MovieChat Forums > Ekstase Discussion > The Ending? (Spoilers)

The Ending? (Spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by Hypatia42
9 replies | jump to latest

I have tried finding information about the director's intent with this film and am unable to find a coherent answer.

My question is two-fold:

Firstly, why does Eva choose to leave the man she loves?

Secondly, what ending was intended by the director? I have read that due to threats by government censors, additional scenes were shot and that these (potentially) obscure the story. I watched the 87 minute version and found the ending strangely convoluted. It seems open to interpretation whether Eva actually has a child, or whether Adam simply imagines or 'hopes' that she does.

If this ambiguity was intended, I can accept that. However, the first question remains puzzling.

[–] TemporaryOne-1 15 years ago

Eva left him because she felt guilty about her ex-husband Emil shooting himself to death. She was shattered that her leave-taking of him led him to suicide (and he did love her, he came back for her). His death shot shattered through Eva and Adam's trompe-l'oeil of living a blissful ecstasy-filled life. It brought her back to reality and the realization that she technically abandoned her husband because of his lack of ophelimity.

At the end, Adam was fantasizing about Eva having his child.

If Eva and Adam are biblical references to Adam and Eve, then Emil is G-d and his death equates to G-d expelling Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for having tasted the fruit [sexual bliss...] of the Tree of Knowledge of what is good and evil. G-d booted Adam and Eva from fairy tale Eden and mandated them to a life of hardship for tasting ecstasy, just as Emil's death wrecked Eva's blissful relationship with Adam (because she would always blame herself for his death) and sentenced her to a life of remorse, guilt, regret, etc.

I don't know what ending was intended by the director, but I thought the ending - original or forced (meaning the director was forced to redact the ending as a result of censorship) - was richly symbolic. (and my explanation is longish)

Each character had his/her own vision for the entelechial representation of their ideals about happiness and ecstasy, and what constituted a perfect life, and those ideals failed when put into practise.

Eva's idea of the perfect life consisted of having a sexually-blissful union, and she abandoned her husband in order to achieve that life, and that choice would eventually shatter her new-found bliss with Adam. Adam's idea of the perfect life consisted of having his woman work by his side and bear his children, and he sought to achieve that unequal partnership with a strongly independent woman that he knew nothing about, and this ideal was shattered when Eva abandoned him. Emil's idea of the perfect life consisted of fulfilling society's norms, and he briefly achieved that at the expense of Eva's happiness, and he eventually extinguished himself when he realized his vision of happiness was a phantom of his imagination. Communism's [the field workers] idea of perfection is greater equality and humanity for all, but when put into practise on a mass scale, communism fails. Industry's [field workers, machinery] idea of perfection is greater widespread production of goods and enhanced wealth, but when put into practise, industry rapes the earth of her resources and sweats its workers to death and puts that wealth into the hands of few.

Our ideas of what constitutes ecstasy, bliss, happiness, equality (the communism-industry-field workers montage) humanity, etc, are mythical shadows of the physical reality of what ecstasy and bliss and happiness really are.

Another observation - Eva's husband killing himself resulted in shattering her ecstasy, just as the workers farming the earth resulted in the cruel callous wasteful internecion of the earth. Mankind destroys women, and mankind destroys the fruit of her womb (children, and earth's natural resources). Her husband killed himself because his wife was sexually fulfilled by another man, he reacted as if her sexual fulfillment was a crime, and his suicide destroyed her new happiness.

One more observation - the scene when Adam places the bee in the flower instead of killing it enforces the theme that mankind destroys women/the earth. Bees engage in more pollination than any other entity on earth, including wind, and without bee pollination, fruits and vegetables and a limitless number of flowers would become scarce. Bees spread seed abundantly all over the globe,and bees provide us with one of the most pleasurable foods on the planet. Yet humans have a vicious tendency to knee-jerkingly kill bees based on the myth that bees automatically sting whatever they come into contact with. Children are raised to fear bees, and oftentimes they are taught to stamp bees to death. Women perpetuate humankind, yet mankind stomps on a woman's natural anatomical desire to achieve not only sexual pleasure, but orgasmic pleasure, and scientifically speaking, that pleasure exists to induce women to procreate. The ending means, to me, that mankind is destroying women just as it destroys everything else.

If the montage ending was tacked on for censorship purposes, then the censors ironically failed to grasp the parallel between the montage and the love triangle.

[–] Hypatia42 14 years ago

I am grateful for your detailed analysis of the film.

I would like to bandy back a few of the themes you touched because I am still undecided about the film's 'ending insights,' or, indeed, it's moral.

Firstly, I concede that a religious template is used to frame 'Eva's' struggle. But even within that context the ending remains incoherent (for me). If her abandonment of a man who felt so deeply for her caused him to kill himself, surely she is about to visit an equal pain upon Adam, and herself, by leaving him too. It is possible that the film simply ignores this issue, but to me that is unintelligible.

Secondly, I have difficulty seeing Emil framed as God simply because I do not see him as a happy, even in his marriage to Eva. As you noted, he is an embodiment of society's neurotic norms. He is more concerned with the toothbrush sitting correctly in a bowl than in undressing his wife and he reads the paper rather than dancing and celebrating their youth. He is a repressed, irreproachable man of society. But we are never given the idea he is 'happy.' Instead, I thought his suicide was meant to show that he had so long repressed the desire to dance to violins and smell flowers that the ability to enjoy those things, to experience them had actually died. We see him forlorn, looking at flowers he will never caress, realizing what he cannot attain (or provide another) and dies for want of love. He is crushed by envy when he races toward the train, and when at the hotel, hearing the merry dancing of others, he simply kills his body, his spirit already been 'crushed.'

Given this, given that the want of love or the ability to love another, the idea that Eva leaves from a sense of guilt made me think she was dooming herself and Adam to become another Emil. For want of love what can either of them become? I thought that was the perspective of the film (until the last five minutes).

My view of the film's 'ecstasy,' I think, is a little different than yours. I do not believe that Eva was selfish in her desire. Or that her definition of ecstasy was isolated. We can think of her sexual ecstasy as hers (her orgasm perhaps), but to attain that experience it was not a matter of Adam (or Emil) touching her. I say this because as Eva laid on her marriage bed she felt lust but was unfulfilled. As Adam tended her foot we see lust in him for her, but she resists this too. The film instead rewards mutual desire: she visits him, he still wants her, thus their ecstasy.

I had wondered if governments forced the film to be re-edited simply because the ending seems to say: if the stolid corporate man cannot be happy, no one can. That seemed like a typical party line. I fully concede the coherency of your view of the ending montage, Adam imagining Eva with his child is his view of happiness. So why does the film choose to deny them this as a reality? I still don't understand the answer this.

I would grant that my religious insight and knowledge is different from that of others, so is there some important component of the Judeo-Christian world view prevalent at the film's production that explains why discontentment is productive?

If Eva has to leave in order to pay some moral debt for her ex-husband's suicide, what good does it do? Surely the world, the society, and the couple (Eva and Adam) would be much better off if they embraced their 'ecstasy.' Surely the danger in the story is Emil, not Eva. Yes?

[–] TemporaryOne-1 14 years ago

First, thanks for reading through my bibble-babble.

I do agree the allegory is imperfect, which is why I was careful to say if Adam and Eva are biblical references.

Biblical references and allegories in film and literature and art are not always exact representations of the original model. Oftentimes directors and writers and artists critically deconstruct and redefine the traditional model for didactic purposes, or to challenge traditional beliefs or simply provoke people to think outside the box.

If her abandonment of a man who felt so deeply for her caused him to kill himself, surely she is about to visit an equal pain upon Adam, and herself, by leaving him too. It is possible that the film simply ignores this issue, but to me that is unintelligible.

