends high art, violence and sexuality. She singles out its innovative cut-up editing, sensual cinematography and groundbreaking depictions of drugs and sex for praise while noting its enduring rarity and difficulty for mainstream audiences. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/performance-film-review-by-jennie-kermode) - **The Playlist**, The Playlist Staff (B): The review describes Performance as an experimental, disjointed and hallucinatory psychedelic psychodrama that remains jarring and sometimes unintentionally funny by today’s standards. It highlights the film’s themes of identity, its shocking content for a major studio release and the legendary on-set stories. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/essentials-films-nicolas-roeg-20110623/) ## Details - **Director:** Nicolas Roeg, Donald Cammell - **Director:** Nicolas Roeg, Donald Cammell - **Screenplay:** Donald Cammell, Anita Pallenberg - **Cinematography:** Nicolas Roeg - **Editor:** Tony Palmer, Antony Gibbs, Frank Mazzola, Brian Smedley-Aston - **Music:** Jack Nitzsche - **Producer:** Sanford Lieberson - **Cast:** James Fox as Chas; Mick Jagger as Turner; Anita Pallenberg as Pherber; Michèle Breton as Lucy; Ann Sidney as Dana; John Bindon as Moody; Stanley Meadows as Rosebloom; Allan Cuthbertson as The Lawyer - **Runtime:** 1h 46m - **Certificate (MPA):** R - **Release (the US):** 3 August 1970 - **Genres:** Crime, Drama - **Budget:** $900,500 ## Where to watch in the US - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $9.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-16.* Also available in: AU, BR, CA, ES, GB, IE, IN, NL, NZ, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## If you liked this - *Persona* (1966): For another unsettling encounter that makes personal identity feel alarmingly insecure - *The Servant* (1963): A more controlled study of power, dependence and calculated personal cruelty - *The American Friend* (1977): For a quieter, mournful encounter between criminal work and personal uncertainty - *Cure* (1997): Another crime film whose unease grows as ordinary explanations become less useful - *Mulholland Drive* (2001), Fi1m 92: For fractured storytelling where desire makes it difficult to trust appearances — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/mulholland-drive.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/performance