剧情介绍

  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.

评论:

  • 端文漪 0小时前 :

    剧情是很不错的,后半部分的翻转,挺让人意外的。但印度式的全程bgm和慢动作,硬要表现出正义凛然的画面 实在太腻了。后面一直再快进,近3个小时的电影完全可以缩短到一个半小时。政治的黑暗,所有人都是棋子罢了,正义,几乎不存在

  • 贵瑞绣 4小时前 :

    节奏太慢了,法庭对轰开始部分各个角色的描写太不专业了,故事各种转折也很粗糙。

  • 禾秋莲 9小时前 :

    感觉这部电影的意义真的已经超出电影本身能承载的量,2022年能看到这部电影真太好了。(如果你结合下今年毒教材,唐山,舆论等等,会让它显得极其真实。

  • 竭晓畅 3小时前 :

    案中案,局中局,套中套。法庭上的反转,原来所谓的正义不过一场作秀!所谓的英雄不过是政治筹码!眼见一定为实吗?大众舆论一定是对的吗?一个个屏幕背后是人是鬼又有谁知,不过是愚人愚己,纵横之术罢了。

  • 茹梅 9小时前 :

    印度电影进化的速度让我从脚底到头顶都异常的焦虑

  • 祖依然 5小时前 :

    /2022.6.29/非常理想化,但确实真的勇啊!

  • 玉美 8小时前 :

    最好的办法是放弃连根拔起的荒唐念头,用锄头也好,大斧也好,把树根的主干切断,挖出最大的隐患,而那些残根在见不得光的地下,得不到养分的输入,也会慢慢腐烂,最终成为泥土的一份子了。这样对将来另起屋宇也好,松土种菜也好,不会产生大的阻碍。

  • 臧清妍 4小时前 :

    印度导演们也太喜欢用慢动作了。。。去掉五首歌,去掉所有慢动作(勉强保留一两处)删减精简前半场冗长的情绪积累(有的是办法积累情绪)90分钟快节奏叙事,将会是一个更nb的电影。“媒体报道真相,还是媒体说的就是真相”这剧台词真心屌。

  • 祁语窈 7小时前 :

    案中案,局中局,套中套。法庭上的反转,原来所谓的正义不过一场作秀!所谓的英雄不过是政治筹码!眼见一定为实吗?大众舆论一定是对的吗?一个个屏幕背后是人是鬼又有谁知,不过是愚人愚己,纵横之术罢了。

  • 祖子明 3小时前 :

    所以,这部阿三片看了十分钟,我以为又是探讨强奸问题的(毕竟,这已经是阿三们挥之不去的顽疾了)。看了一个小时,我以为是警察化身法外裁决者的爽片。但是,怎么可能?这部片子长达161分钟,一个小时过后,当我们以为了解了事情的来龙去脉的时候,后半段进入了精彩的法庭辩论,真相层层剥开,反转再反转,激荡人心的配乐,看得人心潮澎湃。短短161分钟的电影,涉及到了强奸、校园腐败、种姓制度、政治黑暗、媒体导向,也深刻的反省了法学理论中很重要的一个议题:实体正义和程序正义哪一个更重要?

  • 韶寻桃 0小时前 :

    量太大太撑了,印度电影就这点让我有点水土不服

  • 曼初 4小时前 :

    多层反转,谁还不是个工具人呢?

  • 渠天元 4小时前 :

    多层反转,谁还不是个工具人呢?

  • 锐湛芳 6小时前 :

    虽然学生运动过于急切,法庭辩护离题千里,但是,太讽刺了

  • 晨驰 6小时前 :

    能拍已经是很大的进步了,虽说改变不了什么,但火苗已经种下了,时间一长终会烧起来!

  • 皋蕴秀 0小时前 :

    确实比国内敢拍,但也确实没拍好。演技生硬,节奏凌乱,庭审不合理,结局处理得乱七八糟。单纯羡慕别人啥都能拍

  • 睦博赡 6小时前 :

    题材加一颗星 敢想敢说 但说好一个故事的各方要素都太薄弱了

  • 曲绿夏 9小时前 :

    其实电影拍的比较一般,尤其受不了一直铺陈的不太和谐的背景音乐,这配乐就是一个目的,煽动你、刺激你,再就是那么多的慢镜头让人直翻白眼,好好讲个故事不行吗,估计是为了印度的电影院效果,最后就是这部电影触碰的话题,警察腐败、教育制度、政治操纵、媒体渲染等等体制的问题也基本都是被串联了起来的事件,并没有哪个体制的问题被真正的深挖出来,而且这些都不是一个人的问题,如果一个所谓的坏人投入到这样的体制里,不会有出淤泥而不染的人,两个小时40分钟,还是有点冗长。

  • 萱彩 5小时前 :

    除了台词 这镜头和叙事也太拙劣了 每次看到慢镜头都脑壳疼

  • 路清韵 5小时前 :

    印度导演们也太喜欢用慢动作了。。。去掉五首歌,去掉所有慢动作(勉强保留一两处)删减精简前半场冗长的情绪积累(有的是办法积累情绪)90分钟快节奏叙事,将会是一个更nb的电影。“媒体报道真相,还是媒体说的就是真相”这剧台词真心屌。

加载中...

Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved