Did Mick actually cut his hair for the movie, or was a wig or something used to make it appear short?

I'll go for real hair.

He just slicked it back.

Stones.

I have been looking for a copy of this for a long time. Love the bathtub scene.

Yes, just slicked back, at the time I saw the movie it was a strange film, androgynous big time, never seen anything like that before, it wasn't released for years, there was a big hold up, something to do with the film studio not happy with the editing.

I love that flick! And yes, definitely slicked back.

I watched a cool documentary about Donald Cammell (the director of Performance)
on the You Tubes t'other night. Made in 1997, including interviews with Mick and Anita.
It's called The Ultimate Performance. Highly recommended to anyone interested in this
film.

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/Performance2.png

The only thing is--See how his hair is about shoulder length in the picture from the film about? Even when slicked back in the Memo from Turner sequence, it doesn't appear ANYWHERE as long.

If his hair is shoulder length otherwise, and then slicked back, the back should fall over his collar or be pulled into a ponytail; it isn't, it's just mid-ear length when pushed back, which doesnt make sense

You would be surprised how these Hollywood people do it, I've seen movies where people are bald, but they didn't cut their hair, you see actors come of movies with a totally different look then they had in the movie they just did, I even doubt that actors even smoke cigarettes in movies, they got a way of doing it, trick of the trade.

My weird Performance coincidence story:  I took a couple of friends to see the movie when I was in law school.  Afterward, they were commenting on Mick's reading material in the bathtub; it was Jorge Luis Borges.  The three of us then stopped at a bookstore.  I pulled down a copy of the book, Swimming to Cambodia, by Spaulding Gray.  The first words of the introduction were, "In the autobiography of Jorge Luis Borges".  Eerie, huh?
:nooslajaleisk

[quote author=FPM link=1327038497/0#4 date=1327092577]

I watched a cool documentary about Donald Cammell (the director of Performance)
on the You Tubes t'other night. Made in 1997, including interviews with Mick and Anita.
It's called The Ultimate Performance. Highly recommended to anyone interested in this
film.

quote]

thanks for that. will check it out

StickyStones wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 4:54pm:

The only thing is--See how his hair is about shoulder length in the picture from the film about? Even when slicked back in the Memo from Turner sequence, it doesn't appear ANYWHERE as long. If his hair is shoulder length otherwise, and then slicked back, the back should fall over his collar or be pulled into a ponytail; it isn't, it's just mid-ear length when pushed back, which doesnt make sense

I've seen it suggested more than once that Mick's hair as seen in Perfomance (as well as Rock and Roll Circus) is not all his own work. The lack of continuity you refer to is iperhaps evidence of this.

Iit has been suggested that folical enhancement has been going on since the late 60's. It makes sense when you look at father Joe and particularly brother Chris.

There are also (alleged) eye-witness accounts post Steel Wheels  that while it wasn't a wig there was something definitely "weird" about his barnet.

Heart Of Stone wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 1:27pm:

Yes, just slicked back, at the time I saw the movie it was a strange film, androgynous big time, never seen anything like that before, it wasn't released for years, there was a big hold up, something to do with the film studio not happy with the editing.

All that and more. More to do with Warners thinking it was too sordid and depraved - they wanted it buried. It took almost 2 years to come out.


Anyway, good article on the whole post-production clusterfuck here :
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Performance