At least we’re getting our money’s worth with the current cinema.

12 January 2013

Just returned from a viewing of Zero Dark Thirty — about which film blogger JustMeMike and I will have a convo tomorrow! — so for today I just want to say one shallow thing: this year’s films are long. I mean, it was 3 full hours before I left that theater. Is this a ploy to make us think their films are “serious”? To soften the economic blow of the cost of a 3D ticket?

Let’s make a chart, shall we?

  • Cloud Atlas, 172 minutes
  • The Hobbit, 166 minutes
  • Django Unchained, 165 minutes
  • Zero Dark Thirty, 160 minutes
  • Les Miserables, 157 minutes
  • Lincoln, 150 minutes
  • Skyfall, 143 minutes

Speaking as one who really wants to try to see these films, I don’t see how I can manage it — my schedule is already bursting at the seams. Even Jack Reacher (which I don’t plan to see) is 130 minutes — coincidentally, the same length as Anna Karenina (which I do rather want to see, despite myself). Let it be noted that if Tolstoy’s original novel is 976 pages long (my edition, anyway), I don’t understand why the Tom Cruise movie based on novels less than half the length needs to be so long.

I will note that every once in a while I fantasize about sneaking between theaters to catch my own double bill. I never do it — who has the time? also: the fear of getting caught — but in truth I really, really couldn’t handle the 5 or even 6 hours of sitting. So perhaps I’ve answered my own question: long movies help theaters cut down on freeloaders.

I think I’ve also answered the question of why David O. Russell was nominated for a Best Director Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook: it’s a comparatively svelte 122 minutes. You gotta appreciate the courtesy.

6 Responses to “At least we’re getting our money’s worth with the current cinema.”

  1. Servetus Says:

    Of the two I’ve seen (Lincoln and The Hobbit), *neither* needed to be this long. I could have easily cut 20 min from the Hobbit and possibly a half hour from Lincoln.

  2. fitzg Says:

    Hobbit tomorrow. Ought I take a cushion for unfortunately not very well-padded posterior? At least GWTW had an intermission! Time to visit the loo and stretch! I think we are being put-upon. Pun intended. Movie industry tyranny. 😀

    • Didion Says:

      FitzG, you make me want to write a whole post advising viewers to bring neck pillows, trail mix, and comfortable pyjama-like clothes for the long haul. Just like those wise international flight passengers who wear velour track suits and shop at the airport’s Brookstone store for comfy socks and noise-cancelling headphones.

  3. rtype909 Says:

    For Lincoln to be so unnecessarily long seems strange as Spielberg and team know how to cut. However, any movie from Peter Jackson could benefit from a 30-40mins snip.

    Maybe we will we the return of intermissions. I seem to remember Dances with wolves having this

    • Didion Says:

      There is a strange calculus that one does before a long film with no intermission: do I really want to drink my water?

      On the other hand, if we have intermissions cinema will turn into even more of a time suck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: