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.
这部影片处处彰显氛围感，无论是黑白滤镜，还是水墨画质感，亦或者空灵的音效，都会让你有种忆当年的感觉。
群像塑造的太好了，就连俘虏也有着自己的故事。
这是一部一个人的使命，却完成的十分的艰难，很出乎意料导演用另一种方式来呈现，与平时欣赏别的战争片有所不同，影片里没有那么多的喊口号似的台词，也没有花里胡哨的情感戏
说实话，很失望
那群被惊飞的密密麻麻的蝙蝠带给我的视觉震撼蛮大的，覆巢之下安有完卵，惊恐感与无措感一下子被拉满。
观看过程中内心一直很沉重，也被导演的表达方式所震撼。画面以黑白表现形式，有如水墨画一般，给观者以战争所带来的冰冷严酷之感，且赋予人物雕像般的立体感。影片伴随着洪启辰仰着头，沐浴在枪林弹雨隐喻的红色的血泊里结束，也是我全片印象最深之处，也引发我对于战争与生存、死亡与正义、道德与责任等价值观层面的深思。个人评分四星，另外母校滤镜多加一星。
作为一部电影叙事过于碎片化且流水账了，不过土方冲田的选角不错
打戏不错，但是太无聊了，流水账的历史根本看不进去。
2.5……这样的制作这样的卡司这样的时长，怎么还能把司马辽太郎的作品拍成这样？？？要说的想说的东西太多，以一部电影的容量来拍新选组从创立到消亡还是太勉强了？
司马辽太郎完美的叙事被拆得跟跳帧一样，但32的冲田总司是什么美.善解人意.惨小可爱，啧啧
泥土雨化作血水
突然意识到里面都是活生生的人，残肢、断臂、血液、暴雨，是苦的是挣扎的，是没有生的可能的。这八个人代表着在战争前的不同立场。不单纯的逃兵，搁置的谎言，反叛的敌军，坚定的信仰者，追寻团圆的孩子，迷惘的赴死者……
抛弃了所谓的正确，选择了真实世界中的每一个个体，正因为是这样，所以才让人格外有共鸣吧。
土方岁三视角新选组的故事，剧情比较平缓，时长有点赶，大量的背景信息一句话带过，虽然我有一点相关历史知识看着还有点不太明白。
有些人表面上是萨摩的西乡隆盛，其实是新选组的近藤局长。
《燃烧吧，剑》——副长行云流水账似的一生。想想司马辽太郎的原作，人生虽短，其中的每一个人人，都活成了一首首隽永的俳句。
之前有看到这部电影获得北影节天坛奖 “最佳男主角”团体奖项，当时还想说为什么是团体奖，看完之后理解了，电影没有任何人是绝对主角，甚至都可能记不清大部分人的名字，就像电影想表达的也是无数个小人物面对战争下的真实状态。
聚焦个体，展示了一些虚无的信念吗？坠入河中拨开战友们尸体，在树林里打死自己的分身，爆炸声后下起血雨，几个幻想还是比较有想法的。很黑，真的很黑，再加上男演员都蓬头垢面，分不清，真的分不清。小男孩死得有点早。
在残酷的战争中融入诗意美学，提升观众的观影感和接受度，让挺进师的形象更加的深入人心，革命精神的传承也就多了一层保障。
土方岁三的奋斗，风起云涌的幕末江湖纪实片。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
