Donald Cammell has intrigued me for many years, since first I read the item in VARIETY that told us that the British born writer/director who had helped to make PERFORMANCE was next going to be making ISHTAR with Dominique Sanda, Marlon Brando and William Burroughs. When ISHTAR failed to materialize that was the beginning of many years of Hollywood hardship for the increasingly difficult and willful Cammell, and the Uhlands spell it all out in a long slow drop to the very bottom of show business.
His background is interesting, but I felt that the art work done by Cammell in the 1950s is on a generally far lower level than his biographers credit it with. It's an illustration style in which someone like Frank Frazetta excelled, but Cammell seems ashamed of his gestural style, as though he were slumming and that might work for some artists but it didn't work here. Happily the 60s were right around the corner and before you know it, Cammell is right up there partying with Keith Richards and Brian Jones, and making one of the most telling pictures of the 1960s (Warner Brothers doubts about the release of PERFORMANCE turned it technically into a 1970s film, for they kept it on the shelf for years until they had to put something out).
The Uhlands happily summarize the different reasons why PERFORMANCE became cult classic, mentioning Mr. Fox's adverse reaction to the film (he became a Christian to get away from its taint), and also the so-called "Performance Trims," a separate film shot by Anita van Pallenberg under the sheets in the famous menage a trois scene . . . We have long wondered at what Cammell did, what Nicolas Roeg did... Well according to the Uhlands, Roeg is just about nothing and Cammell just about everything. As a fellow biographer I must credit the couple with being on target every time they talk about the films themselves--I could read their observations all day--but about the man himself they are sometimes puzzlingly vague. They have him on a pedestal so high it's like we're looking at him from his ankles and what we see isn't so flattering, and so the book suffers from a certain split in focus.
To my taste they seem to depend overmuch on the unsupported testimony of one key figure, the estimable editor Frank Mazzola, who comes up with all sorts of assertions the Uhlands are more or less forced to swallow wholesale. Did or did not Vladimir Nabokov write Cammell a letter of praise regarding his PALE FIRE screenplay? Despite every lick of evidence that says "No he didn't," Frank Mazzola says he did, and so we're given that as a fact. Or a "fact."
And some curious lacunae--the Hollywood legend whom Cammell used to shoot new American footage for the Italian SIMONA--Frank calls him only "Samson" and it becomes obscured that this figure must actually be Samson De Brier, the key associate of Kenneth Anger. But all in all a marvelous biography of a man whom time played some tricks in the short run, but in the long run time will endow him with great fame.