New John Dankworth Compilation

by Kimberly Lindbergs | August 12, 2009

Categories | News, Soundtracks, Composers, British Cinema, Dirk Bogarde, Joseph Losey

Laurence Harvey, Julie Christie & Dirk Bogarde in Darling (1965)

During the recent Dirk Bogarde movie marathon on TCM I ended up watching John Schlesinger’s Darling (1965) again which stars Dirk Bogarde along with the wonderful Julie Christie and jaw-droppingly gorgeous Laurence Harvey. I’ve seen the film many times before but I love all three of the film’s stars so I never get tired of watching it. Besides the actors and Schlesinger’s impressive direction, another reason that I find Darling incredibly watchable is the film’s great score by British composer John (aka Johnny) Dankworth. Dankworth was an amazing talent and he’s responsible for composing the soundtracks for some of my favorite British films of the ’60s. He also created music for terrific television shows like the original Avengers.

After watching Darling again I decided to try and hunt down a copy of the film’s soundtrack online. Unfortunately I had no luck, but I did discover that a new John Dankworth compliation CD has just been released called Let’s Slip Away - Film and TV 1960-1973.

Let’s Slip Away is the first CD compilation of John Danworth’s scores so if you’re a fan of his music you’ll definitely want to get yourself a copy. This impressive 2 CD set from Eclipse in the UK features over 40 music tracks and includes theme music from Darling as well as Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (Karel Reisz; 1960), The Servant (Joseph Losey; 1963), Morgan: A Suitable Case For Treatment (Karel Reisz; 1966), Modesty Blaise (Joseph Losey; 1966) and Accident (Jospeh Losey; 1967). The collection also includes extensive notes by Workers Playtime DJ Martin Green.

The official Eclipse site calls Let’s Slip Away “Beautifully cool jazz-pop from the days before Johnny started calling himself John and getting all serious on your ass.”

Sounds good to me!

The CD collection was released earlier this month and you can currently find new copies at Amazon selling for about $18.75, but there seems to be a glaring error on the website that also lists the CD for $170. Ignore that ridiculous price! If you can’t get new copies of the CD at Amazon I highly recommend picking up a copy at my favorite online soundtrack shop Movie Grooves.

Comments (2)

John Barry’s BOOM! Soundtrack

by Kimberly Lindbergs | July 12, 2008

Categories | News, Soundtracks, British Cinema, Joseph Losey, John Barry

Cover art for the new Boom! soundtrack release
Apologies for the lack of updates. I’ve been extremely busy lately and I expect to be busy all summer long but hopefully I’ll find some free time to update a bit more in the coming weeks.

In the meantime I wanted to let fans of the Oscar winning British composer John Barry (the James Bond films, Seance on a Wet Afternoon, The Knack …and How to Get It, The Ipcress File, Born Free, The Quiller Memorandum, Petulia, Walkabout, etc.) know that Harkit Records in the UK has just released his fascinating and experimental soundtrack from the film Boom! (1968) on CD for the first time. I’m also thrilled to have been involved with the project. Harkit Records contacted me and asked if they could publish part of my essay about the film as part of the CD liner notes and I happily agreed.

You can currently purchase John Barry’s Boom! soundtrack at Amazon or at online music shops like Movie Grooves in the UK. At the Movie Grooves site you can also listen to sample tracks from the score.

If you appreciate the impressive music John Barry recorded for films in the ’60s as much as I do you’ll definitely want to pick up a copy of his soundtrack for Boom! As I mentioned above, the score has never been made available on CD before and this is a great opportunity to hear some rare and wonderful music by one of Britain’s best composers.

Composer John Barry

Comments (19)

Joseph Losey’s Boom! (1968)

by Kimberly Lindbergs | March 4, 2008

Categories | Movie Reviews, British Cinema, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Joseph Losey, John Barry

Joseph Losey’s Boom! (1968) is one of the most famously criticized and misunderstood films from the late sixties. Its original $3.9 million dollar budget seemed to have ballooned into 10 million by the time shooting stopped and the money was mainly used to pay the million dollar salaries of the film’s two main stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton), dress Elizabeth Taylor in her amazing Tiziani costumes (many designed by Karl Lagerfeld) and Bulgari jewelery, build a fabulous set and keep the Bloody Marys’ and champagne flowing from dawn to dusk. Critics by and large despised Boom! and many viewers walked out of the theater before the film had ended utterly perplexed by what they had just seen.

