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.
选材情景喜剧，结果还真就拍成了情景喜剧。依然是繁复的文字游戏，危机事件、人物画像、机锋对白，结构上搞些倒叙插叙小把戏，再整一个绝对圆满光滑的结局托底。性别、年龄、容貌、政治倾向、婚姻故事、行业变革，真可谓玲琅满目任君挑选，艾伦索金像极了一个称职的大卖场导购。
所幸妮可展现出了前所未有的肢体表现力，为片中的喜剧和女主洒上些星光，增添些重量。
基德曼超神了，和JK的戏最舒服，恭喜基德曼女士走出舒适圈。来了一次让粉丝过瘾的戏
way better than any Netflix fake-ass bullshit (btw i want a home too😭😭😭😭
越来越多的传记片只能靠演员的表演撑着看下去
任何关于好莱坞黄金年代的东西真的都很有魅力。一开始被群戏的多角快速对话震惊，然后就发现原来是Aaron sorkin写的。
就像从Sorkin电视剧里搬来的两集。Sorkin好感要败光了。。。
这个时间线前后跳跃看得我整个人都不好了，剧情根本对不上，然后才发现哦这是在插叙。。。能不能麻烦在大屏幕上标题字体打一个“两年前”之类的字幕！凌乱地看到最后觉得根本没入戏，铺垫全都浪费了，然而谢幕那场戏惊为天人，竟然看得我！号啕大哭！太悲伤了！仍然是Aaron Sorkin的sucker嘤嘤嘤
2.5。妮可基德曼的表演完全是二封影后的水准，第三幕戏剧张力很棒。但是大段的闪回完全没必要，索金太追求故事的完整性了，导致第三幕之前的整体观感很不好。
政治，婚姻，艺术创作被浓缩到一周的时间内。索金虽然一直被批判不会写女性角色也不会写喜剧，但他会写工作狂的偏执导致生活分崩离析, which is exactly what this film is.
真的好无聊 看的频繁瞌睡 为什么要以save marriage这个nbcs的话题作为人物动机 还不如以好莱坞如何和政府抗争作为主题 J说巴登作为desi太丑疯狂出戏 剪辑也很跳
显得有点舟车劳顿了 想放开手好像还是被什么东西抓住了 妮可的表演很震撼 但是戏太零散 七七八八的 最后就观赏疲劳了
我打包票那些在评论区给了三星以下（包含三星）的人，都是在开头纷繁登场的人物、喋喋不休的台词和机关枪般的语速中选择了放弃观影或者2倍速。而当你真正静下心来，一字一句的把它看完，你就会感叹艾伦索金如此的才华、Inco传神的表演和整片几近完美的电影结构。最后的那一幕的处理几乎可以封神：当德西的电话那头接通了胡佛，当露西拿出第二张手帕，当第一版本的镜头在她逐渐凝固的表情中定格且永不再来，你便会明白索金派电影艺术表达方式的精细与智慧。年度最佳电影候选，Inco和Jav最佳候选，最佳原创剧本候选，颁奖季等着瞧。
前2/3就算有奥老师的美颜也很难熬，好在最后情节快了起来。人终身都在为自己的过去买单
得了艾伦·索金躁狂症，实在是受不了这套了……
表达方式很轻巧轻盈，叙事结构也做了友好观众的简化处理。但剧本本身太冗长了，却少精彩的段落和点睛之笔。妮可表演就太用力，希望可以奥斯卡第六名。
没想象中难看但槽点依然很多。剧本又是炫技流，结构繁而不乱，通共和出轨两个事件从爆发到结束是明线，其中穿插同一时间线上的ILL拍摄创作日常，再穿插两人过往闪回，最后也收得很干净。表演：俩主角妆造没区分过去时和现在时，青年中年一个样；NK模仿的是Ball的老年音色，她年轻时声音没哑成这样好么；JB没有强行模仿效果反而还好，歌唱得也不错，虽然没有哪里像Desi。这片的最大问题是它的大女主视角和ILL相关史实矛盾的无法调和，比如苍白地让Ball在台词中反复强调Desi的主导地位却让Desi在后半部分隐形；强行抬高Ball的创作才能并把ILL的三位编剧塑造成白痴；Vance和Frawley也沦为反映女主不同面的工具人……问题这片名也不是大女主戏。
又一部好莱坞展现自己的影片，他们似乎越来越热衷于在自己历史中寻找灵感。此剧根据真实事件改编，重现了电视女演员露西及其所主演的情景喜剧节目转折性的几天。基德曼此次很出色地演出了露西既讨厌又可怜的偏执形象，她想把一切都掌控在自己手里，对于细节完美近乎发狂的执着，最后却又搞砸了自己的生活。影片入戏较慢，后面收尾又太草率。众多大牌明星出演，只会竞逐演技而消减剧情。
所幸妮可展现出了前所未有的肢体表现力，为片中的喜剧和女主洒上些星光，增添些重量。
有top hat和swing time海报，又一部离婚，不由想起塔米菲的眼睛
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
