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.
有人说又是这一套，但是我就很吃这一套，从头哭到尾，只有又当女儿又当妈妈后才能加倍理解这份感动。
两星半全给题材，不给表演不给演员不给故事。张歆艺再减半颗星
比较失望，并不是女性不伟大，但电影的表达方式让人很难共鸣。
亲测:1.徐帆演技没有特别夸张，还好，值得一看2.女儿的线让我很气愤，真的想冲进荧幕打郑毅3.李文舫的线也让人很气愤，明明最开始对老婆很忽略，得病了就一直说老婆不要死不要死啊。4.徐帆让我很有代入感，我讲话也是这样的，像幼儿园老师。
第四个，女儿剪了短发，用自己的头发给妈妈做了一顶假发。
这个可能发生在众多家庭中的故事，虽未能展现其社会属性，但对于单个家庭的而言，它仍是感人至深的。
始终还是接受不了徐帆老师的演技，总感觉用力过猛！感受不到角色的真实性和生活感！
很好哭，但是从电影院出来就没感受了，就像个小品，不过多的探讨任何现实问题，就是准备好了泪点煽情，感人的同时有点假。
看到一半真的想走了，窒息，一眼看到了头，剧本拍摄真的对不起演员的能力，看完我连讨论的欲望也没有
你怪不得别人，都是你自己选的。
仆以为前半段有点炒菜的时候糖放太多的感觉，问题应该出在徐帆的表演方面，虽说是老牌演技派，但也有点用力过猛的感觉。疾病确诊之后影片各方面耐看了些，但是人设的矛盾之处有很多。相信很多观众都看得出来
假如没有了妈妈该怎么办，不能想也不愿想的问题……好女人，撑一个家，操心这个操心那个，除了自己……即使到生命最后一刻，也想的是孩子的事，我经历过了，知道那种痛了……有个完整的家，真好
天下间妈妈都是一样的，操不完的心，或许应该有一天静下心来，和妈妈聊一聊，聊聊自己内心的想法吧。
温柔善良的人不能多活一段时间吗 张静怡演技不行 没灵性 全靠徐帆。。。感动 一直在哭。。
不管影评如何评价，只有感同身受的人，才觉得一切都是那么真实，让人感受深刻。
有共鸣的作品，徐帆和张婧怡都很棒，人物弧光很完美。
这个片子就是让你哭了吧，母亲永远是所有人的痛点，一旦失去都是痛苦的。尽管表演上还是感觉有些用力，以及对于男性角色的塑造不太认同，但母女亲情的主题，很容易让我们产生共鸣。
为了矫情而矫揉造作的一部电影，不如电视剧的婆媳关系好看呢。想起来徐帆还是电影学院的老师呢，确实学院派，话剧功底一直就没落下过，只不过她到现在为止还不知道话剧和电影有什么区别。
我们真的太爱塑造这种付出牺牲的女性/母亲角色了，真的是，鞠躬尽瘁死而后已，仿佛女性只有这样，才能体现她的价值。
为啥除了风犬之外张婧怡的戏我都会看不下去……剧本的老套和做作满得要溢出来，徐帆的表演再收一点点就不做作了，但偏偏踩过了线导致这个人物也极度失真，沦为煽情的工具。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
