The Trojan Women (1971)

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Some years back, I had watched and been reasonably impressed with the director's similar ELECTRA (1962), being likewise a Greek tragedy; after the debacle of THE DAY THE FISH CAME OUT (1967), he must have felt safe dealing with the classics (this one derives from Euripedes). The resulting film, however, is quite a chore to sit through – made palatable by Mikis Theodorakis' brooding score and the fact that it looks good – as we get 106 minutes of the women of fallen Trojan soldiers after the famous 10-year war with Greece bemoaning their fate (it is dedicated to people standing up to oppression everywhere), being herded off as slaves to the conquerors, and tearing each other apart (which rather belies its possible secondary intention as a feminist statement) while waiting to be shipped!; the film, then, ends with the burning of Troy.Though featuring a stalwart cast, only Katharine Hepburn as Hecuba, wife of the late King Priam, appears all the way through; the rest – Genevieve Bujold as her mad daughter Cassandra, Vanessa Redgrave as her daughter-in-law Andromache (wife of the Trojan champion Hector, slain by the Greek demi-god Achilles) and Irene Papas as the famed Helen Of Troy (she left her Greek husband Menelaus for the Trojan prince Paris, also deceased, and over whom the whole battle was waged). Still, each lady is allowed one scene in which to shine: while Papas makes for probably the strongest Helen ever, the role allows the actress (a Cacoyannis regular) to display an atypical sensuousness; Redgrave, on the other hand, comes across as strident and altogether too stagey! As for Hepburn herself, ever since 1956's THE RAINMAKER, she had been mostly participating in highbrow stuff (notably adaptations of Tennessee Williams' SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER {1959} and Eugene O'Neill's LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT {1962} and the probe into medieval British royalty that was THE LION IN WINTER {1968}): though such films undeniably added to her prestigious label of Grand Dame of the acting profession, her idiosyncrasies – which were irritating in her more standard vehicles – tended to become all the more evident within this heightened environment! Incidentally, having mentioned British royalty, it is worth pointing out that both Hepburn and Redgrave had portrayed Mary Stuart while both Redgrave and Bujold had played Anne Boleyn (with Papas being Catherine of Aragon to the latter's younger replacement)! The only two men to get significant parts here are a necessarily restrained Patrick Magee as Menelaus (goaded by Hecuba to punish Helen's infidelity and, by extension, the sorrow she caused to all concerned by putting her to death) and Brian Blessed as his gruff but conscientious herald (he is sickened, for instance, by the fact that he has been ordered to eliminate Redgrave's young son in expiation but which he cannot bring himself to refuse from carrying out).

I enjoyed the two other films I have seen from this director, "Zorba the Greek" and his best foreign film nom. "Ipthgina". My complaint with those and with this is that they are too long. The play this is based on may be lacking in quailty to the others. Either way I would not recommend it.3/10

...but it was pretty bad. Anyone who isn't a die-hard fan of the classics will have some trouble enjoying this film.First of all, there isn't much of a story. The women just sort of wander around on the same beach the entire time, with different characters appearing, speaking their piece, and then leaving.Also, Hepburn is her traditionally awful self, insulting the audience and anyone else who was considered to play the role with her ridiculous over-acting. Her screaming about Troy wore thin about 90 seconds into it, but it unfortunately went on much longer than that.Everyone else tries their respective bests, or at least something close to it, and the viewer leaves feeling only significantly disappointed, instead of heavily depressed.Avoid this one like the Trojan Horse.

This is a remarkably ineffectual filming of Euripides' magnificent examination of the effects of war on women. Euripides embarrassed Athens with his realism and blatant theatricality, neither of which is on view here. The four-star cast intone their limes reverently, as if reading holy scripture, never becoming real women watching their city burn and awaiting slavery and rape. The staging is stiff and posey,farther distancing a viewer from emotional involvement. The translation is stiff and respectful. One might say that this great play is here respected to death. In short, the film shows astonishingly little invention or imagination. And how is it that all the women of Troy managed to dress in identical matching rags? This is the only film of this immortal play. Someone with feeling and passion, film it again, please.