In December, it’s almost impossible to go to the movies
and spend less than two hours in the theater. The better the movie,
it seems, the longer the necessary running time.
In the last 10 years, only one Oscar Best Picture winner has
clocked in at less than 120 minutes. (“Chicago” was
113.) Compare that to the first 10 Best Pictures, beginning in
1929, of which half took less than two hours to watch.
All movies aren’t getting longer, but the ones that win
awards clearly are. The trend makes 2005 a puzzling year for
movies. On one hand, four of the 10 films nominated for Best
Picture at the upcoming Golden Globes are less than two hours. On
the other hand, the favorites (“Brokeback Mountain” and
“Walk the Line”) are the two longest films
nominated.
If I had a vote, I’d choose “Good Night, and Good
Luck.” for Best Drama and “The Squid and the
Whale” for Best Musical/Comedy. They’re the two
shortest movies nominated. “Good Night, and Good Luck.”
is 93 minutes and “The Squid and the Whale” is 81.
You could watch both before getting through Peter
Jackson’s “King Kong.”
I don’t like these movies purely because they’re
short, but because they’re efficient. They simply tell their
stories and end, without giving you too much information, without
asking for too much of your attention.
Movies feel long when you stop caring about the characters,
usually because they’re doing or saying things that do not
relate to the plot.
If the information offered in a scene does not move the plot
forward, I don’t want to see it, and I admire movies that
embrace this principle instead of going forward with pointless
scenes just for the sake of being artsy.
For example, consider “Casanova,” which I generally
liked, except for the very beginning and the very end.
Without giving anything away, the movie opens with a narrated
voice over, which means the movie has to end with the same voice.
By the time the film comes back to the voice, the plot is already
10 minutes over, and all that’s left for the voice to say is
an empty summary filled with unnecessary witticisms.
I’m not against all long movies, but I’d prefer that
a movie warrant its length rather than fill it. “The
Godfather” is almost three hours long, but its plot never
treads water.
Most producers hoping to win Best Picture have to make sure
their movies are long enough for the Academy to seriously consider
them.
At 132 minutes, “Brokeback Mountain” will probably
win both the Golden Globe and the Oscar for Best Picture, marking
2005 as another year of long movies. That’s great for
“artistic” filmmakers, who always want to make longer
movies in the same way “literary” novelists always want
to write longer books.
But it may not be the best trend for the film industry. Already
facing a widespread decline in attendance over the past year, the
studios should be doing everything possible to get people to go to
the movies, instead of giving potential audiences more reasons to
stay at home.
Over winter break, my dad and I tried to see “King
Kong” on three different days, but we were never able to find
a time that could fit both our schedules because of the
film’s length. On average, a movie can play four times a day
in any given theater, but “King Kong” can only offer
three screenings.
The limit makes it harder to go out to the movies and easier to
stay at home and watch a movie on TV, which was exactly my reaction
and exactly the reaction that Hollywood studio heads don’t
want me to have.
I eventually did see “King Kong,” but my dad
didn’t. As bad as it looks, maybe he’ll see
“Grandma’s Boy” instead. It’s only 94
minutes.
Tracer tried to keep this column as short as possible. E-mail
him at jtracer@media.ucla.edu if you can cut it down even more.