Killers of the Flower Moon, suggested intermission time

[Ed Gordon]

...Did you ever think about starting some kind of a movie club that shows movies exactly the way you like it? I'd call it something like Tripple-M: The Masochistic Movie Mongers.
As first movie I'd recommend "Paint Drying", at 10 hours and 7 minutes, without intermission off course.

However, IMDb cites "Logistics," directed by Daniel Andersson and Erika Magnusson as the longest film by running time. The Swedish film was released in 2012 and spans 857 hours, or 35 days and 17 hours.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...e/10028083002/

I wonder if they allowed intermissions to sleep?

[Abraham Robinson]

deleted a question that had been answered earlier

[William Kucharski]

Did you ever think about starting some kind of a movie club that shows movies exactly the way you like it? I'd call it something like Tripple-M: The Masochistic Movie Mongers.

It should be called "a movie theater."

Theaters are free to modify films however they like… and be denied any future product from the studio(s) involved.

For example, I doubt QT's New Beverly Cinema would be at all affected if they were denied new studio product as they show 35mm and 16mm prints exclusively.

They'll also be showing Oppenheimer from 35mm on November 25 without an intermission.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Staging an intermission is NOT modifying movies however one likes. It's simply a pause in the presentation...

I've seen Oppenheimer in 70mm back in Juli at this particular location and they DID stage an intermission. Those people are extremely involved with keeping film (35mm and 70mm) alive. They also will give everybody a free tour of the booth. Looking at the Google reviews of this place, it looks like most people are liking it very much... (Ironically, there is this review of about 4 years ago: There was also no intermission so I missed some of the movie going to the bathroom. All in all though a very nice cinema experience.)

And, by the way, they made great efforts to play the movie at the correct volume level. They even went out of their way to warn the public for the Nolan-esque soundtrack, but that this was the way the director intended it to be... But yeah, they did stage an intermission and the public was clearly thankful for doing so.

B.t.w.: The majority of cinemas around here, including two major international chains, do insert intermissions into MOST of their shows and have been doing so for at least 50 years. Actually, its a marketing argument for some cinemas, against one of the major chains, that explicitly doesn't insert intermissions. You really think the studios don't know about this practice?

Yeah, different country, different culture... But an intermission has been a cornerstone of cinema in many countries all over the world. I would like directors and moviemakers to acknowledge this simple fact of life and not put themselves above the public they serve. Therefore I'd like if THEY, the movie makers, would provide a timestamp for a suggested intermission, so those many theaters around the world that still honor the limited bladder capacity of their visitors, can conform themselves better to the vision of the moviemakers...

Edit: I forgot to mention: QT's roadshow version of the Hateful Eight did include an overture and a 12 minute intermission reel... Also QT's and Robert Rodriguez's double-feature "Grindhouse" release featured a "fake" intermission with 5 intermission trailers. I don't know, but you MAY get the feeling that QT somehow still cares about intermissions?

[Mike Blakesley]

Staging an intermission is NOT modifying movies however one likes. It's simply a pause in the presentation...

I haven't reviewed an MLA for a long time (that's what we pay the booker for) but I'm pretty sure they say specifically "without interruption." But like I said earlier, the only way it would ever get enforced is if someone complained to the studio that there was an intermission and it wrecked the movie for them. Even then nothing might happen because we all know the studios don't give much of a hoot about theaters, unless they owe them money.

[Ed Gordon]

...
Edit: I forgot to mention: QT's roadshow version of the Hateful Eight did include an overture and a 12 minute intermission reel... Also QT's and Robert Rodriguez's double-feature "Grindhouse" release featured a "fake" intermission with 5 intermission trailers. I don't know, but you MAY get the feeling that QT somehow still cares about intermissions?

Tarantino wasn’t concerned an intermission would break the tension: “I think it does the opposite, I actually think it gooses the audience into an interesting thing,” he says.

“I like getting a chance to reflect on what it is that I’ve seen and what could be possibly happening next. Then you sit back down and you’re ready for the next go, and then it starts and it takes you. I think that is a really wonderful, invigorating, interactive way of watching a movie. I would love to see intermissions come back.”

The break is immediately preceded by a full-tilt-perverse monologue performed by Samuel L. Jackson – truly the greatest of the Tarantino actors, equaled only by Christoph Waltz. Tarantino says Jackson’s tastes are closer to his than Waltz’s, given Jackson “grew up watching the exact same kind of movies that I did, and he really appreciates them”.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...e-on-my-career

[Ioannis Syrogiannis]

Paint Drying is a joke of a movie, and the joke is on the viewer. It's length is supposed to be the statement there, not the spectacle that it provides.
Satantango, though, is something much more, and one could enjoy its full length. I should admit I took a break.
The whole discussion seems to be too dramatic. One may talk about intention from either side and have valid points.
Getting into the position to defend an opinion or its opposite and spending more than ten minutes on that (or multiple posts) seems pointless.