In Genesis, G-d punishes Adam/mankind with hard labour, and Eva/womenkind with birthing pain (and submissiveness to men). Emil's choice to kill himself rends Eva's conscious asunder, which results in her punishing Adam. The correlation is not exact (in the former, G-d directly punishes both, in the latter, Emil's indirect, unintentional punishment of Eva results in the punishment of Adam), but for me personally the framework still stands because allegories are malleable and polysemic. Just as rhymes are oftentimes imperfect, so are allegorical models.

I concede that Emil does not embody all the deipotent traits we attribute to G-d, he is not G-d incarnate. However, Emil does not allow Eva to experience sexual awakening, which equates to G-d disallowing Adam and Eve to taste the forbidden fruit, and Emil's suicide results in the wrecking of Adam and Eva's relationship, which equates to G-d expelling Adam and Even from their bliss by punishing them with hard labour and birthing pain.

You observed -

As you noted, he is an embodiment of society's neurotic norms. He is more concerned with the toothbrush sitting correctly in a bowl than in undressing his wife and he reads the paper rather than dancing and celebrating their youth. He is a repressed, irreproachable man of society. But we are never given the idea he is 'happy.'

I have to do this, please excuse this religious segue - Freud contended that G-d was a creation and embodiment of society's neurotic norms, the Priests of Levi [ would argue that tending to the proper station of the toothbrush was a celebration of the stately symmetry and unity of the microcosm and macrocosm (the toothbrush must be in its proper place just as men and women must be in their proper places just as the vessels of the altar must be in their proper places just as the offerings must be in their proper places, etc), Jung contended that G-d was repressed, G-d evolves into an irreproachable persona after the passing of Moses, and G-d is never depicted as a happy persona (happiness is not benevolence), His persona is the embodiment of constant struggle, He is always descending into flaming pyrotechnic waves of anger and hostility and regret and lamentation because His people continually fail Him, He only experiences a few moments of real happiness throughout the entire biblical cannon (Genesis through Revelation).

the idea that Eva leaves from a sense of guilt made me think she was dooming herself and Adam to become another Emil. For want of love what can either of them become? I thought that was the perspective of the film (until the last five minutes).

I think that is one of the main themes of the film, irregardless of the ending.

I don't believe Eva was selfish at all in her desires (this is one of the most sensual films that I have ever watched, I ached with her, the bee ached with her, the sunlight and moonlight ached with her, the lace curtains ached with her...). I know I applied the term "abandonment" to her divorce from Emil, but it did not occur to me someone would interpret that to be a remonstrance against her. I was trying to view the events from Emil's point of view, and did not mean to condemn Eva in any manner.

So why does the film choose to deny them this as a reality? I still don't understand the answer this.

Because that is a reality - not all relationships work out. In this relationship, Emil's suicide will always be between her and Adam, and to complicate matters, she never told Adam about her marriage.

Because ecstasy/bliss/happiness is a caducous illusion.

Because mainstream masses of yesteryear (and now) were apt to heap mountains of opprobration on a woman for divorcing her husband, fantasizing about sexual ecstasy, approaching a man to make love to (she technically went to Adam), allowing a man to pleasure her, having unwed sex, and "fleeing" town to start a new life. 1930's viewers would have wanted her "punished" for her "sins", not living happily ever after. Allowing them to remain together in happiness validated a woman's right to divorce, right to fantasize about sexual happiness, feel sexually connected to nature, engage in unwed sex, etc, and in the 1930's (and even now), that was unacceptable by the mainstream masses.

Because breaking them apart forced viewers to rethink their beliefs about women's sexuality and basic needs. An innocent woman's life was shattered by society's norms; viewers were tropologically (Adam-Eve/sin/expulsion) guilt-tripped into reconsidering social biases (which are largely based upon biblical norms) towards a woman's natural right to a sexually fulfilling relationship. Tragic endings tend to manipulate people into deeply thinking about what they have just watched, and with Ekstase, they were forced to reconsider whether or not her choices were really "sinful".

Because films have always depicted tragic endings to passionate relationships, irregardless of religious views, because passionate relationships end tragically just as they end happily. Biblical relationships themselves are also filled with excruciating tragedy.

[–] Hypatia42 14 years ago

Ah! I think I understand this now.

I previously believed that the film was condoning the ending as a morally appropriate, productive, or fitting resolution to the character's experiences. I disagreed. What was missing, for me, was a social context to believe that the film was in fact chastising the movie-going public for creating an environment in which the ending was believable but so apparently nonconstructive for society and individuals. The tension in the minds of perceptive movie-goers was intended, not an accident of editing.

It was that little issue of judgment; I honestly believed that the film celebrated their separation and could not understand why. I am grateful that the distaste I had for the ending was, in some sense, intended. I still hold that the montage scenes have aged poorly as they make more of a dated socio-economic statement than underpin the characters.

Lastly I would like to clarify a point from my previous post. Given the religious framework from which we are agreeing the film should be considered, I still believe that there is reason to think Eva will feel 'guilty.' If Emil represents an ultimate authority figure, God for example, then surely Eva owes him loyalty? Surely guilt is a fundamental concept in the Garden of Eden. Eva, though she does not come from a poor family, is given the luxurious bed because of her reliable husband, even if he does not sexually satisfy her she is afforded many securities in her match. Surely she should be grateful for the advantages she does have, even if this means sacrificing her most intimate, basic desires as an adult. Similarly, Eve though she possess the desire to 'multiply' and gain knowledge, independence, owes some fidelity to her creator. She too is said to have made a choice. So aren't both characters fundamentally 'guilty,' first by having gone through with the act, then by living with remorse for recognizing the cost of the act? I had not gleaned the concept of guilt from our discussion but through my interpretation of Eva as a symbol.

I still hold that Emil presents a greater danger to society/individuals than Eva's instincts or illicit affair. Indeed, I now look at the ending (even if convoluted) as saying that guilt can be tempering, constructive, but should not undo the hard-won rewards of bravery. But this requires me to see Eva as 'guilty.'

Again, my way of looking at this story meant that I forgive Eva. I was highly frustrated with the film simply because, although I did realize on some level that the story was appropriate for its time, I felt the film should know better than to chastise her for the decisions. It did not occur to me that, while pursuing accuracy, the film's bitter ending was meant to make film-goers more uncomfortable than when they were watching the famous moment of ecstasy itself.

I thank you for your many insights. You have reformed my opinion of a classic.

[–] TemporaryOne-1 14 years ago

So aren't both characters fundamentally 'guilty,' first by having gone through with the act, then by living with remorse for recognizing the cost of the act?

They would naturally feel guilt, and perhaps one of the main points of this film is to illustrate to audiences that Eve/Eva/women should not be manipulated into allowing natural feelings of guilt to permanently damage their lives.

As you observed, guilt can be didactic, assuaging, tempering, constructive, etc, but should not be allowed to literally destroy a person's life.

It did not occur to me that, while pursuing accuracy, the film's bitter ending was meant to make film-goers more uncomfortable than when they were watching the famous moment of ecstasy itself.

Yes, always remember that directors are always trying to tell We The Viewers something.

I thank you, skindili, for an enriching discussion.

[–] kwindrum 14 years ago

I read the film as being a work of communist cinema. The decadent bourgeoisie embroil everyone in their troubles (although they are somewhat sympathetic in a way they wouldn't be in a Russian film of the time) and the woman, at least, has the sense to leave the poor prole alone. He rejoins his workers and is happy in his labor although haunted by a vision of her with a baby. Maybe that's too facile. I haven't read carefully through the entire thread but that was my initial reaction to the film.

