People have been talking about the length of movies these days. Director Alexander Payne recently said “there are too many damn long movies these days,” and he suggested that it was an editing issue. I would go further than that and say that streamers have encouraged self-indulgence from directors, plus the proliferation of “director’s cut” movies have made people believe that movies are supposed to be three-hours-plus. As I said in that Payne post, I rarely go to the movie theater at this point – I love streaming movies so I can orchestrate my own little intermissions if I need a snack break or a bathroom break. Well, you know how Killers of the Flower Moon is three hours and 26 minutes long? Well, various movie theaters have started fashioning their own intermissions so that the audience can stretch their legs and get a snack for ten minutes, then come back and watch the rest of the movie. Apple and Paramount are pissed!!
Martin Scorsese did not include an intermission in his 206-minute epic, “Killers of the Flower Moon.” But that hasn’t stopped a handful of movie theaters around the world from inserting one themselves, with intervals ranging from between six minutes and 15 minutes.
As of Friday morning, two European cinema chains and one independent theater in Amsterdam sold tickets to screenings of “Killers of the Flower Moon” with a built-in break. A spokesperson for UCI Cinemas, an exhibition chain with venues in Germany, Italy, Portugal and Brazil, confirmed that all of its nearly 80 theaters — with the exception of Imax screens in Porta di Roma, Orio, and Campi Bisenzio — had included a “six-minute interval towards the middle of the film.” The Vue, a U.K.-based theater chain, and an Amsterdam cinema called The Movies Haarlemmerdijk also were offering showings with a break, according to their websites.
Domestically, The Lyric, a theater in Fort Collins, Colo., showed the historical drama with an intermission until Oct. 26. However, they did away with the intermission after getting in trouble with Paramount, the film’s distributor, and Apple Original Films, its producer. The companies have been contacting theaters that have violated their contract by splitting up the film and telling them to show “Killers of the Flower Moon” as intended, according to an individual with knowledge of the situation.
To be clear, only a smattering of venues out of the roughly 10,000 globally that are screening “Killers of the Flower Moon” have included an intermission, but it hasn’t gone unnoticed. Thelma Schoonmaker, the editor of the film and longtime collaborator with Scorsese, told The Standard, “I understand that somebody’s running it with an intermission which is not right. That’s a violation so I have to find out about it.”
While Scorsese has not directly addressed the intermission (or lack thereof), he defended the long runtime of “Killers of the Flower Moon” in an interview with the Hindustan Times, saying, “People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours.”
You cannot compare “someone sitting at home and watching five hours of TV” with being stuck in a movie theater for three and a half hours! Longer than that, because people arrive early to find their seats, watch the previews (which are getting longer and longer) and watch all of those f–king commercials BEFORE the previews. Again, when people “binge-watch” something at home, they are actually creating intermissions for themselves to get food and use the bathroom. That’s one of the best things about watching sh-t in the comfort of your home – you can watch something at your own pace, with fried chicken. I will defend Scorsese about almost everything, but this is where I draw the line. Let people have their intermissions, for the love of God. Paramount and Apple need to cut this sh-t out.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, posters & promotional image courtesy of Paramount/Apple.
-
- HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA – OCTOBER 16: American-Italian filmmaker and actor Martin Scorsese arrives at the Los Angeles Premiere Of Apple TV+’s ‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ held at Dolby Theatre on October 16, 2023 in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, United States.,Image: 814308423, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Martin Scorsese, Credit line: Xavier Collin / Image Press Agency / Avalon
-
- Martin Scorsese attends the Los Angeles Premiere ff Apple TV+’s ” Killer Of he Flower Moon” at Dolby Theatre on October 16, 2023 in Los Angeles, California,Image: 814329371, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Pictured: Martin Scorsese, Credit line: – / JPI Studios / Avalon
If they’re gonna make them this long… they should build in an intermission.
I’ve sat through plays that are shorter than 3 and a half-ish hours and they had an intermission.
I feel like there should be some sort of guidance… if you are making the movie over x amount of time…. Just make it into a series.
