WHY do all of the "deep, important, films" need to be so long?
That's a really good question. I think by definition a "deep, important film" touches on themes that are so complex that it takes a long time to explain. For example, you could ask the question "Why do all the quantum physics lectures have to be so long" and the answer is that the material is so tricky it takes an hour just to scratch the surface, then another hour to get the audience thinking, etc...
The same holds true of all other art forms. A symphony is usually 30 to 70 minutes long, whereas a pop radio tune is 4 mins. I doubt there is any way a symphony could be edited down to 4 mins (or even 10) and hold anything close to its original impact. Books are the same--sure there have been some important books under 100 pages like Hemingway's stuff, but nothing beats the feeling of making it all the way through 4 books of "War & Peace" ...er so I've been told.
With movies, I feel most comfortable between 2hrs and 3hrs. Anything shorter, and it doesn't have a chance to digest. Anything longer and my eyes get tired. The 209 minute version of "Das Boot" was really stretching it. On the flip side, I really enjoyed "Run Lola Run" (81 mins) but it was over so fast it felt more like eye candy than anything of deep philosophical significance like the films you mentioned.
I personally like the old tradition of having an intermission midway. That gives us a chance to rest our eyes, take a pissbreak and feed the dog while not interrupting the vibe. Do any modern films do that? Last time I saw it was in Fiddler on the Roof (1971).
reply
share