MovieChat Forums > Ekstase Discussion > Love this movie

Love this movie

posted 18 years ago by j72coburger
5 replies | jump to latest

I have to say that I loved this movie. It's a little primitive and the symbolism is none too subtle, but there are some beautiful images and scenes in this movie. I also thought the musical scoring was worth listening to. I generally don't care for silent films (and I guess this one falls in the land between silent and talkie) but this one seemed to be mostly lacking in the over-the-top theatrics found in many silent films.

All in all I thought it was a real treat and enjoyed it for the time and place it came from, and didn't try to compare it to something it couldn't be.

[–] wndlz 18 years ago

I pretty much agree with your evaluation of this, but I have made some comments, not for the sake of being contentious, but hopefully to expand and consider this film more seriously. Oh! I must add that I've seen this film atleast 4 times, so I think that may have made a difference.

I think if you compared this movie to other films released in or before 1933, you might not think of it as primitive. This was an early talkie, and was superior to most of the stuff coming out of Hollywood at that time. Ecstasy was a very erotic film, but the subject matter was handled in a very artistic manner. Unusal camera shots, sensitive imagery, and very subtle low-key performances, were all well done. As I long ago noted, in my review of the film, it does have many properties of a silent movie, which was not a point of distraction for me; it only made it more visually exciting. I think Hedy gave a very sensitive performance, and this movie shows that she was able to respond to superior direction. This movie definitely was more arty than its sensationalized reputation might suggest.

Wendell D. Bivens

[–] j72coburger 18 years ago

Oh, I agree - there was just the right amount of dialog in the movie. The lack of dialog seemed to heighten my sense the stunning visuals in the movie. I particularly liked the scene where Eva is seen laying in bed, fiddling with her wedding ring as she apparently contemplates her disappointing marriage.

I looked at the list of 1933 movies and found one I have seen - Grand Hotel. The production quality of Grand Hotel seems better than in Ekstase. I like Ekstase very much but it just seemed less polished, I suppose.

[–] wndlz 18 years ago

Interesting subject. I probably need to clarify a few things.

Grand Hotel was the Academy Award winner for Best Picture, in 1932. It was produced by the grandest studio of the time, Metro Goldwyn Mayer, at a then major budget of $700,000. Ecstasy was a non-Hollywood production, made in Czechoslovakia, on a small budget. Of course, the production values were better! When I spoke of comparing 'Ecstasy' with other productions of 1933; I was referring to the treatment of the subject matter, not production qualities. Ecstasy's makers seemed more liberated, when it came to expressing sexuality on film. However, in Hollywood, strict 'decency' codes kept the treatment of sex in the cinema, in a more repressed mode.

I enjoyed Grand Hotel, what a cast! However, I don't think the subject matter was particularly daring, even in 1932. Therefore, this would be the last movie I would compare Ecstasy with. Thanks for the comments.

Wendell D. Bivens

[–] j72coburger 18 years ago

Yes, I understand. When I called Ecstasy primitive, I was referring to the lack of polish in production. Doesn't make me like it any less.

[–] xylonian-1 16 years ago

Yes it does look primitive....

....it reminds me of a bad dream, not terrifying, but a bit ominous, just a note of subtle foreboding. A dream that makes one overly pensive & sticks a bit in the subconscious....perhaps making one a bit irritable the day after (before coffee)....

"I don't remember yesterday. Today it rained."