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.
你互动的问题 你的诱导 你的目的
后边她让我跟着念的时候，我心里不停的默念“南无阿弥陀佛”……因为怕晦气……
有意思的地方在于，某种程度上，剥离掉词汇的情绪语境的话，“祝福”和“诅咒”或许可以看做是“迷信”这件事的一体两面，但是大家都只愿意接受祝福，不愿接受诅咒，尤其是对于大多数并没有宗教信仰的国人来说。换言之，如果你觉得你“不迷信”，那么你就不应该觉得“晦气”；如果你觉得你“迷信”，那么就应该清楚，它在祝福你的那刻起，诅咒也自然伴随而来，正如片中提的“祸福相依”一样。所以看到那么多短评觉得被冒犯，这个我觉得还蛮意外的，看来大家都好代入哈哈。影片试着站在观众情感立场的反面来讲这件事，借助所谓“意念”这个点来“操控”甚至“玩弄”观众，还挺敢的。但撇掉这点，伪纪录片的形式在没有达到创新的情况下，反而拖累了叙事，再加上剪辑和视点之乱，也影响了情节本身的推进。整体看完，觉得很累，是观感和情感上都很累。
每次一想到女主那么害怕还不忘举着摄像头我就好出戏啊，不能吃喝只是说不能从嘴入对吧，那不能注射葡萄糖吗都自己扎了🤣
（呆滞——）就好像…你最好的朋友用蚊子拼出了一副清明上河图，你一时也不知道是要夸他“挺不错的了，有做就有赢”，还是要说“有这点时间和能力你为何不去做一件更好的事”。两星半到三星之间，友情分我可以给到三星半。以及导演你胆子真的很大啊（也并不是夸奖）。以及其实可以看出导演本意就是想做猎奇灵异以及模糊日常边界的氛围恐惧。我觉得这两点他做得挺不错的，虽然用力过猛。
观众：我TMD谢谢你。
都 是无聊的
在迷信的层面，无需讨论文化断层。当代社交媒体上“吃不胖符”、“水逆退散符”可以过万转，那么在这片土地上，弥散性宗教的思想和实践，再过一千年也不会变。
毫无代入感的恐怖片，各种超自然现象没有逻辑地堆砌，全靠一惊一乍的视觉冲击和音效在制造恐怖，这是最低级的手段。既然要主角拿着摄像机拍成伪纪录片，那就多使用长镜头吧，否则一个场景各种视角来回切换真的很出戏！
片子一开始就企图让观众参与进去，包括镜头感。不自觉沉进去后，就挺可怕。
【3】伪纪录片形式和过于“招摇”的配乐是矛盾的，况且多样的视点也难以自洽，对材料的编辑意志过强（结构太有存在感）。视觉各种取材（从艾斯特到伊藤润二），但对民俗志怪的结合还算到位，有文化代入感这点还是重要的，很难得看到一部属于我们的恐怖电影，情节走向是真的“邪恶”的，能让部分人觉得晦气可见一斑。所以给个及格吧。
令人窒息的25分钟长镜头算是烙印在我心里了
电影一开始让观众记啥啥咒语，我就隐隐感觉导演在套路观众。。。可能因为猜到了一点意图，最后就没有反转的惊喜了，不迷信的朋友看了可能会有一点新鲜感，但总的来说剧情还是很俗套，有点无聊。迷信的观众可能会很讨厌导演吧😂本来只是找点乐子打发时间，结果被诅咒了。。。想知道会不会真的有观众担心自己倒霉啊
豆瓣恐怖片分偏低，是观众鉴赏能力的问题？不，其实是观众对于这个类型作品中的创造力和开拓性，这两点有相当深的误解和歧视，例如《咒》中为了让观众身体力行体会被古老诅咒缠身的恐惧感，而创造的设定，并非很高级，但是是生效的，这部作品最大的问题是手持摄影的风格过于突出，削弱了电影感和作品质感，一种视觉呈现方式用过头了，会让人觉得视觉疲劳，而咒语本身的设定和某国文化层面的深度链接，反而是有趣的点，看电影而已，觉得晦气or被冒犯的，应该看看佛经、道家典籍，人没那么容易相信影视作品里的东西，如若不然你们每天看偶像剧，难道就成白富美、高富帅了吗，醒醒吧（继续装傻也无妨），脑子是个好东西。
算是恐怖片里还算不错的吧，但能不能不要再伪纪录片了…一回新二回旧三回四回老掉牙了都。
期待近一年的华语恐怖电影，乡俗宗教+语言在伪纪录片形式的加持下代入感不错，伪纪录片通病-无论何时何地都要拍-难以避免，剧情算是意料之内，中规中矩，所幸有叙述剪辑弥补，时间线交叉慢慢抵达真相，层层诱导观众的互动设计并不新鲜，但似乎仍有不少人真情实感上纲上线，不由得想起某款游戏，反思迷信却因一张符纸而被特定地区封禁，有种虚构作品内核与现实互相呼应的感觉。
都说了不要进去 你非要作死 人家答应救你 让不要吃东西 你非要给她吃 最后想这么个办法出来 母女俩全死了真一点没人心疼 第一次被剧情气得半死的😅
观众：我TMD谢谢你。
看得昏昏欲睡，实在是找不出什么亮点。就是先为民俗宗教赋了层魅，然后再配上一个流水线化的祛魅过程，辅以早就审美疲劳的DV摄影机拍摄视角，和近年来诸多同类型片撞型严重。时间线处理得也很糟糕，一会探索民俗、一会科普破咒、一会又去嗲嗲地谈亲情，观众好不容易悬着的一颗心，反复被轻拿轻放，很难达到恐怖效果，还不如像班庄的『灵媒』那样，顺序地老老实实把故事推向高潮。
今年＂最＂恐怖片 想看恐怖片的推荐 反正我不想看第二遍…妈的编剧太坏了 幸好没跟着读什么玩意
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
