User reviews

I just watched this film for a law class and wanted to briefly defend it, in light of the previously posted comment by another user.

I think the comparison of feminist reaction to male dominance in this movie, with anti-Semitism of the Nazi era, is inappropriate and not logically founded. Anti-Semitism and Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany was an example of social/religious bigotry, intolerance, and violence perpetrated by the political majority against a political and religious minority. It was based on a history of escalating persecution spanning centuries. By contrast, this movie concerns the emergent hostile sentiments of a social/political minority group, to their perceived oppression by the social/political majority.

The movie dates from the 1980's and perhaps both suffers and benefits from this fact -- it looks somewhat dated, but the social climate of that era is important to understanding the movie. Europe of the 1970s and 1980s, much like the US, was still very resistant to even the idea that sexism really existed or was a problem. The courts were actively fleshing out the parameters of sexual rights and protections -- legally carving out the nuances of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and reproductive choice law.

The film is basically an extended commentary, arguably controversial, on the repression of women in a male dominated society. In this regard, the message is possibly too strongly stated -- three women, having finally had enough of silently accepting sexism and male domination, suddenly snap and brutally murder a male sales clerk in cold blood. They feel no remorse, and no men in the movie can even begin to comprehend the very idea of sexism or its effect on women. However, to compare the feminist sentiments of the film to Nazi-ism, is not only unfair, but is an offensive and reactionary over-statement of disagreement with these same feminist sentiments.

In today's malevolent world, the banal incident of three unknown women teaming up to beat a male dress boutique owner to death would not at all raise eyebrows. However, close to three decades ago it created quite a sensation in Holland. Taking this absurd incident into account, Dutch director Marleen Gorris set out to make "De Stilte Rond Christine M"/A question of silence. The silence in question is that of one of the three women who opens up to some extent towards the end. The film is a good eye opener about the release of frustrations felt by three different albeit ordinary women from diverse educational as well as socioeconomic backgrounds. The story is counter balanced with the introduction of a fourth character, a psychiatrist whose objective is to prove that these women do possess sound minds even though they have taken part in a senseless killing. Although she wins the battle for these hapless women but ends up losing a major war with her lawyer husband. As a piece of entertainment-A question of silence succeeds with its focus on flashbacks and good music. It does not give everything to viewers by preparing them to get to know the story better. For example: there is a documentary cinema type feel in some good shots of the women's prison. As a lesson about the inequality of sexes, this film suffers due to its ambiguous standpoint. It is neither pro women nor anti men. However, it is worth having a quick glance if one wishes to watch a Dutch film which has been considered a cult classic for many years.

To call this movie hate literature is one thing, but the analogy used referencing Jews and Nazis is completely not applicable here. This is a film about power, domination, and oppression, all three of which men exercise over women in our society. One would have to live in a bubble to say that Jews hold the same position over non-Jews or Nazis (or did pre-WWII)! As a Jew, I find your comment mildly offensive, and as a man (while it is always difficult to recognize one's privilege), I find this film to be an amazing critique of patriarchy. While murder may not be the solution, this film shows the extraordinary way in which 3 women who have been beaten down their whole lives (and have nothing to lose) attempt to fight back against an enemy that is unbeatable. The laughter at the end of this film proves just who gets it and who doesn't. PS- I've heard that in some places during the initial screenings of this film, women in the theaters actually broke out in laughter with the women on screen during the court scene....

Ususally "the system (Man)" would pass judgement on criminals however in this case a women was brought in, one that knows the truth of their experience. Male/Female relations and the use of power/violence were clearly in the air at the time. A brief look at the Oscars from 1982: Best Pic/Act: Gandhi (Kingsley)- advocating the dream of peace and equality but a dream that fails, B. Actress: Streep in Sopie's Choice - a woman who is strong enough to survive the Nazis but it's the man in her life afterward that drives everything. Best Supp. Actor: Gossett Jr. for Officer & a Gentleman: who talks about the local girls who will do anything to get pregnant to "catch" a cadet so they should keep it in their pants and the MOTHER OF ALL MOTHERs of 1982 Male/Female issue movies nominated for Picture, Director, Actor, and WON (Lange) for Supp. Actress - TOOTSIE. Time to get Tootsie together with these 3 ladies.

For those of you seeing this movie for the first time, remember that this movie was made 23 years ago. A small low budget Dutch film about 3 women, strangers brought together by chance, uniting to protect the dignity of 1 and in doing so finding an outlet for their own personal rage in the unplanned murder of a man. Understanding glances pass to each set of eyes in the room - all women, and they depart the store. In silence.

Viewers are crying that Mr. Tough would never have let 3 women beat him up let alone kill him. Newsflash: me and two friends? Maybe not the linebacker of your local football team, but otherwise any shopkeeper in this city is going down. Others make inaccurate and disrespectful political references (i.e., there was no fever pitch mob, no gov't promotion of ideals or action). Also, this movie was made at the start of the Twinkie trial defense era. Now we have road rage, get drunk and you can run over people with no jail time and god knows what else. It has proved to be a foretelling.

In general things hyperbolic to fully lay things out, focusing on the evaluation and on the past. It is not the "crime" that is requiring "reform", it the their daily grind that is the problem and need fixing. They are put on trial for the viewer, their lives laid out, but the viewer must decide what's right or wrong for them, but for all conduct between genders in their own contact. Hopefully people will learn to whistle a little less and listen a listen more!

Very powerful and thoughtful. Much superior to Gorris' more-acclaimed Antonia's Line, in my opinion. This film has none of the cutesiness of Antonia but all of the thoughtfulness and thematic weight. The theme is a subtle examination of the roles of men and women in Dutch society, and I guess it could apply to many societies. The film has a viewpoint, but it problematizes and complicates matters so that it's impossible for the viewer to blindly accept that viewpoint. It examines SUBTLE discrimination and dehumanization.

The only frustration I had was the fact that the copy I viewed did not give subtitles to a lot of the dialogue--e.g., a woman listens to the radio for about a minute, but non-Dutch speakers (like myself) don't understand any of it, and I'm guessing that with a filmmaker as careful as Gorris, this dialogue is important.

I'm not even sure if a DVD is available in North America, and if it isn't it would be a tremendous shame. "A Question of Silence" is a tough, rigorous, unsentimental and unblinking examination of justice and is, as another comment observed, a far less mainstream and safe film than Goriss's "Antonia's Line."

For anyone who has even a passing interest in dark, uncompromising work, go out of your way to find this film. It's a little wonky technically and there are perhaps 5 minutes or so of didactic twaddle one wishes the director has discarded in the cutting room- but none of this diminishes from the towering overall achievement.

For anyone whose taste runs to the safe and predictable and who doesn't like being provoked by the films they watch, avoid this one. It's not for you.

"Why aren't there any truly great movies directed by women!" This is a phrase I hear more often than I'd like to admit. I also hesitate to admit, that once I exhaust the usual "woke" responses (historical discrimination, patriarchy, etc.) there always comes the sad realization that, yeah, there really aren't a lot of movies, directed by women, that can be considered indisputably "great". There are a couple on the roster in need of cultural evaluation; Carroll Ballard's Fly Away Home (1996) and anything directed by Lynne Ramsay definitely rank at the top of my list. Yet thus far the critical consensus has been there's no Citizen Kane (1941) for women behind the director's chair (but here's to hoping), and the popular consensus has pretty much been - "wasn't The Hurt Locker (2008) a thing once?"

Yet if one were to take off the blinders of popular, American- centric cinema, and go looking for a bit, one might find the works of Marleen Gorris, specifically her austere gem of a first feature A Question of Silence. The plot: a simple setup for a simple movie. Three women are charged with murdering a male shopkeeper and a psychiatrist (Habbema) is tasked with determining whether they're sane enough to stand trial.

The struggle to understand why the murder occurred in a flash of violence provides the foundational aspects of the film. The movie cuts back and forth between the psychiatrist's prodding interrogations with the scene of the crime which, as the title suggests is largely without dialogue. We figure out early how the scene played out - we even catch a glimpse at important details before the psychiatrist realizes she's being lied to. She gets unreliable narration from sullen secretary Andrea (Tol), cackling nonsense from lonely waitress Ann (Frijda) and complete boo from catatonic housewife Christine (Barends). Yet we, we get everything.

The context of the film is forever present from the opening scene - the psychiatrist trying to get the attention of her lawyer husband (Brugman), to the films flummoxing resolution in the courtroom. Its sense of justice in the face of indifference and neglect sets itself over the story like a gossamer and sustains itself in a way that defies description. The story, it's players, it's simple musical cues are so sparse yet so fierce and brilliant it approaches being an angry visual haiku.

The film's stillness and clinical lack of ornamentation only adds to its rather nerving wit. It sets up its meticulous visual prose like the calm cadence of a damning speech then lets you fill in its devastating meaning. Every frame, every camera angle is a repudiation of patriarchy, with the movie's constant microaggressions providing context and the murder providing a bloody and pertinent focal point. It should be noted that the murder is often described yet its remains completely unseen. Thus we're forced to figuratively pick up the pieces for ourselves even as the deed is being done.

Gorris's overall message remains subversive while in plain sight; what remains obvious to some, will likely breed bewilderment for others. What remains clear is Gorris's first feature has more vitality and immediacy, than most filmmakers could ever hope to conjure out of their entire ouevre. She later fine-tuned and further explored feminist themes in Broken Mirrors (1984) and Antonia's Line (1995) though A Question of Silence remains her most concentrated dose of inspiring social radicalism. This is filmmaking not just as art but as a n incendiary device - one whose sense of empowerment leaves no prisoners.

This film expects you to believe that a man would stand still and let three women kick and smash him to death. Evidently he was too polite to fight back or even try to flee.

I completely empathise with the intent of this film to show how frustrated women can and should be with the way they are treated. But it is highly improbable that anyone can take this film seriously. Too bad: there are some nice performances in it.

A Question of Silence is a moving film about three women who commit a horrible, violent crime and about the establishment's attempts to understand their motive. Without forethought and without knowing one another, they attack and kill a boutique owner in cold blood. The film follows the psychiatrist (played by Cox Habbema) as she interviews the incarcerated women. The major conflict comes from the women's refusal to state their motive, whence the title. Everyone assumes they must be insane, because to admit otherwise (and this is the conclusion to which the psychiatrist finally comes) is to admit that the world is a very bad place for women, indeed.

The film is hard to watch, especially, I would imagine, for men. But it by no means glorifies the murder or the murderers. Nor do the murderers find "overwhelming public support" at their trial. What they find is willful incomprehension on the part of the men who arrest them, try them and testify against them. Because what they have done cannot be understood in the context of any existing cultural system, including language, the women can only laugh as their sentence is pronounced. Their laughter is frightening, irrational and yet somehow gives shape to a different kind of logic.

This film captivated me when I first viewed it 10 years ago and continues to do so. It captured the sense of living in a hostile world, evident to any feminist or woman who has suffered at the hands of patriarchy, the system, 'the man' or possibly even the US 'just us' system.

It makes obvious the masculinist basis of language and the inability of some women to describe their experience of oppression within social systems that utilize languages designed and created to express the dominant position.

This film is powerful, and in my experience, confuses only those that have no empathy with the experiences of any of the main characters; namely men.

Comments like those of Brian-343 quoted below miss the moral statement of the film, that patriarchal systems of dominance are SO destructive to some that it literally drives them to insanity (backed up by medical evidence of rates of mental illness in women only being equalled by those of men in times of extreme stress and distress: wartime).

'Did it seem like they answered the question why they did it? I didn't think so. I was left with a weak canned answer. It was just "they were oppressed by the patriarchal society, so they have a reason to kill." What? Do you kill a person based on your whim just because that person is a part of a group of people who "generally" oppresses you? I think the filmmaker failed to make her big moral statement - you don't excuse a criminal instantly because they were supposedly oppressed.'

The film doesn't excuse the murder. It demonstrates the reasons for it. The female protagonists do not escape punishment although Gorris does posit incarceration as preferable to their previous existences; marriage or servitude.

It is a crying shame that this film has not been transcribed onto DVD.

