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.
讲的是个啥，王传君演技很好吗？王珞丹演的是个啥？我看不懂看不懂。
瞬间便是永恒，生命厚度决定情感浓度。王朔至死是少年。大家肯定都爱上丁萌萌了吧，以至于她死去时，仿佛真的失去了挚爱。
能看下去的话还是很有感觉的，看似来回跳转切换，其实这就是生活。当然演员们表现都很好，不过这个导演拍的乱七八糟。
王璐丹已经沦落到接这种烂剧本的地步了吗，你自己演的自己相信吗?
不太像爱情戏。
讲的是个啥，王传君演技很好吗？王珞丹演的是个啥？我看不懂看不懂。
失去珍视记住的是何物？我甚至不知他究竟爱谁
王朔是我为数不多爱的当代作家，王传君和王璐丹是我为数不多欣赏的演员，这三王组合在我这里就是5分。还有我喜欢的怀旧，爱了。
这部不是讲逻辑，是讲情怀，不是讲理性，是讲感性，所以也不必苛求它没有的，权且感受它想说的。没怎么看过王朔，都能从字里行间看到王朔，或许这就是王朔之所以是王朔。不是说他好或不好，他就是他。至于它差或不差，于我它高于预期，多有共鸣，态度诚恳，整体舒适，我愿称之为艺术表达。表达出来，接不接招，那是观者自己的事儿了。
四不像，想拍得文艺，但是很土很混搭，感觉就像是面包片加豆腐乳，或者是馒头加沙拉酱和奶油。
叙事结构太满了
没看懂想说什么，但是看完了想打干细胞，吃高粱饴
这一生，我们哭着迎来自己，被别人哭着送走，我们笑着迎来别人，哭着送走别人。青春时留下的默许承诺，却成为他奇幻人生的难舍遗憾，就让时间来证明，我有多爱你。
都什么年代了，还让大家看这种停留在上个世纪的王朔过时戏？
用文艺片的方式探讨一个医学命题，用干细胞的比喻来讲爱情，有点不讨喜，但我还挺喜欢的。缓缓道来的旁白，是人生啊，是遗憾啊，是无能为力。配乐、画面、演员的表演都很好，李婷婷特别惊喜，最喜欢丁萌萌。
剧作让人折服，所包含年代亲历感，奇幻想象，科学概念，俱见功力。整部影片情感渗透亦冷静不失控，悲剧处不作悲观。结尾女儿出现在病床前，温暖欣慰更溢出，人生值得。为爱追寻，所以不老
何止两段，前中后是三段电影吧！
一个人真正拥有爱情后，他会不畏惧疾病、衰老，甚至死亡。珍惜当下，珍惜眼前人。
本来因为这个片名我不抱有什么期待，但是因为王传君+王珞丹决定看看，开头整体节奏都可以，当我以为这是个起错名字的年代剧的时候，当与王珞丹重逢我以为这是个悲情的爱情剧，两个相爱的人因为王珞丹的自卑和成长环境没能在一起，随着郭小鲁的出国这个故事就开始变得魔幻了，老学姐教授不是已经在自己身上成功试验了吗，为什么他俩就好像从零开始一样，从丁萌萌去世、郭小鲁去非洲真的是离了大谱，他去非洲干嘛？？？最后苏DY郭萌我真的无fa可讲，两个多小时真的又臭又长，因为跟我妈看还不能倍速，我可太难受了，太浪费时间了，相比之下，王仁君的演技也让我有点失望，本来开头还挺有希望，没想到后面这么崩…
看剧本的时候觉得有可能拍不出这种气质，最后成片质感还可以。个人觉得已经是不错了。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
