During this break, theatres play some music or the other. Lights inside the auditorium are turned on brightly and the audience go over to the food counters and come back to their seats. The movie will resume in 10 minutes in most theatres and in some, the interval is usually 20 minutes.

As far as INDIAN movie are concerned, for theatrical exhibition in INDIA, the director/producers themselves mark the "INTERVAL" logo on the print and usually this INTERVAL is at half the duration of the film. That is, if the film is a three hour movie, the interval is after 1.30 hours from the start.

When it comes to foreign movies in INDIA, each theatre will itself decide when to break for the interval.

There is no requirement for an interval under the LAW in INDIA.It is only a customary thing everybody does without fail.

I for one always resented in this practice. I believe this might be one reason why 99.99 % of all INDIAN films are real CRAP. These days, I have been communicating with a number of directors and producers and asking them to do something about it. But I am sure they are so stupid and will stay this way forever.

My theatre in BANGALORE is one of the leading movie theatre for the city. I have decided to give everyone a jolt now. On 30-Aug, the movie SIGNS is releasing and I am going to play it. Without an INTERVAL.

For the first time in this country, I want to show people that our practice of INTERVAL is insanity itself and for the time being, I am already becoming a big nuisance for the food and beverages industries. But, I am going to do it anyway.

I have learnt that SIGNS is about 1 Hrs.45 mins. I am making this reslove public today among the press. And there is going to be a very big public debate here about this.

What I would like to know from those who read this is :

In your country, is there anything like this insane practice of INTERVAL at all ?

If Indian films release in your country or city, do they each come with such an INTERVAL ?

To remind people again, I do not believe INTERVALS are required at all and they are an insult to the medium of cinema itself.

 |  IP: Logged

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

I come from watching tons of films. But I also come from a long line of stage actors as well. I am well versed in theatrical stage productions, and no intermission just seems horrible. My ass starts to fall asleep within fourty five minutes. Could be my fat ass.

I think just about every film could use an intermission, and it also provides an easy way for people to sneak out without the embarrasment they might feel if they really just got up and walked out. I wonder how many people dont do that just because they dont want people to even think about them.

I have seen many instances where a show just went wrong and after intermission we lose about 5 percent of the audience. In a bad movie, such as pluto nash, that would be only one person.

An intermission is probably good for concession sales but, really, I think the average 90min - 120min movie should just play through without a break.

~Manny (get some every morning)

*How did I quit smoking? Nicorette works. Start with a dental checkup/cleaning and a chest X-Ray.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Ky grew up in Great Falls Montana and the town decreed that all film shall have intermissions. Ky used to delight in those 80 minute Disney films that had to have intermissions. Watch two reels, have an intermission and watch two more reels.

Yes there are many short films that would seem silly to have an intermission. I have seen live shows with two intermissions just becuase it was so long.

Yes you lose a showing. For most movies, that is not really a loss. If you aren't filling up the seats on five shows, you might get closer on just four. And think about the increase in revenue to the snack counter. You get eight hits instead of five. Better for everyone. You probably would even get the same number of dollars anyway on ticket revenue for the studio. Considering it would take longer for everyone to go see it, it would have better staying power, and increase overall profitability.

That is just my opinion. As NOT an avid movie goer per se, as in going to the cinema, I cannot say with certainty that having intermissions is good for everyone. BUT, one of the main reasons I do not like to see movies in the cinema is that If I have to go to the restroom, I am going to miss something. knowing there is no chance of a film break in lord of the rings, I just wait until I can get a private screening where I can get them to turn it off every hour or so. Films are too long to go without intermissions these days. AAAAAAUUUUGH!!!!!! Some movies are just to dumb to care about anyway.

Dump 1 screening per day & add an intermission.

-Claude

At least 1 non-Bollywood picture I know of has an intermission: The Sorrow and the Pity, about the French Resistance to the Nazis in WWII. That documentary was intended for TV in France but never saw telecast and wound up becoming a surprise hit in French theaters. The Film Forum in NYC ran The Sorrow and the Pity twice a day for 2 weeks in May 2000. Total running length, counting intermission, is 4 hours 30 minutes.