Boom! was an uneven European art film masquerading as a mainstream Hollywood movie and the general public just wasn’t interested. They wanted to see Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in more easily defined roles such as “tenacious slut” (Taylor) or “troubled saint” (Burton), and they longed for simpler drama with a basic narrative that was easy to follow. But by 1968 both Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton had grown weary of the typical roles Hollywood was offering them and they wanted to make more challenging films together. Boom! would turn out to be one of the most challenging films that the actors ever worked on. But it would also receive the worst reviews of their careers and mark what many consider to be the decline of one of Hollywood’s most glamorous couples. A shared addiction to alcohol and Taylor’s growing reliance on prescription drugs was starting to take its toll on the two actors and their very public marriage. The couple’s wealth, fame and glamorous lifestyle made Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton appear larger than life and at first glance unusual film projects like Doctor Faustus (1967) and Boom! appeared to be self-indulgent vanity projects made without much thought for the general movie-going audiences that had helped make them famous. Resentment seemed to be growing between the popular actors and their adoring fans. And critics were eager to take a swipe at Hollywood’s royal couple. Boom! became an easy target and it’s not too hard to see why.

Boom! was based on one of Tennessee Williams’ least accessible and most esoteric plays called The Milk Train Doesn’t Stop Here Anymore (originally published in 1963) and Williams was also responsible for the film’s script. After two failed Broadway runs of the play Universal Studios still thought they could turn The Milk Train Doesn’t Stop Here Anymore into a hit film starring Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. Both actors had appeared in financially successful film versions of other Tennessee Williams’ plays individually including, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Richard Brooks; 1956), Suddenly Last Summer (Joseph L. Mankiewicz; 1959) and The Night of the Iguana (John Huston; 1964) so Universal assumed the couple could turn The Milk Train Doesn’t Stop Here Anymore into a hit with their double star power. Taylor and Burton gladly accepted the exorbitant salaries Universal Studios offered them to star in Boom! and they looked forward to working on the project with exiled American director Joseph Losey. Losey had been making smart and successful films in Britain for years and the director seemed capable of effortlessly moving between dark psychological dramas with noir overtones such as The Servant (1963) and entertaining pop art extravagances like Modesty Blaise (1966). If Losey had been able to successfully mix multiple elements of his earlier films, as well as better manage his actors, the final results of Boom! may have been more rewarding. But I personally think it’s one of the director’s most fascinating and inspired efforts.

The film focuses on the last two days in the life of Flora ‘Sissy’ Goforth (Elizabeth Taylor). Mrs. Goforth is a wealthy, self-absorbed and terminally ill woman who has buried six husbands and is spending the summer at her isolated coastal villa dictating her sensational memoirs to her servant Miss Black (Johnna Simcus). Her health problems and tortured memories cause her to be in constant pain so she numbs herself with booze, pills, morphine and shots of vitamin B administrated by her doctor. With “Keep Off - Private Property” signs surrounding her property and a pack of vicious attack dogs controlled by an aggressive dwarf (Michael Dunn), Sissy Goforth assumes she won’t be bothered. But her isolated existence comes to an end when a handsome stranger named Chris Flanders (Richard Burton) unexpectedly arrives by boat. Chris is a poet who also makes modern Alexander Calder-style mobiles out of metal. These mobiles are designed to symbolize freedom and Sissy Goforth soon finds out that Chris has come to the island to free her from her shackled existence. After inviting her only close friend known as The Witch of Capri (played by celebrated playwright Noel Coward) for an unusual dinner of boiled “sea monster” and roasted pig, The Witch uses his powers of divination to inform Sissy Goforth that Chris Flanders is also known as the Angel of Death due to his uncanny ability to arrive at the home of wealthy women just as they’re about to die and relieve them of their valuable possessions. Even though Sissy Goforth is sexually attracted to Chris, she is deeply disturbed when she hears this news. She hasn’t finished her memoirs yet and she has no desire to leave the world and “go forth” into the great unknown, so she refuses to feed Chris and spends her last hours verbally sparring with him. This strange allegorical fable ends with Sissy Goforth drifting into oblivion as Chris guides her through her final moments and relieves her of her precious jewels, which he promptly throws into the sea.

