50
votes
‘Killers Of The Flower Moon’ intermission imposed by handful of theaters spurs intervention from Paramount
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Matt Grobar
- Published
- Oct 27 2023
- Word count
- 310 words
How many threads have we had recently about the current state of the cinema experience?
This is the punchline.
The movie is long enough that a lot of people would like (or need, depending on circumstances) a break. Cinemas attempt to make the experience more comfortable and get the film removed. What kind of ridiculous gatekeeping is this?
This line is particularly good
I have been to several theater performances. They often have intermissions.
I've never been to a theatre performance which was longer than 3 hours and didn't have an interval.
I’ve never personally been to a theater performance over 2 hours without an intermission. 3 would be insane.
As much as I enjoy the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings, I appreciate them being split into two parts. I don’t even sit still for 3 hours at my job, why would I do that for “entertainment” or “cinema”?
I've had theatre experiences truly marred because I was desperate to go to the toilet. Bodily needs (headaches, toilet trips, hunger, etc.) are a huge part of the human experience, so expecting them to just be relegated to second place behind "entertainment" is ridiculous. It's one of the reasons I love watching films at home. Sure, the sound isn't a patch on a cinema, and my screen is worse, but I'm SO comfortable. I eat, drink and pause whenever I want and can then fully focus on enjoying the film/show/video.
I've heard people say that we're in the minority, but somehow I don't think that's the case. Who can sit still and not have some kind of bodily function for 3+ hours?
While an opera, the immediate combination of counterexample and example that comes to my mind is Einstein on the Beach. It is around five hours, runs continuously, and has no interval. Yet this is combined with an expectation that audience members will leave and return continuously during the performance, because expecting the audience to remain for five hours without any break would be unreasonable.
The Martin Scorsese kind. The man sure can write and direct, but holy fuck is he ever a pretentious, obnoxious, "cinema"-snob of the absolute worst kind. Also that quote by him is so hilarious out of touch, given that every single theater production I have ever been to that was ≥3 hours had an intermission midway through. "Respect" goes both ways, Marty, and directors should respect the needs of their audiences too... especially those with health conditions that may not allow them to sit for prolonged periods without a break.
You aren't wrong about Scorsese, but in this case it seems he was taken out of context:
https://tildes.net/~movies/1bp1/killers_of_the_flower_moon_intermission_imposed_by_handful_of_theaters_spurs_intervention_from#comment-b1yx
They’re taking Scorsese out of context there. If you follow the link, there’s no mention of an intermission. The question he’s asked is why watch it on their screen instead of waiting for the Apple TV release.
Honestly there isn’t any meat on the bone with this story. Probably paramount is pushing back on these theaters because they are enforcing the contract, not because someone has strong opinions on an intermission. The other quote from Schoonmaker is pretty letter of the law-y “That’s a violation so I have to find out about it”.
The article only says that Scorsese defended the runtime when quoting the article. Full quote:
In context, the quote is still out of touch and incorrect.
Either way, I agree -- seems more legal than anything else. A better article would pursue why that's a clause. Are such clauses common? If so, why? If they aren't common, then why is it present for this movie?
Could be a side effect of a clause designed to stop theaters from inserting commercial breaks, or even to keep bored projectionists from doing things like splicing in a single frame of a porno to mess with people back in the days of analog projection.
Still, there should have been a better way to handle this. They don't pull the contract if technical issues cause the movie to stop.
I would even say "usually"
And "give cinema some respect" what kind of argument is that? The actors on screen have done their work. An intermission isn't interrupting their concentration or anything.
They all have intermissions. The stuff they serve during intermission makes $$$ for the theatre, there's no way they'd skip that. You can even preorder and have a table set up with whatever you order so you can skip the queue.
Honestly, I think it's completely reasonable for a filmmaker to be upset when something isn't exhibited the intended way. The movie wasn't made with an intermission, so it's a little disrespectful for the theater to insert one. Movies with intermissions carefully consider where they go and how they effect the pacing, and having someone else just sort of put one in somewhere doesn't really feel appropriate.
As for the core complaint, 3.5 hours is certainly long, but there are other movies that long with no intermission — Godfather II and Jeanne Dielman come to mind. I've seen both of those in the theater without an intermission, and honestly it wasn't a big deal to me. In the case of Jeanne Dielman especially, an intermission would seriously change the way the movie feels. Not being able to pause the movie or take a break is a really big part of the theatrical experience, and being in that frame of mind definitely effects how you see a movie (or at least it definitely does for me). You go to the theater because it's an event, not because it's convenient. If you're not willing to do that, don't go to theater — you will miss out on something watching at home, but that's a choice you get to make: do you want to commit to giving yourself over to the movie, or do you want to prioritize comfort and convenience? Changing a film for exhibition like this robs viewers of that choice and, in some small way, disrespects the filmmaker as an artist.