[–] Hypatia42 14 years ago

I feel the need to dissent. The film clearly has socialist sympathies (particularly in the ending, which I previously found so incoherent), but given that the title of the film is 'Ekstase' and centers on Heddy's struggle for fulfillment, I cannot see how you choose to celebrate her separation from the "poor prole," since they were so much happier together.

While Eva is from the 'big house,' she always appears strikingly uncomfortable in those settings. She is vibrant, youthful and notably nude when she first encounters Adam, neither of their classes is an issue. He plays with her, offers her a flower, as an exchange between a man and a woman. I cannot see any of the class defilement or guilt in their relationship as you would get in, say, Wuthering Heights where Cathy loves a man she also renounces as a stable boy and whose callused hands she lusts for yet finds revolting in public. In that story her toffee-nosed preference for silks and laces destroys her resilience and emotionally cripples Heathcliff.

Here, however, (as TemporaryOne-1 and I fussed out after a protracted, interesting debate) the story seems more to be about the needs of an individual being crippled by obeying the expectations of society knowing how terrible the outcome will be. (Whereas Wuthering Heights, I charge, is about two people crippled by the avarice endorsed by society not fully realizing the effect until it is too late).

I now firmly believe the film wanted to criticize society for creating an environment where it was expected, demanded even, that Ava leave the man she loves. A man who, by all the other social standards of the film was a good, industrious 'prole' who was able to... do for her what her bourgeois husband never could. The film is socialist in the sense that Adam is what Ava needs, and her husband seems sterilized by his wealth and opportunity. Nevertheless, I cannot see the film as criticizing her for going to Adam, but for criticizing society for not allowing them to remain together. (Evidence for this found in previous discussions).

Would love to hear what you think, am I missing any of the symbolism about the class differences between Ava and Adam?

[–] lottapaws 14 years ago

You can read all that you want into this story, but from a woman's point of view, it is very simplistic. She left her lover because he was such a gentle soul, he was literally feeling partly responsible for Emile's suicide because he hadn't noticed in his eyes that he was despondent. Eva could not face Adam finding out that she was Emile's estranged wife, the thought that Adam would see her as this tainted woman was horrifying.

Eva was not just looking for a sexually satisfying relationship, Eva needed to feel loved, and she felt no love from Emile. Emile was cold and distant, he was fastidious to a fault. Eva was young, passionate, and she needed to be loved.

The ending was Adam sensing that Eva had born his child. You can see when the "connection" to his child actually "hits" him. The feeling is overwhelming, and he turns to look toward the future. The implication is that he'll go find Eva, but that is left to the viewer.

There is much symbolism in the movie. The bee with the flower, the freedom Eva sought, etc. But I also believe that seeing Adam put the bee on the flower (pollination that will soon occur between these two) is also indicative of the gentleness, the compassion of Adam, something that Emile sorely lacked. As a woman, to see a man show such caring would be reveal a gentle soul, a kindness not found in most people. I think this scene was two-fold in that it foretold the union between these two would-be lovers, but it also reveals why Eva succumbed to him.

[–] rayincumbria 10 years ago

Three years later..

Thank you to everyone - but especially the two main contributors - to this debate. At times a little hard to follow, it was a fascinating insight into this film.

I was utterly bemused.. we seemed to have a film just about the morality of seeking ones own happiness and how that can affect others. Then that seemed to end, and for a while I even thought I may have a faulty copy.. According to the listing, this was supposed to be about 1 hr 15... but my counter said still 15 or so mins to go.. and what am I getting? Has someone taped Ecstasy over a (slightly longer) Soviet 'Happy workers' film, leaving a bit of the previous showing? ... No, there is Adam.. it really is the correct ending.. Highly puzzled.

I may not be totally convinced about everything you all said, and I may not have fully understood everything you said, but a lot I did, and I'm very pleased to have read what you said..

So, again, on behalf of many others, thank you for your time and effort.

This is what these boards should be.. and , as an aside, isn't it fantastic to have got through all the comments without one "Phwarrrr nice ****" posting?

few visible scars