Like the most recent example of bringing Arthur Schnitzler to the screen, "Eyes wide shut" this movie suffers from the fact that the sort of imaginations that run through your mind while reading a Schnitzler story cannot be put adequately into a movie, even not in an x-rated one. See, even Max Ophuels' version of "Reigen" caused a scandal, although he didn't show or imply anything. The naughtiness of Schnitzler's work lies in the fact that mankind is utterly confronted with his most dark, most hidden desires. But before starting a lecture, I should get to the movie.
The story tells of a wealthy gentleman being hopelessly in love with an opera singer. Finally, he achieves her affection, but finds out that he has got a horrible price to pay. I think it's quite well done, the acting is excellent, so are the sets and even the newly made up stuff like the seance or the literally "blue-eyed" Siegfried-Character match with the original idea, although the latter is a figure that only makes sense after the third reich - but Schnitzler's story was already written in 1903. The best part of the movie is that it maintains the ambiguity of the literary source, becoming a more "fantastic" movie than most of the other entries in the genre.
The story tells of a wealthy gentleman being hopelessly in love with an opera singer. Finally, he achieves her affection, but finds out that he has got a horrible price to pay. I think it's quite well done, the acting is excellent, so are the sets and even the newly made up stuff like the seance or the literally "blue-eyed" Siegfried-Character match with the original idea, although the latter is a figure that only makes sense after the third reich - but Schnitzler's story was already written in 1903. The best part of the movie is that it maintains the ambiguity of the literary source, becoming a more "fantastic" movie than most of the other entries in the genre.
