Martin Scorsese, super genius

Because arguing passionately about stupid shit is a beautiful thing?

I have no problem with a four-hour movie whatsoever. One of my favorites - Sátántangó - is 7 hours long & I’ve seen it twice.

Another favorite - Jeanne Dielman - is 3-1/2 hours long.

A bad movie is always too long & an excellent movie is always too short IMO.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

I think that this is a fair quotation:

Anecdotal, but I would have gladly driven 30 minutes to see The Irishman in the theater.

I had to drive 30 minutes just to see Banshees of Inisheerin and The Fabelmans as a unofficial double bill because they weren’t playing in my local area (local being the two closest options are within 10-15 minutes of me).

They eventually did start playing closer but I have zero regrets traveling 30 minutes. Heck, during 2021, after the theaters had reopened the previous fall, I was often driving 30 minutes to this theater to see films like Werewolves Within, CODA and anything else they had playing in limited fashion.

I think the person who wrote that article sounds like a legit fan, one who was noting the practical difficulties, even for a movie critic, involved in squeezing in four hours for a single theatrical sitting. It's a practical problem for theaters too. You want to make money by showing as many films as you can in a day. A four hour film means you don't get to sell as many tickets, which means more theaters will pass out of prudential concern.



For every Wyldesyde19 there is a Dirk Libbey and a Candice McMillan (and who knows who else) who would like to watch the movie, but have a problem with ambitious run times. It's fair to ask when length gets out of bounds. I know there are strident purists here who will defend a 15-hour run time if that's what Scorsese wants, but there are limits. A film is a compromise. It's an attempt to stuff a world into a single sitting in a darkened room. It's always limited and bounded.


I didn't know that Lawrence of Arabia was going to be three hours and thirty eight minutes when I saw it on a limited tour of the United States, but my grandmother had enough sense not to tell me when she dragged me out to see it. I'll always be happy to boast that I got to see the original film as a 70mm print on a theatrical screen. A long run time can be worth it. It is, however, more of the exception than the rule. I think it is OK to be concerned about Scorsese "sticking the landing" on his later life offerings that are extending in length.

Which I was mentioned my response being anecdotal.
That’s all a fair point, and I don’t disagree that yes, sometimes these lengthy epics are a bit much to ask, especially for a parent,, but I also agree with Crumbs that a ciniphile will find time if it’s what they love. Even if it has to be broken down in multiple viewings.

Given the way we consume media these days, I think the "limited series"/miniseries is the way to go (in general). If books can be divided into chapters, so too can films. And it aids in digestion. For example, I wouldn't want to see Blood Meridian as a two-hour theatrical release, but I would love to see what Apple or HBO could do with it as an 8-10 hour miniseries.

I couldn’t agree less

Really? Do you really think that Blood Meridian could be effectively knocked out in a single sitting? Even a three-hour film would cut out quite a bit (and yet still be quite a slog). What's wrong with the mini-series format in your opinion? I think, for another example, that it was smart to break DUNE up into chapters in the latest adaptation. We're getting chapters so that we don't have a muddled mess (e.g., Lynch's version) coming out in a rush.

It was in general towards longer films should be mini series only, which you implied. I like the idea of the compromise where they release longer films into two or more chapters, like Dr Mabuse the Gambler and Die Nibelungen, War and Peace and yes, even The current Dune adaptation.

Heck, even Fassbinder’s Berlin Alexanderplatz and The Dekalog series had theatrical releases, where they released them by episode over the week/weeks.
Give me more of that, please!

Ah, OK. Is that because you prefer a theatrical experience? Or are chapters in mini-series too short? Are they of poorer quality? If so, by necessity?

Obviously, I prefer the theatrical experience, but those films I listed were clearly meant to be seen on the big screen, such was the visions of their respective directors.
Each of those I named premiered at a major Film Festival, which I would think supports what Crumbs is saying.

My theatrical experience is overpriced snacks, zombies who can't put away their mobile devices, chattering kids, and the 3rd act dilemma of wrestling with the consequences of a large coke. My home experience is that of a ridiculously large screen, a lack of distracting devices, conversation that I endorse/solicit, and a pause button. Invest enough in your home theater and the experience is simply better, unless you're going full-tilt IMAX (for which you will pay through the nose). I loved the theater experience as a kid and I loved my cassette tapes. What do we really get out of the theatrical experience in 2023?

That may or may not be the intention in each of these cases. Moreover, that intention is not likely to be dogmatically/deeply felt in each of these cases. And even if it were deeply felt in each of these cases, why would this be regulative of our preferences for our consumption? The person who made Birth of Nation intended the viewer to be a in a mood to lynch black people.

Streaming services sometimes debut films at festivals. Netflix's "7 Prisoners" debuted at the Venice film festival, for example. Such content is still "made for streaming."



I'd rather have a longer cut of DUNE done by Villeneuve as a miniseries 9-14 hours, than just two films. If we're going to go deep, let's GO DEEP, but let's also have chapters, like a book.

The intention of a director is a vision that he puts forth on the screen, and in those cases they know they can’t reach everyone, but it’s not for everyone anyways, as Crumbs has already said.

As for Netflix releasing 7 Prisoners, my understanding is that these films that are purchased by the distributor (Netflix, Amazon, Appletv etc) still get theatrical releases, limited in many cases in the US, and often times abroad in Europe and Asia. They’re still theatrical releases.

Right, but not all directors care if we see it on the big screen. Not all that do care, care that much. And (again) it is an open question as to why their intentions for our consumption are regulative.



And to add a new line here, if the director was contracted to create a miniseries for Apple or HBO, then the director's intention would NOT be for us to consume it on the large screen, but rather a home screen. Should we only wish to see film made by traditional directors with traditional intentions regarding consumption? Aren't there many directors who direct for film, TV, and streaming? Can we say that they really "belong" to any mode of consumption?


OK, let's suppose HBO were to make a three-part miniseries of DUNE directed by Villeneuve and that HBO debuted each chapter at a film festival. What now?

You can’t can’t see my expression through the screen, but I assure you….I’m rolling my eyes.

There is the "rolls eyes" emoji.

But you still paused. Whether for a minute or a day, the flow of the film is still interrupted and the "contract", such as it is, is technically voided. In any case, watching them in "one sitting" (with temporary pauses) is your prerogative but can you sincerely speak to that being the way that everyone else watches films? It honestly describes how I try to watch films (hate leaving them unfinished if I can help it), but I don't think people are automatically wrong if they make the choice to resume at a later point.

A sociology of viewing that that happens to correlate with how you watch movies - you'll understand if I question its overall applicability to the average moviegoer. In any case, Scorsese was pushing 40 when home video dropped and pushing 80 when he made his first film for streaming so I think he's got enough awareness about how film-based technology changes in order to try to make it work for him wherever possible.

What exactly is the difference between "never long enough" and "not too long"?

In any case, at least three of the highest-grossing films ever made are over three hours in length and you can include an actual four-hour film like Gone with the Wind if you factor in inflation. There is also a difference between spending four hours on one film and six-ish hours on three films (and as someone who has watched the first eight Halloween films back-to-back in a theatre, the latter really doesn't seem like that big a deal).

This is a curious distinction. I haven't exactly been DiCaprio's biggest fan in the past, but I wouldn't think that a star of his magnitude necessarily breaks the project purely by being involved.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Scorsese should cut some Tik Toks of Michael Shannon doing Fortnite emotes. They could show them in theaters right before those very effective Nicole Kidman ads. Everyone wins!

__________________
Letterboxd