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.
没睡，但也是真的没劲。想要故意误用一个概念来形容它：“视觉系”电影。如果把它往脉络里续，当然逃不掉60年代那些到现今的慢电影，但还是很没劲。
#BJIFF21 影像的力量，哪是一个短评能说尽的。
很美！刚进去坐在那儿差点哭了，梦回黑泽明的梦。观众起码对我而言，我永远需要这样的大荧幕。虽然中间也不知不觉的晕厥了哈哈哈，出了电影院一男生对着他朋友说，这谁挑的电影啊？我一下笑喷了。
不需要言语，只需要视听语言，是美学的极致，也是人类突破自我的尝试
北影节睡着了，醒了坚持看。呜呜呜。一边勘探，另一边老头挂了，so老头是洞神？果然科学毁灭神话信仰
极致纯粹感叹享受，这让人向往地的神秘，过分美妙了~
上映时间恰逢残奥会，挺好的宣传，但叙事有点不流畅，有些情节煽情过度了。
众人知道苏炳添奥运会刷新成绩的光面，又或许，这次会让人记得苏桦伟的暗面。
生命可能总是终止的突然，但生命又总能生生不息。
补了北影节的遗憾；屏住呼吸的温度，层层下探，很适合上海的深夜
先有鸡还是先有蛋不得而知，那你说先有神奇小子的妈妈，还是先有神奇小子？以爱之名，相互成全，如有来生，再做母子。
对比《夺冠》，本片就太接地气了，前者强买强卖女排精神，我并没有完全买账；但后者切入的角度就不一样了，母亲这两个字本身就自带催泪属性，片中有一些母亲的刻画真的很难不让人心酸。但这片子让我觉得胜过《夺冠》的原因，我觉得更多是因为他揭露了运动员的另一面吧，我们现在网络上看到的多数是代言满天飞的运动员，但大多数人并没有他们那么幸运，甚至有点惨。
＃BJIFF2021＃看完只记得那几句：wǒ～dèi～dèi，wǒ～dèi～dèi…没什么剧情，没什么台词，洞穴探险和老头治病平行推进，看不懂想表达什么，视听上也没受震撼，还困得要死，完全不好奇机器是怎么放到那里的…灯一亮大家都醒了，心满意足地鼓鼓掌，似乎都做了一场很美的梦，电影的造梦属性再一次被强化。 @2021-09-21 20:37:32
渐入佳境吧，很港片的套路。配角们能再好好选选就更好了。吴君如把光环都给了男演员啊，很耀眼。感人不感人的就都能想到。力量感都来自真人真事的加持。
BJIFF#4.5。更喜欢在洞中的段落，难得有这种放松身心与屏气凝神共存的心态，自然的馈赠和人类的超越壮举在这个神圣的时刻相遇。而洞外的白云苍狗又与洞何干。
进洞之前的确昏昏欲睡，但进洞之后另有乾坤。收尾收的极漂亮，老人床上结束的生命和终于探索到底部的地洞。漫天游下的大雾，和手摹的洞型图，包括那关掉门窗以后黑洞洞的屋子，处理的高级凝练但力量绵长。But这四星是相对独立的评判体系，差不多跟我今年看的所有片子不在一个衡量范畴内，无法横向比较。ps: 隔壁大哥从头到尾哈欠连天且不断调整坐姿，真想说大哥你要是不打呼噜的话干脆睡过去算了，太难了。
821提前場，作為一套家庭片嚟講佢無疑係好能夠令人動容嘅，但如果作為一套傳記片嚟講就拍得有些少甩漏。特別係淡化咗蘇樺偉由細到大艱難嘅經歷，一路睇落嚟未免太過順了，覺得唔似睇緊一套傳記片咁，或者香港新導演都面臨呢個情況(原因費事講)，冇機會去拍所謂嘅大片，對一個咁大嘅題材拍得有多少縮手縮腳(都關能力事)。不過有幾幕戲依然可以睇到喊，吳君如奉獻咗《歲月神偷》之後最精彩嘅表演。香港政府對待正常運動員同殘障運動員嘅公平性，呢個問題導演亦都有點出，呢個群體有人識去同情但冇人識去關注，比賽就知道要公平，咁對待人呢？
本片根據在殘奧會奪金的的運動員蘇樺偉真人真事改編，猶如另一個版本的《奪冠》。由追求團體榮譽到個人意義，其中有掙扎，有失落，也有對體制不痛不癢的批判，不過此片拍出來卻毫無運動片的感覺，似乎變成倫理溫情片，尤其配樂上極盡煽情，單是吳君如就一人分別承擔母親，教練，經紀人幾個角色，甚至是殘疾人的代言者，可以看編導似乎並不相信殘疾人有自我意志的成長，更覺得外來環境的影響對他們更大，難怪會有“神奇小子的媽媽”的戲稱。不過分別飾演不同年代蘇樺偉的新人梁仲恆和馮浩揚都有令人信服的演繹，尤其前者演出相當自然，帶動一眾配角的演出，更加親切動人，本片誕生於香港運動員在東京奧運會奪得獎牌的熱潮，亦給處於逆境的港人打了一劑強心針。
#20210928 BJIFF 古往今来，篝火旁唱歌谣的场景就是坠动人的。（影迷朋友们说坐后排等于少看一半呜呜呜
大量的中遠鏡 鏡頭的關注點以及無台詞的設置都讓這部片子的觀影感受更加精妙。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
