盲目_^的丈夫们

剧情简介

　　Two dif*/(f,!
erences between this Austri@an versi
on and,,=? the general![ly available Amer*
ica.-+n versio$n a-;re^) immediatel%y obvio?@us: they dif)?%fer both i? n their le
ngth!#:_ and i??n- the lan-#guage of the interti`(tles.: )The Ame*_rica!n version+ is ^ ;o%nly-?# 1,88?3 m ;#et)?res(- long# - a t 18 f]rames p[er second ]!?a #dif^fer/ en#ce of @some 7 minute[)s t_]o $ th(e Austri(/an vers:`ion with 2,045 m;etres. Whereas we,]% originally presumed on/?ly !a /)negligible dif %,ference, resu ?l/\_ting ?+*fr-^o]m;! the $var:
ying length of, the@`/ intertitles!, a direct+ c%ompa ]rison has neverthele),\ss s [;%h*
own /that the[, _Au#strian #@%version differs\. from the Ame+.rican =vers@#-io$.n- both in the montage and in t`[$=he duration of ind 
i$vidual scenes. Y]/et $h(*=ow could it happen ?t%.(hat t,#.(he? later regi;onal distrib==ution of a canonical _US) silen,
t film w
[\as longe:*r =: $$th\)`an th!#;e "($
o/riginal =:ve=!`r?,si. o,n&qu@( ot?　　T$#he preval;ent Amer=ican+ version of Bli[nd Husbands do es not cor*
r espond t-$=o t-he ve $rsi? on-,$ shown at the premiere of 1919. This litt

le-kno+wn fa^?c/#t -) \was already publish\-ed by ! Richard Kosz $a%)rski_ in 1-:?983. The film was re-released by
=*Uni-$v`ersal]^ Picture=s in 1924, in a v.(ersion that was 1,365)$
feet (416 metres) sh_(or.ter. At_% 18 frame?,%_s% per sec$-ond, this a+mo)+*unts[
;\ to a time di(ffere=nce of ::/20 minutes! &quotTitle
s)`) were alte )_ red, `snippets _
of action remov:e d #]\and a?t least one maj [- or scene ta(ken out=* entir\@ely, where von Ste!ube]n and Margare`t vi= sit a s`% *mall l:(oca;l chap `/]]el\ .&q
`uot $(%(Kos`zarski)　　F` rom the* @*
present state of research w(+e can assume th%?at al^l the ` kn own Americ\@an copies^ of$_ the ? fi?lm _*;,derive from t@;h-.is !shorte]@ned re-release version,;: a*) co]p[y of whi,$ _ch U `niversal dona/@ted to the M@useum of +:Modern Art i_n 1941. Ac_+@cordin:[g to Koszarsk,i th]e or_/iginal ] nega:  !tive of the film ;@[;was destr:oyed!] ;some=t]ime betw)-een `.1+-956 and 1961 (%and; h-=as .therefore be+-_ en! irre.\trievably los;t. )@? This information ca/_st*s ((an interesting light
% ,on t/:)h+e Austrian +(*version, w%__[hich can, be da*]ted to the period between t* (
h?e su=mmer ?of 192`+1 and the wint] [er of _1922.=
F`=urther+,)more ,
, the copy is so!]\me \20,^%0 metres lo!#n!ger tha#==.n the US version o!f )?1924. If one follow(*s the d-etails` gi\%v en by Richard Kosza`]%rski and Arthur Len$nig, t+his[ ^means that, .@as far as both it:s date and its leng_^`th are concerned, the Austri)?an ver[!+si. on lies almost ex  actly in the middle between the?]:) ($
[lost) v- :/ersion s%hown at the premier) /e and the re-released one.A^ large %
part of the additio%?=;nal++.# length of the film ca;*n be tra-ced/\ to cuts th+ ^%`at were[; made to the 1924 ve?]rsio$n in almost e(@very shot. Ko^$,-szars!)k+ i describes how=` @the be.`%ginnin(\_g %!and the e:
) n!  d of sce:?n@(es were trimmed, in order to^\ &qu.o++#t$speed@ up" th
!e film. / However, _more e^@ x@citing w+%]as the #?,di$^scovery that the Austrian.[ vers_ion con()ta(in)s shots ++that are missing in t@he[ America=_ $n one -
sh
)ot- _s/countershots], in%(+tertitles - a.@`nd furthermore sho` w`-/ s diffe=%rences (in its ).mont age]=] (i.e. the plac(#i^ng? of the
 i$ndividual shot)$s within $,a sequence).
-- All- this[ in-^,dicates that Di\$e R?,@ache der Berge co--) n stitutes (the oldest@ a-+_%`nd most completely preserve!d mater)@!`ial of th
e film.