Main characters: three middle aged women, housewife Christine, waitress Annie and executive secretary Andrea. Subject: the three women, who never met each other are in a clothing store, where Christine is discovered shoplifting by a male shopkeeper. She refuses to give back the loot and is supported by the other two women. The three gang up on he shopkeeper (who fails to defend himself), murder him and savagely mutilate his body with broken plastic hangers and pieces of glass. Other women in the shop look upon the carnage without a sort of amused, detached interest without the least thought to do something about the mayhem.
The women are caught by the police and are interviewed in prison by female psychiatrist Janine, who claims to be there to help them and tries to find out the reason for the crime. Not surprisingly, we are revealed in flashbacks that the three woman had been oppressed/abused by men in various degrees: Annie has stepped out of a bad marriage, Cristina is overwhelmed by domestic duties and Andrea, who is the real manager of her boss' business, is dismissively described by him as "a secretary."
The case goes to trial. Janine testifies as an expert witness that the three women are in full possession of their mental faculties, precluding an insanity/temporary insanity defense. At a rhetorical question by the prosecuting attorney ("Would this be different if the victim were a woman?") Annie bursts into laughter that propagates to the other two codefendants, to Janine and then to all females in the courtroom, to the judge's consternation. At the end Janine is casually insulted on the stairs of the courthouse by a man who may or may not have been in the courtroom.
This movie had (and still has) a considerable following; it seems to be considered a feminist classic and has won awards, made it to festivals and even to university textbooks. I was unable to see why. It never assembles into a convincing whole, is not free of cliches and at times seems to drift (unsuccessfully) into black comedy territory. Perhaps the film's impact on the viewer was different in the 1980s.
The women are caught by the police and are interviewed in prison by female psychiatrist Janine, who claims to be there to help them and tries to find out the reason for the crime. Not surprisingly, we are revealed in flashbacks that the three woman had been oppressed/abused by men in various degrees: Annie has stepped out of a bad marriage, Cristina is overwhelmed by domestic duties and Andrea, who is the real manager of her boss' business, is dismissively described by him as "a secretary."
The case goes to trial. Janine testifies as an expert witness that the three women are in full possession of their mental faculties, precluding an insanity/temporary insanity defense. At a rhetorical question by the prosecuting attorney ("Would this be different if the victim were a woman?") Annie bursts into laughter that propagates to the other two codefendants, to Janine and then to all females in the courtroom, to the judge's consternation. At the end Janine is casually insulted on the stairs of the courthouse by a man who may or may not have been in the courtroom.
This movie had (and still has) a considerable following; it seems to be considered a feminist classic and has won awards, made it to festivals and even to university textbooks. I was unable to see why. It never assembles into a convincing whole, is not free of cliches and at times seems to drift (unsuccessfully) into black comedy territory. Perhaps the film's impact on the viewer was different in the 1980s.