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.
如果你不是在乎我的外表
画面真好，主题也很鲜明。#梅拉尼罗兰补完计划#
渣男，渣女，一部蠢电影。
其實每個人都有一定的陰暗面，只是能不能控制住，那又是另外一回事了
看了二十分钟开始快进，最后反转还凑合，总体不好。
创意明显借鉴希区柯克的《后窗》，最后10分钟有画蛇添足之嫌～
无意发现的片名让我感觉是悬疑，主题好像也比较有意思于是看了。不过没想到是这么直接的0.0.但是男主死的这个点，大家也一直在说到底真的是邻居女生杀的还是真的自杀，我觉得自杀真的比较说不通吧有点突兀，虽然男主生气好几次了，但是生气不至于自杀？这是一个还不确定的点吧。然后结尾没杀而是弄瞎了其实有点意思。但总体来说比较一般吧。
艺术家的脑回路都比较清奇！ oh，对了，fxxking bitch, you deserved it! 我说的是女主！但是好像也木有收到太多的惩罚
为了反转而反转..题材还行..基本上就是软色情片
现代预言。结尾反转，像是用“不合理”解释“不合理”，前半部分还是很好看的。
当你凝望深渊的时候，深渊也在凝望你。当你自以为是“上帝”的时候，你早已落入“上帝”的圈套。如果没有结局的“复仇”整体会更好。
2星，太过细腻以至于墨迹。影片一大堆没用的内容，最后其实就是为了讽刺一下，转折突兀，逻辑不通。 不琢磨细节，还能看看。
这是我看过的她导演的第二部电影了，比第一部成熟、克制，导演这条路，她走得不比演戏差，相反她对于女性与女性之间的心灵交流，做得越来越细致。无疑，她是我喜欢的导演。
搞上色影师
偷鸡不成蚀把米，看戏反成剧中人。人类悲剧的根源，都是心中无尽的欲望。
估计是对希区柯克的电影拉片拉了500个小时拍出来的
眼睛只有两只，看点该看的，不该你看的别看。
有病没病，先用针治病，这就是那个时代的处理方式
这么好的题材能拍成这样，美国人真的好土 （刘承羽和悉尼我可以！
依然是对演员的驾驭远胜于对摄影机的把控 通灵的变焦真的存在“幽灵”吗？护士和病人对峙的正反打又是否勾勒出女性之间或惶惑或坚定的“凝视”？抑或只是几组概念“文明—疯癫”“禁闭—自由”“规训—反抗”“神祉—鬼魅”的教条主义二元化编织？运动与情绪的普遍性匮乏之下 我们又该如何在当下重构这场只有裸露没有“身体”的舞会？
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
