The Girls (1968) User Reviews

Very Interesting Film

[peter-rinaldi · 8/10 · 17 April 2008]

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!

Bibi, Harriet, and Gunnel

[nycritic · 6/10 · 30 September 2006]

Put together five of Ingmar Bergman's actors of choice -- Bibi Andersson, Gunnel Lindstrom, Harriet Andersson, Erland Josephson, and Gunnar Bjornstrand, and you would think this would be a more powerful, meditating feature tackling the topic of feminism as filtered through the play "Lysistrata", channeled through the eyes of its three female leads. Mai Zetterling's movie THE GIRLS is an oddity within itself. Too obscure at times, too serious for its own good, it dissolves into a series of conversations each of its three leads have within themselves and how the play seems to mirror their own lives, as well as their own growing dissatisfaction with the way things are in relation to women's position in society. Where the story takes its cue is in welding both the current times (1968) into a play that takes place thousands of years ago, and making us, the audience, clearly understand that attitudes towards women continue to be the same even now. From the eye of someone coming into this movie nearly forty years after its release, things have changed quite a bit -- the story is automatically dated --, but it would be an interesting debate to see just how far women have come since the rise of feminism in the early Seventies. On this note, THE GIRLS is worth seeking out -- not only because of its three strong female characters, all of them uniformly brilliant in their different takes of women coming to terms with who they are. On a minus, however, are the fantasy sequences, filmed in a bleached black and white which become almost impossible to assimilate because of the lack of any depth... it would have been best to make it a Bunuelian experience and leave the viewer wondering what was real or not. Even so, for those who appreciate Swedish cinema, this is lighter fare than Bergman, and less introspective.

Dated film with some great surreal scenes

[peefyn · 6/10 · 1 March 2015]

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.

The best Swedish film!

[nickrogers1969 · 10/10 · 11 June 2009]

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!

Relevance to terrorist attack on New York

[adri-11 · 19 September 2001]

I've just seen this film today, 19 Sept., and couldn't help but think of the New York terrorist attack. I read a letter to the editor about the attack and it said that if women were ruling the world the attacks would never have happened. However, this prescient film shows that that ain't necessarily so.

What's so good about this film is the fair treatment it gives of women, showing their frivolous and silly side as well as the struggle to deal with their roles in their world. I liked the fight between the women, and the pathetic attempt Liz made to stir her audience into speaking, without any thought for who it was she addressed.

Thirty-three years after it was made, the film is relevant and moving.

Fantastic

[gbill-74877 · 9/10 · 2 March 2023]

"That's why we called a meeting of all women. We can wait no longer. Now you have to listen to us. It's our turn to talk. It's your turn to listen, just as we've had to listen in the past."

In 1968, with the world teetering on the edge of madness, Mai Zetterling makes a plea for women to stand up for themselves and start changing the world, not putting up with the status quo or their subordinate positions any longer. The premise has three women travelling as part of a theater troupe to put on a performance of Lysistrata, Aristophanes' play about women who organize to withhold sex in the attempt to get men to stop waging the Peloponnesian War, which is a perfect parallel. Zetterling interweaves the real world for these women with personal memories, fantastical daydreams, and occasional mind-reading to create a delirious blend of visual images and powerful satire.

If it's not already obvious, we see woman's perspective in many ways, but often relating to the bad behavior of men. For the two women who are married, one of their husbands immediately rings up two lovers the moment his wife leaves town, and both men have old-fashioned, condescending views about their wives working in the first place. The unmarried woman in the troupe is having an affair with a married man who makes empty promises to end things with his wife. These men all have a big laugh and yuck it up over the things the women are trying to express in the play and offstage. Meanwhile, younger men make crude comments about their bodies as the enter a restaurant, and other men aggressively try to pick them up. All of that may sound heavy-handed, but it was delivered artistically, and rang true.

Another element of this perspective is simply the presence of a crying baby, which I found refreshing given how big a part of real life this is, and how little we see it in movies. The burden of child rearing, especially when it's assumed to be the woman's priority, is well represented here, even if it doesn't make up a lot of the runtime.

There is also a fair bit of criticism about women as well, those who are too complacent or too satisfied to let others decide things in the world. In one scene where Zetterling wanders into the minds of her characters, Lysistrata (er, Liz, get it?) meets a bourgeois couple in the small northern town who agree to have dinner with her. The husband's thoughts gravitate towards her appearance like a compass needle finding north, and the wife's vary between confusion over her visitor's deep thoughts and annoyance at comments she thinks are too personal. In another moment, after a performance, Liz asks the audience to stay and discuss the play and how it relates to real life at a deeper level, but they only stare at her, dumbfounded, men and women included. "Don't you understand that it's we who make the world what it is?" she shouts to awkward silence. We also see the women break out into a fight amongst themselves, a nice little acknowledgment that peace and harmony is not necessarily a consequence of female empowerment.

