In the past, film used to be about 90 minutes long, occasionally running to two hours. If they went longer than that, the so-called ‘epic films’ like Lawrence of Arabia and Cleopatra, they would include an intermission. This was a boon to those who needed to use the bathroom and also to the concession stands who got to sell more stuff.
But the intermission being included as part of the film seems to have disappeared even with films running over three hours. As a result some theater owners are inserting their own. This has brought mixed reviews. I for one am in favor of an intermission but, as Nardos Haile writes others are not.
In the last few years, moviegoing has become a larger-than-life experience, and a part of that theater experience has felt like films seem to have increasingly grown longer and longer . . .
Some moviegoers have said this about Martin Scorsese’s newly released masterful Western epic “Killers of the Flower Moon.” The film is a three-hour and nearly 30-minute-long vicious tale of the Osage murders at the hands of greedy white men in 1920s Oklahoma who are trying to steal their oil money. Its runtime is not unusual for Scorsese as his last film “The Irishman” is also three and a half hours long.
But in the case of “Killers of the Flower Moon,” its lengthy, bladder-busting runtime is causing independent theaters in the U.S. and overseas in the U.K. to include intermissions. According to the British theater chain, Vue, the break they’ve implemented during “Killers of the Flower Moon” has been a success with moviegoers. Vue chief executive, Tim Richards said that they’ve “seen 74% positive feedback from those who have tried our interval.”
Meanwhile, in the states, a Colorado theater that also had an intermission was told by the film’s studio representatives that the intermission violates their licensing agreement.
This has ignited a larger discussion online on whether intermissions should be widely implemented for longer films. However, I don’t believe films like “Killers of the Flower Moon” need an intermission and, while this may be an unpopular opinion, I’m actually against them in most cases.
The most important reason to have an intermission is that people who need to use the bathroom worry that they may miss something important as well as disturb other people with the going and coming. This is a big concern for me. As to the first problem, this being the age of the internet, there is an app for that called (of course) RunPee that tells you when is the best time to make a quick break for it.
But another benefit of the intermission is that it enables you to digest and consolidate what you have seen and create anticipation for the climax to come. This is particularly beneficial if one sees the film with someone else with whom you can discuss it. I have seen this benefit with viewing miniseries, which are like long films. Having discussions after each episode adds to my enjoyment.
Haile argues that to introduce an intermission that was not intended by the director is to interfer with their vision.
But most importantly, a film like “Killers of the Flower Moon” deserves and requires an audience to be engaged in its brutal story of the massacre of the Osage people from start to finish. It’s hard for me to justify breaking up the film during scenes like when its main character Mollie Burkhart (Lily Gladstone) realizes she is not safe because her entire family is being picked off, one by one, by greedy, murderous white men who turn out to be closer to her than she realizes. The film is not meant to be palatable for an audience: it’s supposed to shake you to the core. An intermission would only allow us to remember it’s a film and not reality – and it was very much the Osage people’s reality.
So ultimately, I don’t think intermissions are necessary to enjoy a lengthy moviegoing experience. The experience is entirely subjective and what works for me might not work for you. But I would urge you to keep in mind that seeing a film like “Killers of the Flower Moon” demands the totality of your attention span. So if you don’t have the stamina for a three-and-a-half-hour-long film, it’s OK to wait until it’s available to stream. You don’t need to pee yourself to say on Letterboxd that you conquered a nearly four-hour-long Scorsese in a theater.
As for me, I now tend to wait until the film streams.
Nardos Haile is being very condescending.
I wonder if she read the book and had to put it down occasionally.
But the intermission being included as part of the film seems to have disappeared even with films running over three hours
Because a lot of movies are now played off of hard drive arrays, so there is no need to change the reels on the projector.
@ 違う
Sure dude. So condescending.
As for “putting down the book occasionally”, that’s exactly what is said:
Read for comprehension, weeaboo lad.
I saw Lawrence of Arabia at the iconic Paris Theater in Manhattan many years ago with an ex-girlfriend. We got front row center seats in the balcony. It was a wonderful evening, with a generous and much appreciated intermission.
