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.
很当代了，而且和老雷以前拍的那些所谓的女权电影比起来说教意味实在太直白了。
+，这才是真的让人想说别拍了……手法太老式了。
三种叙述视角似乎是现实中很真实的现象，每个人都会选择袒护自己，做出利己的辩护，而忽视一些不利的要点。不管哪个视角，这里面玛格丽特作为女性似乎都成为男性压榨、占据的战利品。
黑灰色的历史背景里，偶有的路人，毛边更多抖落的是历史的灰尘。人物群像倒也不错。
“罗生门”式的叙事是画蛇添足，三次不同视角都表明玛格丽特是被强暴的，那么多点叙事并不是混淆观众的视听，唯一的解释是为了表现卡鲁日和格里的自私，而格里一开始就是个“情种”和人渣，根本不需要三次叙事来佐证，而卡鲁日自私一面的呈现就完全可以在一次叙事中完成，所以一个半小时的片长就足够了，抻长到两个半小时完全是故弄玄虚，并佯装宏大叙事罢了，或者说让影片显得要“雷德利•斯科特”一些，维系自己的门面和名声而已。
這種類似 羅生門 的故事，是需要高超的敘事技巧的，明顯 雷導演 沒有講好。
三段不同视角的叙事，虽有差异，但都有些流水账，张力不足。最后的高潮成功将张力牵到最大——因为两位男性的血腥厮杀，只关乎自己的利益与荣耀，和真相无关，和那个女人无关，但她却又只能为这场荒唐的决斗，赌上自己的性命和未来。何其讽刺，何其悲哀……
罗生门式的讲述，决斗将女人的无力、矛盾与绝望推向高潮
罗生门是极好的反映人性的叙事手法，不论剧中还是剧外 更不论历史时代
在墙外世界这是metoo最后的决斗，墙内我们仍然活在14世纪。
三段式三个视角非常完美的结构，女性视角升华全片。男女视角对比的subtle difference真的又讽刺又让人愤怒。Jodie Comer把细节演得太到位了共情到全身心投入。
当情绪还执着在欲窥探雷导要怎样用罗生门式的悬疑构造来将矛盾引至高潮时，剧情却早已在抽丝剥茧的蜕露其刺骨的奥义，借古讽今的女性生存处境主题，更显超越时代、文化、地域与人种的亘古性与必要性，其普世价值通俗易论，加持有着《天朝王国》般寒光铮铮的视听愉悦，不得不再次钦佩雷导老骥伏枥的创作激情
Chapter One - The truth according to Jean de Carrouges, Chapter Two - The truth according to Jean de Carrouges, Chapter Three - The truth according to The Lady Marguerite (The truth). 观影过程中联想到《角斗士》《勇敢的心》《权力的游戏》《罗生门》《怦然心动》《日本之耻》…… —— -玛格丽特，你为何这么做？-发生在我身上的事是错的。-勒格里那种男人随时都想侵占女人，而且一犯再犯。你以为你是谁？我儿子可能会死。-那是他的选择，不是我的。-你和我们的士兵在打仗时搞上的那些农妇没两样，她们有抱怨吗？-我不能保持沉默，我必须发声。-玛格丽特，你只会为我们家带来耻辱。-我说的是真相。-真相并不重要。…我也被强暴过。尽管我做出反抗，感到憎恶，我有去向有更重要的事要操心的丈夫哭诉吗？没有，我站起来，继续过日子。……
雷德利斯科特的三重结构电影，第一层是中世纪决斗，看了开头的百年战争风貌可能会劝退一大批人。第二层是罗生门式三段叙事，两男一女同一故事不同视角三段讲述，三个主演演技炸裂，台词跟表情细微的差别映射三个主人公内心。第三层也就是真正的内核是女权主义，也就是玛格丽特的故事后面的truth意味。虽然是中世纪背景，但是故事里的男权控制（强奸犯最终也认为自己无罪）、夫权压迫（马特达蒙始终只关注自己的尊严）和社会的高压（法庭舆论、婆媳讨论还有塑料姐妹花）到今天也不过时，疯王查理六世说：我不背锅。目前看过最好的女权片，也完爆今年的奥斯卡提名。
是女性都会懂的。
2021.12.02 父亲的交换筹码 丈夫的泄欲工具 风流男的高级猎物 丈夫赢得荣光与民意 她什么都没有 #女性苦难
可能是我看到过的，由男性导演拍摄的最为真诚贴切的女性视角了。在这个“女权”被当作“财富密码”的年头，这种非口号式的非符号化的表达就已经是对于女性的极大尊重。多人物视角的形式虽然已不新鲜，但影院的大荧幕极为有效地放大了精心设计的细节，也多亏了优秀的演员，让我有了沉浸式的观影体验。这是其他屏幕做不到的，一个微小的动作或神情，稍微走点神就会错过，也白费了剧组的付出。原来除了动作片科幻片等大制作，叙事片也可以很适合影院啊。
六百多年过去，女性的处境有变好一些吗？并没有。而世界不会变好，才更应该在每一个具体的历史情境中，为了自己而坚强地抗争。
她的好运气是万里挑一 勇气也是｜真实历史改编
这是中世纪，一个女人为真相发声，一个男人决定拼死决斗，不管男人是出于虚荣还是真义，他们守护了无法自辩的真相，也许出于上帝的公正或者仁慈，也许是男人和女人作为人的倔强。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
