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.
当文本的预留空间已经够丰富，那部存在在对话中的“电影”反而不必呈现，权海骁出来还觉得是一部常规的洪常秀公式电影，但后半段诗人的角色一秒魂传江边旅馆甚至是这时对那时错。
年更一部稳输出，带上敏喜欧洲游，拍7分电影拿柏林银熊。
洪常秀在宠老婆这一块超越了咱们早年的国师，不过主题仍是洪常秀的思考，电影仍是工具，生活才是一切的起源。
愿心中温柔的人能过得好
对于易尴尬体质是一种考验，但不得不说是特别的观影体验。
我都没有想到我会这么喜欢洪尚秀的电影！！最后拍金敏喜的那段戏中戏如果没有煽情的背景音乐就完美了
年更一部稳输出，带上敏喜欧洲游，拍7分电影拿柏林银熊。
“小变态”演技肉眼可见的提升，无助绝望时的崩溃，保护善良的逃脱并自我隔离，对社会现实的反问...不是说我们的一股脑歌功颂德式作品不好，只是这样的醒脑作品更好。
这是一部洪常秀电影的说明书啊，演员要摆在舒适的位置，不重要的故事，反制纪录片。他制造一个没有亮部细节的浅景深世界，所有的人物都是他们本身，在这个舒适圈里，电影就像vlog一样被洪常秀轻拿轻放。甚至直接就拍一个vlog吧，像将奶油抹在美术馆一样将这样的电影放上银幕，给予这样轻盈的美一个郑重的画框。
7分。西方这种抗疫，没办法拍中国式的宏大叙事，所以无论是之前的《流行病》还是现在的本片，来来去去都只能玩这种描绘个人命运的东西，整体来说还是挺套路的。不过本作对于养老院里内容上又拼接了类似《飞跃疯人院》的内容，所以观感上好了不少。说起来男女主之间要说爱情可能有点过了吧~~~英国佬如今完全放开，又是每天好多人了，我是想看看今年冬天他们过~~~
两星给敢于拍出这部电影的导演
大段大段的对白，长镜头，极其流畅自然的日常对话。金敏喜不拍电影，谁也管不着哈。
金敏喜演技太松弛了。收回打开电影前我说她不去演其他导演的片子是种浪费这句话，毕竟人家在电影里直接和所有这样想的人隔空对话：到底浪费什么了呢？干你屁事呢？
我不懂什么结构不结构的，我喜欢是因为好温柔啊，金敏喜捧着花好好看
好轻盈好轻松 不苦大仇深时候的洪尚秀确实更加可爱 金敏喜和那束花把春天点亮了
类似的题材，有人是在给你讲述一个故事，有人却是在给你洗脑
以小见大，没有歌功颂德，只是极端情形下普世的渺小无力。柔软的Tony，半夜被叫醒帮病友翻身，在护工面前羞涩地冲淋浴。两个本色口音，Jodie今年真劳模。
这才是疫情电影的正确打开方式！朱迪科默可以封神了！
所以全程用长焦镜头是因为防疫考虑而做出的牺牲吗？另外，利物浦口音也挺有意思的（虽然听上去已经是另一种语言了……
洪常秀宇宙，每组关系几乎都从过往影片/现实中延伸，成为某种前史，拍摄方法也如同讲述的，基于电影情境下，对演员真实状态的捕捉，又滑向某种心理的发散与印象。女小说家与女演员本就是一体两面，而最后小说家消失了，只剩金敏喜，心事重重，独上高楼。当然或许一切技法都比不上那段相爱之人间的凝视与被凝视。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
