Extase

(No need to recap the plot, since others have done so already.)

It's understandable that many viewers find fault with the film, raised as we are with the slam-bang sensurround of today's cineplex experience. Against that background, a movie like Ecstasy appears to have wandered in from another planet. I think there are several worthwhile reasons why.

Most importantly, the film unfolds poetically, as the camera pans slowly over surrounding hills, trees, clouds, etc., providing a serene and lyrical sense of a natural world that integrates the man and woman into its fold. Together these reveal a style and dimension almost totally missing from today's technology-driven cinema, where rapid-fire editing works to divert audience attention and not to concentrate it. Additionally, the story is conveyed by eye and not by ear, with almost no dialogue to explain what's happening. This amounts to another extreme departure from today's very literal fare, where visuals only seem to count when they excite the audience. But perhaps most unsettling-- the movie is sometimes eerily quiet, not in the sense that silent films are quiet since we expect them to be. But in the sense that the characters seldom speak when we expect them to. Thus, the burden of the story is shared between the film-maker and the viewer. The former must choose his visuals artfully so as to convey the narrative, while the latter must think about those visuals, since they're not going to be explained.

None of this is intended to belittle today's film-making. It's simply to point out that a movie like Machaty's comes out of a very different aesthetic from the one we have today. I don't claim either to be any better or worse. However, I do claim that Ecstasy represents a perspective sorely missing from today's movie-going experience, where such 'contemplative values are routinely dismissed as slow and boring.

The film itself is no masterpiece, though at times it reaches artistic heights, as in the beautifully composed beer-garden scene with its final crane shot rising to reveal the exquisite tableau below. The slow pans of the countryside with its pantheistic celebration of life, nature, and regeneration are also wonderfully expressed. These are the kind of scenes that don't overwhelm you, but instead-- given half-a chance-- accumulate quietly into an experience as memorable in its own way as the spine-tingling variety of a "Jaws".

On the other hand, the film is sometimes heavy-handed, as when Machaty piles on the imagery, particularly in the final, ode-to-labor sequence. It's hard to know what to make of this rather disruptive presence. Perhaps the symbolism has to do with the heroic dimension that hard work holds for the love-lorn hero and people in general-- a theme then being promoted by the influential Soviet cinema. Still, its presence here is rather tediously over-done.

Anyhow, I've got to admit that I tuned in initially to see the gorgeous Hedy LaMarr in the buff. But now I have to admit that in the process I also got a lot more than just a peek-a-boo romp in the woods.

This early German talkie stars the gorgeous Hedy Lamarr as a bored hausfrau and is notorious for not only showing her in her birthday suit but also in the throes of passion. The film was banned in the US! For that reason alone, one should watch it. Lamarr is truly beautiful and offers a strong performance as the woman who falls for the security of an older man (and marries him) only to become restless and subsequently enthralled with a younger, more exciting lover.

This film could have been a silent movie; it certainly has the feel of one. I was extremely, extremely lucky to see this very rare version of this film. Extase, is a 'symphony of love', and transcends all language versions. French, which is the ultimate romantic language, seems quite suitable for this very sensual and lyrical version.A young Hedy Lamarr lights up the screen, in this film which, in a way is almost like a sex fantasy; but definitely far from being pornographic.Tech qualities may have been a little crude; but that does not detract from the magical spell this film exudes.Many lovers of early cinema, would absolutely adore this film.

This is romanticism in the original 18th and 19th century sense of exalting human emotion and imagination, depicting the nature of sex and human relations in terms of powerful, elemental forces mirrored and symbolized in nature. It's prototypical also of European art cinema, which I've always had a weakness for. A romance, yes, but not in the sense of some smarmy "relationship" flick. All that aside, it's just strikingly beautiful, and a real treat for people who relish earlier styles of film-making. On reading some brief blurbs about the new DVD edition before getting it, I kind of got the impression that it was some cheap "shocker" in the manner of "Sex Madness" or "Reefer Madness," which couldn't be further from the truth.

As has been remarked, it's practically a silent film with a continuous musical score. Released very early in the 1930s, I have to wonder if it wasn't originally conceived and largely shot as a silent, and retrofitted for sound. Spoken lines are never more than a brief sentence or two, and most often just one or two words. This is at a time when American films were thick with dialog, taking full advantage of the new sound technology. I think much of the communicative power of cinematography was shoved aside or forgotten with the advent of sound. Had this picture been done in the United States at that time, quite apart from the demands of the sensors, a continuous patter of verbal exposition and just plain yammering would have been insisted-on by those financing it. Thankfully, it wasn't, and we still have this almost-forgotten gem to show for it.

The direction and cinematography isn't really revolutionary for its time, as it uses techniques, camera tricks, editing and points-of-view that had already been invented by earlier pioneers of silent film, but their presence still makes it stand strikingly apart from the vast majority of mainstream films of the era. There is visual sexual symbolism obvious enough to raise a giggle or two from some modern viewers (Eva pensively toys with her ring while lying on the bed on her wedding night, one drooping flower drips into another receptively open flower after a violent rainstorm). It's hardly out of place, as sex is at the very center of the film.

The musical score is extremely specific to the action, and is highly lyrical. It may strike some modern viewers as a bit too cloyingly sweet, but I find it appropriate to the style and powerfully effective for getting you into the spirit of the piece. It helps evoke the wide range of mood in the film, which at the very start almost looks like a whimsical romantic comedy. The mood darkens considerably as it moves on.

A story is told powerfully and with great visual artistry, without any superfluous exposition or jabber. For me, it's the essence of cinema. It was a big surprise for me, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to finally see it.

There's no entertainment value in this confusing montage fest. There's a love triangle melodrama wrapped inside, but it's not worth the price of admission. I suspect the film is dripping with all sorts of symbolism, but what it says is never entirely clear. We get shots of flowers, horses, pick axes, and flies, flies, flies. The artsy montages interrupt the story whenever possible and go on and on, overstaying their welcome after delivering their messages.

This practically silent Czech-made movie is notable today for its nude and erotic scenes with Hedy Lamarr, years before she became a star in Hollywood. The scenes, tastefully done, really pushed the envelope back in the early 1930s, giving this film some historical significance.

It boggles my mind to see so many rave reviews for this film. Sure, it has its claims to cinematic history, but this is not a very good film. It is way too drawn out, weighed down by heavy-handed symbolism, and ultimately unsatisfying. A footnote in a textbook, sure, but no masterpiece.

Perhaps one must possess a certain artistic mind to fully appreciate this film's "poetry". If that is the case, I guess I just don't have it.

Not worth your time except as a curiosity for the rabid cinephile.