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.
节奏和镜头语言都挺棒的，说洗白的干嘛看电影看历史书就好了呀（的确可以搞同人，但我忍住了）
Jeremy Irons很棒；一首德文jazz 一首片尾曲都很棒；有种追忆似水年华的味道。
慕尼黑协议被洗白为为了准备和德国战争准备拖时间的策略了？
是这样的，上一次八月君在酒吧碰到可疑的人，他去搭话被爆了蛋蛋还丢了命，所以这次他没有马上出击。你们上班时间怎么可以喝酒。
烟盒明明还有还要“shall we share?”“I'd miss you”深情的“goodbye”看得俺老基动了，Jannis大漂亮分分钟都是hugo boss走秀啊，明明是主角为嘛演员表排老后呢
关于慕尼黑协定的再思考，知道希特勒的野心却在舆论中无法做出更多举动，号称牺牲自己的名誉争取备战时间却其实助长了纳粹的飞扬跋扈，杰瑞米艾恩斯饰演的张伯伦可谓入木三分，而两位主角不同的形象其实也是那个根本无法预知未来的时代的不同群体的反映
Hoping is waiting for someone else to do it
恰在俄乌战争焦灼之际看了这部电影，谁能说现下的样子与1938年没有那么几分相似，虽然彼时之德国远盛于如今之俄罗斯，历史也不会照样再来一次。
英德问题是：一个好战必亡 另一个忘战必危，导演借男主总结的话是扯jb🥚的，甚至和德国男2说的自相矛盾
故事依托于真实的历史，头尾也就不会有什么惊喜。在规定范围内，尽量发挥，已经是撑满了张力。顺便洗白了张伯伦，也从另一个侧面刻画了希特勒。
有点晦涩，让人昏昏欲睡，也许尚属佳作，但并不吸引我。
解读不同罢了，当时以丘吉尔为首的军队势力对绥靖政策一直持反对态度，应该积极备战把希特勒扼杀摇篮之中。所谓取得一年的战争准备期的同时德国纳粹也在扩充军备并且和苏联签署苏德互不侵犯条约并瓜分波兰获取到军舰兵工厂，英法所谓准备一年打出了个敦刻尔克大撤退？离谱
1.张伯伦正名之战。绥靖政策似乎是当时唯一解。2.片头片尾还有片尾曲好棒。3.30年代的复古质感拉满。4.元首除了不太像，演的还蛮不错。5感情线弱了一点，最有张力的地方出现在中后段。结尾反而趋于平淡。6.最后回来的那架飞机涂装银光闪闪，非常好看。
还原度很高，用了德国和英国的最牛批的一帮演员
片头开始 忍不住想 两次大战怎么会如此密集地发生在这样的地方。这些年轻人如何进入战争 带着信念 不再回来。
原来苏台德区就是捷克德国附近那块啊，话说我每年冬天都去那边滑雪
是我想拉国政猛男来看了并讨论的题材
Another side of the story.
电影其实质量还不错，如果没有结尾那几行“注解”，也许就不会有洗白张伯伦的争议了。
在这样的洪流背景下，塞入两个足以改变历史的虚构角色，让我们旁观为我们叙述。不论当时张伯伦这么做是恐惧懦弱还是知道自己会成笑话的牺牲还是为了撕开希特勒虚伪的做派，他拖延的这些时间真的救了英国，不管是不是为了美化历史，八十多年后来看当时的事，为了自己的国家他做了很多，也只能这么多
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
