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.
好神奇的影像！！！！！我觉得作家关于创作焦虑 市场化的对白都不是重点（电影里也一直提到内容不重要），这让我的意识飘到别的地方，比如窗外的小路，用镜头推过去的散步行人
美满的爱情给了洪尚秀第二次生命。宠溺。没有了辛辣味道，是有甜甜的、清新味道的蒸馏水。向世界花式秀恩爱。这样不惮地宣告，是在挑衅婚约，是真爱。
和著名洪粉石大师掰扯了一个上午，得出结论是，我当然需要和喜爱这样的导演，但独立于其艺术体系之外单部电影却与我的基本观念相悖 / 当然我爱结尾那个摇摇晃晃由黑白入彩色的“学生作品”镜头，爱望远镜最后的落点与视觉尽头相融，爱他的日常超验。但我仍然坚持洪的作品是阅读>观看的本质
压缩进了很多政治意图的现实故事，除了最后女主有点失心疯，疫情下的个体表现还是极其动人的。
*这是在所有地区都发生的事，最近这几年甚至往后很多年，新冠疫情之下的众生相都可以作为影视作品的题材，这一段历史值得被记录下来，不管作品是好是坏，它都应该被客观地、真实地记录下来
怎么说呢，像芳芳这种人就应该直接定居国外吧。
最后这一下挺绝的 这算是一场面对金敏喜的自嗨式的表白嘛？
对于电影来说，不明觉厉是个好习惯，很多电影“玄虚”是真但“故弄”是假。对于一些走的太快的导演，我们好像需要更多工具储备。
我并非站在洪这种创作模式的反面，但是这点内容老洪翻来覆去的拍大家翻来覆去的看，尤其连结构都几乎放弃了之后，大家真的不累吗……
请正视存在的问题 不要只提功绩 听到了吗我的国
为了啾迪啃生肉，利物浦口音真是有点funny。Care home这个新冠的切入点不错，镜头灯光的运用很有压迫感。
评论有人说是问责NHS，哪跟哪啊，明明是辱骂托利，而且骂都没骂到位。这种大题材是不是就还得留给BBC做
我们必须承认的是，因为疫情，世界上太多人的命运被彻底改变了。可惜的是，可能因为创痛还没消散，主创没有深挖。
红长袖近年作品常用演员大集结。金敏喜的角色也是个喝多了就趴桌上睡过一会儿就自己醒的主。
一种异质感从头到尾作为一个模糊小说家立场的存在贯穿在电影中，背景的过曝，窗外第三人的凝视。小说家的焦点落在对演员的审视上，借由导演镜头的不断拉近，演员从画面的右边出现又快速消失在左边。直到小说家最后将视角交还给金敏喜，并退出了这个构建的审视，整个影像才展现出异常完满的和谐。啊，内心被情绪填满的感觉真是让人幸福。
Some have too much, yet still do crave; I little have, and seek no more. 6
拍一个导演的自我拆解过程来进行自我拆解，除了洪尚秀也没谁了吧。
整体其实比较平庸，但是题材好评，这是目前为止新冠题材拍得最好的一部了
同样是讲疫情，以小见大着实写实，比什么“时代的xx普通人xx大山”空洞的语言更震撼。
NHS算是英国人的骄傲，Tory就是拿民众的命根子做了文章成为脱欧的政治筹码，欧盟医疗人力的减少导致NHS人员短缺更加恶化，the first wave of Covid-19 几乎让NHS无计可施
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