Oh, OK. Thanks for the information, “representatives”. I’ll just, y’know, get if off bittorrent then. Happy? I mean, I’d hate for you to have to enforce a licence agreement while I give you my money. Fuckwits.
Actually, I kind of agree with chigau here: crying about “interfering with a director’s vision” is pretty condescending. (And why the fuck are you calling chigau a “weeaboo?” Do you even know what the word means?)
The thing is, EVERY medium of expression will demand some sort of compromise, simply because of the powers and limits inherent to the medium; and that will affect how you tell whatever story you want to tell through that medium. Adding an intermission is far from the first or only compromise a moviemaker will have to deal with. And quite frankly, if you’re making a movie that you want people to see in theaters (a worthy goal if you want people to talk about your story and generate buzz), and your movie is longer than, say, two hours (also a reasonable thing for serious and complex stories), then adding an intermission so people can take a leak without missing parts of your movie or disturbing others isn’t really an unreasonable compromise. Refusing to do so just makes you sound like a self-important stuck-up prick who doesn’t care about your paying audience. It also raises questions about your competence and flexibility as a storyteller. Don’t you WANT people to be able to sit through your whole story, see every minute of it, and understand and appreciate it?
Silentbob
Vous n’avez pas répondu à ma question.
I have given up on movie theaters and now wait to stream or just buy the DVD if I think I’ll really like the story.
I went to the movies 2 weeks ago; a morning matinee. There were 6 people in the theater including me and the two latecomers. The latecomers came in with an infant seat (with infant installed), insisted I was in “their” seats (spoiler: I was not), then proceeded to break out their own picnic basket of loud snacks and canned liquid refreshment (beer, by the smell). They then proceeded to ignore the shrieking infant while one clung to her phone yelling into it as if it was her job--did she work at a call center?!? While at the movies? I walked out and mentioned it to the theater staff, who just shrugged.
Yeah, no more theaters for me.
Silentbob @3:
Yes, that is condescension.
For me, this is a moot question since the last time I was in a movie theater was in 2009. The closest movie theater is 40 km away and it’s not worth it to drive that far by myself to see a movie.
In a world where digital streaming services are vying for first release with movie theaters, the scheduled intermission seems a bit arcane. At home, I can pause whenever the need arises -- use the restroom, grab a snack, let the dogs out or in, etc. -- and will do so. In a movie theater, I think this would create a rush at the concession stand and restrooms sufficient that the post-intermission period is likely to be missed by substantial numbers of people. One of my all-time favorite movies -- the western/comedy/musical Paint Your Wagon (a greatly underrated movie) -- had an intermission in its theatrical release, that the VHS and DVD versions preserved in its entirety, complete with the “Intermission” screen showing, and background music playing.
TGAP Dad @11:
It doesn’t seem to be a problem with live performances that I have attended, which almost always include an intermission. What would be the substantial difference for a movie?
Directors of long films could take a cue from playwrights who divide a play into two or three acts and judiciously decide when to insert the break between acts so that it actually adds to the experience.
TGAP Dad @#11,
Yes, Paint Your Wagon was an enjoyable film. One of the highlights was having Lee Marvin, famous for his gruff, macho persona and not for his singing, rendering the number I was born under a wandering star in his gravelly voice.
There are some wonderful lines in this song by a world-weary, cynical drifter that I still remember after all these years, such as:
I saw Gone With The Wind in a movie theatre. It had an intermission because it is a long film. IMHO you need intermissions in long films. Sitting down for that length of time isnt good for you. You need to occasionally stand up and walk
I wouldn’t dream of sitting still for three hours or more for the theatre or the ballet, so why should I do it for a movie? My arse aches at the very thought of it.
More than two hours? I’m probably going to need a pee break. #TeamIntermission
If I have to sit there for three and a half hours I’ll have to bring in a flask of hot water to keep my mouth sufficiently lubricated so my tongue doesn’t stick to the roof of my mouth. And of course my shewee and a bottle to piss into, that’s ok isn’t it? You really ought to accommodate me as the first is a medical problem -- the dry mouth -- and the second the consequence of a medical problem -- the need to piss because of the need to lubricate my mouth. So that’s ok is it?
