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.
“宛宛类卿”的情节吗？！
虽然核心设定从科学性角度考察是不成立的，节奏把握上也有小缺陷，但依然属于“年度必看”这一级别的佳片。“灾难喜剧片”已经属于较少见的类型混搭，更遑论世界末日题材的荒诞讽刺喜剧。如同跷跷板，影片反复在荒诞喜剧与严肃悲剧之间切转，有些时刻即将跌坠到地，但迅即又被弹上高空了。及至悲喜剧交融的场景（最后的拯救行动与最后的家庭晚餐交叉剪辑，以及末日冲撞时的人类众生相蒙太奇&“太空垃圾”慢镜），情感完全被释放。但片尾Credits后的两个彩蛋（新星球着陆及“地球最后一人”）又以黑色幽默不合时宜地拉回情绪。全片不仅是旁敲侧击指涉气候生态问题，间接呈露疫情时期的乱象，更是对短视频社交时代大众“在解构一切的笑闹中慢性死亡”的讽刺。有趣的是几位大牌明星在戏里戏外和角色都挺契合，马克·里朗斯演得最让人捧腹。（8.5/10）
唉，虽然有些不太喜欢的部分，但还是共情了。
一个彻头彻尾的悲剧。在以“坚硬无情”为猎标的男性气质完全笼罩的荒凉土地上，一切浪漫、美好和柔弱的事物都会走向死亡。人们在这样的荒凉中逐渐畸变。两个男性不管是以粗砺还是以柔弱示人，内在贯彻的都是“以牙还牙以血还血”的残酷法则。
深柜故事拍成这样也是牛逼，太隐晦了，能津津有味看完的人更牛逼（看完长评才明白，这是个杀人的故事。Peter给Phil的多余的兽皮是他从那头因炭疽而死的牛身上割下来的，而Phil编绳子的时候伤口流血了。妈的，Peter太残忍了）
马棚里那场戏还有本尼的表演不错，但是整个片子氛围感觉不温不火过了头，有点低于期待。
第一部令我简直怀疑自己智商为零的电影，看到一多半竟然还是不太清楚各人物之间到底是什么关系怎么回事，最后也只能靠不确定来猜测这片子到底讲了什么。现在的电影已经要靠故弄玄虚来制造噱头了吗？原谅我不懂这是电影的进步还是退步。（影片中卷福多次穿着大喇叭裤走来走去也没干什么事，真不知道几个意思。）
真正有把控力的人在哪里呢？其实都没有。资本家也是被裹挟的，他太过相信大众对于自己的的追捧了，当金钱让一个人成了神，在另一面，他也就成了奴隶。
#观影手记# 2334 4.5
一个彻头彻尾的悲剧。在以“坚硬无情”为猎标的男性气质完全笼罩的荒凉土地上，一切浪漫、美好和柔弱的事物都会走向死亡。人们在这样的荒凉中逐渐畸变。两个男性不管是以粗砺还是以柔弱示人，内在贯彻的都是“以牙还牙以血还血”的残酷法则。
导演真的厉害，很简单的故事，靠着音画和节奏控制将气氛渲染起来，靠心理和情绪推动，全程压抑而不安，几乎是坐在椅子边看完的。两个男主角当中，Cumberbatch在表面上的确是颠覆的，但层次上还是欠了些，少了份缺乏令人同情的柔软，Smit-McPhee的阴郁气质更符合角色，反而更出彩。
画面美且残忍，看着摄影机划过群山的画面，简直像动物的皮毛一样，发光柔韧。感觉下一秒就要因为呼吸而起伏起来，有点恐怖的美感。剧情倒是简单，美丽的男孩子从开始到结尾一直在做残忍的事情。可怜了卷福了
7⃣️紧绷克制到结尾甚至没有回神究竟发生了什么，暗涌的张力处处撩动观者的情绪。一步步走出柜子，一步步走入陷阱。
“宛宛类卿”的情节吗？！
不要被缓慢的节奏欺骗了 实则力道凶猛结局令人震惊 影片里很多值得玩味的细节 对这种细腻的掌控果然只有女导演才能做到
母亲肯定知道他杀手特质，但母亲有意利用了吗?反正客观上,推动他查医书寻找解决方案的确实是母亲酒后那段 远在天边的星星唾手可得。
本来想找个电影娱乐一下，翻了半天结果还是看了这个闷片。节奏真慢，风景真美，（Montana还是新西兰？）音乐真haunting。剧情走向倒是容易看出来，也是大概节奏慢的缘故吧。别的没看出来，主要看出了女导演对toxic masculinity的嘲讽。
Campion还是很强的，能把温柔细腻拍出自己作者性的人非常少，就比如以钢琴和乌克丽丽进行简单对话的那场戏，那种用乐器理所应当地对话的氛围是独属于她的人物个性表达（我更想看到“对话”时间长一点），这样的行为细节很多。但是，不是一直慢步细腻就可以，有时候就觉得挺磨叽的：费了老大劲情节只推到这？这就跟邓斯特的角色给人的感觉一样，她有独属于她的脆弱敏感，但是那个东西太多了会让人不舒服，别扭、做作。西部的部分拍得跟赵婷的水平也差不多，其实可以多学学老东木。
看的时候觉得还行，过了几天再回想觉得后劲大得不得了……有一点近期电影横向对比加成在里面，女导演的敏感细致克制，很多片段都好品，整个片的层次也丰富，不止是意料外的谋杀，是柔弱对阳刚的谋杀，斩断父权，另一方面也可能被理解成爱情作，开头和结尾都是男孩讲述，中间视角悄然转换给了本尼，一个迫害他人但实际也是时代环境受害者的角色，在本尼的视角上，如同找到隐秘的解脱与传承，一人一口烟在纯爱故事里很动人，又给你手术刀扎醒了，从兔子被剖开，从纸花被折叠就开始了。
前期不知道要干嘛，好难专心，复盘才发现不动声色的铺线太戳中我，很想在院线看了
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
