Are films getting longer?

Tools    





...
A famous director once said of his films that he cuts out in the editing room everything that doesn't directly add to the story, resulting in a finely honed film....Geez, I wish I could remember the director's name.
If it wasn't a contemporary director, I wonder if it could have been Billy Wilder?



If it wasn't a contemporary director, I wonder if it could have been Billy Wilder?
It wasn't a contemporary director but a very well known classic director, so yeah it might have been Billy Wilder...I just can't remember it was something I seen on a DVD extra once.



This seems like a job for the backside of IMDB, a job for the data wrangler. There's a field for movie length in each movie's record. It would be interesting to do a year by year or decade by decade average. My guess, especially based on a lot of older movies, is that length has increased, but that theater owner pressure will continue to limit most movies to what can be shown on a night with two time slots, provided that we ever DO get back to the first wave of movie viewing being in theaters.

The next question would be whether a studio can get away with a longer flick if it's packaged up with the expectation that many or most viewers will stream it.

The other question will be, if most movie viewing ends up on the screen at home after the end of the plague, if movie viewers become such screen-bound work-from-home zombies that they never go anywhere anymore. For me, half of the reason to see a movie is being OUT, getting dinner, being on the streets of the city, etc. Watching a movie from my home seems like yet another component of becoming like a sessile barnacle.



I think you're right about that. Light speed web results make a 2 hour movie seem like a lifetime for people who can't sit back and let a story play out. It might lead to movies like the ones in the 40's that only were like 70 minutes long, assuming that people can actually watch a story rather than just do a search for characters + situation = outcome...roll the credits.



I have no idea if films are getting longer, but I don't see why this is either a good or a bad thing if they are. Never have seen it written in stone that 90 to 100 minutes is the ideal length for a movie. We are getting into boring dogma if we start saying a piece of work needs to wrap up before the 2 hour mark because our attention spans might start to warp. After all, whose fault is that? Maybe the flaw isn't a movie being long, but that we seem unable to adjust to a film asking a little more from us time wise.



There are obviously fair questions as to whether or not some movies deserve the run time they choose. Or if we even have the time to watch a longer movie in our (for some) busy lives. But I think we are also moving in the wrong direction when we start claiming a film always needs to reduce its length in order to always hem closely to its story. That all of its scenes need to have this singular need--to push a narrative along as cleanly as possible. This whole philosophy is just so depressing to me. And it makes me wonder why so many people have become so adverse to indulgence in art? Believe that everything an artist creates needs to cater to this very specific story need. To ensure they will always do their best to resist ever letting their inspirations pull them away from such a basic function.


Personally, I think its backwards that we expect so many of our best artists to always have to follow our meandering asses around, always trying to guess what it is we want, instead of just letting the artist show us the things that matter to them, to take chances, to make themselves vulnerable through their indulgences. To dare see if we are still willing to approach them if they go a little wild. Drift a little. Actually surprise us. Make things a little mysterious or inaccessible. In the end forcing us closer to them and what they are struggling to tell us. Instead of making the artist second fiddle to our own predictable interests.



If you like to approach movies as some kind of safe bet, and are adverse to ever gambling your time in the service of finding something that might speak to you a little more directly, I get the frustration that comes with a movie disappointing you. Not being what you'd hoped. But, considering the bigger picture, one where art actually can have a lasting impact on us, maybe even the world, I find it gets gross when art becomes this risk-adverse transaction where we hold out our hand and demand to be given exactly what we crave. One of the biggest reasons art is as important as it ultimately is, is because it offers us an opportunity to break out of these brain-routines. To find the poetry in the mundane. Or the relatable in the exotic. Or simply bask in the joy someone else is having in creating something. And all of this is offered to us without any risk to the audience beyond the heresy of having us potentially bored or confused. We just need to let our artists flex a little. And if this takes them more than two hours, okay, sounds fair to me.



"Personally, I think its backwards that we expect so many of our best artists to always have to follow our meandering asses around, always trying to guess what it is we want, instead of just letting the artist show us the things that matter to them, to take chances, to make themselves vulnerable through their indulgences."

