Two differences between this Austrian version and the generally available American version are immediately obvious: they differ both in their length and in the language of the intertitles. The American version is only 1,883 metres long - at 18 frames per second a difference of some 7 minutes to the Austrian version with 2,045 metres. Whereas we originally presumed only a negligible difference, resulting from the varying length of the intertitles, a direct comparison has nevertheless shown that the Austrian version differs from the American version both in the montage and in the duration of individual scenes. Yet how could it happen that the later regional distribution of a canonical US silent film was longer than the "original version"?
The prevalent American version of Blind Husbands does not correspond to the version shown at the premiere of 1919. This little-known fact was already published by Richard Koszarski in 1983. The film was re-released by Universal Pictures in 1924, in a version that was 1,365 feet (416 metres) shorter. At 18 frames per second, this amounts to a time difference of 20 minutes! "Titles were altered, snippets of action removed and at least one major scene taken out entirely, where von Steuben and Margaret visit a small local chapel." (Koszarski)
From the present state of research we can assume that all the known American copies of the film derive from this shortened re-release version, a copy of which Universal donated to the Museum of Modern Art in 1941. According to Koszarski the original negative of the film was destroyed sometime between 1956 and 1961 and has therefore been irretrievably lost. This information casts an interesting light on the Austrian version, which can be dated to the period between the summer of 1921 and the winter of 1922. Furthermore, the copy is some 200 metres longer than the US version of 1924. If one follows the details given by Richard Koszarski and Arthur Lennig, this means that, as far as both its date and its length are concerned, the Austrian version lies almost exactly in the middle between the (lost) version shown at the premiere and the re-released one.A large part of the additional length of the film can be traced to cuts that were made to the 1924 version in almost every shot. Koszarski describes how the beginning and the end of scenes were trimmed, in order to "speed up" the film. However, more exciting was the discovery that the Austrian version contains shots that are missing in the American one - shots/countershots, intertitles - and furthermore shows differences in its montage (i.e. the placing of the individual shots within a sequence). All this indicates that Die Rache der Berge constitutes the oldest and most completely preserved material of the film.
在歌颂所谓的胜利的时候，也别忘了当初的狼狈。
每一个个体意志，在群体意志面前，都显得如此渺小
这不是电影这是一纸诉状。给我新老婆精湛的演技献上五星。
而看到短剧中老人院的痴呆老人们和亲人隔窗见面却不明白为什么亲人们不进来看他们的时候
恭喜Jodie再获BAFTA，作为演员的Jodie Comer是天赐的礼物
别国拍的东西在反思不足，我国拍的东西企图叫观众感恩戴德。永远讨厌宏大叙事，因为“人”会被忽略。永远可以对Jodie Comer的演技有信心，即使没有脸部出镜只有声音的那段，角色满满的焦虑都从屏幕里溢出来。但最后出走的情节真的有些跳脱。
中段那个26分钟的长镜头感染力太强了，精准地呈现了新冠之下小人物的至暗时刻，那种被整个社会背叛的无力与绝望，让人心如刀绞～但第三幕逃离疗养院的情节有些刻意且过火了，为了煽情而煽情，破坏了冷峻克制的旁观视角，也失去了现实感染力～
这是我看的第一部新冠相关题材的影剧，片中许多的片段，都让人回想起两年前新冠爆发时，亲历过的恐惧和无奈的心境。西方百姓对疾病防控的认知和我们并没有大不同，只是他们更关注「个人」而不是「国家」罢了。
那些阴阳怪气的人看个电影也优越感爆棚。
那段啾迪和托尼在夜里合作的的戏，通过变换色调更改视角真是看的人心里一揪一揪的。片子简单又有力，这才是抓住主要矛盾了
拍这种题材的片子 国外都是见微知著 透过市井小民表达着对现实的不满 国内是站在宏观的国家机器的角度 告诉你国家做了什么 并且我们应该幸福并感激 并没有人关心芸芸众生的普通人都是怎么苟延残喘过来的
长镜头那段朱迪科默的演技挺绝，以后肯定能拿影后
I'm so sorry, but no one's coming.
那一句What if一旦落在自己身上
同一时间看了don’t look up和help 一个是暗讽社会n个问题 一个是直接批判社会的一件事情 后者出来的效果更加深刻
他们将灯光照向了弱势群体，他们不是新闻上滚动的数字，而且真实鲜活的个体，每个人的离去都是冰冷黑暗的切实痛苦。最后的独白是一种无力的控诉，而我们却想为这种无奈的勇敢鼓掌呐喊，这部戏里的朱迪演得太好了！
7.9三星半，感觉很复杂，一方面觉得片子说的这事真的很有深度，另一方面又觉得这个故事太简单剧情太空。个人对抗体制完全无解，甚至连呻吟都叫不出来。大英这群体免疫真的是坑死这些弱势群体了，甚至可以怀疑是政府故意的，清理这些所谓低端无价值的人口，哎，苦了这些护工真的关心弱势群体的人了。
社会的弊病会在一次不可控的冲击下被迫丑陋地不得体地暴露出来。
朱迪科默今年奉献了两部非常精彩的表演，灾难来临最先受难的永远都是弱势群体
绝望的午夜这场戏朱迪·科默演得真好，只是结局的出逃有点突然... 三星半
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
