I don’t know if it started out because of my own A.D.D.-like childhood energy or if it was a result of having one of the most type-A mothers on the planet, but I have always been notorious for my lack of patience.
I drive through yellow lights as if I were color blind, I go at least 80 mph on the drives back to San Diego, and there is nothing that annoys me more than slowpokes on Bruin Walk (yes, I am that crazed brunette breathing down your neck when you stop in the middle of the pathway to text message your BFF ““ move!).
But the thing that also really tests my patience is a really long movie. One of my most frequent critiques is a film’s length. “American Gangster?” Great acting with an interesting plot but way too long. “Michael Clayton?” Clooney has a great shot at a second Oscar but the movie just dragged on and on.
Over Thanksgiving weekend, I tried to watch the 167-minute-long “The Good Shepherd” with my family and I just couldn’t do it. The film examined Matt Damon’s every twitch, every silent stare and an hour in, probably not even close to the climax of the movie, I just gave up and went into the computer room to spend more countless hours on Facebook.
There are always the exceptions such as the 175-minute-long “The Godfather,” and the 197 minutes of Atlantic Ocean glory that is “Titanic.” But come on, it’s “The Godfather,” and poor “Titanic” director James Cameron had to cram a sweeping love story and an entire cruise liner sinking into one film, so it’s a little more understandable.
The length of a film is an important determinant of how much we “get into” a film. In our society, the longer a film is, the less likely it will keep our attention (and also the more likely we will have to get a soda refill or take a bathroom break, missing a crucial scene or two). That’s just how it sadly works.
There are those exceptional movies, such as the two above, where their command over an audience is just another testament to the film’s quality, but still, they are the exceptions for a reason and not every film can win 11 Oscars like “Titantic” or become one of the greatest films in history similar to “The Godfather.”
An extraordinarily long movie may seem like a trite complaint as compared to the bigger picture of making a quality, enjoyable and interesting film. In these days of cheap horror movies named after parking structures (“P2,” anyone?) and adaptations based on video games rather than literary masterpieces (“Hitman”), a good script is like finding a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
But for a lot of these films, the case is that there are just too many characters to develop, too many subplots, and in the sad case of “The Good Shepherd,” too many silent stares. Some of it is pacing, sometimes a two-hour film flies by while a 90-minute movie can feel like eternity. But for those long-winded scripts and those multi-shots of the silent stare, I suggest to independent and commercial filmmakers, whether they specialize in romantic comedy or war drama, the adage: Less is more.
It’s easier said than done to cut back or edit more. Cutting seemingly minor dialogue between two major characters may take away some of their more interesting complexities or leave out elements key to understanding the plot if not edited properly. However, an engaged audience is one of the most important elements of the cinematic experience. The attention spans of audiences across the country are at serious risk if this year’s major Oscar contenders ““ many coming out over the holidays ““ prove to be similar to the two-and-a-half-hour-plus epics that have swept the major film awards in recent years.
Making a great movie is hard work. Editing a great movie must be even harder. But at the end of the day, cutting out some extraneous dialogue or taking away one subplot can add to the audience’s enthrallment, their understanding and their overall moviegoing experience. And isn’t that what the movies are all about?
If you’ve held up Stanhope on Bruin Walk, apologize by e-mailing her at kstanhope@media.ucla.edu.