Flickorna

I was prompted to write a little bit about this film because i think the other review on this page is absolutely ridiculous. And, as this is a rather obscure film, i didn't want that to be the only word on this great film.

I just want to say that from the way this film tells it's story right on through the way it is performed and on to what it ultimately says not only HOLDS UP through time, it is most definitely relevant in today's gender climate. I was absolutely blown away by the ballsy film-making and the fearless way in which it presents its ideas. Very much ahead of it's time.

Everyone should see this film, especially men. and of all men, especially men who think and write like the other reviewer on this page. SEE THIS MOVIE!

This is an amazing underrated movie. It' funny, intelligent and deals critically with gender issues and with the difficulty in reaching out to people and producing change. Of course, if you're really sexist this film is not for you, you surely won't agree with me. There are many things I liked about this movie, but I'd like to point out two.

First, about it's form. It's not a traditional movie, it has some non realist (metaphorical or surreal) scenes, it mixes the reality of the film with the memories, desires and imagination of the characters, it mixes the Swedish life of it's time with Aristophanes play Lysistrata and keeps jumping from one to the other. So you have to think actively to interpret the meaning of these jumps. If you don't like this kind of direction and prefer a more traditional one, perhaps you won't like this movie as much as me (or you will end up thinking the film doesn't have a plot just because you couldn't follow it like some other reviewers). But be assured that this is not confusing nor formalist. It always has meaning and is always related to reality. And this is incredible in a time that most of the art that tries to reach beyond traditional forms looses meaning and relation to reality becoming formalist and sometimes even irrationalist.

Second, about the gender issues. I also liked a lot that it's not a plain movie in which the protagonists give a speech about women freedom and the women rise in a revolt. Actually one may say that this movie is more about trying to reach out and hitting a wall. About women not being taken seriously in a sexist society no matter how hard and seriously they try. Not even by most of the other women. And in this sense, the choice of Lysistrata as a mean to produce change is very good, because the women's revolt in this play was meant to be a joke and not taken seriously. In ancient Athens women were not allowed in the comedies, only in the tragedies, so this play was written by a man, to be represented by a cast of men for an audience of men and not to reach out to women. The critical power of the play, if you may say so, is in the fact that it was an anti-war play, it was meant to help to increase support for a peace treaty with Sparta, but not to really deal with gender issues in the sexist ancient Greece.

All in all this was an avant-garde movie way ahead of it's time. And I disagree with the reviews that state that this is a dated movie. Of course it bears the marks of it's time (like every movie), but perhaps it may even be better appreciated now than when it was filmed.

If you liked this movie you may want to check out Älskande par (Loving Couples), another movie of Mai Zetterling that touch gender issues, but not in such a direct way and with a less innovative and experimental directorial style.

This has become my favourite Swedish film. I've seen i t many times. At first I thought it would be gloomy and depressing in a Bergman way. It wasn't. It's a funny, spirited and inventive film.

It's nice to see that even swedes were caught up in the sixties and felt the charge of new ways of thinking and being. New ideas about social behavior, youth and womens place in society were taken up in "the Girls". It's refreshingly shown and not preachy. There's a lot of humour in it and the men get to say their opinions about women too so it's not one-sided.

Some reviewers here have commented on it as being dated. It is a product of it's time but some of the subjects it takes up are timeless. How much should a woman have to compromise with the male point of view? I think this is still a touchy subject. The film was controversial when it was released. It's not a traditional movie with a straight plot so some people might find it too unconventional. But, there are three great performances by some of the best Swedish actresses ever: Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom who are all so delightfully energetic, lively and beautiful. They show different sides being a woman.

The film is very much a 1968 film but it's worth seeing for the great black and white photography, to see Sweden in the sixties, for the actors and for the imaginative direction by Mai Zetterling. I love it!

I believe this movie represents how it felt to be an out-spoken feminist in the 60s. The people you were preaching to weren't listening, the people you were preaching against were laughing of you. It must have been a terrible struggle, and this movie portrays this in an interesting manner.

However, while feminism movement is still going strong (and rightfully so), this movie does not hold up as that relevant any more. The feminist struggle was different back then than now, and while some of the problems are the same, the "war" (as they call it in the film) is different, making this movie feel as dated as it is.

The highlights of the movie are some of the surreal scenes. I believe this is the only movie with a chase scene where a snowmobile is chasing a kicksled.

So, I would say watch this if you are interested in either feminism in cinema, or the situation of the feminists in the 60s and 70s. Or if you are interested in (swedish) film history, as this release caused some controversy. But if you are a casual moviegoer that (amazingly) stumbles upon this, you probably will not be too happy.

Harriet Andersson, Bibi Andersson, and Gunnel Lindblom go on tour with LYSISTRATA and become radicalized into political agency by the play and the reactions -- or lack of reactions -- to it.

Mai Zetterling's film disappeared from the theaters after three weeks of awful receipts. The critics -- men, of course -- didn't care for this tale of how these women's real lives bonded with their stage lives to create a third life, part dream, part hallucination, with the men reduced to indistinguishable, impotent actors driven simply by their lusts for sex and dull normality.

The movie has gained respect over the years, with feminists acclaiming it. But were the critics of the time so wrong? Aristophanes' play has often often attracted the attention of modern writers and producers. They've made modern-dress novels, and plays and movies, and they seem to have a uniformly poor reception. Perhaps the attraction of the source material to Ms Zetterling was it was one of the few works of classic literature in which women had agency. Whereas Aristophanes intended this as mockery of the new, more democratic spirit of Athens that he so despised, offering peace as so obvious that even women could see it, and men being such brutes that they'd do anything for sexual release. He was not making an argument for extending the franchise to women; he wanted a return to the Good Old Days, when aristocrats with names like Aristophanes were in charge.

Perhaps the failing here is Ms Zetterling's honesty. Like Spike Jones, in his gloss on the play, CHI-RAQ, she points out the hypocrisy of the class she argues for, their cowardice in refusing to accept responsibility. That's one of the risks of satire. Once you've offended everyone, there aren't going to be many fans.