Unfortunately, in this era of big FX and megabucks production costs and actors who are NOT on salary anymore, movies are as much investment as they are art or story. The guys who put up the money expect a return on their investment and don't give much of a darn about art. I'm astonished sometimes are how movie scuttlebutt, at least pre-plague, will base the outcome of the movie and the director's fate on an opening night gross, thinking that 4 hours on one night will determine whether this movie was a good return on investment. It's unfortunate to have so many eggs in one financial basket.



"Personally, I think its backwards that we expect so many of our best artists to always have to follow our meandering asses around, always trying to guess what it is we want, instead of just letting the artist show us the things that matter to them, to take chances, to make themselves vulnerable through their indulgences."

Unfortunately, in this era of big FX and megabucks production costs and actors who are NOT on salary anymore, movies are as much investment as they are art or story. The guys who put up the money expect a return on their investment and don't give much of a darn about art. I'm astonished sometimes are how movie scuttlebutt, at least pre-plague, will base the outcome of the movie and the director's fate on an opening night gross, thinking that 4 hours on one night will determine whether this movie was a good return on investment. It's unfortunate to have so many eggs in one financial basket.

This, more than any other reason, is why I'm such a crank about the glut of superhero movies these days. We seem to have come to what I can only hope is a breaking point of people almost exclusively viewing film as spectacle. Spectacle does and always will have a place in film, but as long as the metrics and all of the thinking behind investments are tied to gargantuan profits and recouping the potentially catastrophic losses of a big budget flop, the whole experience of cinema has been weakened. It also, I would argue, even slowly cripples the blockbusters out there. Allows for less and less and less flexibility within an already very rigid formula. Burnout at some point will have to happen when even these chanceless movies become increasingly inert in their efforts to entertain.



I'm not in any way saying that art house or more eccentric fare is going to completely vanish because of this. But it is becoming increasingly marginalized (when it was already on the margins to begin with) and is almost being erased from the discussion when anyone but complete fanatics talk about movies. And I think it is important that even the layman gets to have some kind of clean experience with smaller, more independent minded even experimental films. After all, who would possibly want to just hear a bunch of cranks like me go on and on about this stuff? Art, even difficult more esoteric art, should be for the people ultimately. Not just insufferable snobs like me. And I like to hope (even though it is dwindling) there is still a chance that these kinds of movies will once again break through into some kind of visibility again. At least enough to pollute the bigger movies with some of their more fringe ideas.



Better Living Through Movie Quotes
I tend to think we are in a golden age of the art film. Sure, the big studio productions are products for mass consumption. I don't even put them in the same category as independent film. Mass marketed film are more likely than not to target a youthful audience as they are the ones who attend cinema and buy the tickets.

But independent film production is flourishing. The equipment to execute them is more accessible, the rise of discs and streaming are analogous to micro-breweries where smaller markets can be practically targeted. It is possible for film makers to make a film without any theater distribution whatsoever. That means we see more films produced and the film makers have much greater freedom to express themselves.




But independent film production is flourishing. The equipment to execute them is more accessible, the rise of discs and streaming are analogous to micro-breweries where smaller markets can be practically targeted. It is possible for film makers to make a film without any theater distribution whatsoever. That means we see more films produced and the film makers have much greater freedom to express themselves.

I think in a lot of ways, at least theoretically, this is true. We are just into the dawn of the age FF Coppola predicted years ago where a 'fat girl in idaho' will have access to the means to make and distribute film on her own. It is a dream to have a situation where entire productions can be produced completely out of the system, with comparative ease, and significantly less financial fall out. This is all good.



But, as an ex-girlfriend once pointed out about my character, that I'm not so much a pessimist as a broken-down idealist, I think I had expectations that such an event would lead to an ever greater general interest in these kinds of films. That they might break the blockbuster fever that has gripped hollywood since the 80's. But, with obvious exceptions, these independant releases have ended up still being predominantly invisible. Only for those who have the nose to sniff them out. In some ways, maybe even further into the fringe than underground films of the 60's (the Jack Smith's, Kuchar's, Andy Warhol's) which at least had a cache, and ultimately bled into what would become the American New Wave.



Maybe this all still happens. But until big budgeters stop elbowing out the room for other features in theaters, especially in smaller towns, it's going to be an uphill battle.



The trick is not minding
I think part of the problem is several people expect the general populace to watch the films we seem to enjoy. It’s a mistake to expect them to enjoy movies that we would seek out, because they’re not like us. And they shouldn’t be.

