I was backing my opinion on a film and one of the good points I listed was it's length of 90 minutes, an ideal length for a movie. What is the criteria on the length and why didn't they edit it anyway if it was long? Was Lawrence of Arabia long winded, all quiet on the Western Front, Gone with the Wind? JFK was skull crashingly overlong was it not?
How long can you sit down for a) cinema b) TV. Does it make a difference if the armchair is comfy?
Personally, I've always believed that approximately two hours is a reasonable length for any film that wants to have a strong plot, character development and enough action to keep the viewers interested. There are exceptions of course, such as Lawrence of Arabia and Gone With the Wind (I may also point out that I usually watch those films in two sittings)
name='Bernardo']
How long can you sit down for a) cinema b) TV. Does it make a difference if the armchair is comfy?
If a film is good enough, it's short enough; if it has a lot to say, a big story to tell, it will take as long as it takes.
My favourite film of all time (Blimp) runs in at 2h43m, and flies by. My favourite silent actor, Ivan Mozzhukhin, seldom made a film shorter than three hours, and is always mesmerising. But my favourite silent, Abel Gance's Napoleon, runs in at 5h45m not including two intervals....and is always over too soon....
I would agree that for a simple entertainment 90 mins is perfectly adequate. Most stories can be told in this time and the discipline on directors in getting their story to fit that time tends to raise their game.
For something weightier two hours is fine.
Very very occassionally a subject and treatment will warrant longer - but questins should be raised about exactly why it is necessary. Ben Hur / Schindler's List - Yes. Pearl Harbor - No! No! No!
Ultimately it is up to the film-maker how long they want their film; the sudio whether they want to back it at that length and the audience if they choose to sit through it.
But DVD gives us the option of watching in installments and that's ok. Leads to the question - why didn't they make it as a mini-series in the first place, though?
name='penfold']But my favourite silent, Abel Gance's Napoleon, runs in at 5h45m not including two intervals....and is always over too soon....
You could watch 5 Carry On films in that time
name='CaptainWaggett']You could watch 5 Carry On films in that time
And be entertained and enlightened as to the truths of human nature...
Seriously though - the best of the Carry Ons are excellent examples of controlled, disciplined film-making. They do not over-stay their welcome...
name='CaptainWaggett']You could watch 5 Carry On films in that time
I could watch All the Carry On's in that time - mostly through Fast Forward....
name='penfold']I could watch All the Carry On's in that time - mostly through Fast Forward....
Well, if you want to be a complete Philistine...
name='CaptainWaggett']Well, if you want to be a complete Philistine...
No fair, Cap!
It's just that if you fastforward them they become very short, jumpy, over-speeded and silent. And that's how Penfold likes his comedies...
name='GRAEME']No fair, Cap!
It's just that if you fastforward them they become very short, jumpy, over-speeded and silent. And that's how Penfold likes his comedies...
To show I can cope with very long films, I have twice seen the LOTR trilogy in one day at the cinema. And very good it was too. But in general I incline to the view that a director has to have a very good reason to extend a film over 95 minutes and not many actually merit such extravagance.
I try to trust the filmmaker to take as long as s/he needs to tell the story. And watching a good film, I lose track of time.
Interesting that several lengthy productions I found absorbing--and first saw in movie theaters--originated as TV miniseries--Scenes From a Marriage (three-hour and then I think five-hour versions) and The Best of Youth (six hours, two parts).
The Sorrow and the Pity flew by. (Was that French TV? I can't recall.) If memory serves, Far From the Madding Crowd was close to three hours, with intermission, when I fell into it way back then. And when it was over, I didn't want to leave my seat. (Sir, may I have some more?) And the rare (for me) Visconti film--The Leopard.
I do think the older I've gotten the less tolerance/patience I have for length. I tend to be more impressed by economy and creativity in telling the story. Some 80-minute films pack action, detail, and nuance, and hit a range of emotions that some epics lack.
I sometimes regret that we've been conditioned, in a way, to accept conventional running time as being 105 minutes, 120 minutes. A fairly standard length to ensure a certain number of screenings per day, that generate a certain revenue, blah blah blah. That's show biz. Films with extended running times are often promoted as events. Puh-leeze.
Of course films have been sliced and reshaped by distributors prior to release; in some cases the reason being the public won't accept a lengthy running time. Enter the director's cut on DVD. And the luxury of viewing it at home at your own speed.
The famous quote regarding overlong films was Mort Sahl (a comedy writer I think) who stood up during a premiere of Otto Preminger's Exodus: "Otto, let my people go!", he screamed.
As far as TV is concerned, all the episodes of Inspector Morse actually last longer than the 'average' 90-95 minute film. Similarly, A Touch Of Frost and Foyle's War (which I've never seen). I agree with Ram about not having the tolerance for such longwinded, interminable productions and find the traditional hour-long dramas and half-hour sitcoms more suitable. I don't know why ITV started this 2-hour trend, with 'Morse', and it's made me lose enthusiasm for a genre I usually like. Midsomer Murders is another one, of course.
