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.
恶人自有恶人磨，陀螺不拍夜戏不拍阴天戏违法是吧，库神跟小白脸毫无关系，演得不好别演了
好在一切在如言灵般的媒介属性极强的台词中获得了结束，从而串联起了这个心理现实。
我怎么感觉这要是在中国，这老板真是无敌的好老板，这些员工才全是刁民，呵呵
好看，工整，优雅，吉尔莫·德·托罗真的拍出了上世纪四十年代好莱坞流金岁月的电影范儿，服饰布景摄影都极尽典雅，太对我胃口了。
看的时候可能觉得平淡无奇。但是过后回想时，它的黑色不在于人性的污点和罪恶，而是那个细思极恐的命运的深渊。
有点俗套的奇情故事，内容平平，倒是结尾有会心一击的感觉。
一个不错的创意最后却拍成了一个冗长无趣的故事，很难想象这出自潘神迷宫的导演，玛拉还是这么美，勉强三星。
大魔王和小白兔在《卡罗尔》之后的再度合作，这部到最后倒有点了不起的盖茨比那味了，虚假刻意的纸醉金迷。
还不错。走出影院仍余留高压。吐槽一句女王从13年蓝茉莉之后在失真高压贵妇的路上越走越远，再无别的形象出现。一路“我高贵我强大我经历很多承受非人高压却仍能随时掌控操纵你却又不屑为之却仍然时不时为一为”情境。15年卡罗尔她也是完全在演戏而完全没入戏的，所以大家看到这个卡司无须歪歪。性张力，我觉得也就那样。职业素养和经验惯力为之而已。目中无光。译名真是匪夷所思。
从主角躺在鸡笼中间就能预料到的书档式架构还是那样有震慑力，so ironic,so destined。
结局真是讽刺啊。。兜兜转转回到原点了
3.5
画面构图绝了，摄影得奥提，实至名归呢！故事明显分为两部分，一个是马戏团，一个是都市森林。马戏团破败诡异又不乏温情，都市森林体面但更危险。马戏团的部分让人很有亲切感，让人想起了2030年代电影中的马戏团生活，而都市森林导演应该是致敬黑色电影。此片最大的问题就是剧情衔接不流畅，人物动机交待模糊，看的时候像猜谜，剧本并不扎实。但最后，骗子最后落入圈套，还是让我挺动容的！库珀真是何德何能，能够一部戏里和大魔王、托妮科莱特、麻辣兔合作！男有库珀，女有嘎嘎，砸多少资源，跟多少人对戏，没有天赋，得奖都费劲呢！大魔王别动脸了，是真僵了！托妮科莱特好迷人啊！麻辣兔青涩青春之感是怎么保持的，好羡慕啊！看这片子感觉有些人拍戏是不是就想着逃避家庭生活和现实啊，至于啥效果，也不太在意呢！大魔王麻辣兔没有姬情戏，诈骗了
2022-04-20
我觉得陀螺的片子只有一种打开方式，就是看之前拼命降低预期，于是看完会觉得咦还可以嘛。
这什么倒霉译名？ 铺陈介乎到位与不到位之间 结尾无惊喜
I was born for it…不胜唏嘘
和老版差不离，连男主选角都一样油腻（颧骨高光）
缺的是爱还是恨
为了魔王和麻辣兔看的结果对手戏只有大概10秒。。。气得我回去又来一遍Carol @バルト９
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