If it all sounds like 'too much,' there are many wonderfully surreal moments here which helped keep the feeling of this 'message' film relatively light. One example is Liz imagining herself stripping while trying to answer reporter's questions about her behavior, showing the feelings of her vulnerability and how it's only then that men begin to show genuine interest in what she's doing. In another hilarious moment, the husband unpacks his lovers out of a large standing trunk he's brought them to the hotel in, undressing them calmly and tucking them into bed while calmly denying their existence. There are many others. It's all rendered beautifully by the black and white cinematography from Rune Ericson, and this has a very deep cast, including Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson, Gunnel Lindblom, Gunnar Björnstrand, and Erland Josephson, all of whom are strong here. Just a great film, still relevant today, and very entertaining.

The Girls

[MartinTeller · 5/10 · 12 January 2012]

I had high hopes for this, featuring a trio of Bergman's greatest actresses (Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson, Gunnel Lindblom) in the leads and a pair of his greatest actors (Gunnar Bjornstrand, Erland Josephson) in supporting roles. Unfortunately, Mai Zetterling (whose LOVING COUPLES I somewhat enjoyed) goes way over-the-top with the experimental flourishes. The story involves a production of Aristophanes' classic sex satire "Lysistrata", with the play, reality, and fantasy bleeding into each other in a series of obvious juxtapositions, half-baked metaphors and heavy-handed social commentary. Subtlety is not to be found here, and the film's divebomb approach to the battle of the sexes is often grating and tedious. These actors are usually a joy to watch, and they give it their all, but they just can't overcome the material, which comes off as another naive product of 60's progressiveness. The heart's in the right place, but the execution is too irritating. Nice photography and a strong cast aren't enough.

"Vad nu då? Ett nytt uppror bland kvinnfolken!",

[XxEthanHuntxX · 8/10 · 29 January 2021]

Theres alot of things in this movie I hate, thats because the world has already become what this film wanted to achieve. And thats why it feels so gratis and tedious, because these feministic Initiatives that "Flickorna" are suggesting have already been, more or less, accepted by social standards today.

Figures appear and are gone - interrupted, overheard or obscured by something else. Because here are thousand of things squashed about space. Put togheter with alot of creativity, anger and passion. Three female actors tour with "Lysistrate", and in a forest there is a living room, in a cinema you throw eggs at Stalin, in a bar the shirts come off, on a street the BridalBrigade forms - and then napalm and serpentines on it. Despite all this commotion Mai Zetterling actually manages to stay steadfast on the directorial cotroll.

Men rule and the world burns, and it is 1968. Men ruled and the world burned 411 BC as well, when Aristophanes wrote his play. To end the 20-year war between Athens and Sparta, Lysistrate makes women swear to deny men sex.

The theater group heads north. "Lysistrate" is supposed to make people discuss, but no one understands what it is about. World peace and equal conditions are good, but what you want most of all is a sofa group.

The only mistake is that Zetterling makes a big cluster caused in a cinematographic array of clichés and pre-art that leaves one largely untouched. It may be that pre-art is a stylistic grip in "The Girls", a way of playfully mixing imagination and reality. But most of the time it is an optional, unintentional parody or superficial image experiment. Nevertheless, its provocative content, its bold and playful form, its humor and warmth, has made it something of a cult.

Due to the death of the actor and director Gunnel Lindblom, I got the chance to see this movie free on SVT.

Demanding but not rewarding

[gridoon2024 · 2/10 · 4 November 2023]

Mai Zetterling's "Girls" is a (non-)movie that you will probably either love or hate, no middle ground; judging by my rating above, you can guess under which category I fall. Zetterling gets so caught up in the polemics about men, women, war, money, consumerism, art and what-have-you, that she forgets to actually start her own movie. There is no plot, just images and sounds, and no characters, just mouthpieces. Which means that the eclectic cast that Zetterling has assembled has little to do except deliver speeches. You might be better off watching a stage adaptation of Lysistrata instead. 0.5 out of 4 stars.

Plot? What plot?

[MidoriFiore · 4/10 · 19 September 2012]

Watching "The Girls" at film school it struck me how confused and disorganized this film is. There is nothing wrong with confusing the audience, something Davind Lynch has showed us over and over again, but in combination with this film lacking plot, the characters being 2 dimensional and lacking any sort of characteristics and the all out confused nature of the "narrative" this film comes of as little less than a drug fueled, surreal mess.

Which is fine if the film is interesting. This film is not interesting. I have heard a lot of people calling it feminist. Maybe people call it that because the main characters are female and the director/writer is a woman. Well feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". In this aspect the film is not feminist as the women say they won't to break free, but in reality are quite dependent on the men. At the end one of the actresses say she wants a divorce but this does not come off as she does it to liberate herself and be equal to the men.

Badly dated, but extraordinary parade of beautiful actresses

[romdal · 4/10 · 4 May 2007]

The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel – and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.