I think you can read the book in the same amount of time.
👏👏👏
I was coming to comment to say the same thing. I think I will just read the book instead, because I do want to want to learn about the history. I wasn’t aware of this story until this movie buzz. But I can barely make it through a 2.5 hour movie at home, and I can pause it if I need to go to the bathroom.
The Audiobook of Killers of the Flower Moon is incredible. Highly recommend. 3 different readers for each phase/point of view of the story.
I remember seeing the Sound of Music in a theatre about a decade ago, there was an old theatre that had been refurbished and they were showing classic movies. I was surprised as there was an actual intermission built into that movie which really wasn’t all that long. The Baroness hustles Maria out the door the night of the gala and then the screen faded and INTERMISSION flashed up on the screen. I think it was 15 minutes. Do that. It was nice. I would rather think studios who want a happy audience than one that has to say “oh, I missed that part because I was in the loo”
With an intermission they can really only show one screening a night though. That is what they are upset about. The studios want as many screening as possible. So more people will go and see them. But when it’s so long. Most people are going to wait until its streaming anyway. They want people to go back to the theatres. But seem to be doing everything to make them not want to go.
I remember seeing the Sound of Music in a theatre about a decade ago, there was an old theatre that had been refurbished and they were showing classic movies. I was surprised as there was an actual intermission built into that movie which really wasn’t all that long. The Baroness hustles Maria out the door the night of the gala and then the screen faded and INTERMISSION flashed up on the screen. I think it was 15 minutes. Do that. It was nice. I would rather think studios would want a happy audience than one that has to say “oh, I missed that part because I was in the loo”
It’s not even a new thing. There was an intermission when Schindler’s List was in the theatre because bladders exist
I was about six months pregnant when I saw that movie in the theater. Yeah, I needed the intermission.
Even before Schindler’s List, Fantasia was shown with an intermission. In 1940. And it is barely over 2 hrs.
I have checked run times before I go to a movie theater for years now. If it’s over 2 hrs and 15 minutes, I wait until I can watch it at home. If I’m going alone, and have no one to hold my seat while I go during previews, a 2 hour movie is honestly my limit unless I dehydrate myself. Between driving to the theater, finding parking, getting there early for good seating, and then all the previews, I need to go pretty badly by the end.
And if it’s about “multiple screenings per night”, then cut down on the previews by the 6 minute intermission, or cut 6 minutes off the time in between showings, or do both by 3 minutes, and voila, problem solved.
This is an opera length movie and anyone who goes to the opera looks forward to the intermission for that cab sauv refill.
It’s entirely possible to sit and watch something for 3 plus hours. It’s not comfortable to do it without drinks, and it’s not likely you’d drink and not want to use the bathroom during that time. Simple biology, really.
I think if there was an obvious intermission point, the studio would have insisted in making it a part one and part two release 🙄. I’d rather have a one part 3 1/2 hour movie than a poorly edited overstuffed two parter just to make two releases out of one. Ideally, any movie over 3 hours would have an intermission though. 2 1/2 hours is generally my limit because I like the popcorn and it makes me thirsty. Who wants to be stressed by a full bladder when trying to pay attention to the end of the movie, let alone post-credit scenes?
I remember seeing Warren Beatty’s Reds in the theater with an intermission, no part 1 and part 2. The studios may want more showings per day and the additional break cuts into that.
I think this should be norm for films over an hour and half.
Where I live in Europe basically any movie over 2.5 hours has an intermission. And thank goodness for that
Yes, I was going to comment that intermissions are common in some European countries. It’s strange that the studios are making a big deal like this is some new thing.
I studied abroad in Italy, albeit a lifetime ago, and have lived in other places abroad, and there were ALWAYS intermissions in movies, even Hollywood/American films that didn’t have them in the US.
As someone who regularly has to step out of a movie to pee, it is wonderful not to miss anything important – especially since you can’t ask your seat mates in a theater to tell you what you missed! – so I’m pro-intermission, it makes good sense, especially in longer movies.