I once sat through three and a half hours of Ryan's Daughter without a break and wasn't bored once, even though it's not a favourite. Far From The Madding Crowd, O Lucky Man and My Fair Lady are all wonderful to watch but my health isn't strong enough now to follow them for nearly three hours. I forsee an intermission or two when I get round to viewing films of that length again - what someone called "a two-piss picture".
Extra boring films should be no longer than 20 minutes, with good to great films lasting between 90 minutes and two hours.
Now all you need to do is to get everyone to agree which films are boring and which are good to great.name='torinfan']Extra boring films should be no longer than 20 minutes, with good to great films lasting between 90 minutes and two hours.
Good luck
Steve
name='GRAEME']No fair, Cap!
It's just that if you fastforward them they become very short, jumpy, over-speeded and silent. And that's how Penfold likes his comedies...
Ho Ho, very satirical. No, it's just to get most of the truly awful Carry Ons out of the way - three, perhaps, are worth watching in their entirety; the rest, just short bits will do.....hence the compilation films.
Perhaps the next time we run our Slapstick festival you should come down and see how silent comedies should be presented; not jumpy, not overspeeded, and with terrific music played live.....but book early, all bar three of our eleven events last weekend sold out, three had to shift to a bigger venue.... we sold out Colston Hall (1700 seats)on the Friday Night Gala for the second year running
As long as they tell a good story and keep me interested I don't care how long they last.
name='penfold']Perhaps the next time we run our Slapstick festival you should come down and see how silent comedies should be presented; not jumpy, not overspeeded, and with terrific music played live.....but book early, all bar three of our eleven events last weekend sold out, three had to shift to a bigger venue.... we sold out Colston Hall (1700 seats)on the Friday Night Gala for the second year running
Nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating the intelligence etc...
Actually I have seen Napoleon on the big screen with the full orchestra etc and the bonkers 3 screen bit at the end does make one of Torinfan's excellent 20 minute films! *ducks*. Intolerance though - that's a proper ridiculously long silent epic
But a lot of one's reaction to very long films depends on whether one does one's film-watching on tv or at the cinema. I've never bothered to watch LOTR or Gone with the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia on telly and the experience of a 3 1/2 hour film when you can pause and make a cup of tea is very different from seeing it in full cinema where you're too far from the aisle to sneak out to the bathroom!
name='CaptainWaggett']Nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating the intelligence etc...
Actually I have seen Napoleon on the big screen with the full orchestra etc and the bonkers 3 screen bit at the end does make one of Torinfan's excellent 20 minute films! *ducks*. Intolerance though - that's a proper ridiculously long silent epic
Indeed not. Ask Gerald Thomas.....but if you're suggesting the feature films of Chaplin or Keaton, or their fans, lack intelligence....I really suggest you come down next year.
Intolerance is three decent films that need to be disentangled, yes, but you have to kind of admire the ambition that tries to mount something like that in 1916....
I often find myself watching a film that is very good for the first 45 minutes to an hour, with lots of plot development and interesting characterisation and then suddenly it becomes completely inane and incoherent as the last half an hour wraps up what seemed to be likely to be a good movie, in a series of arbitrary plot resolutions and illogical character changes............
Is it because the director runs out of time on the *shoot*? Is it because they never really finish the script and have to make up the ending *on the fly*? Perhaps a great movie can only be made where these two technical aspects are properly resolved.
Or is it because in post-production the film-maker is told, "it's a 95-105 feature so make it snappy" and the movie ends up being made by the film editors.....
Having been a fan (and a student) of film and television all my life, I can tell you this; art takes as long as it takes. It might take only 10 minutes, or it might take 24 hours (these was an interesting movie made out of the bible that was 24 hours long, didn't last). With good art, it dosen't matter how long the run time is, it always seems too soon. With bad art, any time at all seems like all the time in the world (unfortunately).
With TV, I must admit, I'm prejudiced; American TV shows typicaly use the 20/10 or 40/20 format. That is either 20 min. of show and 10 min of comercial for a half hour program, or 40min. of show and 20 min of comercial for an hour long program. TV Movies tend to be 90 minutes of show with 30-45 minutes if comercial (though lately the longer movies have been pushing program times up to 3 hours at a block).
Having started watching a lit of BBS America and renting britfilm/britTV lately and it I have to wonder, what's up with Wire in the Blood? I like the show and all, but it seems strange to have 3 or 4, 90 minute episodes in a season (unlike Doctor Who with 12 episodes in a season). That's another thing, untill just recently, American seasons were 9 months long and included 23 - 24 episodes, whereas BritTV tends to run about a dozen episodes over three months. Why?
I dunno about the perfect show length, I do know that every time I watch David Lynch's version of Frank Herbert's Dune, I wish I had the Uncut (6 hour) version instead of the theatrical release (3.5 hour) version I have now. Unfortuanrtely, it's only available in the UK (hint hint, by birthday is in July, hint
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote