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.
观感减分地方真的很多，配乐瞎起，演技也不行。但是我们的电影技法明明比印度成熟那么多，高明的导演也多那么多。唉
可能为了避免激起观看者强烈的情绪，配乐都是很缓和悠长又哀伤的，没有什么很强律动的配乐。
前法学生真的受不了这充满表演性质的庭审戏。
种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆
节奏紧凑，剧情不紊乱，那些觉得乱的人你是一点都没静下来心来看电影。能看到这部电影的优秀之处，所要表达的女性地位、教育制度、民众愤怒、舆论和媒体引导，都在剧中起着一定的作用。再怎么说，起码人家有这样的电影，我们没有。
所有人都在质疑权力的腐败，只有一个地方的人相信他们的权力是天下最善良最正义的存在。最近几年印度电影在对本土社会问题的批评上，很像本世纪初以后的韩国电影，非常生猛。不见得电影是否真能改变什么现实，这本不是它的责任，但于电影本身，它走在了理应承担的价值追求上。也许再过十年，印度电影会像韩国电影那样，迎来一个商业和艺术上的爆发期。
基本叙事框架还没搭好就已情绪先行。
印度的电影行业真的走在很前面，反转很可以，几分钟剧情完全扭转颠倒，法庭部分精彩，有被代入到啥也不知道跟着瞎愤怒的民众中去。
前面稍微有点拖沓，精简点会更好。后面一个半小时直接起飞，全程无尿点，看的头皮发麻。
观感减分地方真的很多，配乐瞎起，演技也不行。但是我们的电影技法明明比印度成熟那么多，高明的导演也多那么多。唉
一再刷新印度政治的黑暗度 知道黑 原来还是有更黑 2855
一般，比较超现实，可能是翻译问题，我还是搞不懂副局长最后为啥要自爆，自爆了也没有把幕后操纵者揪出来啊？里面人物的行为缺乏充足的动机，很情绪化。配乐和台词不错，煽动性很强，印象最深的是“让提问题的人沉默，给讨论的人戴上手铐”
本片高潮在法庭辩论的反转环节，能将政治阴谋、种姓歧视、学术腐败、操控媒体这么多黑暗的权利游戏一起呈现，已然了不得。在泯灭良心的政治家的眼里，民众是猪狗。另外，不喜欢印度电影频频出现的bgm。
剧本很厉害，用一个案件包裹更大的案件，个体的丑恶撕开体制的丑恶。有金句有情绪点，但手法还是陈旧了些，最后二十分钟凌乱了些。但这样的“社会现实主义”电影也可以开发系列是我所始料未及的，印度电影掌握流量密码了。
如果纯从电影的叙事角度考虑，电影整体太过于沉闷，拖沓，叙事感比较差，得耐着性子来看，最好看的就是庭审部分。
以为是讨论程序正当的话题，法律牵扯上媒体和政治革命以及女权保护、导师压榨论文机器，真是大餐。政治家最大的武器是利用公众的情感。既白虎后又一力作，印度越来越敢拍。为大尺度+★
故事算是一波三折，也有体制批判性，但是法庭辩论的台词感觉乱七八糟，缺乏专业度和逻辑性。
印度都能拍出这种水平电影了，庭审部分相当精彩。
突然觉得 很无奈
看完电影久久不能平复，不是说电影带给了我什么样的冲击，而是在想它在我这儿是不是一部好电影。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
