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.
困得说不利索话了
真是无聊，想要渲染情怀以及对于故土的那一份执着的思念，但是呢，除了精致的画面，以及欢喜交错的音乐之外，在剧情与人物之上，似乎没有什么能引发共鸣的地方。缺乏张力是整个作品给人的一种感受。能提名奥斯卡最佳影片真是看不明白。
并不喜欢。自传体这种体裁，是很容易陷入回忆之中自嗨的，但是对没有相似文化背景或是情感经历的观众来说却很难共情，虽然演员的细腻演绎，或是摄影的精细考究或许可以加分，但是缺乏了某种可以穿透形式和语境可以直达人心的东西的话（比如《罗马》在这一点上就做得非常优秀），那么无论对于主创，还是对于观众来说，这种表达方式就是非常私人的，能get到自然会感动，不能的话要打高分实在太违心。
say nothing, and tell everything of softly love to your family. 片子可能至多三星了 不过今夜观影私人感受beyond expression, 就因此 没法客观打分
最后居然还“献给留在故乡的人”“也献给外出的游子”“以及迷失了自己的人”，这是拍电影，不是写散文诗！
片中所寄予的乡愁在可说是虚无缥缈的典型。看似精致的背后，是空虚的内核。卖力的煽情也很难达到共情的效果无非感觉抓马罢了。
大型室外情景剧既视感，小男主互动角色，除了爷爷奶奶两个有点人性（妈妈也有点情绪），其他角色感觉都是棋子。家里和街道场景太缺乏生活痕迹了，暴动完路边整洁的比刚铺完沥青还新，可能导演对自己的童年回忆加了超级滤镜吧
真是无聊，想要渲染情怀以及对于故土的那一份执着的思念，但是呢，除了精致的画面，以及欢喜交错的音乐之外，在剧情与人物之上，似乎没有什么能引发共鸣的地方。缺乏张力是整个作品给人的一种感受。能提名奥斯卡最佳影片真是看不明白。
内容撑不起这么高规格的制作。画面很有质感，但从头到尾完全没被打动，只觉得好漫长（结果才一个半小时多…）
乡愁系电影，从阿方索·卡隆到肯尼思·布拉纳，从墨西哥城到贝尔法斯特，每位导演心底都有一封写给故乡城市的温柔情书。拨开北爱尔兰历史往事，回溯童年时光，围墙后搭建起的简易片场还原出故乡街区的模样，用极其碎片化的生活日常呈现那段动荡年代里仍未褪色的私人记忆。小男孩眼中的世界，因宗教信仰分歧产生的冲突、亲情和初恋、迁离的人与留守的人，布拉纳爵士或许倾注了足够真切的情感，但作为导演功力实在有限，愣是把自传性质的回忆录拍成了温吞无比的家庭琐事，充斥着快要溢出屏幕的匠气，只能靠不时点缀些迷影元素和密集插入歌曲去勉强撑起零散到几乎没有的剧情。东施效颦，高下立判，刻意作旧的黑白影像和开场那段暴乱戏明眼人都能看出在模仿谁，可惜格局跟力道皆远弱于《罗马》，骗奖之心昭然若揭，这居然是今年颁奖季BP头号热门 - -！
That wee girl can be a practicing Hindu or a Southern Baptist or a vegetarian antichrist, but if she's kind and she's fair and you two respect each other, she and her people are welcome in our house any day of the week.
关于故乡的往事，形式感很强，但是剧作以及视听内核存在很大的问题，摄影和表演还可以，奥斯卡BP就比较难了。
肯爵的童年自传片？选择离开真的是一件很难的事情，对离开的人来说是这样，对留下的人来说同样如此。
不可抗力皆因沒有想像力，才那麼需要黑白來補救。《羅馬》都能把幾坨屎拍出不明覺厲的形式感。肯尼去到盡也只是把舞台上的彩色，反射到奶奶的眼鏡上，黑白裡帶點彩，搞得這麼初級。
就算题材千变万化，肯导的风格也永远不变。打光和置景都太“干净”了，每个镜头都充满“设计感”，用力过猛尽显匠气。文本其实还不错，像是一封家书，从动乱到迁徙，儿童视角的表达很有四两拨千斤的效果。可惜文本和影像之间如同隔了一层薄膜，实在是不统一，挺别扭的。
并没有想象的那么糟糕。虽然有非常多糟糕的调度不明所以的摄影机位置、摄影机角度，可是导演私人的故事所勾连起的上世纪60年代爱尔兰贝尔法斯特地区的历史是迷人的
《贝尔法斯特》有着十几首动听的BGM，在轻歌曼舞中唱尽爱尔兰人的乐观幽默、执拗坚强，道出他们的心酸与不舍。
3.5 北爱尔兰降调版罗马/北爱人的梦想是去全世界开酒吧！（x
没什么收获，口音也不喜欢，看完心里十分不舒服，恕我无法给高分。
不同于罗马的审视，只是一个小孩子的回忆。另外妈妈为了教育孩子带孩子回被looting的商店这种行为只能让我送上一句sb
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
