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.
拍的挺好的其实。前辈们没有想到守护的会是今天这个样子吧。
第一次在IMAX影厅看电影，只能说票价值了
电影也对印度社会现实进行全景式的展示：警察、妓女、政客、家庭关系、卖淫非罪化以及第四权——媒体力量等等，这样的印度分明是自信十足的。
印度喜欢这种长叙事150分钟打底，看一场电影比较实惠
因为红灯区的存在，彩色才会更纯洁
感谢父辈为了中国所付出的汗水与热血。但相比第一部来说没有那么好看，有几处确实太过于英雄主义和主角光环了。
「我們心中有火焰，卻如玫瑰般綻放，我們滿足男人的慾望，來守護女人的純潔」
比第一部好一些
从一开始拒绝“妓女”的标签，到接收它，并为女性及“妓女”群体平权，我觉得导演或者编剧想通过这部作品表达的思想方向是对的，我们看得到她的善良，仁慈，但是这一路走过来的成就并没有凸显甘古拜的个人价值。整体来说，她也是依附于“大哥”的社会地位来创造了自己的新天地吧。或许，可以更“独立”一点
带着同样群体站起来的勇气
面对残暴至极的恶徒，女人能怎么办？
这一部感觉更好看一些，可能是因为节奏更紧凑吧
所以一定要成为权利的制定者才有资格提出要求
一边看内心一边吐槽，印度人的脑回路我不懂，一边觉得好看，我喜欢。女主那双水汪汪的眼睛，谁不会被吸进去哦~~~
昨天看完了干股拜的故事，豆瓣的评分相当中肯，确实不能算是一部好电影，但比国内大多数的电影和立意还要好些，国内的电影现在真的丝毫也拿不出了，花了更多的钱拍了更烂的电影，文化正在退化，这很可悲。
4.女主赢得选举后，教导妓女们要好好当妓女？
4.女主赢得选举后，教导妓女们要好好当妓女？
说是史诗太过，说是传奇也太弱，本是波澜壮阔的人生被拍得波澜不惊。一招招出奇制胜，一步步化险为夷，目的只有一个，就是让这部电影成为大爽片。
特种部队出动的抗美神剧，最后的履带卡车这种悬崖角度往下冲没路还不带翻车的，整个影院都在指指戳戳议论，只能说志愿军没有导演强大，哈哈😃
相当理想化，可以算是女性爽片吧，在一个没有尊严的地方争取尊严，当然另一方面还是不适应印度电影的歌舞。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
