Good movie but that conversation scene was way too long

Well I, for one, agree with you. And to everyone attacking the OP, calm down. The fact he (or she) invested enough time, to make it to the conversation scene, warrants the right to state an opinion on the work.

Now onto the topic at hand.

The problem with the scene is not an issue of content, but of eloquence and brevity. Film dialogue shouldn't read like a college term paper. A screenwriter has to be able to make big statements with as little words possible.

Furthermore, even if the entire dialogue was needed, that's what editing is for. Break the conversation into parts, and place them in a way that allows the film to flow. You don't force the viewer to sit there for over 15 minutes and digest everything that's been said, at once. A truly great speaker should be capable of holding ANY person's attention in a conversation. If you consider yourself above that, don't be astonished when you're lost by some.

[deleted]

I will actually agree with the OP, though I really am not surprised at the immaturity of some of the responses to him, given the general intelligence of the IMDB crowd...

'Hunger' is a fantastic film. No doubt, the technical quality is superb, and the fact that this is McQueen's *debut* film is all the more wonderful. But the conversation scene absolutely does feel out of place and bloated in a film that is so powerful solely BECAUSE it utilizes such minimal dialogue otherwise. It is an entirely visceral experience, and I will agree that, yes, the scene between Fassbender and the priest halted the film's momentum and contemplative quality to a halt.

Was it important? Surely. The dichotomy between the convictions each man held regarding the importance and impact of the impending hunger strike shed an interesting light on Fassbender's mindset, emphasized after he discusses his childhood story. But this did not require 30 minutes to tell. Absolutely not. It disrupted the great pace the film had been sustaining, and, again, I remind you that just because someone has a difference in opinion (I know, shocking--welcome to the real world) gives you no right to release such a foolish backlash upon him. Grow up.

Skipped most of it, I get what they were going for but I couldn't take it tbh, listened to the last tidbits and I think I got the gist of it ...him explaining why he was doing what he was doing ...and it only took about 3 minutes, I'm guessing the rest was filler?

It might be impressive, but yea, I couldn't take it anymore too, almost felt asleep and had to turn the movie off so I could finish it another day.

Not your fault, you just weren't blessed with much of an attention span.

For the rest of us, we got to enjoy an incredible scene with some stellar performances.

You're not afraid of the dark... are you ?.

Just saw the movie. I found this scene compelling, such that I was kinda disappointed when the priest departed. I didn't notice that it was as long as 22 minutes. Wow. In any case, I had to turn on the subtitles to ensure I understood the discussion given the accents. Not a problem. Given I don't know much about Bobby Sands and The Troubles, I found I was hanging on every word in hopes that the characters could "backfill" info on the situation.

I rather liked the long view of the actors in this scene, and noticed that when there was finally a cut to close-ups, I wanted to go back to the long shot. Interesting, since typically I'd subconsciously be yearning for the camera to close in.

Well done.

[deleted]