And honestly Scorsese and Paramount and whoever else: you put your art out into the world, now chill the f out and let people enjoy/view/interact with it how best they want to. That’s all you can do as artists, not have a hissy fit bc some people need to use a restroom or hydrate during the course of 4 hours.
I watch those 3 hr plus movies at the movie theater and take one bathroom break. I mean I know I will catch those five minutes I missed when the movie in question comes to streaming. But I would not mind an intermission
Intermissions used to be normal. They had their own soundtracks. Why did that ever end?
Maybe because reels didn’t have to be switched anymore?
Oh yeah, good point. It’s funny because plays and other theatrical experiences always have an intermission, even when the runtime is 2 hours. Part of that is to sell more drinks. Movie theaters depend on concession sales so it makes sense they’d want to normalize intermissions.
Super long movies are basically a new art form. Telling a story in 90-120 minutes is very different than telling a story in 180-200 minutes.
Poe defined a short story as something you read in 1 sitting because that has a more immersive quality than if you’re reading a novel bit by bit. The novella form developed out of a need for an in-between format. Actual short stories were still written after the novella form developed. So Scorsese, if you want people to view it in one sitting, keep it short enough to make it humanly possible.
Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Seven Samurai…. It used to be quite common for films to have a runtime of 4 hours with planned intermission. I wouldn’t say it’s new. Titanic didn’t have an intermission. Was that the start of the resurgence of long films but no intermission?
Oh right, I totally forgot about those films! Careless of me. I guess I’m more considering how over time the length of the average film has creeped up. At this point, ones like Scorsese’s seem just at the extreme end of the spectrum rather than an exception, but I could be totally mistaken here.
@BettyRose, believe it or not, when I saw Titanic in my very small-town theatre, they showed it with an intermission. Now I’m reading this article and wondering if it was allowed!
Our small country town didn’t have a real theatre, so they used an old church basement for the movie theatre. It was converted to have proper theatre seating and a concession stand and stuff, so it worked well.
But I recall taking to friends later who saw Titanic in a theatre in the suburbs or a city and being surprised that they didn’t have an intermission!!
@Roop – That’s a great story! I just rebinged Gilmore Girls and your town sounds so much like that. 🙂
When I first saw Titanic in a theater, I’m not even sure I knew it was that long, but actually I remember being surprised at the end looking at my watch. People love to hate on the movie, but dayum if it wasn’t absolutely gripping the first time you see it in a theater. But I was younger and didn’t need as many bio breaks in the day.
Gone With The Wind timed its intermission so perfectly. That scene where Scarlet scrounges in the dirt of Tara for a turnip, then lifts it to the sky and cries “I’ll never be hungry again!” (cue swelling music). Iconic.
Um, movie goers in the Netherlands have ALWAYS traditionally gotten an intermission with long movies. What has been phased out since I moved here is that small cinemas have disappeared—they used to have intermissions in every movie so visitors could take restroom breaks and order more concessions (including wine and beer). MS and the studios must know that different countries have and have had different traditions with going to the cinema.
And yes, a three-hour film with no break is just way too long. Don’t get mad at your audience for you not taking their needs into account.
Yes, I was just think a 10m intermission might get people ordering more concessions which would help the theaters. You’d think Scorsese would be in favor of that.
Absolutely, Jais.
In Scorsese’s mind art supersedes bladder – to the rest of the world, it’s the other way around.
10 minutes might be long enough to get more chowies, but not for that and standing in a bathroom line.
I would think if they’re serving wine and beer you would NEED to take a bathroom break during long movies.
I’m on the side of the theaters for this one – they’re only accommodating their patrons and that’s the right thing to do. I saw this film and while it’s certainly an engrossing film that holds your attention, there are a lot of reasons why people might need a small intermission within three and a half hours – that’s the length of a typical morning shift at work after all (9-12:30) and that’s no small block of time to be trapped. I have big issues with privileged out-of-touch white directors like Scorsese anyway but that’s another thread.
Two hours is my limit or I will need a bathroom break. What’s it to them if people get an intermission? It’s bad for us to sit that long without a break anyway. We should be able to move around partway through.
