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.