There are a few who also seem to think that their way of viewing films is the correct way, without any consideration that it ones viewing of a film is up that individual. We shouldn’t get hung up on the general populace and their viewing habits. That way lies madness.

I’ve seen a few point a finger at blockbusters and superhero films specifically, and yeah, I admit they are saturating the market, but it isn’t like independent films have disappeared or anything, as has already been acknowledged. Let’s not act like slasher and horror films haven’t saturated the market to a startling degree in the past, but those seem to get a pass despite 90% being just useless exorcises in violence and gore. Rarely did those ever cross into the definition of “art”. And I say this as a fan of the genre.

I tend to enjoy films both both ends of the spectrum. The fun little blockbusters and superhero films, and the little personal indie films. The indies are always far more rewarding, in my experience, but sometimes I’d rather just sit and watch a good blockbuster for the spectacle. I don’t see anything wrong with anyone who decides to do the same thing.



Better Living Through Movie Quotes
Right, Wyldesyde. A mass marketed film can still be good. The "Jumanji" reboot and the first "Guardians of The Galaxy" as well the PIXAR movies I enjoyed thoroughly. I thought they were fine films.

But the blockbuster must appeal to the broadest audience possible, and perhaps more pointedly, must not turn-off a financially significant segment of the market. That means they must shy away (unless it is a already popular film series or film maker (Spielberg), then they can afford to pontificate) from controversy or deeper themes that require a literary and analytical approach to film as they come across as boring to youth (who are not old enough to understand adult themes) or those not accustomed to immersive thought.

Another way to state this is that mass market film makers cannot afford to challenge their audience but in the independent film market, the audience expects to be challenged by the film. Maybe that is a good way to distinguish the two.

And to our resident broken-down idealist, the mass marketed film will always, by definition, have the upper hand in the film making market. There is no mechanism in the present world to increase literacy and analytical thought in the masses. In fact, it is going the other way. Rapidly.

So we have a split market that don't have much to do with each other. There is the commercial market that is targeting the masses with simple spectacles of mass appeal (or if the film maker is very clever, hides deeper themes within such spectacles). Then there is the independent film market, where genre specific projects can target fans of that genre. Included in that grouping are the literate and literary film makers making movies for the literate and literary audience.

With time, I expect the two worlds to continue to diverge and the independent film world will continue to grow as well as splinter into more and more narrow markets. And this will occur while those wanting to score the blockbuster will continue to do their thing as they always have.

For those in an aging and literary demographic who have seen a lot of film, the large majority of mass marketed film will offer very little that they haven't seen before and will be uninteresting to them. This can cross the line to being offensive when we feel like we are being propagandized. But these films are easy enough to simply ignore as they really weren't made for this group anyway.



I think part of the problem is several people expect the general populace to watch the films we seem to enjoy. It’s a mistake to expect them to enjoy movies that we would seek out, because they’re not like us. And they shouldn’t be.

I personally don't expect anyone to like any movie I like. Or agree with what I dislike. I've had a high esteem for lots of people over the years who have completely contrary tastes to mine, who like **** I despise, and who loathe what I love. That stuff is all almost completely irrelevant. No one is ever wrong for liking any movie. Ever. Except Baby Driver.



All I ever care about is people retaining an openness to the many, many ways an artist can express themselves. And articulate why the movies they love mean something to them. So, yes, I do have expectations from movie viewers. But they aren't so basic as to have anything to do with 'do you like what I like'. I don't even think I'd want to talk to someone who agreed with me on everything (or even most things)


There are a few who also seem to think that their way of viewing films is the correct way, without any consideration that it ones viewing of a film is up that individual. We shouldn’t get hung up on the general populace and their viewing habits. That way lies madness.
Of course I think my way of viewing films is the correct way. It's worked pretty well for me so far. But I hardly think it is the only way. And the joy of talking about art of any kind is finding those who think differently about these things. And allowing those whose differences interest you alter how you think about something that matters this much to you.



The way I think about film literally changes from day to day. Movie to movie. Conversation to conversation. And I think always probably for the better. The moment I stop evolving how I think about film, might as well be the moment I stop watching them.


