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.
鸡蛋终究会孵化，越过石头。
黑警虽然可恨，种姓制度虽然让人愤怒，但起码律师上街不会被寻衅滋事，农妇维权不会被恶意上访，高等法院判案不需要看谁脸色。
印度又一部超级震撼的电影，题材火爆，节奏把握严丝合缝，虽然带有一定的理想主义色彩，但思想性极其深刻，印度电影已经在引领世界电影的走向了。
没有想象的优秀，还是一贯的宝莱坞作风，黑白分明。
为什么会选择性无视突兀的歌舞和转场，还有一塌糊涂的剪辑节奏，时长？
印度版的《辩护人》？1995年背景，没有人权的低种姓部落，数代都是饱受歧视的“不可接触者”，拿不到居住证、游离于社会之外，可以被随意安上罪名被捕入狱虐待殴打，真的太惨了哎哎哎，女主痛苦的演技到位，恨得我想把那几个黑警扒皮抽骨
他们在法律上剔除了种族隔离的条文，
这种题材的电影，“根据真实事件改编”就已经赢了一大半了。
鸡蛋终究会孵化，越过石头。
3.5，现实意义远大于艺术/商业价值。太拖沓了，每次情绪到位都被拖拖拖没了。
致敬每一位为底层人民奋斗的英雄，致敬每一个推广赞美这种行为的艺术家
但权势者需要之时还要讨价还价地拿走它。
真相大概从警察说出犯人越狱的时候就知道了，但是丝毫不影响观看。
全程气的想死，一直觉得善良和正义的人只是拖慢了人类自取灭亡的道路，因为看不见的角落里会发生更多可怕的罪行ps塑造人物更朴实自然和没有大篇幅着墨女主和丈夫的爱情故事是亮点（以往印度电影一般会拿出半小时来描写）
致敬每一位为底层人民奋斗的英雄，致敬每一个推广赞美这种行为的艺术家
片里那种宏大bgm的半喜剧效果真的产生奇异的效果。我们对这种黑暗习以为常，对希望却表现出各种不适应
一部艺术价值并不高的批判现实主义作品，在这里打出这么高的分数，值得深思。凭啥看不起印度？毕竟人家能拍摄和公映这种电影。
又一个本来在我国可以生根的故事，被别国拍了出来，这是怎样的悲痛，《捕蛇者说》呜呼哀哉，又是一个为普通人发声的题材，但我们却认识不到，深度调查和RQLS都不复存在，这电影主要是题材剧情得分，拍摄方式真的不是很高明
对于印度底层民众，这部片子在十年、二十年、甚至百年后仍会有影响力。
重要的不是你有什么才能，多大的才能 而是你用你的才能用于何处
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
