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.
有一说一，剧情挺失败的，很多因素没有交代清楚，只是一味的叠加冲突，但那句“秀珍啊，你在我才有女儿”真的哭死了。
确实有些过于煽情，不过倒也是好看的，而且挺感人。
这是套皮的艺术片文艺片，抱着看恐怖片的还是别看了，否则会和我一样有极大的失落，尽管片子从其他角度来说还不错
女性不断生成、水一样流动的生命体验。代际相传又困守自然，一条河，奔腾向前却滞留原地。
倒不觉得里面的女性主义思想多么的高明，但是女性在这个世界上就算是化身女巫却一样伟大。
充满诗意，平静从容，仿佛看尽人生的来处和归路，让我想起多年前看的《鬼魅浮生》
披着恐怖片外皮的文艺片，原片沉闷得让人看不下去，转而看的别人的解析，导演是从女巫的角度来探讨生命和社会的议题，恕我欣赏不来这么深奥的表现方式
女巫作为女性公然被迫害的历史缩影，这次不再是恐怖片反派去滥杀无辜，而是作为女性出发的觉醒和感悟。有点像《生命之树》和《奥兰朵》，整体来说是稳的
女巫把内脏往外掏变回原型，是因为她扔的是女孩生母的内脏。那一幕好难过
Witch is nothing and everything.
她被囚禁，跟随女巫学习生存，变成被压迫的女性，变成没人注意的狗，变成被社会宽容对待的男人，可她依旧不觉得自己是“真实的人”，因为所有的不过是通过模仿得来的技巧 经验。直到重新成为一个小女孩，感受到真正的母爱，家人的爱，她才找到自己的归属之地。
徐玄振演技太好了！电影后面一小部分很突然，总之还是蛮不错的。
美女姐姐的演技太牛了！主要就是剧本有点拖后腿，所以三星半
7分。年轻人也会得阿尔茨海默症。女强人律师得了“早老性痴呆症”，病情极速恶化，很快就什么也不记得了。女儿刚刚送到美国，身边只有曾经十分疏离的父亲。那个错过自己童年与青少年成长时期的父亲，现在需要照顾三十多岁的“孩子”。总觉得阿尔兹海默症离年轻人很远，电影里有很多关于老年人得了这个病的故事，大多会觉得遗憾又可怜，而看了这部电影会觉得痛苦又绝望。特别是女律师在法庭上作证时尿失禁那场戏，让一个人彻底丧失尊严。虽然电影还是比较温情的，但现实中这样的病患实际上已经失去了作为人的能力，对于他本人来说，得病即是宣告了“死亡”。
年度十佳预定
这就不应该有恐怖这个tag，只是讲了一个女巫的人生故事罢了。片头就让我们有了心理准备，会体会不同生物的视角来看世界
哇也想变成黑色的狗观察世界（成为男人才可以在痛苦中活下去，在草地上玩耍，被阳光包裹）寻找新的河流
比北斗七星更永远指引北极星的星座，阿兹海默症让人迷失，年轻患者尤甚，也需要心中有一个星座来指引。
年度最美电影没有之一 正方形构图莫名就自带一种优雅的气质 哪怕画面里是个浑身烂肉的老巫婆
6.9 很浅显直白，一旦设定了一个女性可以成为任何其他人那么接下来的安排就是变身的角色如何设定的问题，所以对变身的过程存在轻视，比如这个变身本是把身体掏出来才可以进行的为何毫无痛苦？进食的存在意义又是什么？并且进食在影片中占比还挺多，在符号和内容上，导演的平衡能力挺符合其身份的
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