To be blunt, fuck the artistic vision of the director. If the story is long enough, breaks are a practical necessity. Bladders, stiff legs, sensory overload etc. are things that happen to viewers.
#3 SBob
You are amazingly skilled at missing points.
I would urge you to keep in mind that seeing a film like “Killers of the Flower Moon” demands the totality of your attention span.
Generally speaking, if someone crates a work that they say makes “demands” of its audience, and blames the audience for not giving all of what is demanded, it most likely means they’ve done bad work that doesn’t engage or resonate with the audience. I’ve heard similar nonsense said about Ayn Rand’s books, as well as the Bible: “It takes great effort to read and understand this book.” Or “You have to read this book in exactly the right spirit.” That’s not the mark of authors so ingenious and superior they’re beyond the ken of mortal men; it’s the mark of bad writers (or maybe writers in need of better editors) who failed to make their stories or ideas understandable to their readers.
PS: The problem of “Flower Moon” is NOT that viewers can’t give it their full attention, as this Haile twit seems to think — from what I’ve heard, the atrocities it shows will grab your full attention no matter what. The problem is that no matter how much one WANTS to pay full attention to a movie, there are still full bladders, sore butts, thirst, etc. that will force one’s attention away from the movie, if the movie doesn’t have some sort of accommodation for such needs, like an intermission.
And to think people still pay money to travel somewhere and go sit with a bunch of strangers to watch a movie they can’t even pause.
Ah well. Takes all kinds.
Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it, John. Seeing a movie (good or bad) in concert with lots of other people can be half the fun. It can certainly make bad movies more enjoyable when lots of people can hear each other mocking it.
Also, have you ever heard of this thing called “dating?” Movies can be great for that. My first wife and I saw “Free Jack” together (the really silly one with Emilio Estevez, Mick Jagger and Amanda Plummer), and it was the best first-date movie EVER.
PS: I have Netflix, and I see a lot of good stuff on it that I’d never find otherwise…but who the fuck would want to watch “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” at home on Netflix?
Um, I was born in 1960. Grew up in an apartment block — apartment A on the fifth floor — right next to a cinema. Had a small valve B&W TV.
So, yeah. I’ve been to cinemas. I’ve “tried it”, though I’ve never gone as part of a mob.
And hey, if it’s a social experience for you to watch a movie, I’m not knocking it.
—
Anyway. Intermissions used to be a thing. But so was smoking in the cinema.
—
Anyone who has not seen it?
Here’s the thing. That’s an ancient movie. It’s only a cult classic among the cognoscenti.
Add intermissions, one fewer showing per day, cumulatively.
But then, more turnover at the concession stand.
(I’m of the firm opinion that whatever is happening right now is what is most profitable for the venues, in their managers’ opinion)
@ 21 Raging Bee
I can only assume people are posting opinions like these without reading the OP. The “twit” as you misogynistically call her says the exact opposite:
Her position which she clearly says is her personal opinion, is that artists are not obliged to incorporate toilet breaks into their art; nor should cinemas break up a work in a way not intended by the artist.
If you want to be able to take breaks, consume the art in a medium that allows that.
There’s nothing extreme or absurd about this opinion that justifies such dismissive condescension towards the author.
@ 20 Raging Bee
Dude, the context here is built in toilet breaks. You’re in all seriousness claiming a lack of built in toilet breaks means bad work that doesn’t engage or resonate with the audience. WTF?
Regarding Rocky Horror: it’s been a community event in the USA since the late 1970s. By the mid-1980s, it was playing in suburban movie theaters at midnight on the weekends and was a fun activity for teens who couldn’t drink (the drinking age is 21 so few clubs admit teens) or young adults who enjoy the activity. Dressing up in ridiculous outfits and participating in the singing and reciting lines and dancing is a communal activity like being a sports fan, only without the violence or the sports. Many people enjoy communal experiences.
In the USA, superhero movies tend to be a big draw, too.
I quit going to the movie theater because of Covid, but even before, the behavior of a lot of the patrons was turning me off. People brought toddlers to the Lord of the Rings movies, some of which were quite intense. People’s addiction to their phones brings distractions like noise and lights. People who just. can’t. shut. UP is another turnoff.
