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.
一部真狗意淫正义的电影、一帮假狗舔的不要不要的、不谈那让人作呕的塑料主旋律、光是剧情逻辑也是漏洞百出、很明显、反正是糊弄狗的、编剧压根就没想好好写！😂
完美之所以是最后必要的步骤，是因为它根本无法实现
2022.04.17
不错的小成本电影，靠台词和反转剧情吊起观众的情绪，优雅的英国裁缝，他的脑子里在想些什么
不是被观众嘲笑，是逗观众笑。一日为师，终身为师。师徒的羁绊太好哭了。年轻时渴望走红，身边有那么多人，到头来功成名就，却变得孑然一身。人生呐。
怎么说呢，剧团一人作为艺人的确能感受到影片中的角色情绪，再加上演员的自然发挥以及源于过往经历的故事都给片子上了一层保险，剧团一人的私心应该倾斜在师傅身上了，深见和武的感情的确容易让人动容，但这也只是这两个角色而已。其实本片时间跨度很长，但影片并没有很好的融入好三个时期，开头甚至从现在切入到回忆然后再从回忆切入到更早的回忆，本片故事主要舞台的剧院也没有充分表现，有些角色的登场退场都太过突兀，武除了和千春以及师傅外都没有和其他人产生太多的联系，以至于最后一段北野武重回剧院的长镜头，剧团点滴来来回回也无法让我动容。但片子的确还行，是我喜欢的搞笑艺人们生活的故事。
如果最后的北野武是真正的北野武就好了 笑中带泪 是我心中的北野武！
如果不追求完美，就做不出好东西。
前面有些无聊，都快看不下去了，到了漫才之后才明朗起来，最后居然还被感动到了，想去看看北野武的传记
m2272：剧中老姜本不止一人：剪裁师，博伊尔先生，拉芳丹夫人，但都输与剪裁师；电话是救命dao草，博伊尔前往太草率，拉芳丹不听录音。编剧引导得很好。弗朗西斯唯一可以赚回一笔的地方：先开枪干掉拉芳丹。可惜还是太嫩。剪裁师带着复仇动机才是真潜伏，可惜不是。
佐伊·达奇的演技真的是差，只要她开口，就让人出戏。
再次印证网飞不擅长出品在地化电影。多一星给演员
谐星要逗人笑，不要被人笑。阿武的人生随便一个片段截出来都是笑中带泪泪中带笑的故事片。
来源于草根阶层的表演艺术，最后都是绚丽平淡的浮世绘。
大体上很精彩，不用太多场面，却表现如此紧张扣人心弦的情节，厉害！不过磁带的部分，没有厘清，但还好不影响大情节。
不得不说 确实厉害 全程在一个房间里面完成 参与的人不过10个 男主真是演技炸裂...又是一部国内无法过审的片子....
闷头做事，侧耳倾听，穿针引线，挑拨离间，一身功夫，一场大火，没有假期的杀手，心若在，梦就在，大不了重头再来。
3.5/5 密闭空间话剧电影，叙事和多重反转完全依靠台词，有点太话剧而削弱了悬疑的紧张感。如果剧本能再打磨，精简一下台词的话会更符合电影的节奏。MR的演技撑起了整部片。
“裁缝，一直在听，从不说话。但从没有人想过：他心里在想什么。”
反转就是叙述的诡计，开局一间房，反转都靠嘴。还是有些单薄，属于看过了就看过了，留不下一点印象和想法的片
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
