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.
个人偏爱这种错乱的叙事方式，让我在这个过程中和女主一起感受耀眼卑微幸福沮丧自疑自信。“我想有个家。”
剧情不算复杂，还是挺有现实感、科技感的，索德伯格的手法和感觉还行，只是最后女主拿射钉枪解决几个家伙的过程简单了点，欠点说服力。另外，多好的智能设备也怕断电，那些人居然这点常识也没有吗？
目的性太强了这电影，看得人好想问问导演兼编剧，您活得一定很累吧？
想要谈及海思法案，又拍的像是经海思法典的规整后的故事，艾伦·索金，天才的黯淡呀。
亮点是妮可的演技 但是不如时时刻刻里细致入微
今年的最后一部电影，庆幸看到了今年最佳的一个结尾——妮可愣神的那20秒，可以说是剧本创作中最美妙的一刻了。
艾伦索金强大的叙事能力和效率需要建立在故事本身就很精彩的基础上才能发挥出来，然而这部电影完全没有这个先天优势，看完以后只想问一句sowhat。哈维尔巴登成为了唯一的亮点。
没能坚持看完，演员阵容很好，但是主线情节的节奏有点弱，看了一半不到没看懂想表达点啥，貌似有点对那个时代女演员的个体缺少尊重？但是用这样一个很美国且带有历史背景的题材 可能作为中国观众来理解还是蛮有难度的
评分这么低？我觉得很好看啊 虽然影后肉毒杆菌真的打太多 但交织的时间线 台上台下夫妻的情感戏对峙真的过瘾
现实生活与虚拟剧集之间的交互吻合，台词太过凝练以至于大部分喋喋不休的对话都看得人云里雾里。露西在片场失神的那一刻，事业与家庭同向推进的聚合点就此拆散，她在摄影棚内的表演真实浓度也瞬间降到最低，最后因为婚姻的一番波折放弃了事业上的想法。前四分之三细碎冗杂的争执让人实在难以入戏，只有后四分之一妮可和巴登开始发力表演才慢慢找回感觉。索金目前还不太具备能把他一流的剧本转化为二流影像的能力，半纪实访谈、排练时间记录、双线回忆插叙都没能为正常影片叙事做出应有的贡献。
当意识到自己可以杀了他们，终于可以不再害怕。运镜太丝滑了，心。
She’s wearing a mask…
艾伦索金擅长营造的是那种每个决定都牵涉着他人命运的紧张感，在这个小题材里显得有点施展不开拳脚，剪辑也有点太花里胡哨
我就是很爱艾伦索金
电影就像一道奥数题，看一遍就明白了，就失去兴趣，看三遍还不明白，一样会失去兴趣。这个就恰到好处，第二遍看完，通透，完美。
Nicole最后那里的失神很妙。影片整体时间线有点混乱，把过去和现在能区别得更明显点儿就好了。
6.7 虚拟背景下的凶线和后窗窥视，强调互联网域中冰冷且僵直的数字感，可惜没法由始至终，随着情节的推进愈发纠结于对人工智能乃至疫情模棱两可的奇怪态度，结尾更是完全疲软了，走出房间的桥段奉俊昊显然拍得更好。
喜欢艾伦索金 私心加一星 | light 5
2.5 这电影就是在各位演职人员的能力范围内做出的行活儿吧！好莱坞的那些破事早被拍来拍去拍烂了，不难看但也没什么新意.
毕竟我开始喜欢他时就是因为日落大道60号演播室
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
