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.
Kate这么危险的异见分子竟然逮几次都给放了，可见美国政府“不行”。
坎姐一如既往的克制，视听语言更是棒极了，特别是卷福“骚扰”rose那几段
有一个一秒钟的转场镜头，是个大俯瞰，高速公路上的鹿群被一辆从另外车道上驶过来的车子惊吓跑散。不知道拍这么一个看似无关紧要极容易被忽略的镜头要花多少人力财力和时间，但牛逼的电影还是会把这些东西编排进去（而且是个喜剧片）。一个镜头能解释很多问题。反正我拍的那么多小时的素材里没有一个这样的东西。
个人感觉有点形式大于内容啊，唯一的亮点就是福尔摩斯露diao，哈哈哈。。。
疫情前拍的真有先见之明啊。资本>意识形态>真相。地球被他们玩坏了，但他们活下来了。
如果将六个月的时间线拉长至五十年，彗星指涉的正是气候危机——我们甚至能在永失故土的海岛居民中看到彗星的尾巴。然而环保主义者们确实是最弱势、离我们的过往经验与当下现实最远的政见群体，大多数人能在电影中看到的也确实是眼前的、即知的危机——比如疫情。
不是很理解觉得不好笑的人，也不是很理解觉得不够严肃的人。我觉得这部电影既幽默又尖锐，甚至还有点浪漫。用娱乐至死消解娱乐至死又有什么不对呢，确切地说，难道我们还有别的选择吗？不知道这观点是不是有点悲观主义了。但我觉得拍摄这样的电影本身就是一种黑色喜剧。“尽管有必须跨越的海洋，必须翻越的山。”世界末日那天我只会选择在家躺着吃垃圾食品all day直到大家一起灭亡。
还想说冰血暴夫妇再聚首，然后才知道两人拍完冰血暴戏外已经结婚了（哇。
"Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog."
最后10分钟才有点意思，剩下的实在是枯燥无味。Jonny 的配乐还是超好听！
简坎皮恩这个情绪把控太强了，隐忍克制却又波涛汹涌。
中年大叔：这种不再是单身的感觉，实在太美妙了。
群星云集拍成这样，我恨不得想跟《法兰西特派>加一星
这是一部前两个小时以为是（断背）文艺片在看的，最后一秒发现原来是缜密谋杀片的电影。
用新西兰的风光来表现美国西部的野性有点怪怪的…
用人物状态以及他们和物的互动去叙事表达，这一套用到精疲力尽之后让影片看起来肃杀但是干涩，克制却又满溢。之前简坎皮恩只看过钢琴课，两者有很多相似的感觉，不过我认为钢琴课那一套卡司远胜于犬之力，特别是霍利亨特之于本尼。最开始那朵纸玫瑰从诞生到毁灭的几个空镜真是让我喜爱。
穿插的泰伦斯马力克式自然景观过场属于高级遮羞。没有别的把节奏慢下来的办法了。
还想说冰血暴夫妇再聚首，然后才知道两人拍完冰血暴戏外已经结婚了（哇。
生活本身的荒诞已远远大过艺术加工时，电影便不再具备魔力。
三星半。和想象中完全不一样，归结起来算是个邪恶复仇故事。整体情感和情绪都很怪，男孩这个角色从开始就笃定要保护母亲，却深藏不露，是故事幕后的大boss，但角色被塑造得不怎么丰满，不够立体。摄影着实很美，但故事真的太怪了~
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
