The Girls (1968)

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.

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.

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.

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!