段千寻
发表于4分钟前
回复
:Novelist Joseph Shearing specialized in using real cases which took place in Victorian England, altering them for fictional purposes. MOSS ROSE in 1947 was the first film to be made from his novels, then in 1948 two of his works were adapted for the screen, this film and THE MARK OF CAIN. The movie stars Todd as a recently widowed missionary returning to her home in England from Jamaica. During the voyage, she meets Milland, a charming though dangerous rascal who is wanted by police in connection with some unsavory dealings. Milland contracts malaria while onboard the ship and Todd nurses him back to health. In London, Todd settles into her home, taking in boarders to make ends meet. Milland arrives, moves in, and proclaims his love for her. Todd is thrilled, but it seems rather obvious that Milland is only toying with her. Milland finds some letters written to her by her friend, Fitzgerald, in which Fitzgerald reveals some of her sexual indiscretions. Since Fitzgerald is now married to the wealthy Huntley, Milland believes he can use the letters to blackmail Fitzgerald. Todd's love for Milland is so great that she goes along with the plan. Huntley, however, learns of the scheme and also uncovers details of Milland's shady past. Fearing for her lover's safety, Todd poisons Huntley, then remains silent when Fitzgerald is arrested for the murder. Milland has by now genuinely fallen in love with Todd and the two make plans to leave England. Before they can depart, one of Milland's former lovers shows up and Todd, in a jealous rage, kills Milland, then turns herself into the police.This is an intriguing film, although a little on the talky side. The performances are excellent throughout, with Milland shining as the cad, the type of role in which he excelled. Though he spent most of his time making films in the US, he occasionally returned to his native England for a production and this was his first British film since FRENCH WITHOUT TEARS in 1939. Director Allen was also an Englishman who chose to work in the US, this being his first directorial effort in his homeland. This was the fourth and last time Milland and Allen would work together, their pairing having begun in 1944 with the wonderfully eerie THE UNINVITED.
吴卓玲
发表于5分钟前
回复
: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.