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.
3.有这时间我可以去看纪录片，劳模姐你在浪费你的才华。
臭长且无重点，剧本和表演都像Jessica Chastain脸上的妆一样乱七八糟，不忍直视。这种一塌糊涂的长篇传记，不光浪费人物，还很伤害看客。
对查斯坦刮目相看，之前一直不理解为啥叫她劳模姐，这部充分体现了什么叫演入骨。加菲这部没有摆脱窠臼，好在倒数时刻在另一方面有所证明，不然就太遗憾了。
劳模姐真·整容式表演！抛去传记式电影这一特点，基督徒的伪善和虚荣但是让我觉得这部电影挺讽刺的，God bless XXX
它的恐怖只有女性能懂。除了变态跟踪狂以外、丈夫的无视、无意间的玩笑、同理心的缺失更令人生气。女主像amber和罗南的结合体。
相当漫长的两个小时，导演真的没有匠气，恁是拍成了流水账，不过这几年传记片拍成这样的也不在少数，可见社交网络是多么的少见。该片流水的讲述了塔米菲自己的虔诚信仰，不幸的婚姻，丑陋的骗财等故事，以最后站上舞台表演无聊收官。不多的表彰点在女主表演和化妆，拿捏的很到位，但与此加菲的表演可以说是挺差的，尤其是两人对比下还是挺惨的，最后其实想说虽然每个人都是多面的，但好莱坞也大可不必老是像本片一样掩盖人的丑陋而侧重其优点
And he loves you just the way you are. His truth is marching on.
shudder，今年圣丹斯展映的口碑不俗，烂番茄87% 均分6.8，IMDb 6.6。
氛围营造的很好，能让每个独居（丈夫达咩）女性不寒而栗。现实意义是居于异国学好语言很重要，当然永远相信女性直觉，去他妈的“你太情绪化了”。
塔米菲的救赎，结尾想起了朱迪。劳模姐太棒了，加菲也可圈可点。
女主植根于信仰，受困于信仰。她一直渴望被别人看见被别人喜爱，当我重新复盘自己两个小时的观影时我发现认同感才是她心中“上帝声音”的来源，当她认为自己做了不值得被认同的事情之后，那个声音也就随之消失了，剩下的就只有苟延残喘。
全程有点懵圈……加菲的嘴唇看着好难受……浓重的眼妆……
5，太平了，冲奥片，劳模姐个人秀，总感觉加菲在大喜大悲的表演没有区别，因为面部表情极度夸张到这两个情感被模糊，希望劳模姐拿，因为茉莉牌局没拿到~
最佳女主实至名归！劳模姐太牛了！你事奉上帝相信上帝祂给予你微笑面对任何事的力量，但祂也告诉你警惕人心像毒蛇，爱到最后可能是愤恨，这一切还是要你自己走过才肯继续祷告。演员演技掩盖剧本叙事的缺陷
7.0，同样叙事流水的传记片，《梅艳芳》最起码也得跟这部学学。
也许她的确没有一个明确的责怪“对象”，但是她的恐惧是来自于整个厌女的世界，站在她的角度，所有的男性都可以是潜在的对她具有威胁的人。所以作为男性，如果你不能共情女性的恐惧，起码你可以在她感到害怕的时候，不要把这一切说成是她的幻想和被迫害妄想。你需要做的，是反思你作为男性不用感到恐惧的特权，而不是在这儿说一堆风凉话。
作为传记片来说着实很平庸，奥斯卡女主演技也就那样吧，唯一吸引人的是塔米菲这个人物本身，她就是为了舞台而生的
劳模姐演的倒是很好，可人物刻画有些流于表面，可能是我对宗教狂热始终不能理解同时也对相应的历史背景缺少了解吧。
看最前面的时候不是很喜欢这部电影，看到后半段，被查斯坦演绎的塔米·菲这个角色的人格魅力所折服。就是不知道有没有洗白的嫌疑。历史会给予每一个人公义吗？
充斥着矛盾的Tammy用尽一生才明白，信仰从来不来自于耶稣，也不来自于任何男人或家人，只有相信自己才是最坚定的信仰。2022奥斯卡见！
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