Now, does everyone else need to be so obsessive in thinking about the **** they are watching? Of course not. It's just a thing I do and love. But it is also why, from my standpoint, I see it as such a negative thing when I see the predominant cultural force in cinema, year after year, is a form that has remained almost completely inert for twenty years.



I’ve seen a few point a finger at blockbusters and superhero films specifically, and yeah, I admit they are saturating the market, but it isn’t like independent films have disappeared or anything. Let’s not act like slasher and horror films haven’t saturated the market to a startling degree in the past, but those seem to get a pass despite 90% being just useless exorcises in violence and gore. Rarely did those ever cross into the definition of “art”. And I say this as a fan of the genre.
Being that their has been an enormous amount of independently made horror films over the years, there is a tremendous amount of art in that genre. Because of how outside of the system many of them have traditionally been, it has attracted an array of outsider voices, making totally idiosyncratic movies filled with more creativity, individuality and spunk than most studio produced films could dare muster.



Superhero films, due to their huge budgets, generally first have to go through eons of focus groups before they are made. Producer interference smooths out any interesting bumps. Retains innertness. By my definition, less art.



Now, just to clarify, this is only my opinion. I'm sure there are great defenses for why superhero films are also wonderful art. And I'm all ears to those if they are out there.



The trick is not minding
I personally don't expect anyone to like any movie I like. Or agree with what I dislike. I've had a high esteem for lots of people over the years who have completely contrary tastes to mine, who like **** I despise, and who loathe what I love. That stuff is all almost completely irrelevant. No one is ever wrong for liking any movie. Ever. Except Baby Driver.

All I ever care about is people retaining an openness to the many, many ways an artist can express themselves. And articulate why the movies they love mean something to them. So, yes, I do have expectations from movie viewers. But they aren't so basic as to have anything to do with 'do you like what I like'. I don't even think I'd want to talk to someone who agreed with me on everything (or even most things)

Of course I think my way of viewing films is the correct way. It's worked pretty well for me so far. But I hardly think it is the only way. And the joy of talking about art of any kind is finding those who think differently about these things. And allowing those whose differences interest you alter how you think about something that matters this much to you.

The way I think about film literally changes from day to day. Movie to movie. Conversation to conversation. And I think always probably for the better. The moment I stop evolving how I think about film, might as well be the moment I stop watching them.

Now, does everyone else need to be so obsessive in thinking about the **** they are watching? Of course not. It's just a thing I do and love. But it is also why, from my standpoint, I see it as such a negative thing when I see the predominant cultural force in cinema, year after year, is a form that has remained almost completely inert for twenty years.

Being that their has been an enormous amount of independently made horror films over the years, there is a tremendous amount of art in that genre. Because of how outside of the system many of them have traditionally been, it has attracted an array of outsider voices, making totally idiosyncratic movies filled with more creativity, individuality and spunk than most studio produced films could dare muster.

Superhero films, due to their huge budgets, generally first have to go through eons of focus groups before they are made. Producer interference smooths out any interesting bumps. Retains innertness. By my definition, less art.

Now, just to clarify, this is only my opinion. I'm sure there are great defenses for why superhero films are also wonderful art. And I'm all ears to those if they are out there.
First, thank you for responding. I’ll try to answer your thoughtful response as best I can in good faith.
I think the issue is I wonder why we must attach the term “art” to any film that’s released.
Do we need to? Is it necessary to view the film as is? Does the lack or “artistic” quality matter?
To me, the answer is no.
I know it matters to you, however.
Certainly I’d agree with you on horror films becoming slightly more artistic, many of which I’ve enjoyed quite a bit, but I’d wager that’s firmly within the 10% I left out.
But I also suspect our definition or art would greatly differ. What would it include? Themes? Certainly. Subject matter? I’d say so, to a degree. Camera angle and such? Sure. Allegories. Metaphors. How it all blends together. I could go on.
Those all matter to me. And I submit, that while superhero films don’t meet some of that criteria, it often meets others such as themes.
Now, I fully grant that it’s a often a simple theme, and lately it’s one over used by the MCU, but they’re all not totally soulless exorcises either.

Now, I’m not trying to actually change any one’s mind here. I certainly don’t expect everyone to like them, and they don’t have to. Quite the contrary, really. But I do want to convey a better understanding shared in regards to them.



