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.
Lady Di之所以被人喜欢，我相信绝对不是因为她婚姻不幸福。但是导演竟然选取一个同情的视角让在伦敦barely living的我们去同情一个有着无数珠宝首饰、在肯辛顿宫住着大house的王妃。这样矫情的视角淡化了戴妃本身的人道主义光辉，反而显得粗浅而无聊。毕竟没有了所谓礼仪和财富，普通人婚姻里的一地鸡毛说不定比戴妃拥挤的”三人婚姻“更shocking的多。
Jackie是有机的，而Spencer像是一张粗浅的心理问卷。
昨天还重刷了《倒数时刻》，更喜欢了。希望加菲奥提。
故事流畅 也有笑点 整体来说还可以 除了演员都不认识以外
Jonny 太出彩了，bass, jazz, 还有你从未在此里最后下楼梯那个榔头声，也是在楼梯拐角出现了。居然是peaky blinder的编剧！！！tragedy of a woman. 跳舞和奔跑那段😭 就不是很英式端庄吧，但也是特意的选择，现代、叛逆、美式（开始和孩子在卧室说话声音的不放松）从一开始就很压抑。昨天又看信条感觉女主也是差不多的境遇。音乐一直到credit结束。各种风格都有了。credit刚开始的时候钢琴弹得很用力 已经听到琴槌声了。出教堂那段的音乐真的浑身鸡皮疙瘩。牛仔裤很好看hhh
看过《王冠》，但这是B面戴安娜——Spencer。不是传统的人物传记片，勾勒出一个爱而不得被吞噬爱吃杏仁酥的女性，在外人看来是疯癫，实则是在自救而已。
延续《追捕聂鲁达》和《第一夫人》的创作理念，导演再次颠覆传统人物传记片。融入心理惊悚类型元素，不加掩饰地向库布里克致敬。不过这些小花招没能提升原本薄弱的剧本，始终局限于人物心理研究。也有可能是和真实人物相隔太近，没能在有限的素材上发挥出改编的创意。似乎在反王室制度和女性平权之间摇摆不定，LGBT情节显得太过刻意。人物塑造方式虽有争议，但是抓住人物原型中某一点无限放大的演绎方式和这个另类传记题材的气质很匹配，甚至和演员本身的经历遥相呼应，斯图尔特值得拿到一项奥斯卡提名。
好莱坞对英国王室这段历史的obsession没有终止之日了。影评人这是在捧杀啊。忽然想，这些其实就是墙外世界的献礼片吧…
两年没有这么大哭过了。在电影院里蠢到小K演的黛安娜一起共情。导演太会用视听语言推动故事。第一场饭桌戏黛安娜扯下脖子上的珍珠项链散落在汤碟里，用旁边演奏的弦乐控制节奏，靠摄像机在charles王子和Elizabeth女王之间迂回就能衬托处三个人的微妙关系。后面对峙的谈判的台球桌｜烛光下与两位小王子士兵将领的母子谈话｜在媒体前强颜欢笑不流眼泪｜跑回自己是宅邸摇摇欲坠｜与女仆跑向海边向往自由｜开车带孩子去伦敦塔桥下吃炸鸡｜每一场戏都那么生动有活力，唯一帮她的女仆配角厨师。我怎么可以不跟饱受折磨的黛安娜一起共情。在宫廷高墙下，我看到她纯粹的灵魂。冲出婚姻的桎梏，他不是黛安娜王妃，她是Spencer。小K和diana融为一体了，甚至想在离开英国前再去一次damario 吃一下戴妃生前最爱的餐厅。
说实话只想给三分。剩下的一分看在曾经的毛骗面子。整体冲突有些偶然，有些地方不符合生活，结尾太政治正确。缺少了真实感。
蛮细腻的，但是毕竟不熟悉王妃，没有被感动到。刚想吐槽西式大餐，原来是为了美帝k记做铺垫。
一个模仿戴妃的人露出美国人Kristen Stewart的本来面目。
与其说是传记电影，不如说是彻底的心理电影，完全是戴安娜的独角戏，所有的环境、人物、镜头和音乐都在渲染着规行矩步的“深宫大院”带给戴安娜的压抑。禁锢和自由的主题取巧但却流于表面，无论是扯断的项链还是奔向KFC都很理想化和符号话。而且大部分时间里，戴安娜展现出来的是她神经质，而非人物的复杂性，对于她何以至此的真实境况还不如她十分钟采访来得让人共情。不过小k还是很用心，很多时候能带来神似的惊喜。很喜欢影片的色调，像是记忆该有的颜色，正如戴安娜眼中，这个过去和现在混淆不清且了无生趣的权力世界。
这电影真的不错。很多细节很严谨。故事情节也非常好。很欢乐、很燃。看过非常保镖后对这个电影没啥太大期待。但没想到很出彩。缺点在于缺少一些电影的质感。
沿着正确的集体回忆向前推导，难度系数自降为零，再这样束手束脚地拍下去，拉雷恩离广告导演不远了。
以及开封菜
重复渲染的部分剪掉一点，没有展开的地方再展开一点，就好了。很多地方情感已经到位了，有的地方不够。但总体还是很牛逼
非常情绪化的电影，利用镜头，配乐，表演构建不安，逃不出的皇室大宅犹如闪灵的风雪别墅，回荡着幽灵安妮和戴安娜皇妃的哭声，但影片过分简化了人物，只是营造了被皇室和媒体束缚的戴妃，如台词中insane的标签一样随时随地在崩溃，小k从左边45度角偏头到右边45度角偏头，这个形体模仿很是别扭，但有几处情感流露结合自身明星经历还是和原型有共鸣之处，也不算扯后腿。
资本要捧人，k姐想冲奥也得拿出点真本事来吧，全是一水的公关稿和粉丝评论。小k这矫揉造作的表演要是能拿奥斯卡，幂姐第一个不服，那幂姐也能拿
有想法，但是剪辑和节奏都不好，应该压缩到一小时30分以内，或者一小时左右，还有一种方法是增加几个分支剧情。总体剧情平淡，戏剧冲突不够，人物动机有时立不住，拍的太仓促了
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