As others said, with a streaming movie or DVD, you can control when to get up and move, and not miss anything. There are pros and cons to this format--if someone enjoys sitting in a studio with a hundred other people cheering on the good guys, sitting at home isn’t as good. But the average movie was once 100 minutes -- 180 minutes and now there are bloated movies demanding constant audience attention despite their physical or mental endurance.
Intermissions are built into television, and virtually everyone grew up with a television in their home. In the USA, commercial breaks are roughly 5 minutes out of every 15, and the tv-watching population grew up using the break time to do their homework, empty the dishwasher, take a pee break, let the dog outside, etc. Asking someone to sit still for 3+ hours without a break is a huge demand.
The “twit” as you misogynistically call her says the exact opposite…
That’s her being an uncaring twit: she’s flat-out saying the viewers’ concerns aren’t worthy of accommodation, and telling viewers “tough shit, stay out of theaters if we’re not making it convenient enough for you, ‘cuz we don’t want to take an ounce of responsibility toward our paying customers.”
Also, how is “twit” “misogynistic?”
Anyway. Intermissions used to be a thing. But so was smoking in the cinema.
Dude, your analogy is like Hitler at an ice-rink.
Growing up , all the Bollywood movies were 3 hours long and all had intermissions.
Im also one of the prefer the comforts of my own home at my own pace with the people I want to be with over the “experience” -- But even I’ll admit its not the same -- A good movie in a threatre with good company is better than streaming at home. I watched Predator in the company of friends way back when -- You cant replicate that experience at home unless you are very rich.
@silentbob @27
I suppose Scorsese is not releasing the movie on streaming , or is going to ask for the pause button to be disabled or something. If not why should cinemas be any different?. Art especially has a complex relationship between the artist and the people who view the art (Think Harry Potter and what it means to many people , even though the intent of its Author may be substantially different) -- who gets to decide ?
johnson catman @12:
There are two things I’m basing this on…
-- My experience with our local superplex is that when a there’s a break, like in a double feature, the restrooms completely fill up, and the overflow lines up or goes to the next nearest one.
-- I’m old enough to have gone to movie theaters when intermissions were common, and that was the case back then as well. It’s probably worth pointing out that the theaters rarely had more than three screens back then, so there were no distant restrooms to take up some of the overflow.
That said, I actually enjoyed the film intermissions common during my youth. It gave a chance to stretch your legs, quiet your mind, and of course, visit the restroom.
Mano @14
Wandering Star and Mariah are my favorites from the movie.
They Call the Wind Mariah
I of course love the unapologetic irreverence throughout the movie. One of my favorites was when the traveling preacher comes to town and notices the debauchery all around, condemning them as “fornicators”, triggering the following commentary:
Townie #1: What’s a fornicator?
Townie #2: I don’t know -- I ain’t a religious man!
Another is when the preacher visits Ben (Lee Marvin) and Partner’s (Clint Eastwood) cabin to pray for the stranded travelers they’d taken in, Ben shuffles the preacher outside to pray noting “where god can hear you better. Besides, these poor people have suffered enough.”
I wonder what percentage of adults are physically capable of sitting for three hours? I know most elderly men can’t, and a good number of mothers can’t, as pushing out a new human being changes your body. Problems with stiff knees are going to skew older, too.
It depends on the film, and the viewer. Obviously.
Some films do need to be watched uninterrupted, or you’re not getting the full effect. There’s such a thing as narrative momentum. How much you care about getting the full effect is something only you can judge. JFK was a film I found absolutely riveting, and the three hours of people sitting or standing around talking flew by.
Others are sufficiently episodic that there’s no harm at all in stopping part way through then resuming -- I’m thinking particularly here of the Snyder Cut of Justice League. I don’t think even the director expected anyone to sit still for the full four hour running time of that.
If a director has, as part of their vision for the film, the idea that it’s going to run long, then they need to make a decision whether they’re going to structure is so there’s a pause in the narrative, a place where an intermission can be reasonably placed, and deliberately put one there. If not, I think they’re being self-indulgent and precious… which, OK, some are, and if you like that sort of thing, fine, watch them. Don’t expect to be taken seriously by most of the audience, though, eh?
One film that was greatly enhanced by an intermission was “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”.