Tennessee William’s script for Boom! is very similar to his original play The Milk Train Doesn’t Stop Here Anymore but the title was simplified by using a word that Richard Burton’s Angel of Death character utters every time he hears the waves crashing against the rocks below the cliff-side villa. He explains to Sissy Goforth at one point that “Boom!” is the sound of “the shock of each moment of still being alive” and it’s meant as a sort of wakeup call to get her to appreciate her final hours on earth. In some ways Boom! rehashes many of the topics found in Tennessee William’s previous work such as A Streetcar Named Desire and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, which explored the lives of sexually frustrated and isolated individuals, alcoholism and terminal disease, a fear of death and an inability to let go of the past. But Boom! is more of an allegorical fable that tackles Williams’ favorite themes in a more abstract and mythological way. It was also inspired by Japanese kabuki theatre and the structure of Boom! resembles traditional kabuki plays as re-imagined by Williams.

The talented set designer and artist Richard MacDonald was hired to design the lavish set for Boom!, which was built in Italy on the beautiful Sardinian coast. McDonald had worked with Joseph Losey on many of his best films such as Eva (1962), The Servant (1963) and Modesty Blaise (1966) but his set design for Boom! would become one of his greatest creations. In a style that’s reminiscent of the magnificent modern structures designed by Le Corbusier, Richard MacDonald gave Sissy Goforth’s isolated summer home curving white walls, round windows and stark interiors framing numerous paintings and objects of art that were often meant to convey death. The structure is supposed to symbolically represent the transitional state that Sissy Goforth has found herself in and it’s surrounded by giant rock sculptures that are similar to the ones found on Easter Island. Losey and the brilliant cinematographer Douglas Slocombe shot the film in spectacular Panavison, which captured every lush detail of the expansive set and gave the film an other-worldly look.

Joseph Losey is one of my favorite filmmakers and in Boom! he resurrects many of the elements that made his previous films so interesting while exploring some of his favorite themes involving alienation and the artificial superiority often caused by class distinctions. Losey is truly a master of framing and composition, and in Boom! these skills are used to great effect in order to show the isolation faced by all the characters in such an expansive, yet claustrophobic space. Characters are seen peering through round windows and shot in distorted mirrors, which can represent a reflective moment or the distorted view that individuals often have of themselves and the world around them.

Losey uses sound very creatively in Boom! by having Sissy Goforth dictate her memoirs through the villa’s elaborate intercom system so they’re heard by her entire staff. She also occasionally controls the music heard in the film by turning the sound system on or off depending on her mood. When the camera zooms in on the sun or an electric light you can often hear a strange shimmering sound in the background. And the repetitive noise caused by the sea crashing against the rocks is obviously an important metaphor for the natural ebb and flow of life on the island, which could be seen as a small microcosm of the transitory world we all live in. John Barry is responsible for the film’s impressive soundtrack and it’s one of the British composer’s most experimental scores. Barry worked closely with Losey on the film and the director made many suggestions that were incorporated into the soundtrack.

Unfortunately, Losey’s focus on shooting the fabulous manufactured interiors designed for Boom! and perfectly framing all the drama and action made him very neglectful of his actors. Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Johanna Shimkus and Michael Dunn are all talented thespians and Taylor and Burton are able to deliver truly great performances but in Boom! they often seem lost and in need of direction. At least Noel Coward is very funny in his role and he may have been the only person on the set who completely understood the humor in William’s original script. It’s been assumed and confirmed by Losey himself that the cast and crew were occasionally drunk from too much sea, sun, celebrity and booze during the filming of Boom! and it’s a shame that the director wasn’t able to gain more control over his cast. But I’m sure Taylor and Burton were not very easy to manage at the time. On the other hand, Johanna Shimkus and Michael Dunn don’t fare any better so I’m inclined to blame the lackluster performances from all of the actors in the film on Losey’s direction. It’s unfortunate that the dark humor found in Tennessee Williams’ original play seems as if it’s occasionally suffocating under all the artistry of the director’s elaborate production but at its best Boom! should make you laugh as well as think.

