剧情介绍

  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.

评论:

  • 俟雅秀 2小时前 :

    和《杰伊·比姆》成为双生花,道理和讽刺再多,你有勇气付诸实践吗?

  • 书晓兰 4小时前 :

    其实现在大多数国家都是这样 舆论被少数人操控 自以为正义和一头热的网民是被利用的棋子和助长社会戾气的帮凶 而极少数对一些争议提出质疑和全盘考虑的的人 基本都会立刻被骂的狗血喷头 导致理智的声音越来越少 而无脑网友日渐增多 这是我们这个时代最悲哀,也是最难改变的地方

  • 仙恬欣 8小时前 :

    热评第一有点意思哈哈哈哈。可是哦问题大家都知道又有几人愿意又有能力改变呢?大概最终是视而不见见怪不怪了吧。

  • 仲孙浩涆 4小时前 :

    什么时候内地观众审美这么开放了?居然能容得下这样悬浮文艺视角下的中年爱情故事?女权台词这么多也没被冲?全上海话台词也没被喷?这种欧洲风格作者电影明明只有豆瓣er才爱看!江女士评价此片:男女还是他妈不公平。你看徐峥胖得跟猪一样还有片拍,剧情还是三个美女围着他转。你看吴越,倪虹洁和马伊琍一个比一个瘦,腿都跟筷子一样。一看就是为了能有戏拍没少饿着。

  • 农嘉胜 8小时前 :

    最好的办法是放弃连根拔起的荒唐念头,用锄头也好,大斧也好,把树根的主干切断,挖出最大的隐患,而那些残根在见不得光的地下,得不到养分的输入,也会慢慢腐烂,最终成为泥土的一份子了。这样对将来另起屋宇也好,松土种菜也好,不会产生大的阻碍。

  • 坤星 0小时前 :

    台词密不透风,又大珠小珠落玉盘。

  • 国以云 4小时前 :

    “我的出生是一个错误”在这个国家,他们唯一的错误就是出生在这个体系里,他们的出生确实是个错误。 虽然不怎么喜欢这个结局,但2022目前最佳😭(昨晚复盘电影,越想越觉得后半段为了反转而反转,使前半段很多内容显得牵强;但我还是很受震撼,也许是这部电影或多或少有点最近一些新闻的影子

  • 彩彩 2小时前 :

    好看 虽然最后讲述律师生平的一段剪辑有点敷衍 但瑕不掩瑜

  • 勾明德 6小时前 :

    印度片最让我不满意的地方就是太长了,导致前部分都是提速播放,整体看下来还是挺震撼的,虽然反转已经不算是新鲜的方式,但中段开始的法庭戏比较吸引我,节奏也飞快的,近期值得推荐的一片印度电影。

  • 卫美华 1小时前 :

    直指印度社会乱象很有力度,但印度风太强不太能接受

  • 平吉 2小时前 :

    太精彩了,今年四大电影节这部电影没获奖,我TM绝对不认可。

  • 呈美 7小时前 :

    不到最后一个画面之前不要轻易对影片下论断,蒙太奇在这片子里运用的恰到好处。

  • 建诗珊 5小时前 :

    就多给一颗星吧,不得不承认印度的电影是越来越牛逼了,从最近诸多的作品中可以看出印度人民愈发想要觉醒改革的思想。但可惜的是,这并改变不了什么。反观国内的电影似乎还没要跳出舒服圈的打算,且由于服务器的问题,很多题材变得极其敏感。可在表象上我们仍能表现得一派和谐,实际上内部矛盾却愈演愈烈,内心早已麻木不仁。所以我们觉醒了吗?

  • 党凌春 5小时前 :

    3、有点儿12公民的意思,在任何没有确凿的证据之前不可以妄下定论

  • 寒昕 8小时前 :

    算是好看,但好人坏人极端脸谱化,也是有点小儿科的。没有了舞,但还是不少歌,看来歌或舞,还是宝莱坞标配。

  • 尔弘雅 2小时前 :

    要先把问题摆上台面,然后才有通过现代文明途径解决的可能性。

  • 康辰 8小时前 :

    首先夸配乐。大气又紧迫感十足。

  • 喻千秋 9小时前 :

    1. 电影是好电影,题材由点及面涉及很多热点话题(很难不联想到我国一些事,所以你的国家我的国家大家都一样)情节跌宕多重反转,法庭戏不少台词都是能截图永留存的水平,缺点也有,时长疲惫,音乐铺得太满(毕竟印度电影);2.“一个国家的尊严等同于它给女性的尊严”(道理都懂但我就是不改系列);3.法律是道德的底线,刑法是法律的底线,然而这中间还有一条隐形的线叫程序正义,可迟来的正义还算得上正义吗;4.你以为的事实有时只是别人想让你看到的事实,无论哪个时代哪个国家,媒体都应该是真相的传声筒而非政治的喉舌;5.年轻人切忌过度激进或温水煮蛙,任何时候都不要急着站队,有时间多学习,不要在微博自诩判官;6.每每看到别的国家拍出这样的电影,我们总是会思考我国的审查与尺度并痛恨薛定谔的404(叹气);7.陈思诚👌

  • 冼碧曼 2小时前 :

    柴米油盐画画打鼓,所谓腔调和质感,不过是颓靡之后,微笑着说,又学了一课。

  • 居翠琴 2小时前 :

    小红书一样的电影,浮光掠影,用tag讲故事,看到一半开始回忆读到的各种赞誉,不至于吧??

加载中...

Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved