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.
从过于跳脱的情节编排和一众人伶牙俐齿的攻讦里，争斗、偏执、痴狂、坚守，粗看是为了这个剧，实则还是延续那个爱人与家的梦，哪怕只是在这方舞台上；最终危机化解、观众欢欣，戏照原样演了下去；现实中Lucille和她的Desi最终也没能变成the Ricardos，只剩唏嘘。
中规中矩的传记片，今年的奥斯卡提名电影里，完成度算是比较好的了。
剧本超过了同题材的《驾驶我的车》。露西可能是妮可基德曼演艺生涯中最适合她的一个角色。
其实Aaron Sorkin的功力还是摆在那里的，只是这个故事的主题和线索过于纷繁杂乱，多少令观众有些疲于应付了。所以很多戏拆开来单独看，都足够精彩，但是组合在一起的效果反而并不理想。而且，这么一个情感危机的故事框架，无法同时承载那么多硕大的主题，这个或许才是最关键的问题。
两点。
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。
突然发现威尔与格蕾丝的女主黛博拉·梅辛从五官到表情都很像原版露西啊，也就比妮可松弛贴近50倍吧
传记片在索金手下就还是传记片，其实可以用喜剧的元素突破呀，亦或是事件带人物，因为毕竟传记本身人物就很鲜明且令人熟悉。女主演的好卖力……
编剧技巧的全面胜利，闪回如行云流水。但是在这个时代，面对玛吉《暗处的女儿》里对女性自我从情感方面的深度剖析，索金作为白人男性，仍旧是保守的。至于演员，全员工具人，妮可要封后，how dare her！
突然发现威尔与格蕾丝的女主黛博拉·梅辛从五官到表情都很像原版露西啊，也就比妮可松弛贴近50倍吧
现代人太喜欢看full of over the top emotion的东西。Adam Driver那种歇斯底里式的表演。这片像是给你一个线头，然后慢慢把整个故事抽出来。途中有witty comedy moment，有cute romantic moment，最后内核是一个female story。人物塑造丰满，表演也都在线。我就看不懂跟风黑有意思么。都TikTok看多了跟不上节奏看不来长片了么。
Aaron Sorkin的风格不适合这个故事。但
故事本身没有很吸引人的话这样穿插着讲就很容易让人走神 所幸妮可的表演很棒 让人很难移开视线 剧本本来让我觉得冗长了些且要素过多但震撼的结尾又让我觉得前面的许多铺垫是值得的 类型上跟今年劳模姐演的塔米菲撞车了 期待最后谁能拿下影后了
突然发现威尔与格蕾丝的女主黛博拉·梅辛从五官到表情都很像原版露西啊，也就比妮可松弛贴近50倍吧
原本以为全片会围绕着Lucille Ball的“共产主义”倾向展开论述和思辨，结果开头点一下，结尾回一下(拉出个胡佛背书)，就这样……？
男主侧脸好像勋宗。。。
用剧情拍摄的一周时间串联起两位公众人物的时代画像，婚姻危机，政治立场等剖面，看起来好像真的面面俱到，有争吵，有和解，有猜忌，有怀疑，也有女性主义的抒发片段。但真就流水账啊，艾伦·索金这两次的本子总给人一种争做三好学生的中等生，你看得到他真的有在努力诠释一个“圆形”，但却抹不掉那种努力中的刻意，你说他无聊，但他又表现的这么上进，而这种刻意就让人莫名没有好感。相信这样的“学生”，每个人的中学时代或多或少都曾遇到过类似的。
麦卡锡主义的阴影、从电影到电视的往事交叠以及最平常的婚姻故事与最胶着的灵魂定位，这种种话题和元素还是被Aaron Sorkin比较顺畅、清晰也不乏能量的编排呈现出来，但本片的问题就是在这样一部经典情景喜剧、在这样一个虽也脆弱终究强大的女性面前，Sorkin其实并没有找到那个能够统摄一切或者凿进阴影的主题，使得影片虽有动人之处，但终究流于平面。最好的角色是J·K·西蒙斯的男配，剧本围读段落以Sorkin的兴趣点和水平来说有点草率和敷衍了。三星半
完全没有看过传记对象及剧集，没有啥触动，只觉得技术上处理得比较巧妙，剧里剧外现实、拍摄和旧影片穿插互相铺垫推进，表演自然是好的
作为演员冲奖的传记片，有近几年所有冲奥片同样的缺点，可能不算难看，但就很无聊，无聊到让人怀疑是不是拖累了演员的表演…当然在今年来说已经算不错了，但对于针妮二封还是不太够啊，当然针妮的表演二封还是绰绰有余的
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
