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.
索金对自己的高密度台词推进叙事太有自信了 如果没有一个好的故事人物原型 或者演员发挥出彩 简直味如嚼蜡
别来那么多什么闪回好了，妮可这个脸，前后年代感完全区分不开，只看一次莫名其妙的，时空错乱了
索金真的安安心心写剧本就足够了 他的天赋完全不应该浪费在影像上
Lucy毕生的梦就是live in a HOME，而她在台上出神的片刻则是梦的终曲，最终HOME is just another HOUSE。
sorkin一贯的咄咄逼人让人忽略了这部片的似水柔情。许多场戏把lucy作为一个女人遇到的难题写的淋漓尽致。很多台词是二三刷才能明白的妙。
前二十分钟 我看了个什么玩意儿？？？？还有妮可的脸咋变这样了？？？？
Lucy，一个50年代美国肥皂剧中的傻白甜中产阶级家庭主妇；
像是对流金岁月里一次关于付出和收获的证论，刚开始围桌预读确实很索金，密集对话中能把几组人物就刻画出来了，这就造成人物很饱满却丢失了整个剧作该有的样子~
看不进去……难免让人觉得是一部 Nicole 为了冲奖才接的片子，也不太懂 Aaron Sorkin。
很不错的剧本，看的时候还一度无法反应过来，不是很熟悉的背景人物，但相比塔米菲，还是能更多的有共鸣。妮可这个妆真不好看
所以说，抬头不见低头见，如果夫妻俩白天晚上都在一起，并不是好事。
很丰富的电影，以为是讲述我爱露西的传记故事，事实如此，但不只是故事，将lucile的一生浓缩在这一周内发生的事，典型的危机-解决思路，其中闪回着她的成长、爱情、事业的开始，夹杂着麦卡锡主义、早期电视的发展、女性发展的困境等议题，直至今天事业濒临失败，家庭也奄奄一息。很有梗，但还是略显冗长，喜欢最后一刻她的失神，强大了一辈子的lucile的不由自主时刻，暴露出了柔软的自己，然而回过神来，现实还是如此，仍旧要演无脑喜剧，面对无脑丈夫，可悲。ps：妮可的妆真的太不贴脸了，看着很僵硬，与其如此不如换个人演了….
表演强于故事线的衔接与切换，感觉第一时间无法辨认清楚时间线。
阿伦·索金是在没睡醒的状态下拍的这片子吗？真无聊！倒是选角有趣，阿汤哥的前妻和阿汤哥前女友的现任老公演夫妻，两个人还都提名了奥斯卡，那厢前女友也提名了奥斯卡，大家一起挤兑阿汤哥呢？！
索金剧本水准还行，下次别拍了...
这种闷对我而言就是欲盖弥彰，但盖不住的是滥用命题所致的空洞。
真的就花了整整3个晚上才撸完整部片子，传奇的演技是真的在线啊，尽管她脸上打的针都快僵硬成一块老面锅盔了，但这么多年过去，还是吃她的颜啊！
在原本周复一周的剧集拍摄过程中，突出夫妇两人这周遇到的困境，也是导演从中植入的多个议题：婚姻裂缝、信仰立场、拍摄难题等。
论直男学会辨别口红色号的重要性。Aaron Sorkin给出了一如既往的高手对话，人物和戏都在对话的机锋中
颁奖季电影看多了 越来越不理解很多电影得以制作的目的。。。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
