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.
老姜带孩子，真的是温柔而坚强啊。
为你遮住双眼，能否遮住你的恐惧，而你却为何泪流满面？是枝裕和的故事向来有温情和残忍的两面，这部温情有余，残忍却流于表象
不像是枝裕和的是枝裕和作品。也许是在韩国制作完成吧故事不如大师以日本为背景作品来真实细腻更像大师学韩剧韩影。剧情起伏都太刻意人物也不深刻其实宋康昊表演不算戛纳影帝水准也就正常发挥反观IU表演可圈可点，大导现在倚名卖名啊去法国拍完来韩国拍看看那天来中国拍吧？
今晚总算把《掮客》看了。没想象中那么好。仍旧是一贯的是枝裕和风格。温吞软水，用力绵长。宋康昊保持了水准。戛纳影帝，实至名归。 电影里裴斗娜一直在吃麻辣烫里的“豆腐卷”。馋了。没忍住。跑到街头连吃了5串。确实好吃。上次吃这个，好像还是十几年前吧。那时候，好像刚好在《汉江怪物》认识宋康昊不久。韩国的文化输出，不服不行啊。对我来说，只能吃豆腐卷聊以自慰了。
可能是否为人父母，会使得看这部片子的感受大有不同。
几乎能脑补出李美敬在18年看完《小偷家族》后是何等的兴奋何等的喜爱是枝，于是千方百计也要诚邀是枝赴韩拍摄一部韩版的《小偷家族》。所谓一方水土养一方艺术家是正确的，即便如李安赵婷能将美国故事也拍的入木三分，除了所谓的普世价值，也绝对离不开他们旅居异乡多年而总结出的社会经验与文化洞察结果，看《掮客》的抽离感绝无关乎剧本的文化落差或视听的水平高低，而是这样的“犯罪童话”真很难体现出其环境载体本该携带的那渗入土壤又出自土壤的生命力量，它更像是一部由一位游走于当代东亚社会的无名吟游诗人传唱出的动人民谣，在由多民族多语言演绎各版本之后，被朝鲜民族再次本土化改编而搬上银幕的复刻产物 w/阳
这个女警察的身份设定有点让人震惊，刚开始以为他背后有一些隐藏的故事，所以她也是被父母抛弃还是生不了？怎么最后就收养了羽星………然而并没有，就很神奇，包括东秀之前就是因为杀人蹲的监狱么？后来为啥又杀人…。嫖客的老婆找孩子要自己养也不了了之，很多情节交代的模凌两可
唯一的亮点是海进这个角色，演技和一些情节会让我眼前一亮
金棕榈之后，是枝裕和的创作是不断下坡的道路。是金棕榈的分量太重，压得是枝裕和创作焦虑，还是自身的江郎才尽。不如以此为素材拍一个是枝裕和版本的《杰出公民》，强行破圈，格外期待。
是枝裕和的味道 临时拼凑的家庭像小偷家族一样 问题是韩语是枝裕和把握得住吗 角色IU把握得住吗。 一股子冲拿奖去 但是剧本却远没有打磨好 IU也真的不适合 可能和裴斗娜换一下会更好。
是枝裕和一贯的风格，再次聚焦底层小人物的善良与无奈，从一个弃婴，娓娓道来。音乐和画面一流，但故事太多，到处都是联系，无法面面俱到，就会让观众觉得抓不住重点。第一幕我差点觉得是《寄生虫》续集。宋康昊早就值得一座戛纳影帝！
3一车上的沦落人，是无组织目的性的结合，最后每个人都被温情盖了过去。虚假的又真实的造梦童话：在不完美的背德者之中寻找人性的真善美，用没有血缘关系边缘人相互取暖的余烬温暖观众。
有《空气人偶》参演的《小偷家族》版《无人知晓》，是老是枝裕和了～
受疫情时代情绪影响，我已经对这类立场模糊、笔触温和的电影感到厌倦，更想看到犀利见血的创作。这部电影看似有意逆反“母职文化”，后半段又莫名其妙地“反堕胎”，尤其是IU这个角色，无论是设定还是表演，都面目模糊，空洞单薄。是枝裕和就是那种我承认他的大师性但我真的不愿再看他的作品的导演，另一个类似的，是贾樟柯。
2.“一家人”与“买家”接头，通过相关专业知识分辨出“买家”并不诚实和“一家人”洗车的场景，给平淡的故事增加了一丝温馨和幽默的气息，有些动人
印象最深的竟然是饼叔”女儿”留下那个没吃的pancake。没有相关性，但莫名想起了大一开学前爸妈送到宿舍来却没能吃掉的那一大袋零食。
在弃养/卖婴儿（有血缘关系切断亲情关系）和领养/买婴儿（无血缘关系想建立亲情关系）的互动过程（公路片模式）中，依旧在探索血缘关系与亲情关系的本质。几组人物之间的关系（多数表现为情感替代）描写细腻。
河濑直美略胜一筹。也许问题就是太工整了，不过这也是导演创作国际化必经之路。
相遇再美好，本質也是棄子販嬰不是嗎。我在被溫柔擊敗和下頭之間反復橫跳，所有人的出生都應該是因為愛，隨便生養，就是在創造地獄。可是摩天輪裡的那隻手令我狂哭不止，導演太亞撒西了西八😭
可惜的是，在日本电影爱好者眼里，这部电影是一部韩国片。这是理所当然的啊！因为《掮客》的确是韩国电影。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
