Mujer contra mujer

I see this movie as an attempt to help conservative people to see gay life (male or female) as something natural, or normal (which I think is very OK). The three segments represents three steps for that recognition : 1961 : Hide it! 1972 : It is shown as some kind of feminist fashion and shows intolerance between the lesbians. 2000 : acceptance. The problem is that the three segments are very unequal. We all accept that the first part is very moving, with a very very fine performance from the great Vanessa Redgrave. The second part is O.K. But the third is very weak. Despite these little defaults, this is a very fine movie, with honorable good intentions. I say bravo to everyone involved in it and also say bravo to every viewer who accepts it. But for a little superior movies on the same subject, I suggest two Canadian films : When the night is falling, and Revoir Julie. I wonder what would be the reaction if there was a similar film with men... You know the story : lesbians are more cute...

I have to admit that I approached the viewing of this movie with some apprehension. But as it turned out, I enjoyed it very much.

The film consists of three separate stories dealing with lesbianism set at different times and featuring characters from three distinct age groups.

The first, set in 1961, and the best of the three, features an outstanding performance by the marvellous Vanessa Redgrave as a retired school teacher who suddenly loses her lifelong companion. She suddenly finds that all of the things she has taken for granted are suddenly gone, including the roof over her head. The vignette shows how lesbianism was never talked about in public in the 60s as evidenced in the hospital scenes where Redgrave attempts to find out what has happened to her "friend". Paul Giamatti plays the deceased's nephew who has to tell Redgrave that she no longer can remain in her home of 30 years. Elizabeth Perkins effectively plays his scavenging wife.

The second story, set in 1972, deals with the relationship between a college co-ed (Michelle Williams) and a girl who likes dress in macho male attire (Chloe Sevigny). I found myself actually hoping that they would live happily ever after.

The last story concerns the often humorous efforts of two mature companions (Ellen DeGeneres, Sharon Stone)to "have a baby".

Although not for everyone, I found that this movie was tastefully done and very well acted.

I love the first segment of this movie. The first segment took place in 1960's. It described how 2 elderly women live and love each other for many years and suddenly, one of them dies of stroke, the other one is only being recognized as the best friend, not family member. Vanessa Redgrave was marvelous in this role. She could only moan for her lost partner in dark and hide all the sorrow to herself. The scene that she felt the need to separate her stuff apart from her partner's right before her partner's nephew arrival certainly reflects how lesbians are practically nonexistent at that time. It is so sad and upsetting that some distant relatives could just walk in there and take away everything (furnitures, bird collections with all sentimental meanings) she had shared with her partner for years. She eventually got kicked out of her own house by some distant relative of her partner's. This is how same sex couples were being treated. It is a very touching, tender segment. It will make you cry.

In the 2nd segment, although Chole Sevigny and Mitchell William were great, something is missing in the message they tried to convey. It doesn't go into much details on how 1970's perceive lesbians.

The 3rd segment is kind of funny. Ellen Degeneres and Sharon Stone were great. This segment is a big contrast to the very first one. In 2000, gay and lesbians are getting more recognitions and fighting for civil rights. Although there is still a lot of work to do, compared to 1960's, there has been a lot of improvements and more freedom.

Overall, it is a wonderful movie. Highly recommended.

I absolutely loved this movie. I probably wouldn't have written a review, except I read the review that says unequal, and I completely disagree. I believe this movie was pretty accurate in each decade. The one that depicts 2000 was very moving and a lot different from the first decade. I think they were very brilliant to focus on the pregnancy issue. Lesbians and gay men these days want children and realize this can be a reality. I don't believe that was an issue until recent years. There is always a big focus on discrimination and unequal rights. This decade focused on the people and not only the huge issue of discrimination. It gave everyone just a little insight that lesbians and gays are people too with normal desires and needs.

I think it was a super movie and I highly recommend it.

I must say that this film was a complete surprise to me. I started watching it intending to watch the first segment because Vanessa Redgrave never fails to move me. And, needless to say, her performance in this film is exceptional and a masterpiece of acting. I kept watching, however, because of the clever device which weaves all three stories together, and was soon mesmerised by Chloe Sevigny. All three segments were very well done and the performances are all superb. Excellent all around and highly recommended!