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.
伏笔如此之多却没能形成有效收束，以为能像《恶之教典》般爆发，结果想太多，胃口吊太大没什么好结果，还得说日本人脑子里都什么猎奇的怪癖好。
故事好对我胃口，拍的也挺美。但可能还是有点太想讲清楚了，展现了太多逻辑性的线索和细节，就少了很多情感上说不清道不明的感觉。好可惜啊，那种抓不住的只能凭感觉的暧昧情愫才应该是影视化的魅力所在。（没想到会看到优子，有点感动+惊喜。真好啊，演技进步了好多，已经是立派的演员了啊）
感觉吧剧本呢是按照剧本书的结构一模一写的，但是呢写出来之后像段子，一个一个的冷笑话，然后导演也对场景音乐太不讲究了，导致剧本上的危机桥段，大家都在嘻嘻哈哈过家家一样，这种不讲究导致的效果就是越危机的桥段，演员越投入，越像尬演……最后彩蛋整了个伪bl线，也是故意整活……
有些幻想还挺新鲜的，剧情逻辑有bug。女主这个智商+不科学，是怎么当上医生的？
陈湘琪的表演就值得三颗星。其实她和林嘉欣、贾静雯在去年金马交出的三个角色具有非常高的重叠度，但单拎出《修行》里的表演还是有非常明确的自我表达呈现。
把简单的问题复杂化？一个挺简单的故事非要搞得这么繁琐的设计？音效组可以直接开除了，一惊一乍的连个音量区间都控不明白。
禁忌恋精神分裂迫害妄想症大杂烩，学校礼堂自缢真够cult的。说实在的喜欢这片子的镜头，只是内容指代不明。【amazon生肉】
台湾片也开始这么“神经兮兮”了。婚姻本就是一场修行，得过且过。每个人都是单行道上的跳蚤，皈依自己的宗教。
这一部作品是在描写了一个家里的夫妻双方都需要的角色伴演及相处之道值得我们学习参考。
预告片比正片有意思，正片给人的感觉就是感觉有点意思，但又差点意思。
很久没看过这么窒息又想看下是不是会有一个理想结局的影视剧了。另外，不知道大家是如何搜到片名的 :)
两位主演演得再好也没法掩饰剧作本身的空洞 甚至是用狗狗绝育这条副线来填充（而且还没拍好） 所谓出现在夫妻间的波澜也是拍得毫无波澜 不过陈以文倒是真的成为中年一事无成还好面子男性的标准演员了
看过就是记录了老年生活的一些琐事，老夫妻就是形同陌路，很无聊
最最驚訝的是片中看到昱呈結婚，隔沒多久他就真的在臉書公佈結婚，人生。
也没有什么大毛病，就是在鸡毛琐碎的生活中谁不在修行呢。刺耳的电话铃，狗要绝育，丈夫的旧情，丈夫的无奈与出走。每一件事都让人心累。陈湘琪确实演的好
这电影虽然也“伟光正” 但是好歹最后竟然不是“法治栏目”收场2333 刚背过法律知识的我表示 偷了东西又还回去 只要东西离开了原主人可控的范畴 就已经是“犯罪既遂”了
年轻的时候不会看这类题材，但是应该去了解知道的
结尾导演把选择留给男女主人公及观众，丝毫没有想给生活的一地鸡毛洗白的意思，毕竟——婚姻这场修行与生活中其他法门的修行不同，它最难，任何人也帮不了你，只能靠自己去修。
这种日式猎奇向明明可以拍得更好，田中圭还挺适合这种斯文病态的角色。
如果拥有这种超能力也挺好的，可以解决社恐问题，但我不想被雷劈:-D
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
