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.
很不错哦，对母女、家庭关系的描写很高级，种种冲突都在涌动，但又不是一一对应，而是错位地拧在一起。我一直觉得我不是完全地爱我妈妈，因为里面有恨，但是可能事情就是这样，有多少爱就有多少恨。
本片中心思想：不要生小孩,小孩会带来不幸。
哪怕芳仪与母亲间的关系如此剑拔弩张，电影的叙述也静水流深。方郁婷的好不可否认，但阮凤仪的女性视角也为影片投注了更多的温柔，相信这个叫「仪」的女孩多少也带着导演的私人记忆吧……
又是结局没结好，铺开了一个很好的人物关系结果到后来就这样草草结束了，什么都没深入展开….但前面真的挺好的，很台湾
小女孩好，这个故事能完整能入戏一大半靠她的表现，可惜辨识度不高，再过6/7年长次了就可惜了
我们总对于「更好」抱持着无穷的执念，其实殊不知这一刻的彼此已经是「最好」的存在。
站在covid回看SARS，如果把视角缩小到家庭生活，这20年的鸿沟从未存在。母女三人从LA回到新店，家庭中截然不同的价值观和逆向文化冲击影响着少女，对东亚家庭生活中的冲突和矛盾描述可以说刻板，但又足够真实。母女之间撕裂的伤口是否可以愈合，本身没有答案，但整本电影足够温柔。
美國女孩跟瀑布在2021年對幹真是偶然與想像的第四章。
非典时期，我跟剧中女孩儿差不多的年纪。鸡毛蒜皮，父母子女，太真实了。林嘉欣距《暗色天堂》演技又进了一步
B— / 确实有看到张艾嘉电影的影子，情感能量来源于drama，诸如地域文化差异，疾病，疫情，教育等矛盾都被根本的家庭矛盾穿成线抛售出去。它必然不是所谓“涓涓细流”的，而是狰狞，且真诚的。
那时候台商在大陆还很吃香，东莞正在世界工厂的高峰。而台湾本岛却是暮气沉沉。人望高处，所以丈夫想去大陆赚钱。今天很多台厂已经转移到东南亚尤其越南。
美国移民在再回台湾的纠葛，女孩与父母最后的和解
那如果這已經是她的最好了呢？
只有几处小细节出彩，其他部分矫情的让人无法理解，爱与恨再共生也不会对癌症的妈妈这种态度，叛逆期小女生不会，美国人也不会。
选的话题很犀利，但却都没挖进去
就算这女编剧整个剧本写的全都是“刻板成见”四个字，也不见得比现在的会差到哪里去。
热锅上的家庭，揭示出从大环境到小家庭的系统兼容问题，启发疗愈，建议阖家观看，各得其所。
它远算不上完美的电影，移民和SARS的背景都用得不算好，但换一个角度，背景只是背景，它是生活中必然面对的变化与挫折，一个家庭如何处理，如何面对，如何和解才是这部电影真正想讲的东西，它不算好，但它太真实了，太像会发生在我们家中的事情，而电影在一个稍微失真的和解中戛然而止。但，结束了吗？不，生活仍会继续，挫折与变化是人生永难回避的境况，怎么办？4星。
平庸，視聽語言太弱。但一如既往地喜歡林嘉欣的表演，第一次做化療時的緊張害怕脆弱，處理得很好。
期待太高以至于无法接受这么普通。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
