Steven Torrey "The Trojan Women" is not so much an anti-war movie as it is a movie (play) on the effects of war on the women of Troy and by extension the effects of war on society in general. War is hell; the effects of war are hell. We need only wait for the next atrocity to realize how the atrocity affects the people who survive or who even hear news reports the debacle, of the tragedy; whether that tragedy is Auschwitz or Newtown--the affects to the victims are lifelong, the affects to society are long lasting. (The Newtown tragedy will see a far right swing in American politics in the guise of fewer gun restrictions, the 2nd Amendment viewed as an absolute--"...shall not be infringed..."--from right wing politicos who need only flash their Glock to assert their support of the 2nd Amendment; inevitably they will be a right wing element of the political party that will see that less government is better.) So the movie speaks to the effects of war on society. The stark blacks and browns of the robes matched with a stark grey scenery conveys the emotional overtone of the movie. It is a harsh movie to watch, and yet it is still resonates as modern as the Newtown tragedy-this despite being written by Euripides in 416 BC. Michael Cacoyannis based his screenplay on Edith Hamilton's 1937 translation. I saw the film via YouTube with Greek subtitles; I had just purchased Bantam Book 1971 edition of the play and the screenplay so I could follow the screenplay as it unfolded on the screen. The acting was superb in every way--what could have been toneless and tedious, ended up being a moving evocation of the profundity of the pain and anguish of war captured in the rhythm and idiom of modern English. Captured by actors regarded as giants in the profession: Katherine Hepburn as Hecuba, Vanessa Redgrave as Andromache, Genevieve Bujold as Cassandra, and Irene Papas as Helen. Miss Papas as Helen attempted a stirring defense of her role in the debacle as one ordained by the God Aphrodite--Helen sees herself as a victim; the chorus of women--the townspeople--will have none of it. And how Helen's defense struck the modern ear; as though the modern sociopath can find recourse in pathology from the 2nd Amendment or medication or mental illness. (And by association, how the supporters of the 2nd Amendment insist that the problem is the individual and the gun is only an inert object picked up and used demoniacally by a sociopath. Society sees the lunacy of that conclusion and will have none of it. The gun becomes both instrument and means for the demonic.) Like I say, the play speaks to the modern ear despite its antiquity.

MARIO GAUCI 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).

ave27 It's already a stretch to take a play by Euripides and translate it into a 1970's movie, but add in extremely overdone performances by Katherine Hepburn and Vanessa Redgrave and it only gets worse. I spent my time watching this movie either asleep or laughing at the ridiculous behavior on screen. The majority of the film is made up of rabid women who run around swinging torches and screaming constantly. Sound unrealistic? That's what you get from Hepburn and Redgrave. The film itself was also badly made. Clearly its makers thought they were making it a passionate and dramatic film, but their awful use of angles only made the movie look worse. When I wasn't laughing my head off at how bad "Trojan Women" was, I was asleep. The entire film takes place in the same setting, another reason why an ancient Greek play should not be made into a movie. It simply cannot hold viewers' attention. I would only recommend this movie if you are a die-hard fan of the classics or if you don't mind melodramatic and unrealistic behavior on screen.

karencalypso-1 This film was shown at my art school in the early 90s to accompany reading the Greek play for class. It is beautifully produced -- the location and the lighting is exquisite, and makes the characters achingly beautiful in the midst of the tattered, gritty, treacherous war being waged around them. This film appears to be timeless...the cinematography is perfect; it does not appear to be an "old" or 'historical' film, and this luminescent quality helps younger viewers focus on the story (rather than struggle with history or epic readings or overlooking outdated film techniques). In fact, the movie is so well made, and the women appear so fresh and real, that as a college student I had no idea this movie was made in the early 70s, until I read a screen bio of Redgrave and was shocked that the movie is several decades "old." The viewer is pulled into the landscape by the profoundly beautiful Mediterranean surroundings, the intense acting, and raw emotionality the actors portray. This production successfully creates the ancient Greek ideal of tragedy, where the viewer experiences some personal transformation along with the characters. Quite memorable, even 15 years after seeing it -- and worth the time investment for a longer film.