This film is NOT anti-male. It is not suggesting that women go out and randomly kill men just for being of that gender. What is does do is use a wonderful technique called reversal. If three men had brutalized a woman, well, "society" might not find that so shocking (maybe more now than earlier years, but certainly not as shocking as the reverse). It doesn't want to start propaganda, it wants to make you THINK. By making the therapist think on it, it forces the viewer to think on it as well. What's the history of women being brutalized and then remaining quiet about it? Have women really achieved the social, political, and economic equality that is the feminist goal? Why not? This movie doesn't hate men; it simply loves women enough to give everyone something to think about.

A joyless, fuming, provocative but ill-conceived essay on the perennially-loathed patriarchy, featuring an unsubtle set of caricatures instead of characters and a lazily sensationalistic plot by which its central theme can be sledge-hammered on the audience's head like a hellfire sermon spat in its direction from the directorial pulpit. A heaving chest of a film, indignant and outraged - a snarling dream with a dream's logic and easily-disippated substance.

The misunderstanding of this controversial film often comes from the misconception that feminism hates men. The plot of three women killing a man in a boutique is indeed based on an actual event (although the victim in the news was a young woman). In this film, Marleen Gorris studies the extreme behaviour, relating it to the male-dominant legal system that does not give much room for studying people's feelings. If one can see that Gorris' position is more with the pyschiatrist who is sympathetic with the case rather than promoting hatred, it is not hard to see why Los Angeles Times considered the film as a subversive movie in the best sense of the word.

Brilliantly posed, the Question of Silence found it's way into US theatres at a very appropriate moment.(1983) The lack of response in the US to this film revealed, to women who had worked through the agonies of trying to get men to "see" something other than their own vain point of view, the dense, monolithic proportion of hate and ignorance for women that most men men hold. The fact that the women characters consciously acknowledged the sense of humiliation that drove them to the rage that enabled them eviscerate the entrenched, historically priggish and stupid Man (the Shopkeeper) that they had endured through their own lives (and the lives of all women before them)made the POV in this film mind-boggling to most viewers. The arguments between the two lawyers (couple) and the disbelief of the Judges further proved the accuracy of the film's "take" on attitudes of men. Men who were in the Lumiere theatre when I saw it left mumbling to themselves. This film jolts people out of their ordinary positions on matters of conscience and action. In that respect alone, it is art of the best kind, the kind that stimulates the viewer to think anew. Not unlike Vagina Monologues in its power to shift awareness, this jewel should be kept in the public's eye by any means necessary.

Shows the societal forces that drive 3 women who have never met to kill a shopkeeper who takes on the personification of condescending patriarchy. Shows the tribulations of the stay at home mom, the waitress & the executive. Shows in subtle & overt ways the pervasive sexism in society.

Reminiscent of the play/short story/film, A Jury of her Peers, written by Susan Gaskel-a contemporary of Eugene O'Neill's who was way more popular than O'Neill at the time, much to O'Neill's dismay.

First saw this movie on limited release in London in 1984, just seen it again, a reminder to all us men that equality and feminism are ideals that we all need to strive for.

A rejoinder to all the 'torture porn' that has become so sickeningly fashionable in this new century. Although shocking and uncomfortable to watch at times it still is unfortunately relevant now that 'feminism' is often seen as a dirty word even amongst young women today.

It seems dated in places but reflects the 1980s well. The message is timeless in it's relevance and importance for the wellbeing of all couples and single people of any gender.

After watching this film, I was forced to come search for what others had taken from it. I was shocked and jarred, however, at the heteroglossia present. SM-4 from Alabama wrote that, "Everyone assumes they must be insane, because to admit otherwise is to admit that the world is a very bad place for women, indeed." While it may be possible to interpret the film in this way and it may even be the intended interpretation, it strikes me as disingenuous. Though the court and justice system's appearing inability to imagine these women as competent is a form of sexism, it does not point to a "world (that) is a very bad place for women." Indeed, three white men not too long ago in America might have met in a store with a black man and beat him to death. According to SM-4's logic, the world would be a very bad place for white men also.

Just because one racial group, religious group, or gender strikes out at those whom they feel oppressed, threatened, or harmed by, that does not prove that those feeling of oppression, injury, or injustice are valid. In some cases, mitigating evidence may exist. In A Question of Silence, however, I found none.