I would welcome more defending the artistic intention by being loyal to the color, the luminance, the sound or the aspect ratio of the movie, for instance.
And from the creator's side, to take into account the means of screening. Not make a mess of aspect ratios, as an example, by mixing them without some common denominator (height or width), like Wes Anderson is doing, intentionally or not.
Screening movies window-boxed.
Having the projector so far off-center that no masking will hide the keystoning.
Having a side of the screen green, either because of bad filters on the projector, or by the exit sign.

All this is blown out of proportion, and anyone who has experience on movie-going or movie showing should be able to see that.
Including us in this forum, the creator(s), and anyone else with their correct opinion.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Paint Drying is a joke of a movie, and the joke is on the viewer. It's length is supposed to be the statement there, not the spectacle that it provides.

It's obviously not a serious movie, it's whole intention was to irritate a bunch of censors by making them litteraly watch paint dry for hours. I used it as an example that the entire idea that you only ever may show a movie without an intermission eventually becomes a moot point, as there are limitations to what's bearable on a human scale, what's technically feasible and financially bearable.

The whole discussion seems to be too dramatic. One may talk about intention from either side and have valid points.

This is a discussion board. Drama is a driving force behind a lot of stuff... Movies, sports, politics... it makes stuff interesting. If we all had the same opinion, stuff would be utterly boring. Discussions can be interesting, meaningful and educational, as long as there is some mutual respect left for each other.

Getting into the position to defend an opinion or its opposite and spending more than ten minutes on that (or multiple posts) seems pointless.

The Dude, probably the wisest movie character ever, would probably say: "Well, that's just like your opinion, man."

I don't think its pointless. I have a feeling that most people would appreciate intermissions in most movie theaters for longer movies. My feeling is just that, a feeling, a hunch. I'd like that to be a bit more substantiated by facts. Reading opinions of others on this forum regarding their stance on intermissions, at least for me, is an insightful experience. Trying to challenge people with other opinions with my own opinion is... well, part of the discussion even if it sometimes leads to a bit of repetition. But there are quite a few hidden powers in repetition.

Personally, I do like intermissions in most movies of a significant runtime. Besides giving me a chance to empty my bladder, refill my drink, I happen to fully agree with Quentin Tarantino, it allows you to reflect on what you've seen and it actually more often than not builds anticipation. It also allows me to communicate with my company, ask them about their opinions, insights. I also feel it helps to keep the room quiet, as there will be less seat-shuffling by those who can't suppress their natural urges any longer.

I do think that movie theaters should do their best to play a movie as intended by the film makers. I also do believe in free speach for everyone. But when theory meets reality, all kinds of limits come into play and just like I don't believe in kings and dictators, I don't think that movie makers are above everything else. If they make idiotic decisions, exhibitors shouldn't be affraid to fix them. In the end, most movies aren't meant as some esotheric art experiment, their primary mission is to entertain the audience.

I would welcome more defending the artistic intention by being loyal to the color, the luminance, the sound or the aspect ratio of the movie, for instance.
And from the creator's side, to take into account the means of screening. Not make a mess of aspect ratios, as an example, by mixing them without some common denominator (height or width), like Wes Anderson is doing, intentionally or not.
Screening movies window-boxed.
Having the projector so far off-center that no masking will hide the keystoning.
Having a side of the screen green, either because of bad filters on the projector, or by the exit sign.

All of those topics have been discussed here before. Not many people here will defend sloppy presentations. This just ended up being a discussion about intermissions, without anybody dismissing the importance of presenting the movie the correct way otherwise.

All this is blown out of proportion, and anyone who has experience on movie-going or movie showing should be able to see that.
Including us in this forum, the creator(s), and anyone else with their correct opinion.

An opinion can only be correct if it has the facts on its side. In the case intermissions v.s. no intermissions, there can hardly be any "correct opinions".

[Ioannis Syrogiannis]

Marcel, dissecting your post and answering would be beside my point, here.
Exactly. There can hardly be any correct opinions. Yet, it seems to me like this is about convincing one another.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Marcel, dissecting your post and answering would be beside my point, here.
Exactly. There can hardly be any correct opinions. Yet, it seems to me like this is about convincing one another.

