Oscar History
Film Bitch History
Welcome

The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. All material herein is written by our team.

This site is not for profit but for an expression of love for cinema & adjacent artforms. 

Powered by Squarespace
DON'T MISS THIS

Follow TFE on Substackd 

COMMENTS

Oscar Takeaways
12 thoughts from the big night

 

Keep TFE Strong

We're looking for 500... no 390 SubscribersIf you read us daily, please be one.  

I ♥ The Film Experience

THANKS IN ADVANCE

What'cha Looking For?
Subscribe
« Interview: Kerry Washington on "Django" & Diversity | Main | The Deep Blue Link »
Thursday
Dec272012

Movies Are Too Long

I throw my back out all the time. It's not a matter of being old since I've been working that old man "my back!" drama since I was like 15. But can you throw your ass out? Maybe the movies are to blame for my back trouble? I'm always sitting. They shouldn't call a film's duration its "running time" but "sitting time". Yes, yes, it's my own fault for seeing Les Misérables and Zero Dark Thirty two & and a ½ times each in the past month (That's 787 minutes! What's wrong with me?). Take a look at the 12 movies most likely to find themselves with a Best Picture Nomination on January 10th from longest to shortest

Django Unchained - 165 minutes 
Zero Dark Thirty - 160 minutes 
Les Misérables - 157 minutes
Lincoln - 150 minutes
The Master - 144 minutes
Life of Pi - 127 minutes
Amour - 127 minutes
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - 124 minutes
Silver Linings Playbook - 122 minutes
Argo - 120 minutes
and the only contenders (both longshots) of non-abusive length!
Moonrise Kingdom - 94 minutes
Beasts of the Southern Wild - 93 minutes 

TOTAL RUNNING TIME: 26 HOURS & 23 MINUTES

That's just ass abuse!

Is it... a) auteur hubris? b) the cynical belief that long movies feel more "important" and are thus more popular with Oscar voters? c) rough draft & sub-plot preciousness or d)  the genuine length required to tell these particular stories?

You decide on a case by case in the comments but I'm sticking with "a, b & c" because there are relatively few movies in the modern era that aren't self-indulgent in one way or the other. Wouldn't it be fascinating to see what filmmakers would come up with if they were forced into 90 minute running sitting times across the board one year? Would they tighten their storytelling or tell one hour stories to allow for the extra padding?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (54)

One can watch a long movie at home because it's easier to take bathroom breaks- or just fast forward over the boring parts. Bring back intermissions!

December 29, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJaragon

Les Misérables was paced awkwardly and inconsistently, to me personally but that made less an impression than the camera work for sure.

January 2, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterVal

I've already avoided watching at least half of those movies because of the length. Now I always check time - anything over 120 minutes automatically undergoes reconsideratin and anything over 150 minutes is nixed.

June 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterSean

Nice post. I think you're right that some movie do drag out for a long time, but I also think that there are some that need a lot of time for the story to be told properly. Either way, I don't have too much of a problem with long movies.

June 27, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterPeter
Member Account Required
You must have a member account to comment. It's free so register here.. IF YOU ARE ALREADY REGISTERED, JUST LOGIN.