I also really dislike Scorsese so that colours my opinion.
That movie is 4 hours long? No thank you. Movie theaters are trying to stay in business. Intermissions for too long movies is a great idea. But one movie editor’s artistic vision is more important than millions of paying customers wallets? Not a smart business choice.
I would even argue movies this long discourage buying concessions! My mother and her friend went to go see it and my mom said they purposefully didn’t get anything to lessen the chance they’d have to get up for the bathroom (she said this as a helpful hint!).
Marty knows the history of cinema. He should have included an intermission.
I stand with the theaters on this one. I’ve been patient with directors, especially Nolan, although I feel like he really has institutionalized the idea of a fourth act.
If you want a 3 1/2 hour movie, build in a thoughtful intermission. And honestly, it takes a hell of an artist to create a story that is still gripping after the 2 1/2 hour mark. There’s a natural human bio-sense of how long a presentation should be. The longer it goes on, the more people are likely to feel frustrated and disengaged by the end, so it’s only in your best creative interest to keep it tight.
I challenge all these guys to make a tight, great 90 minute movie. I honestly wonder if any of them can.
An intermission would
Make me MORE likely to see this one in theaters. I want to see it but I don’t want to sit in a theater for 4 hours, which is what it would end up being with previews etc.
Same.
I have ADHD and simply cannot still for anywhere near that long. After an hour or so, no matter how much I like a movie or show, I start fidgeting. It’s distracting and annoying for others around me. I know this, so I don’t usually go to the theatre anymore, especially not for long movies. I would ruin the experience for patrons around me.
And my bladder just cannot handle that. That’s way too long!!
I would also only see this in a theatre if they had a planned intermission.
It will show up on Apple and I will watch then. Of course Apple is playing games right now and putting coming soon on it in the menu with all the new episodes released for the week, but it will still be a better viewing experience at home with breaks.
I also think these directors forget that most people don’t have their own personal viewing room so going to a theatre for a long movie with the general public is not the same movie watching experience with everyone having the same attention span.
I am 100% here for a scheduled break in long movies. I have re-discovered the cinema this year thanks to our local (amazing – sofas seats, wine, little foot rest, etc.) independent cinema and I hate trying to find the best time for a bathroom break, then trying to get past the rest of the people in the row quickly but not trip over anyone. Ugh.
My preference is for c.90 to maybe 120 minute movies. If it’s going to be any longer give me a scheduled break, particularly if there’s half an hour of ads and trailers before the film even starts.
I have issues full stop with making a 3+ hour movie but I’ll stay off that soapbox today (although I do agree with the comment above about not making two slightly shorter but padded out films instead).
This sounds lovely and makes me miss my hometown which had several independent theaters like yours. We live in the suburbs of a larger city now and I miss being able to get to an independent easily.
I’m young, but I’m a history nerd and I know Gone With The Wind had an intermission when it was released. I never understood why studios/theaters did away with them.
I used to use RunPee a lot when I was younger and going to movies every weekend. I wonder if that’s still a thing?
I’ve no problems sitting through a 3 hour film. Done it with Marvel films. It really depends on the pace of the movie and well, how boring or exciting, the plot. I read the book. I love, love, love the book. I want to see the movie, but I read some reviews of it that made me question…well how it was directed. I get the move is a dramatization of the book, but I am going to wait until comes out on streaming.
I have a bladder of steel, but I’ll also vote for intermissions. It’s natural for people to want a bathroom break after a couple of hours, but it’s annoying to keep getting up to let them pass back and forth or to have heads popping up and down in front of you.
Three and a half hours is ridiculously long for a movie without a break. At home, at least we can pause movies or have commercial breaks. I wouldn’t even bother seeing this in theaters, I can wait until it comes out on one of the on-demand or streaming services.
I agree the comparison to people sitting at home is stupid because people can get up whenever they want at home.
There‘a also the over-step by the studios. I don’t see how they can demand the film is played without an intermission if it’s over 2 1/2 hours. If people are informed and don’t want the intermission they’ll see it in a different theatre.
I guess I don’t get the outrage over long movies for two reasons: Movies over 3 hours long are still very rare and if you don’t like long movies… just don’t watch them.
*Shrugs*
Lol, you must have missed the many posts saying exactly that. They aren’t going to see the film because it’s too long.
That’s literally what people have said though….it’s too long so they’re gonna skip it. The issue is studios being mad a few theaters are offering an intermission & how grossly out of touch they are with the general public.
Why are they upset about this?
Good question – all I can come up with is, they’re control freaks? Afraid that the impact and flow of their masterpiece might be affected? They should think more about how those things are affected when many people inevitably need a small break anyway and then completely miss part of the runtime.
DING DING DING – it’s about the auteur’s vision, not the audience’s experience.
(Maybe having their heads far up their own asses means they don’t need bathroom breaks. Who knows.)
Oh for crying out loud, the studios need to take a Xanax and relax. Intermissions for extremely long movies are not some new, offensive thing. I remember going to the theatre back in the 90s to see Dances With Wolves and that movie was crazy long and the theatre stopped it in the middle for a 15 minute intermission. It was nice to get up, stretch your legs and go to the restroom or get a snack without feeling like you may be missing a major part of the film. At home when you’re watching a movie there’s this marvelous invention called the “pause” button so we can take breaks without missing out on any part of the film. I fail to see the difference and if the studios want to keep making these dumbass crazy-long movies then they need to deal with the concept of intermissions.
Martin, people need to pee; get over it.
And your films are too damn long.
When I was visiting a friend in Europe, we decided to go watch the Han Solo Star Wars movie, and they had an intermission, which she said was typical locally. I really appreciated the bathroom break.
tbh the more I hear about this movie, the less I want to see it. another drama about murder, centering white dudes, featuring Decaprio. oh joy. and at three and a half hours – stretching to four with all the stuff at the beginning… I will pass.
I agree that this is not really helping theaters. altho I suppose we will see.
To be fair it centered white dudes less than the book did, because it doesn’t focus on Jesse Plemons’ character trying to solve the murders. The book was literally subtitled “The Making Of The Modern FBI” or something. But I get the point people are making. I think Scorsese shifted the focus in the right direction but he could have taken that even further and given the Osage characters even more screen time.
I read one review of it that said it does center the white people too much, but its also the point – like its trying to make a white audience acknowledge their complicity in these murders. I forget all the points he made, lol, but he said that if it had come more from the Osage point of view then we would have been sympathetic with them from the start and it would have been too easy to see the white people as the villains from the start. Instead Scorses makes it more of a slow burn, so to speak, to make a white audience realize they’re the problem and always have been.
I haven’t seen it yet but I’m interested to see if I agree with that take.
Lol, you must have missed the many posts saying exactly that. They aren’t going to see the film because it’s too long.
A 3+ hour movie is a failure of storytelling and a triumph of egotism. Stop wasting our time.
There is no way on God’s green earth that I’m going to an actual movie theatre to watch a movie this long. It’s too much even with an intermission. But I do love movie concessions. Honestly, though, I probably wouldn’t see this movie anyway. I know it is brilliant, but I cannot handle anything this sad right now. Not with the state of the world. I have never gotten over Schindler’s List and I don’t have it in me right now to see this.
I saw it in the theater yesterday. I am in my 50s and usually have to use the bathroom about once every couple of hours, but I was able to sit through the whole thing without getting up. It would have been a lot easier if there hadn’t been a full half hour of ads and previews before the actual movie started. Ugh.
I didn’t have any problem with the run time of the movie. I feel like Scorsese has earned the right to make a move this long, especially when it’s telling such an important (and overlooked) story. That said, there is absolutely no reason for not having an intermission. I can think of a few scenes and moments that would have worked as end points for the first half of the story, or could have been made to work. I would have welcomed it.
For the record, it’s a great film. Lily Gladstone gives a stunning performance. I was surprised by how impressed I was with Di Niro, too. In some ways he is playing against type, but he nails it. The production value is top notch and the score is really strong. But Lily is the highlight and I think the Oscar is hers to lose right now.
