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.
是因为拿了影帝和男配所以打算瞅瞅，没有最后二十分钟的话是三星，因为我喜欢爆炸之后的反转。比起薛景求我更喜欢李善均的表演，两人监狱出来那段很有意思，飙戏很爽。我存的这版字幕真的太简翻了，纯靠我多年经验艰难个人理解了一波。
幕后影子推手政治作秀，民众只会看见他们想看见的，听到他们想听到的，为了自诩的正义不惜一切代价，原本的民主理想慢慢被膨胀的权力欲望所蚕食。
金大中与影子军师的故事挺好看的，当然恶俗一下朴瑾惠也是很有意思的一件事情，太可爱了。再看卞导的上一部作品，咦《不汗党》也是我蛮喜欢的，传承了相应的风格。可以的可以。
看了半个小时感觉超级无聊。主题也好老土，无非是目的高尚手段能不能肮脏，好老土。两个叔叔说台词声音好听极了，看他俩宣传期上JaeJae的文明特辑，节目可比这片子有趣多了。
朴卡卡在室内开个会还戴墨镜，青瓦台是黑社会的老巢吗？
看不懂，什么是选举啊，什么是投票啊？
电影节奏是不是太赶了？衔接有点生硬，怎么说，感觉整体有点别扭，并无太大感受
两个理想主义者的失败，一个信念的背叛与崩塌，一个理想被现实打败，可耻的懦弱的背叛者，导致理想的溃败，🥚理想者的脊梁一直坚挺着。也许这不是政治，而是童话。
第3445-电影主题很明显，韩国民选要玩花样才行，薛景求说李善均还没准备好，结尾来看，是他自己当时没准备好，现实很骨感，要遵守游戏规则。
在韩国政治惊悚里完全不起眼。最大问题就是太无趣，药剂师角色很突兀，妆化也跟不上，历史感全靠调色。
这阵容说是请了韩国半个电影圈子的人也不为过，用虚构的故事呈现金大中曲折的政途，把政治中面子与里子的关系编织的足够精彩，片子中很多问题都作了留白处理，其实直观的把答案或者真相给到观众效果会更好，当然如果是拍给自己人看的主旋律当我没说。
金没竞选上，在于卸磨杀驴。当然，历史重来，这是加工的电影，复杂因素会多很多，所以，做人还是要看长远。
说实话，这个题材我真的很喜欢，竞选的黑幕，告诉你民主不过就是一场权利的游戏，正义的一方也可以用不太光彩的手段。
真tm高级。国内也有人能写出来，但拍不出来，准确地说播不了。
政治选举本就是肮脏的。关键还是看当选后，干了什么
李善均表演还胜过薛景求，毕竟一个性格分明的角色更出彩。
薛景求 李善均 赵宇镇 刘在明 啊啊啊啊啊a
想要光明磊落，以纯粹正义之路登上权力的顶峰，是不现实的。实际一点就是看谁够狠。
影片有一个华丽的舞台背景，肮脏、下作和坚持、正义在舞台上角力。对于读过福山《政治秩序的起源》的大空先生来说，舞台上的人们都在为这本书注解。
过于直白、刻意、油腻、聒噪的抓马政治题材电视剧。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
