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.
虽然演员王安妮 179 的身高太大只，也少了些梅姑舞台上的霸气，但模特出身的她体态很棒，神韵抓得也很不错，可以说是超过预期的表现。
长达三个半小时的导演完整版，其实都知道依然很碎片，很多内容都没法深入，但是多少看得出几个阶段的不同侧重点，但不好轻率说新人王丹妮是完全失败的，这就是一部概念先行的片，应该看得出编导想表达的是什么，不够客观，当然对梅艳芳这样的人物只能这样处理了，还想怎样去挖所谓内幕和深度呢
套用“艺术人生”三板斧——忆童年、拿照片、把琴弹——生硬串联的流水账。对梅姐不甚了解的我，电影观感远不及前几年看到99年春晚《床前明月光》时来得震撼。
故事碎片化，更像是梅艳芳逸闻录。王丹妮模仿得算够像了吧，但角色整体还是单薄。再就是张国荣选角有点油了。此外减分点还有无节制滥用柔光特效和复古滤镜，以及一些塑料质感的出戏布景。
90年代的香港好在哪？可能其中一种魅力就在于这部电影所呈现出来的色彩：温暖、昏黄、复古而又柔情。暖色调的氛围感，适合回忆、更适合梅艳芳的歌声。所以大家都说这部电影高度还原。其实看过这部电影之后，我觉得片方的用心，不仅在于对梅艳芳的尽力还原，更在于对那个特定年代氛围感的刻画，是如此传神。
进电影院看《梅艳芳》，就是为了看大银幕上的梅艳芳如站在你面前再次闪耀。
疫情应景
梅艳芳啊，全片80%时间都在孤独无助含泪看雨，这合理吗？
长达三个半小时的导演完整版，其实都知道依然很碎片，很多内容都没法深入，但是多少看得出几个阶段的不同侧重点，但不好轻率说新人王丹妮是完全失败的，这就是一部概念先行的片，应该看得出编导想表达的是什么，不够客观，当然对梅艳芳这样的人物只能这样处理了，还想怎样去挖所谓内幕和深度呢
拍香港的女儿但不能拍香港；拍她收徒弟但不提及她最得意的门徒；拍她做慈善但不拍她参与的minyun。怀旧的主题配上数码感的画面，契合着这个充满了404的时代。
每一次的魅力散发都来自录像里的真人本身，一切回演员就感觉很露怯。
梅艳芳一生坎坷，一生仗义，一生寂寞，一生都嫁给了舞台。
电影最大的功劳就是让对她有记忆的人们再次通过电影的那些真实影像回忆起梅艳芳本人，电影演绎的部分更多像是在看一个80~90年代女星的一生(类似看我和春天有个约会里的姚小蝶 丽花皇宫的故事)代入任何人都无问题，唯独不是梅艳芳
王丹妮还是挺惊喜的，外型气质都不错。可惜阿mui是无人可以模仿的，除了几个镜头的眉眼神似之外，时时可以感觉到全然是一场模仿表演，但这并不妨碍我们被大银幕上阿mui的故事感动得一塌糊涂。一个至真、至善、炽烈、炙热的性情中人，从舞台上冉冉升起、也在舞台上谢幕，married herself to the satage；快意恩仇，明媚、潇洒却寂寞。有很多的爱，对音乐、舞台和银幕的爱，对家人的爱，对朋友、伙伴的爱，以及对世界的爱…但也因此而牺牲或错失了属于自己小我的爱。谁来真心寻芳踪？孤芳自赏最心痛。花开花谢终是空，女人如花花似梦。
烦死隔靴挠痒，看完发现评论一票粉丝“不可说”，到底干了什么不可说？张国荣选角最拉，再没有人似他。本来群星汇聚的片，只有寥寥几位撑台，显得香港电影歌坛后继无人零落景象，香港女儿就这阵容？不如拍纪录片，还有股潇洒贵气。
却看不到人物身上饱满的人性张力与弧光
流水账式拍摄手法，缺乏核心理念，显得碎散。即便这样有些个场景依然让人热泪盈眶，如果能在故事好好再花点心思打磨就好了，有点可惜。我看有评论说选角不行，我倒觉得王丹妮选的很好。
梅艳芳这样一个华语娱乐界响亮的名字
sorry 永远爱梅姐 但这个电影呈现的香港女儿 只可以说流于表面 浮光掠影
昨天看的过程中想明白了一个准则 — 这种超名人的传记，要么挑ta们生活中的一小段故事放大拍，这样可以用新演员，呈现出这个人一段时间的一段状态，情绪给够。如果要拍一整个人生的流水账，那必须找名角。名角才撑得起名角的一生。演员也确实需要足够的历练才能表演出经验造成的前后差异。梅艳芳这部太可惜了。多标准的一个苦情艺术人生，最后搞成这样不咸不淡的。梅艳芳选的不合适，张国荣选的简直差劲。剧本莫名其妙。人物有些走形到离谱。哎。好故事被糟蹋了。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
