16 + GUIDE - British Film Institute
16 + GUIDE - British Film Institute
16 + GUIDE - British Film Institute
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
THE GUARDIAN<br />
<strong>16</strong> th October 1997, pp.9<br />
Total recall, nearly, by Steven Severin<br />
An interview with Anita Pallenberg (Pherber) about the making of PERFORMANCE and her life<br />
subsequently. Severin and Pallenberg make many interesting reflections on the film and the<br />
1960’s.<br />
DAILY TELEGRAPH<br />
3 rd June 1998, pp.24, 27-28, 30<br />
Performance was the film that blew the minds of everyone who saw it…,by Mick Brown<br />
An exhaustive and compelling account of the making of PERFORMANCE; the people involved<br />
and its aftermath. Thoroughly recommended for anyone studying the film.<br />
EVENING STANDARD<br />
13 th October 1997, p.50<br />
Sympathy for the devilish, by Max Bell<br />
A brief preview of a screening of PERFORMANCE at the ICA. Covers a lot of the same ground<br />
as many other articles.<br />
THE GUARDIAN<br />
9 th September 1993, p.6<br />
The intruders within, by Richard Combs<br />
Combs describes PERFORMANCE as a “singular event in <strong>British</strong> cinema” and goes on to<br />
compare the film with other <strong>British</strong> films, including THE LADYKILLERS and THE SERVANT.<br />
Provides an interesting perspective of the film and post-war <strong>British</strong> cinema.<br />
THE SUNDAY EXPRESS<br />
3 rd January 1971<br />
Performance, by Richard Barkley<br />
A review that actually focuses for the main part on the gangsters and criminals of the film<br />
rather than on the events in Turner’s (Mick Jagger’s) flat. While not applauding the style of<br />
the film Barkley contends that the film is an ambitious contrast between “the assertive criminal<br />
and the passive drop-out”.<br />
NEW SOCIETY<br />
21 st January 1971<br />
Jugglers, by Michael Wood<br />
Describing the film as a “mishmash…of fashionable and uncontrolled ideas about sex, art,<br />
music and violence”; this critical review of the film ends with Wood stating, “What is wrong<br />
with Performance is not its loving attention to a gangster, but the lofty and literary and<br />
metaphysical nature of that attention”.<br />
54