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.
1. 关键时刻为什么组织不出手给个创业基金，这样即能创业成功又能体现我们的优越性？2.演员表演还是挺好的。
昨天看的👀
全员演技在线，是那个深圳该有的样子。
全员演技牛👍👍👍
感觉是难得的一部国产战争大片。和妈妈一起看，妈妈边看边在长吁短叹中国人太伟大了，那时候好惨好惨。看的时候一心希望电影快点结束，因为不忍心看到有人牺牲。晚上回家却听说还有下一部……还全灭……心塞死我了。电影整体还是挺不错的，部分镜头有点尬，但是人物特色鲜明，战争场面也拍得很惨烈。看的让人很心疼
如果你相信现实有童话，你就会喜欢这个电影。我相信～
我们一位电子厂老板说，这里面80%的情节他都经历过。“那你哭了吗？”“就眼泪它自己会留。”——来自深圳观众
在刚刚过去的激荡二十年里，中国电影没能留下几部真实记录那个时代的电影。所幸我们有了文牧野。药神之后的奇迹，虽然有命题作文的局限，但导演对节奏和情绪的把控仍然是极好的。虽然它并不真的是现实生活的写照，但我们仍然愿意相信那些小人物理应获得生活和命运的善待。
个体总是更容易共情，但个体往往无法代表群体，所以故事还是讲个体的好。
我还是愿意相信在深圳这片土地上，奇迹还是真有可能发生……
如果你相信现实有童话，你就会喜欢这个电影。我相信～
观感很一般。战争场面太多，有点儿累赘，惨烈和英勇都够了，但悲壮和智慧似乎还差点儿意思。吴京可别透支了招牌。
+，确实弱在群像刻画了，次要角色的形象甚至弱到需要在片尾写出来他们后来怎么样了。
主席说的没错，打得一拳开，免得百拳来，这场仗我们不想打，但又不得不打，那个时候我们的志愿军用血肉和意志保卫了祖国，才有了我们今天的生活，中国走到今天真的太难了，致敬先烈。
大场面拍得不错，文戏太拖沓了。易烊千玺的台词真的得练练，这也太差了，根本听不清说什么。
剧本其实还挺俗套的，不过拍的还是挺好看的，带有浓厚的底层小人物英雄主义色彩。
看完第一感觉就是这是一部深圳宣传片…… 对比药神弱化了社会问题，算是深圳发展的缩影。故事比较简单，千玺又进步了，妹妹的演技应该是同龄人天花板了吧。哈哈哈。
稍欠惊喜，诚意足够
是无数前辈们奋斗出来的!
那个租厂房的大爷说谁没难处 那个房东把他们的锁换了的时候我觉得真的好冷血好现实 景浩的天赋勇气头脑和坚毅 换来了他妹妹的命 他的未来 但不是所有人都这么幸运 但是所有努力的人都值得
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