Thank you for your review. One of my siblings read the book when it first came out, not once but twice. She emailed me saying how I needed to read this book and how much I would appreciate the book. She’s like it is so your thing of interest. She also said it would make me sad and also positive that this was being put out there publicly.
I hope the movie does the book/story justice. The point of the story should be how the white men did Native Americans wrong for $-murder was a casual thought to white men. More than that. Simplifying.
I’m not a very good writer. I do recognize good writing. Along with this book/movie being successful, I’m hoping the same for All the Light We Cannot See on Netflix. Beautifully written book and story. Plus, Mark Ruffalo and Hugh Laurie are in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdE-JvKqpBQ Hope the series does the book justice. Amazing book.
I’d rather have a built in intermission for theater goers to use the restroom, get some from concessions, or just stand up and stretch for a moment.
I usually am fine for even a long movie, but Oppenheimer was so long, and I had to make my best guess as to when I could run out the restroom – too much iced tea at dinner before hand! I’d rather know I wasn’t missing anything important.
The studios are largely responsible for the decline of movie theaters. Movie theaters don’t make much off new releases. And these long ass movies equal less show times, which equals less people coming in, which equals less concession sales (which is how theaters make most of their money).
That’s an interesting take – are the studios happy to see theaters go away so they can retain more control of viewing via their streaming contracts? (I’ll bet filmmakers aren’t.)
Sitting like that for almost 4 hours is not good. My Dad took a three hour flight and never got up once. He developed a blood clot and it almost hit his lungs. If it had. He would have dropped dead.
I say treat it like Broadway has an intermission so people can get up, stretch their legs, and use the bathroom. And I’m sure the theatre owners would love a bump in sales from their concession stands.
Directors should be thrilled people are even going back to the movie theatres as it is. Don’t shoot the golden goose over this.
OK I am going on a very long plane ride for a family trip in December and while I am excited and feel grateful for the chance to visit this place, I have been dreading the journey there! Any tips on how to handle it when you will be on a plane for ten hours? Because my plan was to sleep for as long a stretch as possible to try to re-set my body for the time change and just pass the time. Now I’m concerned. Travel is a blessing and a curse.
AnneL, Travel (the actual activity of getting from one place to another as opposed to enjoying your destination) can be really stressful and boring.
Wear comfortable, loose clothing (preferably nothing with metal [zippers, underwire] so you’re less likely to be searched. Comfy shoes that are easily removable. A warm layer because it can get chilly at altitude. If necessary: wear a double pair of lightweight compression socks.
Fidgeting is good. So are kegel exercises, clenching and releasing each of your muscles starting at your feet and moving up. Foot circles, shrugging, stretching toes, etc.
Drink lots of water—flying is dehydrating. Get up a couple of times to use the restroom (some flights will get pissy about “congregating,” but moving is good) and/ or to ask for something to drink.
Take a kindle, download your favorite music/ podcasts/ movies to your phone and take your own headphones/ ear pods. Once in a blue moon, the airline’s own inflight entertainment system will not work and it is better to have something to do. If traveling with kids, make sure they have stuff to do and some of their favorite snacks. Puzzles, travel-sized games, cards, books. Keeping them entertained for ten hours will win you tons of goodwill from your fellow passengers and they will be helpful to you.
(Extra) facemasks, hand gel, wipes, hand lotion, and gum to chew during takeoff and landing are also advisable. You’ve got this!
I don’t get Paramount’s and Apple’s outrage – people are smarter than they think, and can remember what they watched 6 minutes ago. You know what prevents enjoyment of the plot? Full bladder, thirst, hunger, limbs going numb and being in freezing AC temperatures for 3,5 hours non-stop. I demand intermissions!
Last time I watched a nearly 3 hour film it was Batman with Rob Pattinson and Zoe Kravitz. I loved it, but I struggled for the aforementioned reasons.
Plays and musicals have intermissions, I don’t see why movies need to be different.
I suspect a decision made by a bunch of men who don’t have many women they respect in their lives.