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.
凌厉狠辣地穿透了一齣又一齣主体为对治自身的大限而沉溺其中的fantasies, 剧终的“大彻大悟”即是最深的幻見，人类通过不断求索而终于为自己营造的无从察觉的执着和障碍。绿骑士最后一句台词无情地嘲弄了这终极的fantasy，这恋物式的拒认。这种嘲弄同时指向了所有观众。形神俱佳，精彩绝伦的作品。
[视]微血微露，导演<老人和枪><鬼魅浮生><彼得的龙>，亚瑟王圆桌骑士，圣诞公路片，坎妹一人分饰两角，<猎鹰与冬兵>女反，<对马岛>狐，摄影不错
另外贊一下開頭~~那三分鐘的運鏡、聲效和配樂~絕了！~~
每次去dt都会路过依托比克的cineplex，好像今年半年都挂着一个很大的这部的海报而我一直以为是个什么超英片（。倍速看就还行 成为骑士的历练
需要结合解析去看去理解的一部电影 正如很多影评来说就这么一个简单的故事却拍的让人昏昏欲睡 电影的确是个很私人的东西 正是这种“昏昏欲睡”的感觉 让我着迷
二刷， 觉得值得5分。电影的改编让故事更合理
4.2 高文的表演完全是割裂的，他是巨婴吗？
关于电影本身，太难以解释。不过我想说说Dev Patel，他跟以前的气质真是天差万别，我一直觉得他是那种too much的演员，其他片子里可以原谅，但这里与其他演员相较起来就实在是太过违和。不过Alicia真的是好极了。
感覺是為了電腦特技巧立了一個名目，但又不覺得又什麼過人之處
【2.5】依旧拥有A24的独立调性：一种纵使风格千变万化但仍以优秀审美和求异心理所延续的精神。可惜本片不成体系的符号植入过多，节奏亦在拖累，让本应赏心悦目的风格之旅在某些时刻显得无比滞重。大卫·洛维的能力自然是不高，说句俗套的话叫只有佳句而无佳章。回头看去，《鬼魅浮生》更像个美丽的意外。
导演真的特别擅长氛围感拉满……A24又一次与我不谋而同的选择了这部片（bushi)
/C-/欲戴此冠，必受其重。
4.2 高文的表演完全是割裂的，他是巨婴吗？
这并不是说它是我今年看过的最糟糕的电影，但它是最无意义的电影之一。大卫洛维这次节奏慢得惊人，几乎可以说是毫无乐趣可言。不要看这部电影，除非你只喜欢枯燥的艺术电影风格，而可以忽略缺乏到顶点令人信服的情节。近年来最无意义、最令人不快的电影之一，有再好的艺术水准都不行。
影像太强大，从一段幻梦坠入另一段幻梦，可一切并没有组成一个整体而显得乏味 3.5
论如何利用电影在豆瓣实现自我满足
确实是一个形式大于内容、自说自话的影片，但是导演对于兼具舞台感和神话魔幻的画面探索，还是让我对其很有好感。
美术方面是做得挺好，服装设计那是很有味道。以古代末期为背景的奇幻故事，氛围塑造是能被感受到的。可能是叙事不怎么“亲切”，比较玄乎且魔幻。开头高潮然后平稳下来……
摄影、美术不错，故事太幼稚了吧，无聊的骑士成长记
The.Green.Knight.2021.2160p.WEB-DL.x265.10bit.SDR.DDP5.1.Atmos-NOGRP
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
