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.
2021.12.12 旁白多到都能凑出一部广播剧了，你说我是看电影呢，还是听电影呢？反正我是真的讨厌王朔。
怎么说呢，很怪…
感觉导演虽然蛮用心地想把故事影视化，但吸引人的还是它本身的文学性，不老的主线，离奇的故事，不能说没有一点意思，但说“奇”的背后很难让人思考创作者希望表达“不老”的深意到底是什么，讲了很多，又好像没讲。可能还是一部半熟的文学电影，缺少直射人心的那一个片段，一个镜头，一段对白。
出发点是好的，用奇幻的故事来探讨爱情探讨生死，只是背景故事太多了，表现得东西太琐碎了，一方面让奇幻变成难以理解，另一方面使探讨的东西浮于主角的旁白，缺少了文艺片所有的深沉。当然，从这样的角度讲述一个故事不失为一个好的尝试。
百转轮回心不变，人生忆往无所住，竭我一生照现实。
不知为什么，特别喜欢这部电影，从两小无猜，到两个命运不同的人生轨迹，直到后来如奇幻般的命运挣扎。“他好的时候，我不用在。”这是需要多么了解一个人，才能说出这句话来。
我大概知道你想说什么，但是你前后很割裂啊……以及，王朔他们那波儿老院派好像很喜欢这种没心没肺的北京大蜜（盘儿亮条顺，但智商不高，忽悠两句就能睡到），徐静蕾是，王子文也是，嗯，这种性癖也是挺混蛋的……
还是那个熟悉的王朔配方，永远回不去的久远时光，至死都想抓住，看完像经历了整场人生...
王老和萌萌就自然多了，想和这俩人做朋友。
前半段是接地气的爱情故事，后半部分变成干细胞，外加眼睁睁看着王小莫他妹逐渐癫狂，越来越像神棍片了。能看出来想探讨很多深奥的东西，但是咱这完全没铺垫就转换的破本子就别来这么多花里胡哨的了吧？失望，太他妈失望，离谱，离他妈大谱……
王朔的文本没错了，就是有点太冗长了，长得似我庸俗无味的一生，一生不死，一生作配角。
有点长其他还好，男主一生也挺难的，对死亡的敬畏使他后半生全部扔给科研，有点惨
3.年代跨越的时间较长，各年代把握的都挺好，没有让人出戏的感觉
挺惹人喜欢的爱情时代剧，写着写着就变成求仙了呢？王珞丹是本色出演？怎么两部戏都是大姐大混江湖哈!自打干细胞出来，这现实主义就很魔幻，而且是无法面对现实的更年期综合症。
近几年的院线片好像都很喜欢从年代陈设里找故事的厚度，不管是音乐、布景、旧世纪的文化和事件。好像不这样做就讲不好故事一样，这一部也是，非要弄这么大跨度的故事，到后半段不知所云，观众只好说“这些都是人物的幻觉”来为文本的漏洞补全。
也不知道这算啥片？反正挺文艺的，一起看的妹子，最后就说了两句：“这都啥啊？我也想注射干细胞。”
本杰明巴顿奇事+阿甘正传？
一堆思想的大杂烩吧。郭小鲁就是一个不懂爱的人，不爱别人，也不接受别人的爱。到最后也不知道想表达什么，还弄出一个奇幻的干细胞实验。改个片名叫行尸走肉吧。王珞丹表现不错，可惜清纯女神渐渐不在了。
喜欢王传君王珞丹
这便是，小小生命的，平凡的，也我也甘愿称之为奇迹的，永恒了。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
