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.
美国早期情景喜剧实录，当下真人戏外采访和戏内叙事线相互穿插，戏里戏外关键元素互文携手向前。这是一部行业外的观众叫苦，有写作经验观众拍案叫好的非常规传记片，有些片段能顺便把我拉入写作状态，讨论研读剧本中加入具体画面真是神来之笔。全片的叙事线是由一次意外引发的一系列连锁反应，在故事的边边角角之处又顺带讲了女主一路从演艺最底层走到万众瞩目的经历。
被海报骗了 怎么有这么烂的片？太简单粗暴了 要啥没啥 剧本 叙事 技术层面都一无是处 （刚出门那段社恐心理外化还可以 但也不能来回反复啊？） 最大的好消息是这片就一个半小时
看什么都不知道。。。
amc广告之后妮可基德曼在我眼中形象一落千丈
入室打架再杀死几个人即可治愈人群心理障碍。
（看看我会不会是豆瓣第2011个围观今年影后表演的观众）
原来不只是我一个人觉得混乱，后半段才看进去，可能是字幕翻译问题，词听不全，过段时间再看看英文版。只能说的一点是起码人物塑造很好，很形象很立体很丰满，真的印象里第一次看Kidman，此片表演很好。对于我，不是本身很有魅力的演员，但此戏确实撑的起来。
索德伯格这是被德帕尔玛附身了？媒介游戏玩得出神入化，又是《后窗》又是《凶线》——后新冠时代的『媒介幽灵电影』很当代，很时髦。整个美术设计、数字摄影质感可圈可点。女主造型也蛮潮，有经典潜力。🦊#近期喜欢的电影
节奏好快，结尾手帕对峙的戏表演节奏真好，看到Luccille最后选择继续演第一幕的“笨女孩”好辛酸。
一部很钻牛角尖的作品，在并没有共情点的细节上反复琢磨，把女主露西对戏剧表演精益求精的匠人之心拍成了对观众的煎熬。在选旨上小题大作，在台词上拐弯抹角，大费周章地设计的两条时间线，由于没有凸显逻辑关联，使情景切换显得颠倒错乱。夫妻之间互相迁就与成就的克制情感，在别扭的自卑和高光的奉献之间横跳，露西有指挥官一般强烈的主见和控制欲，但又拒绝成为新女性，习惯在舞台上扮演傻气的家庭主妇博君一笑只为修复一场婚姻。当反差只是反差，却缺乏解释的支点，便无法靠近人物、理解人物。电视里的古怪人物在一部传记片的呈现后，仍然还像电视里看到的那般疏远，这样的传记便很无效。妮可基德曼坚持不懈的填充拉皮已经让她的骨和肉不太对付，却符合这部电影略显装腔作势的调性。
看了三分之一不到，看不进去。分就不评了
2022-02-12
节奏好快，结尾手帕对峙的戏表演节奏真好，看到Luccille最后选择继续演第一幕的“笨女孩”好辛酸。
国内翻拍版名为“天猫精灵”/ “小爱同学”。点子不错，但展开的剧情走向也太烂俗了，镜头语言也很稚嫩奇怪。
每个角色都很棒，男女主角和男女配角都很给力。导演也很会讲故事，两条时间线穿插。不知道为什么分数这么低，我给五星。每年的奥斯卡都很巧，刚看了两部都是在拍戏，都提到了万尼亚舅舅。
【4.5】美妙的类型语气融汇当下时态，症候紧扣，数字漩涡与物质世界同构。“门窗=界面”，轻巧的比喻句，秘密不断在其间流窜。简单高效却面面俱到，索德伯格太会拍，也是当之无愧的广角镜头大师。
前面挺有意思，有点想希区柯克 电话那个电影，她为别人求救未果，就让人联想后面她自己会不会遇到危险。然而到了后面……what the what ? 结论：人工智能可以的，是人不行……好吧。
索金一贯的风格，台词密集的吓人，很容易在开头就被劈头盖脸的信息量砸晕，但是逐渐进去后就好了。
亂，沒有吸引人看下去的慾望。除了Kidman外沒什麼亮點
还挺喜欢的。短小精悍，从后窗转向智能科技的窥视。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