As we move forward, the line between film, TV, and game continues to blur. Films vary in length in terms of consumer preference. In years past, TV would hack films down to fit in broadcast windows.My wife is presently watching short recaps of films on YouTube. We have all purchased extended cuts. Binge watching series on Netflix for days is a bit like just watching one large movie. Someday, when you're taking a bus to work, you will be able to select for a 25 minute version of a release and pass the time.



I remember catching hell on Rotten Tomatoes year ago for disclosing an occasional preference for watching films at a slightly higher speed in computer media players (1.1 to 1.2 speed). Not how it was meant to be watched is what I was told. Whatever. Films are products of consumption and as tech changes so too will our patterns of consumption. I don't know that longer or shorter is the overall trend so much as variability and customization.



As we move forward, the line between film, TV, and game continues to blur. Films vary in length in terms of consumer preference. In years past, TV would hack films down to fit in broadcast windows.My wife is presently watching short recaps of films on YouTube. We have all purchased extended cuts. Binge watching series on Netflix for days is a bit like just watching one large movie. Someday, when you're taking a bus to work, you will be able to select for a 25 minute version of a release and pass the time.

I remember catching hell on Rotten Tomatoes year ago for disclosing an occasional preference for watching films at a slightly higher speed in computer media players (1.1 to 1.2 speed). Not how it was meant to be watched is what I was told. Whatever. Films are products of consumption and as tech changes so too will our patterns of consumption. I don't know that longer or shorter is the overall trend so much as variability and customization.
I remember being annoyed at my mom for fastforwarding through movies I wanted her to watch on her DVD player, since I never altered the speed I watched movies at (at least not the first time through), but I do that all the time with Youtube videos to get more of them watched quicker (hey, there's a ton of vids I need to catch up with), and those channels obviously didn't "intend" for those vids to be watched that way either, so I guess that makes me kind of a hypocrite now, doesn't it?



WARNING: Extremely long post ahead. I just woke up, and didn't edit myself, so there is probably a lot more here than you have any interest in reading. Ooops. But that's what you get trying to engage me in such a difficult topic as 'what is art'



I think the issue is I wonder why we must attach the term “art” to any film that’s released.
Do we need to? Is it necessary to view the film as is? Does the lack or “artistic” quality matter?
To me, the answer is no.
I know it matters to you, however.

To me asking if we must attach the term 'art' to films is like asking if it is important to attach the word 'tomato' to what type of sauce we are about to put on our pasta. As slippery and hard to define a term as art may be, it ultimately means something in regards to what we are getting out of a film. I think a question I'd bat back to you would be, why do you feel there needs to be any resistance to viewing something as art? And maybe, that not uncommon rejection of the term, is why people like me see a need to go to bat for films that will ultimately have a diminished value if the only metrics we have left are to weigh them against 'craft' or 'entertainment' or 'product'.



While everyone is going to have their own little accents on how they choose to define what 'art' really is, it shouldn't be thought of as a word that excludes. In many ways it has such a broadly open definition that we can adapt it to nearly anything. It is why such works as Duchamps readymades, or John Cage's '4' 33' are essential in liberating the term. Duchamp taking a urinal and putting it in a gallery, or Cage having his audience sit in complete silence for four minutes and 33 seconds, as much as people may roll their eyes at such experiments, democratize what art is. They allow us to see the world as naturally full of art, it is only up to us to see the mysterious or beautiful or terrifying or peculiar in what already surrounds us. Art, by such a definition, is whatever we choose to say moves us. Then, ideally, allows us to try and to begin communicating why, so as we can have some kind of communal experience in appreciating whatever it is we've pointed at and said 'art!'.


Such a broadening of the definition though doesn't make it something irrelevant. It makes it completely malleable to the individual, which is essential to drawing the film ever closer to us. To make us understand eachother better when we talk amongst ourselves about a movie. Unlike the other very important element involved in the creation of film--craft--it doesn't have rules, or specific ways we can begin to critique whether it does something well or not so well.



With craft, we can talk with great clarity. We discuss character motiviations and if they pan out, allow us to buy into the reality of the movie. Or we can talk about whether a scene was well lit and how its composition elevated the drama of a moment. How the editing moves things along, or brings everything to a halt.



