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.
视听形式和《困在时间里的父亲》类似，通过虚实混淆的画面和激烈的古典弦乐交织渲染，具像化主人公痛苦焦虑的内心世界。多处远景和平视镜头追求工整对称；厨房一整条情节线的设置；餐前的体重秤、必须紧闭的窗帘、层层裙装、珍珠项链等意象，从内到外隐喻君主制这一华美牢笼。直接的视听震撼，夸张所以动人，不正是电影的长处吗？谁不知道真实的戴妃肯定不会表现得这么“夸张”啊，要看人物的“真实状态”（不过是被压抑着的表面状态）你直接去看纪录片史料吧。KS的整体表现不错的，餐桌吞珍珠那场表演尤其触动到我。玛姬这一人物的设置是唯一的暖色了，’Diana,the shocked’和’Spencer’同样寓意着解放和希望，至少在这一情节、这一时刻。
与其说是大女主传记片，不如说是小k的独角戏，导演花在“如何让小k看起来演技爆表”的时间多于对剧作的琢磨，似乎从最开始就是朝着奥斯卡最佳女演员这一目标开始创作的，就像当年小李子的《荒野猎人》。
挺好的，别把小k当作真实的黛安娜，而当成一个虚拟的、再演绎的形象，这时候她的“神经质”、没学好的糟糕英音，放到影片构建的情景中都变得相当合情合理。所以从这个层面来说，它已经做得挺好了，除了非常套路化的女性解放两板斧：奔跑和搞橘。
两年没有这么大哭过了。在电影院里蠢到小K演的黛安娜一起共情。导演太会用视听语言推动故事。第一场饭桌戏黛安娜扯下脖子上的珍珠项链散落在汤碟里，用旁边演奏的弦乐控制节奏，靠摄像机在charles王子和Elizabeth女王之间迂回就能衬托处三个人的微妙关系。后面对峙的谈判的台球桌｜烛光下与两位小王子士兵将领的母子谈话｜在媒体前强颜欢笑不流眼泪｜跑回自己是宅邸摇摇欲坠｜与女仆跑向海边向往自由｜开车带孩子去伦敦塔桥下吃炸鸡｜每一场戏都那么生动有活力，唯一帮她的女仆配角厨师。我怎么可以不跟饱受折磨的黛安娜一起共情。在宫廷高墙下，我看到她纯粹的灵魂。冲出婚姻的桎梏，他不是黛安娜王妃，她是Spencer。小K和diana融为一体了，甚至想在离开英国前再去一次damario 吃一下戴妃生前最爱的餐厅。
半星给莎莉霍金斯半星给Chanel的漂亮裙子
小k有点扭捏作态了，而且这个驼背。。。最重要的是，这部传记片讲了半天没明白想表现啥，甚至显得戴妃有点无痛呻吟。大家爱戴戴妃，显然并不是因为片中所展现的她这些婚姻不幸的片段以及与仆人之间奇怪的对话。。。
一个大部分时候都不开心的戴妃 但是有谁在在乎这点故事 除了克里斯汀斯图尔特的粉丝……
典中典的戏路，被迫组队-制造矛盾离队-再营救。上百辆出租车追逐拦截属实大场面了。
想要迷路，不愿上秤，稻草衣装，窗帘缝合，童年鬼屋，野马寓言……媳妇到亲家过年的痛苦是个国际性问题。莎莉·霍金斯真甜到家了，跟《水形物语》冷战水怪谈个恋爱完全可以，跟戴安娜王妃百合告白也够浪漫。克里斯汀·斯图尔特还是演得有点太用力，没有娜塔莉·波特曼演的肯尼迪夫人那么多层次。导演帕布罗·拉雷恩这国际名媛系列，要是拍成三部曲，第三位会选谁？我提议拍《Peng》: )
毛骗团队的电影最大特点就是各种铺垫，细节与伏笔，有种下暗棋最后一个个给你翻出来的快感。
用很多细节展现戴安娜对自由的向往，音乐和画面都很考究，不错的一部作品。
6.5/10。一部“好看”的电影，一袭白裙倒在马桶旁崩溃的一幕太美了。恐怖片手法拍囚牢中的人物是很难失误的选择，厨房偷吃一段非常《闪灵》。美颜滤镜般的调色弊远大于利，虽可找补为暗合王妃亮丽的表面人生但我希望在不同节点能转换不同风格；与相似调色和故事的《吞咽》相比缺少灵气。稻草人、鸡、铁丝网等等太多直白的意象了，相反的绝代艳后更肆意、更自由。鬼魂指引意外让我想到红楼梦。
闹米沃茨演《戴安娜》，K演《斯宾塞》，都是一样的问题，人物高于故事，只能作为两边的粉丝特供片来看，而他们和真实的戴妃又很隔阂。这部片子更是全程由人物在推动故事，导演水平有限，那些形式上的东西其实没啥看头（看到很多评论说到《闪灵》，库神的那些“形式”这哪里能比哦）。
KS的台词模仿痕迹过重，吐气节奏让人不舒服。皇室的刻画太平了吧，怎么人人都一脸便秘被欠钱了一样
猎场，后厨——转向窗帘线钳，多余的彩雉，稻草人的外套~
有生之年还能等到毛骗原班人马！看到狐狸那帮人现在那么搞笑那么正义也算圆了毛骗的恨了。可惜包哥最经典的那句话说不出口了，但还是笑到不行了嘎嘎嘎嘎
1. 起初没看出来是KS；
3.5。有几处确实挺逗的，剧本稍显平庸，但秒杀那些低端国产网大还是很轻松的，包哥照样牛逼
k-stew很美很脆弱，但是全程处于惊恐颤抖状态的表演让我很难受，大概是不甚了解王妃生平的原因，她的痛苦我无从体会，情绪也很蓦然。Sally Hawkins过于可爱，还能在大银幕上直回来吗hhhh
斯图尔特演的有点用力了吧，好看是挺好看的，但这种压抑过于溢于言表了。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
