Talk:Performance (film)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot summary rewrite 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: Could the class of this article please be reassessed? It appears longer than a typical start class article and the rating is 11 years out of date (last rated 18 September 2006‎). Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , but I'd have thought you could do this. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct , my bad - used to requesting assessments on articles I create (have done that lately) and therefore am used (somewhat) to not changing it myself. Sorry! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class reassessment request 

message: In the opening we read: "(Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones, in his second film)". Although Ned Kelly was released a few months earlier, this (Performance) was his first film, as it was produced in 1968. --Nazroon (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the detail as superfluous for the lead. Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mick Jagger's First Film