Now, these are also very important conversations to be had when talking about what films we want to champion or revile. But they are also extremely incomplete. They don't give us much room to insert our own ideas into why something affected us so much. The notion of 'art' is what permits us to start bending the rules of traditional criticism. It is the place where the difficult but (at least for me) most beautiful discussions about a film take place. Where we can begin to embrace the elements that go against the grain of what we expect something should do. Where we find justification for experimentation. The nonsensical. The confounding. The deliberately opaque. It crawls into all of the spaces we otherwise would have trouble defining. Is what allows a film to say the kinds of things that we generally have no notion how to communicate in the real world.



These more abstract, and ultimately more personal ways of looking at a film, are also what conversely allow us to crawl out of our own skin and put the general needs we have as an audience member (drama, entertainment, resolution) over to the side for a brief moment. Instead, give us a chance to start trying to consider the intent of what someone else is trying to show us. Give us a window into the obsessions and passions and malfunctions of the director. Deepen empathy, and thus a greater connection between the audience and the artist. When looking through someone elses eyes (or lens in this case) we can insert ourselves into the struggle an artist has in trying to tell us things that previously didn't have any great language to cleanly articulate.To empathize with the act of creation.



In short, art is where all of the magic happens. If we are to make a religious analogy, craft is the church's architecture that surrounds us, the sermon is the films presentation and message, and art is the holy spirit. We can't prove its there, but it is always the most interesting part to talk about because of its transience.



And, to be sure, absolutely all of this can be applied to superhero films. Or romantic comedies. Or soap operas. Or sitcoms. Or even the dreaded shot on video horror movies I tend to attach it to. But it does ask us to look a little deeper than simply talking about whether or not a characters plot arc was fully realized. Or if the cinematography was really flash. Or if an actors performance was incredibly compelling. It can include all of these things, but hopefully, not rely solely on the basic text of the film.


Now, I’m not trying to actually change any one’s mind here. I certainly don’t expect everyone to like them, and they don’t have to. Quite the contrary, really. But I do want to convey a better understanding shared in regards to them
It's fair enough that superhero movies need their defenders too. There are a lot of attacks on these kinds of films where people claim fans of them are 'childish' or 'unsophisticated' or that they like their stories spoon fed to them. All of that noise is garbage talk. It's the same kind of noise that tries to sink the value of the horror genre which to me, without any question, can have just as much cinematic and artistic value as Andrei Tarkovsky or Ingmar Bergman. Even though I don't personally see it in superhero movies, I don't begrudge those that do. They simply don't move me. They don't compel me to think or talk about them. But that's just me.


But a lot of this kind of dismissal that goes towards the MCU, comes back ten fold against supposed art films. I dont' know how many times I've been told anyone who is a fan of Jeanne Dielmann (ie. me), is a phony and is just pretending to like something because it is the arty farty thing to do. That there is no inherent value in such a film. There can't possibly be, because it is a fraud. At the very least, in dismissals towards superhero films, as terse and snobbish and irritating and even dehumanizing as those can be, there is an acknowledgement that these films do what these films set out to do. They entertain, and no one doubts that. Yet, those who like art films, are frequently made to read comments that not only are we pretentious ********, but there isn't even any faith that we are talking honestly. What we love is considered without any value whatsoever. Even worse, it is a trick played on gullible people like myself.


So, it's not like there isn't blood on everyone's hands in these petty discussions about what we should or shouldn't like. And it's why I generally dismiss this element of the discussion as irrelevant. Because what we like barely matters. It's how and why we like it. And treating those who are fans of even things we hate with respect. To try and understand what they may be getting out of film. And the more we embrace this flimsy notion of what 'art' is, the more opinions we can start to empathize with.




I remember catching hell on Rotten Tomatoes year ago for disclosing an occasional preference for watching films at a slightly higher speed in computer media players (1.1 to 1.2 speed). Not how it was meant to be watched is what I was told. Whatever. Films are products of consumption and as tech changes so too will our patterns of consumption. I don't know that longer or shorter is the overall trend so much as variability and customization.

I've no doubt I was one of the ones who ragged on you some about this. But from my recollections it had much less to do with preserving the sanctity of the director's vision (even though that does come into play). I've never believed in being precious about how we handle the art of others. I'm into defacing, sampling, reappropriating what is out there in any way we choose, and engaging in art in whatever way one desires. People, after all, aren't even required to watch things in the first place, so it would be dumb to assume people have to also watch them the way the director would prefer you to do.


But if I remember, I recall being flustered with your refusal to acknowledge how altering the directors final product by watching at a different speed, largely changes the viewing experience. It isn't the same movie if you watch it at a different speed. At least it isn't if we are willing to discuss the film outside of basic elements of 'what happens'. Those of course stay the same. But how a director uses time is the one essential building block of the medium of film. Altering this alters the movie. Just like if you looked at a painting through sunglasses, it is no longer the same painting as you've changed one of the painters essential building blocks--color.


Now if you want to keep looking at paintings through tinted glasses, or think movies are better played at a faster speed, go for it. That's your experience to do with like you like. I for years preferred to play some records I have at the wrong speed. But I was more than aware how this mutates the intent of the artist.



But if I remember,
If you remember the content of that conversation, my hat's off to you.

I recall being flustered with your refusal to acknowledge how altering the directors final product by watching at a different speed, largely changes the viewing experience.
I think that your brain wraps itself around the speed and adjusts to a surprising extent, especially if you're only upping it to 1.1 to 1.2 times the original speed. There is a surprisingly relative aspect to speed. If you cross over into the film looking like the Benny Hill show, that's different. Speed up a fugue enough and you can achieve a march, but if you're just adjusting the pitch control on a turntable, it's the same tune.

Also, sometimes you "get" what a film is saying and doing and you know you what it wants you to feel, the place it wants you to be, but you've seen the form and message played out enough times that you don't need it drawn out in real time.

It isn't the same movie if you watch it at a different speed.
Star Wars had a slightly different sound mix for prints in original release '77. How many cuts of Blade Runner do I need to have seen to have seen Blade Runner? What of various aspect ratios and media? I love my old VHS print of ALIEN in 4x3. If I see a film in the back row or in 3D or on a cell phone or at a drive-in, or after the death of a relative, is it the same movie? Do we ever watch exactly the same movie?

You would credit me for having seen the film, or at least most people would, despite all these variables, but change the speed and all the sudden some sin has been committed?

At least it isn't if we are willing to discuss the film outside of basic elements of 'what happens'. Those of course stay the same.
The objective features of a film are preserved. Not only is this a lot of stuff, but it's really the stuff about which we can really point to and have a rational conversation (and not subjective beatles in a box).

But how a director uses time is the one essential building block of the medium of film. Altering this alters the movie. Just like if you looked at a painting through sunglasses, it is no longer the same painting as you've changed one of the painters essential building blocks--color.
A lot of people are partially color blind, but we still credit them with having seen works of art. And again, our brains can do much to adjust interpret light and shadow. And a lot depends on the tint on our metaphorical glasses.

Now if you want to keep looking at paintings through tinted glasses, or think movies are better played at a faster speed, go for it.
I haven't done it in a while. Every now and then I have the "Let's get on with it itch" and speed of a segment, but I am largely watching in standard time.

But I was more than aware how this mutates the intent of the artist.
Sometimes we can know what the artist wanted us to experience without experiencing it precisely the way s/he intended.



If you remember the content of that conversation, my hat's off to you

While I don't remember every particular, I remember the gist. And if I needed any reminders, our entire exchange here is pretty similar to our previous conversation. The main difference being that instead of making an analogy with painting, I did so with music and comedy, since their use of 'time' is also completely a part of how we relate to their work. Considering your response below, I should have gone with the painting reference ten years ago as well, as I have found some amusement in having you align your position so closely with those who have a disability.





I think that your brain wraps itself around the speed and adjusts to a surprising extent, especially if you're only upping it to 1.1 to 1.2 times the original speed. There is a surprisingly relative aspect to speed. If you cross over into the film looking like the Benny Hill show, that's different. Speed up a fugue enough and you can achieve a march, but if you're just adjusting the pitch control on a turntable, it's the same tune.
I don't disagree that you can adjust in some part to these things. And I don't claim you are Wakkety Saxing your movies. But you talking about speeding up fugues and adjusting the pitch control, and it being the same tune, just further seems to illustrate a fundamental blindness where you refuse to distinguish that because they remain the same notes, in the same sequence, it is the same thing. It simply isn't. How we relate to music as it reveals itself is intimately tied to how long it takes. Not how long it takes in comparison to everything else being played. Simply how long it takes us to sit with it. If this nuanced difference doesn't register with you, I don't know what to say.


Star Wars had a slightly different sound mix for prints in original release '77. How many cuts of Blade Runner do I need to have seen to have seen Blade Runner? What of various aspect ratios and media? I love my old VHS print of ALIEN in 4x3. If I see a film in the back row or in 3D or on a cell phone or at a drive-in, or after the death of a relative, is it the same movie? Do we ever watch exactly the same movie?
Yes, these are all other examples of how we can distort (and sometimes diminish) our viewing experience. I think most people would agree if we watch different versions of movies, it is a different experience. Same goes for the aspect ratio frames. I also imagine most people can extend this understanding to the speed at which the frames move.



As for whether or not we ever watch the same movie....certainly not when we factor in all of the elements which can intrude on the experience. I frequently have to stop films because my attention span is garbage these days, interrupting the flow of the images. This is an example of me not being the purist of viewers. I'm still seeing everything, like everyone else, but that disruption alters how I watch the rest of the film. Irrefutably. And this isn't even getting into all the ways outside factors affect how we watch. Our moods, the company we are keeping, our levels of intoxication etc etc etc. These also make each viewing a different experience (I don't think I've myself ever watched the same movie in the same way twice, so to speak). But the difference with those, and you speeding up the film, or me constantly pausing to talk to my cat, is we are changing the film itself by elongating or shortening the experience.



You would credit me for having seen the film, or at least most people would, despite all these variables, but change the speed and all the sudden some sin has been committed?
I'll say it again, as you seem to like things to be repeated when the posts of others don't mesh up with the debate you are having, I hardly see what you are doing as a sin. Not even remotely. Watch these movies standing on your head with an LSD drip inserted into your foot for all I care. It's your experience and you alter it in any way you feel fit. I certainly do. It's okay to personalize any film viewing any way you like. It's what helps make it yours. But don't pretend like nothing has changed because it is absurd.




A lot of people are partially color blind, but we still credit them with having seen works of art. And again, our brains can do much to adjust interpret light and shadow. And a lot depends on the tint on our metaphorical glasses.
I would expect said color blind person would acknowledge, as they look at a painting that is full or reds and greens, that their interpretation of it looking like a muddy bunch of **** might have been affected by the fact that they can't distinguish certain colors.



I once worked with an almost completely deaf girl who would complain that certain songs we played didn't even constitute as music. Her problem was she only heard lower tones, and any higher pitched frequencies would completely feed back in her ears, causing her pain. While I acknowledge her experience listening to Bitch's Brew may have been a deeply unpleasant one, and that it was very much her reality of the song, the fact that she would never acknowledge that her deafness may have been affecting her judgement was always pretty annoying to listen to....maybe I can introduce you one of these days




I haven't done it in a while. Every now and then I have the "Let's get on with it itch" and speed of a segment, but I am largely watching in standard time.
I can only hope you haven't been shamed into doing such a time wasting thing as this. I also can't help but wonder, if there is absolutely no difference between these two approaches (real time vs. speeded up time) why would you ever watch it at normal speed?




Sometimes we can know what the artist wanted us to experience without experiencing it precisely the way s/he intended.
Knowing and experiencing are entirely different beasts. You are treating film like accumulating data. And in the process, discarding how the spaces that are placed between this information can be toyed with, without it having any kind of effect whatsoever. It's just, frankly, a weird stance. With this kind of logic, I could submit to you a written synopsis of Jeanne Dielmann and you could claim you now 'know' the movie without having to even watch it.



Wakes up
Makes bed
Makes another bed.
Cleans dishes
Prepares lunch
Cleans dishes
Sits
Begins dinner preperation
Goes to market
Has dinner with son, in silence
(repeat three times, but include a spatula falling off the wall at some point)


Sure, you end up knowing in general what happens in the film. But the whole purpose of watching a film like this is to live in her time. To observe her daily rituals and not have the escape of speeding things along. Yes, this is an extreme example, from an extreme movie, and time is more important in this one than most....but its not like these concerns become irrelevant as soon as we move away from art house fare.