Well, trying to convince each other (and maybe others) of their own point of view is part of the purpose of having a discussion and there is nothing inherently bad about that. Learning about each other's viewpoints is another one...

[Mike Blakesley]

I get it, I am a rarity in wanting the film presented as the director intended, period, end of story, and others are willing to do whatever they need to to keep the audience happy.

The solution, obviously, is to convince the directors to adjust their "intentions," and plan an intermission in their long movie from the get-go. The studios should insist upon it. IF PEOPLE HATE THE EXPERIENCE THEY'LL STOP COMING. Yeah, yeah, I know, the studios don't care about theaters, but many directors say they do. Are they a bunch of big liars?

Every good movie can be broken down into three major "acts." The place for the intermission is just before the start of the third act. There is ALWAYS a lull in there somewhere. The first two acts build the anticipation for the third. If the story is doing a good job, the intermission will not break the narrative; on the contrary, it gives the audience a minute to ponder what they've seen so far, and it allows them to collect their thoughts and get ready for the events to come.

These directors all seem to know about all the great filmmakers of the past, their techniques and styles and all. Thus it should be easy for them to study up on how to deploy an intermission. If they are smart enough to direct a movie, they should be smart enough to know how to structure their narrative to allow for that break. It's not rocket science, for Pete's sake.

Studios should put into their contract with any director that if the movie is over 150 minutes long, there will be an intermission. Any long movie that simply can't be stopped anywhere in its whole running time without ruining the flow is probably just a badly-constructed movie.

[William Kucharski]

Studios can do that, but if they do many directors will jump to another studio out of offense over the interference.

Look at what WB tried to impose slate-wise regarding streaming, which made Nolan leave his home at WB and made Oppenheimer a Universal release; imagine the smile on Zaslav's face if both Barbie and Oppenheimer had been WB productions.

I don't recall people staying away from Titanic due to its lack of an intermission during its 194 minute runtime.

If lack of an intermission is going to keep you away from Flower Moon, odds are you wouldn't have liked it anyway.

[Mike Blakesley]

I don't recall people staying away from Titanic due to its lack of an intermission during its 194 minute runtime.

No, but I recall plenty of bathroom traffic during that movie. Mostly during the "love scenes." Any long movie has its moments where people head for the john. I doubt that's the way any director intends for his movie to be experienced. Real movie-lovers get peeved as they go to the can, knowing the movie they paid to see is still spooling off while they are draining the lizard.

[/quote]If lack of an intermission is going to keep you away from Flower Moon, odds are you wouldn't have liked it anyway.[/quote]

I don't see the correlation between liking a movie and needing a bathroom break after drinking a large soda, but whatever.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Studios can do that, but if they do many directors will jump to another studio out of offense over the interference.

The number of directors that have such power are how many?

I don't recall people staying away from Titanic due to its lack of an intermission during its 194 minute runtime.

I was back in the UK when I watched that movie. They did show it with an intermission.

Some trivia: While mostly due to technical limitations, Cameron accepted intermissions to be inserted into the IMAX re-run of Titanic.

If lack of an intermission is going to keep you away from Flower Moon, odds are you wouldn't have liked it anyway.

I guess I'm as lost here as Mike... I'm not seeing the relationship between preferring an intermission and not liking the movie because it's... long? I've seen it, Yeah, it was long... but I still liked it. (And yeah, there was an intermission, pretty badly timed I must admit...) I don't have a problem with long movies, as long as long as the movie doesn't waste my time. Many of the movies I consider to be "among the best" do come with a respectable runtime...

[William Kucharski]

The number of directors that have such power are how many?

Not many, but those are also the same directors with the clout to release a movie with a run time of 180 minutes or more.

Studios would bend over backwards to work with Nolan or Scorsese.

I guess I'm as lost here as Mike... I'm not seeing the relationship between preferring an intermission and not liking the movie because it's... long? I've seen it, Yeah, it was long... but I still liked it. (And yeah, there was an intermission, pretty badly timed I must admit...) I don't have a problem with long movies, as long as long as the movie doesn't waste my time. Many of the movies I consider to be "among the best" do come with a respectable runtime...

Simply put, if you are a film fan, you will do what you need to in order to preserve the film maker's artistic vision to the degree practicable.

I saw Oppenheimer a (record for me) ten times theatrically, and knowing the run time I made sure to limit my liquid intake during the film so a bathroom break was never needed and would do the same if Flower Moon interested me.

I did the same when watching The Irishman at home with its 209 minute run time, but that's just me.