Elizabeth Taylor is the undeniable star of Boom! and the film spends most of its 110 minute running time focused on her. Since she looks fabulous in the film it’s easy to understand why. Taylor gives a completely over-the-top and scene-chewing performance in Boom! that must be seen to be believed. But it’s also a rather daring role for an actress who was much younger then the character in Tennessee Williams’ original play. In one of the movies most unforgettable moments Taylor has a five minute long coughing attack and you can’t help but assume that she might actually be choking to death on the set or attempting to cough up an unwanted lung.

The role of Flora ‘Sissy’ Goforth struck a little too close to home for Elizabeth Taylor and she saw a lot of herself in the character. In the script Taylor is forced to talk on and on about Sissy Goforth’s numerous dead husbands, who were abusive and suffered from impotence (two things Taylor had supposedly experienced herself) as well as her “one true love” who had been an adventurous mountain climber that fell to his death. As much as Elizabeth Taylor deeply loved Richard Burton, she was also still troubled by the unexpected death of her previous husband Mike Todd. Mike Todd had been killed in a terrible plane crash years earlier but his death still bothered the actress. Many of Taylor’s monologues in the film were supposed to be humorous but when the director tried to get Taylor to lighten up and have more fun with her role, she would often become withdrawn or overact. Richard Burton told Joseph Losey later that Elizabeth had been haunted on the set of Boom! by the specter of Mike Todd, which could possibly explain the uncomfortable distance between Burton and Taylor that seems somewhat apparent in the film at times.

Richard Burton’s part was a lot less demanding and in many ways it resembled the role that Taylor previously had in his film version of Doctor Faustus. His character was actually a much younger man in the original play and Burton expressed concern about taking the role. Richard Burton managed to make the most out of his part and the actor actually gives a very measured performance in the film. Burton’s Angel of Death doesn’t speak often but when he does his words are carefully chosen, even when he’s arguing with Taylor’s character Sissy Goforth. One of Burton’s greatest gifts was his voice and it’s smartly used in the film as a tool to seduce Taylor’s character with. As mentioned above, Burton’s Angel of Death also repeats the phrase “Boom!” over and over again, and in the end it is his booming voice that guides Sissy Goforth towards her death and into the great unknown.

Besides providing some unforgettable eye-candy, the costumes in Boom! add an important element to the film. Since the structure of the script and the original play resemble a modern take on traditional Japanese kabuki plays, Burton’s Angel of Death is dressed in a black kimono throughout the film. But instead of carrying a scythe, he carries a Japanese samurai sword. Elizabeth Taylor insisted that her own character be dressed in white and black flowing costumes throughout most of film, which were supposed to represent death shrouds. Taylor is also seen wearing an elaborate kabuki inspired costume during her memorable dinner scene with Noel Coward and she even pretends to act out a bit of kabuki theater after she’s had a few too many cocktails.

Even though Boom! has suffered from negative criticism since its original release, the film does have its defenders. Richard Burton believed that Elizabeth Taylor delivered one of her greatest performances in Boom! and Tennessee Williams thought that Boom! was “an artistic success” and he hoped that eventually it would “be received with acclaim.” The critic Andrew Sarris criticized what he thought were the film’s “metaphysical posturing and pretenses,” and the “tendency for nothing much to happen for the longest stretches” but he also complemented Joseph Losey’s skilled use of mise en scène and his ability to create “glamorous fantasy.” Boom! is also director John Waters’ favorite film and he has even championed it at universities. Waters’ considers Boom! to be the ultimate “failed art” film from the sixties. But even with its failings I think there is a lot to enjoy in Boom!

If you’re not interested in contemplating the larger ideas that Joseph Losey and his cast and crew were trying to communicate with Boom!, you can still enjoy the film purely for Elizabeth Taylor’s show-stopping performance, John Barry’s experimental score, Richard MacDonald’s stunning set designs and Taylor’s jaw-dropping wardrobe. Many people consider Boom! to be a “camp classic” and if the original humor of Williams’ script is lost on you, you might still discover plenty of unintentional laughs in Losey’s film.

Boom! is currently only available in widescreen on a PAL Region 2 DVD from the Dutch company De Filmfreak Distributie and it currently sells at Amazon for $28.99. You can also still find copies of the original Universal Studios video of Boom! selling at Amazon for ridiculous prices. Hopefully a Region 1 DVD of Boom! will be released in the future. If you’d like to see a clip from Boom! you can view one at the official De Filmfreak Distributie site linked below:

- Clip from Boom!

It’s taking me much longer than expected to write about some of my favorite Elizabeth Taylor films due to real world responsibilities and lack of free time, so my small Tribute to Taylor will be ongoing for at least another week. There are still some other Taylor films I’d like to cover here. In the meantime, I’ve just learned that Elizabeth Taylor is currently in the hospital and not doing very well. Hopefully she’ll recover quickly since she seems to have an extremely strong constitution that has saved her from numerous brushes with death in the past.

* This text was published as part of the soundtrack notes for the official CD release of John Bary’s score for Boom!.

Comments (25)

James Fox - Subverting Sexual Identity & Social Class in British Cinema

by Kimberly Lindbergs | February 20, 2007

Categories | Actors, British Cinema, Dirk Bogarde, James Fox, Donald Cammell, Nicolas Roeg, Joseph Losey, Gay Interest

Young James Fox in 1950 and an older James Fox in 1968

THE EARLY YEARS

When critics discuss the movies James Fox starred in during the ’60s and early ’70s, his costars often seem to overshadow him. This is somewhat understandable since Fox’s greatest films from that period feature amazing talents from the decade such as actor Dirk Bogarde and musician Mick Jagger, but James Fox is an extremely talented actor who possessed the uncanny ability to brilliantly portray young men of various backgrounds wrestling with their sexual identity and social class as the sexual revolution of the ’60s was still taking shape.

James Fox was born William Fox in London in 1939 to an upper class British family and he started acting when he was a just a child. His father Robin Fox was a theatrical agent and his mother Angela Fox was an actress who gave birth to two other sons, the talented actor Edward Fox and producer Robert Fox. Out of the three Fox children it seems that William, who was the middle child, was the only one who started his career in show business at such a young age.

His first film role appears to have been Toby Miniver in the British WW2 drama The Miniver Story (1950) which was a follow-up film to the Oscar winning classic Mrs. Miniver. Fox was only about 10 years old at the time that he made The Miniver Story, but his performance must have been memorable because he soon began to act in other films like The Magnet (1950).

Fox took a 10 year break from acting in 1952 to focus on his education, but he changed his name to James and returned to acting again in 1962, and what a return it was! James Fox showed incredible versatility as a young actor who was able to deliver exceptional performances in gritty British dramas like The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962) as well as lighthearted comedies like Tamahine (1963).

In 1963 James Fox really got to show off his acting chops after taking a starring role in the critically acclaimed dark drama, The Servant (1963) directed by Joseph Losey. Fox was only 24 years old at the time that The Servant was made, but his performance in this pivotal film is incredibly impressive and it’s a role that would shape his career for the rest of the ’60s.

SUBVERTING SEXUAL IDENTITY & SOCIAL CLASS IN BRITISH CINEMA

In The Servant James Fox stars as the handsome, carefree and hard-drinking British aristocrat Tony, who has just bought a new home in London and hires a man servant named Hugo (Dirk Bogarde) to care and cook for him. The relationship between Tony and Hugo becomes more and more complicated as the film progresses. There are class differences between the two men as well as an underlying sexual tension that threatens to surface throughout the entire film. Their blossoming friendship is tested when Tony’s ill-mannered girlfriend Susan (Wendy Craig) seems to become annoyed as well as jealous of Hugo, while Hugo seems equally annoyed and jealous of Susan. Susan finally asks Tony to get rid of Hugo, but he refuses. Soon after Hugo hires his “sister” Vera (Sara Miles) to help clean and care for Tony. At first Tony seems extremely disinterested in Vera, but Hugo finds various ways to force them together. When Tony finally decides to consummate his relationship with Vera it’s nearly impossible to not wonder if Tony was only attracted to Vera because he thought she was Hugo’s sister. If Vera was just any girl, would he pay her much attention? After Tony discovers the truth about Vera he fires them both, but soon afterward Tony hires Hugo again.

Together Hugo and Tony resume playing house together and act more like an old married couple than master and servant. This facade hides the fact that Hugo wants Tony’s privileges and wealth, and Tony seems to desperately want Hugo’s acceptance and companionship. Hugo begins using his powers of persuasion over Tony, and soon Tony becomes a prisoner in his own home; trapped by Hugo’s domineering personality as well as his own reliance on alcohol. As their relationship becomes more and more codependent a simple game of hide & seek between the two men suddenly becomes something much more sinister and subversive. A complex struggle for power and class hierarchy, as well as sexual domination seems to be taking place between them as Hugo taunts Tony with veiled threats of, “You’ve got a guilty secret!” while Tony hides like a petrified child terrified of incomprehensible demons he is unwilling to face.

James Fox is absolutely astonishing in the complex role of Tony and he brings a lot of depth to a role that could have easily become something mundane in another actor’s hands. His emotional performance makes Tony’s downfall at the end of the film all the more painful to watch. Fox received the 1964 BAFTA Award (British Academy of Film and Television Art) for Most Promising Newcomer to Leading Film Roles for his outstanding performance in The Servant.

James Fox & Dirk Bogarde in The Servant

After his demanding role in The Servant, James Fox showed his versatility once again by taking on the role of a British pilot in the fun filled action packed comedy Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (1965), but later that same year he returned again to dramatic roles in director Bryan Forbes’s King Rat (1965), a hard-hitting prisoner of war story.

In King Rat James Fox plays a British Royal Air Force Officer named Peter Marlowe who’s trapped in a Malaysian prisoner-of-war camp run by the Japanese during WW2. In the film Peter or “Pete” is taken under the wing of an American Corporal called “King” (George Segal) after he spots Peter conversing with locals and speaking Malay. King thinks Peter could be useful to him, so he gives him some cigarettes and a meal with the hope that Peter will join his motley crew of con-artists who are running the camp almost as much as the Japanese soldiers are. Soon the British Officer Peter is being ordered around by the low ranking Corporal King. It’s easy to simply view King Rat as a brutal WW2 buddy movie or prison film about men trying to survive anyway they can in terrible circumstances, which it is. But underlying that is the complex relationship between Peter and King, which is at the center of King Rat and seems to transform the film into something much more sublime.

James Fox gives a pitch-perfect performance as the educated British Officer Peter Marlowe. Peter easily stands out among the dirty prisoners with his good manners, easy-going attitude, bright blond hair and clean-shaven face as he wanders around the camp wearing a sarong-style skirt and sandals. The rest of the prisoners seem extremely rugged, desperate and plain ugly in comparison. Throughout the film Peter develops a relationship with King that is clearly much deeper then the relationships the two men share with the other prisoners. It’s obvious that Peter admires King’s bravado as well as his ability to survive and thrive under such dire circumstances, while King clearly admires Peter’s class and dignity in a situation that has turned other men into monsters or “rats.” Peter and King are an odd pair but their bond seems genuine until the war comes to an unexpected end. When they’re finally rescued from the prisoner-of-war camp Peter finds himself in a highly emotional and codependent relationship with King and he seems unaware of how to behave as a free man in a free world. King on the other hand is upset about his sudden freedom because it means he will loose control of his “kingdom” and be forced to return to civilian life.

When Peter confronts King in a fit of desperation at the end of King Rat and asks, “Don’t you remember what we had?” it brings deeper meaning to the relationship between these two men of different backgrounds, class and rank. At the end of the film, Peter runs through the camp in a desperate attempt to see King one last time before he leaves with his American comrades, but Peter never gets to say goodbye. The silent and stoic pain James Fox manages to manifest for his role after his character realizes that he probably won’t ever see King ever again is hard to watch. Peter’s identity, much like Tony’s in The Servant, seems to have been shaped by his own disregard of social class within the confines of the prison camp, as well as his deep emotional attachment to another man. At the end of King Rat James Fox is left adrift once again, unsure of his place in the world and where he stands.

James Fox & George Segal in King Rat

After a small but memorable role in the interesting dramatic film The Chase (1966), James Fox returned to lighthearted roles in comedies like Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967) and Arabella (1967), until taking on the role of Chas in Performance (filmed in 1968, but not released until 1970) where Fox would once again play a man struggling with his social conditioning as well as his sexual identity.

THE END OF A DECADE

As the 1960s were coming to a close, James Fox was becoming a major British film star. He was also indulging in the excesses of the decade such as alcohol and drugs, long before he took the role of Chas Devlin in Performance (1968/1970).

Fox had met Performance co-director Donald Cammell on the set of the crime film Duffy (1968), which they both worked on. James Fox had also become friendly with Mick Jagger who he had met backstage at a Rolling Stones concert in Rome in 1967. Fox’s friendships with Cammel & Jagger seem to be the initial reason why he was considered for the role of Chas in Performance.

Before Performance Fox had mostly played refined upper class British gentlemen, but it’s also obvious that in previous roles Fox had played characters who were in some ways redefining class roles in British society as well as re-examining their sexual identity. I think Donald Cammell probably saw a little of these qualities in Fox’s previous film’s too, which would have made James Fox rather perfect for the complex role of Chas Devlin in Performance even if it’s been reported that Marlon Brando was the director’s first choice for the role.

To prepare for his role Fox moved to South London and immersed himself in British gangster life for 2-3 months before filming started. He also worked directly with the dialogue coach David Litvinoff who had come in contact with British criminals and knew the notorious Kray twins firsthand. Litvinoff offered Fox an insider’s look into the British gangster lifestyle that would lend his character, as well as the film, a grittiness that previous British crime films often seemed to lack.

In Performance Fox plays the sadistic British gangster Chas Devlin who “performs” violent acts of terror for his boss Harry Flowers. When Chas finds himself on the run after killing a childhood friend and fellow criminal, he ends up hiding out at the home of an androgynous ex-pop star named Turner (Mick Jagger) who was also a “performer” once and Turner’s lovers, the beautiful and fun-loving Pherber (Anita Pallenberg) and the boyishly cute Lucy (Michèle Breton). Turner’s home is a little too bohemian for the seemingly conservative Chas, but he manages to forget about his hang-ups when Pherber feeds him some psychedelic mushrooms. While Chas tries to figure out why he’s suddenly feeling so odd, Turner and Pherber have fun playing mind games with him. In the process Chas finds himself questioning his sexual identity and the role he has carved out for himself in the brutal crime world he inhabits outside of Turner’s home. As the film comes to it’s violent conclusion, Chas’ feelings for Turner take a complex turn and he seems to loose himself completely as he and Turner merge into one “performer.” Much like his character Tony in The Servant as well as Peter in King Rat, at the end of the film Fox’s Chas is left with his identity in tatters but this time his transformation is so complete that the audience no longer recognizes him.

Fox is utterly brilliant as Chas. He brings so many subtle character quirks to his role that they’re hard to notice at first glance but Fox knows that a simple twitch of the eye or a bite of the lip can bring a character to life in ways that are barely noticeable and extremely powerful. James Fox becomes Chas Devlin so completely that it’s hard to know where his own performance begins and ends.

James Fox & Mick Jagger in Performance

Unfortunately for film audiences, Performance would be the last movie James Fox would make until his return to acting in the late 1970s. After the filming of Performance ended Fox suffered a breakdown brought on by the sad death of his father and his heavy drug use. When Fox finally recovered he didn’t want anything to do with acting anymore and devoted himself entirely to religious studies for 10 years.

It’s been rumored that his breakdown was caused by his experiences on the set of Performance, but Fox had started to use drugs before shooting the movie and he had also openly expressed interest in studying scripture before filming began. It seems he was going through a lot of personal turbulence in the late sixties and in his biography Comeback: An Actor’s Direction (1983) Fox writes that before filming Performance he was, “Not only in a guilty muddle about drugs, but my sexual imagination was also in complete turmoil.” It’s no wonder that he brought so much realism to characters such as Chas.

Thankfully James Fox seems to have sorted himself out after his 10 year sabbatical and he returned to acting regularly in the 1980s. Within the past 25 years he’s shown that he’s still capable of taking on complex roles in films that examine sexual identity and class structure. Some interesting examples of this include his role as the gay British spy Anthony Blunt in A Question of Attribution (1992) and his role as the British aristocrat Lord Darlington in The Remains of the Day (1993). Hopefully we’ll continue to see more interesting and daring performances from James Fox in the future.

Comments (5)