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.
我心里的5分全给天海祐希，但仔细想想真碰到这种现实状况哪有什么解决办法，还是跳海吧，哈哈🥲
轻松幽默的为我们画出了一个理想美好化的老年生活大饼。
无限夸大了一个个花钱大事件的喜剧效果，呵呵一笑之余也就没有了其他。现实中随便一个落入脆弱的中产阶级身上恐怕都是一座难以逾越的大山，那时还能笑着选择中年夫妻合租生活的恐怕不是乐观通达而是脑子不好。
嗯……一星加给女王，看有点不器用的女王略新鲜。喜剧效果一般般，主要真的啥也没讨论，婆媳关系嗖一下就大转弯，比坐火箭还快……
前面太苦啦。结尾很温暖。给了一个新的老年生活的思路。奶奶最后的一首歌，差点泪奔
中年双双失业，又遇各种需要花钱的事，仅有的一些存款快要告罄，剧中主角夫妇瞬间经历人生中最令人恐惧的时期。电影以相当夸张的喜剧形式，表现了日本社会对于养老的恐慌。不过，影片的结尾，以共享式的公社生活，作为一种理想化的解决方式，只能说太过乌托邦也太幼稚了。
养老是大部分人的担忧 只有少数发达国家地区不需要担心 天海佑希不太会采购啊 一进去就被销售连环施压 看着都可怜 都是打肿脸充胖子的家伙 老太太在这家玩的更开心
后半部强行扭转变得无聊了，前面看的很现实很压抑啊，最后的结局不能接受，现实中群租是不行的
整体很轻松诙谐，疫情居家第二日看的。合家欢去焦虑化的开导喜剧。推荐！很温暖，特效也做得不错！
先抑后扬看得我差点原地去世，还好被结尾救了回来。别说80岁，希望60岁的时候还能像婆婆一样逍遥自在。人啊，还是要活的任性点_20220619
用非常中二、诙谐的方式，讲述了日本现今很现实的社会问题。冒领养老金、老年赡养问题、中年失业危机、消费观等等，虽然在结局关于共同居住的养老有一些美好，但换一种更舒适的消费生活方式，而不是被捆绑在豪华葬礼，天价婚礼一味要面子忽视钱包的传统模式，摒弃资本洗脑的消费观，这样的养老生活更让人欣喜。
这练了个什么瑜伽 太傻了 哈哈哈
最后强行升华成人不要物欲太高，养老金不够就节衣缩食啊不要挑工作啊！再不行卖掉房产啊！合租也很幸福快乐噢。
房子卖了去共享公寓，能住多久呢？一个推广电影。。中间婆婆女扮男装骗养老金的时候也有点扯。
没头感觉到温馨，也没有被笑到。没有钱，也从来没想过攒钱，就这么解决了问题。
看看别人家的propaganda怎么做的..."但凡你们宣传部门用点心,还怕社保和养老金亏空?"...
涉及「老後破產」的雞湯型電影，但我確實有想過合租型養老的模式，但⋯⋯我社恐啊，救命，我只能融入別人的社區，我沒法組建社區啊，我又躺下假裝沒事發生了⋯⋯
虽然编导不过是想营造喜剧冲突，但是让女主面对一群吸血虫配角也够让人吐槽的了，最后也不知道怎么安排的伏笔就让这群配角善解人意。霓虹国的老百姓可能普遍都挺听话的，合租养老这事真就这样推广出去了。
可以任性的日本女人 很庆幸 你有一个爱你的老公 很庆幸 你看清了生活 但最后的爱情公寓 或许只是梦想
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
