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.
男人的决斗真令人窒息，丈夫看到了名义的胜利，却和正义、真相不相关。女人不言不语吞咽耻辱，朝堂上声嘶力竭争取声音，Jodie演得很有分量
有人说本片像罗生门，恰恰相反，本片的三名名叙述者相信自己的叙述并无夸大成分，而两位骑士的这种相信却正是最令人窒息的无意识歧视。
有人说本片像罗生门，恰恰相反，本片的三名名叙述者相信自己的叙述并无夸大成分，而两位骑士的这种相信却正是最令人窒息的无意识歧视。
可能绝大多数人的关注点，都是玛格丽特这位女性的遭遇。但我觉得那个时代的男性同样可怜。一方出身低微，想方设法往上爬，另一方家道衰落，想方设法维护名誉。在那个阶级分明且牢固的时代，除了继承，唯有通过战争晋升贵族。让想方设法得来、格外珍惜的“骑士”称号，不过是贵族的最底层，除了一个sir的称号，没人看得起他。电影以战争开始，以战争结束，让死在战场上。像那个时代无数男人一样，名誉与权力，不过是贵族向下的统治工具，数十年自矜，不过幻梦一场，同样可怜。
绝妙，就像看了一部巨著，而且非老雷拍不出。看完才知道前两部分的单薄俗套是对第三部分的铺垫和衬托，老雷真的是骨子里尊重女性的导演。这样的电影不是靠票房证明的，时间会证明～历久弥新。朱迪科莫的天赋在一步一步地发光。
编剧阵容爱了。中世纪与现在相比，其实也是太阳底下无新事
好嘛~电影里决斗，豆瓣评论区里也决斗了起来。这剧里面大本演挺有意思的，他那个发型，真的好现代……
就像当年的《角斗士》《天国王朝》，雷德利斯科特又一部史诗，扎实的剧本，无可挑剔的演技派演员，平稳的节奏，真实残暴的打斗。罗生门的叙事，最后的真相其实并不是最重要的，“小变态”的古装造型非常漂亮。总之，这是一部完美的电影，满分推荐
妙龄少女嫁给二婚老男人，就够无语了。丈夫和强奸犯一样都让人无语，结婚了就是👏为了传宗接代，搞个决斗整的还所有人为他欢呼，却从没有人关注过受伤的jodie！女性的境遇现在好一点了吗，我还是持悲观态度。
从三个视角切入一起性侵事件，手法并不新鲜，真相也少了几分扑朔，但雷导沉稳的叙事，以及对历史题材的掌控，还是让影片不落俗套，尤其最后的决战拍得扣人心弦，女性在这里只能被左右命运，最后像个战利品一样让男人炫耀，rape本身无人在意。
男人的尊严，女人的哀歌。雷老爷子宝刀未老，朱迪·科默很不错~
2021.12.26 以为是一部A男B男O男的电影，最后出乎意料地来了个女性主义转折。达萌和大本再度合作剧本，却是为她人作嫁衣裳，又给演了反派当陪衬送佛到西，他们值得一个大奖。
荒谬被拍得荡气回肠，核心的好看点还是在于荒谬本身。相比司机的暴行，达蒙和女主的关系更让人窒息，而且达蒙最后那次，也是强暴（女主应该连两个人一起告！）所以三个人的视角确实缺一不可。繁复感很奢侈。
看到第三章才意识到，这是部女性电影啊！渐入佳境，一定要有前两章的铺垫，到第三章，才能跟随女主的视角，去看到她的厌恶与抗争，她的不屈与不易，她最开心的时光，恰好是丈夫离开，她能独自打理庄园的时刻。
emmm，如果为了女权而打高分的话，就不值当了，电影本身略显笨拙
叙事的艺术，这才是复调叙事正确的打开方式，这才是正经的史诗质感。打四星是因为第三段故事并没有达到预期的那种说服力和震撼，感觉老雷还能做得更好。
又是一部被人提前说得太多的。实际感受是不同视角的叙事在事实上的差别没有预想得大，反而是细节上的差异更值得玩味。2021年的Ridley Scott过时了吗？并没有。我看还是Damon和Affleck更容易被时代淘汰。
看的时候一直在想，也许潘金莲也是如此遭遇，只是被不同的人书写了...
故事并不复杂，3个主观视角最后归于一处，也没有什么惊喜和反转，因为从第二个视角一开始，观众就明白是什么套路了，还以为第三个视角会有什么不同，结果依然是不痛不痒的重复了一遍。……唯一好看的就是最后的决斗，足够残忍血腥。……本片的罗生门不同于黑泽明的谎言，而是主观意识的真实，加上一点叙诡，完全撑不起2个半小时的张力。……观众又不傻，导演这种方式的确搞砸了，1亿美金陈本，票房2700万美金，就别怪观众不识货了。
7分。那个年代，妻子的确是丈夫的附属品，属于财产。妻子被侵犯相当于自己的财产被侵犯，男人要维护尊严。而决斗审判也很扯淡，女性没有十足把握不敢冒自己被烧死的风险指正被强暴。影片有点长，观赏性不是特别强，主题立意不错，但有点烧脑，不认真思考还分析不出太深刻的东西。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