You aren't wrong from that perspective.
However, if the studios are wondering "why are people not attending cinema as much?" while being actively hostile to the places trying to accommodate more people, they should stop to think for a moment.
There was a time when they did. Through the 60s, 3 and even 4 hour movies were fairly common and popular. They called them epics, and they all had an intermission.
These facts are not unrelated.
The Lord of the Rings also had intermissions. At least where I saw them. But that also seems to be about the time where it stopped I think. Some exceptions like The Hateful Eight in 70mm, but they also physically had to change the reel. With digital projection they don't need that, so maybe that is why it has gone out of fashion.
The extended editions have them as part of the video master because they had to be split onto two discs when they were made for the dvd release. The theatrical cuts don't have them, and the extended ones probably wouldn't if not for that artifact of their original release medium.
I have no problem disrespecting artists who don't respect their audience. I love the theater and I absolutely want to give myself over to a movie, but if the filmmaker decides to put up barriers to prevent me from doing that, then that's on them.
I don't think mutually assured disrepsect is going to lead down a good path. It's already a bit much to turn this into "Scorsese does not respect his audience" purely as justification to hold contempt.
All it leads to is me seeing fewer of his films, and not seeing them the way he intends. It's really not that big of a deal.
It sounds like you're accusing of me of something dishonest here, which I don't know what to make of. I don't want to sit completely still for 3.5 hours and Scorcese's comments imply that this is some sort of character flaw on my part. I take that as disrespect on it's face.
It's not an accusation of dishonesty, it's a description of a willingness. I don't think reframing situations by taking things in an uncharitable way in order to justify an "eye for an eye" response really leads anyone down a good path. We have the last decade or so of public discourse to show us where that's taken us.
As you said, this is not a big deal. It's good to treat it like it's not. It's an old man yelling at clouds. He doesn't really have power in how someone chooses to watch his work.
I don't know what you're talking about, and invoking "eye for an eye" feels like a bizarre escalation to me. When I said I was happy to disrespect artists, that was a direct response to this:
I'm just talking about how to watch movies here. If you think something else is happening, perhaps consider your own advice about uncharitable interpretations.
I used to work in live theatre. I have never done a play and not had an intermission, regardless of how short it was.
We need intermissions for every film over 2:30. We've discussed this on Tildes before; movies are getting longer and longer these days, with several hits in the past few years surpassing that 3 hour mark, which is all well and good. But it means every film I go to, either me or a friend will miss a part of the movie we paid a month's worth of a streaming service for thanks to bathroom breaks. Which of course means someone has to give a quick TL;DR to the guy who took a leak, and of course they missed the best scene in the movie or a big lore dump. And that's just for the average moviegoer, not to mention disabilities and stuff like that! I'm surprised it's taken this long for theaters to give intermissions a try. I've heard some countries already do it for every movie.
I was going to recommend RunPee, but checking the site for the first time after a few years it's a mess, seems like they just want to direct everything to their app.
It was great though at recommending the times to step away from a movie, telling you what you'd miss and how long you had without giving up much for spoilers
Part of the reason I don't go to movie theaters is because I struggle to sit still even for just an hour. I don't know how people can stand sitting for much longer than that without any breaks. I don't think we evolved to do that much sitting in one go.
I like watching movies at home because I can pause, get up and stretch, and then sit back down. Or at the very least, I can sprawl out on the sofa and change my position to stay comfortable. I can't do that in a theater seat.
This is completely absurd... I watched this and while it's a good movie, I definitely was drained from the whole experience because of its length. I believe an intermission would've allowed me to enjoy the movie much more.
I also saw Oppemheimer and enjoyed, but have the same opinion about its length.
I honestly disagree I thought it was fantastic for the length
I do not understand the hate for intermissions. I recently got to see 2001 and West Side Story (the original) in theaters, both of which have intermissions. And literally everyone utilized them, and it was better for everyone that they did. Great for theaters because people use them to get refills, great for my enjoyment of the movie because I don't have to try and analyze which scene is unimportant enough for me to be comfortable with taking a quick piss during since I have a walnut sized bladder and I usually need a quick break.
Intermissions make long movies so much better when you don't have to think about when you need to take a quick break, and I can just enjoy the movie because that break time has already been partitioned out for my convenience.
Refills might be a bigger factor than we realize. I always hear that the money the theaters make doesn't come from the ticket, and a movie that could be two will not be as lucrative for sure.
Well, cool. This just made mine and my partners minds up about whether we were going to try and see this in theaters. It's an absolutely not. How is Scorsese so out of touch as to say that thing about people watching TV for multiple hours? Of course they can. They can pause the program anytime they want, take a piss, grab a drink, whatever. Why would I go out of my way to get a babysitter and go spend effectively 4 hours glued to my seat lest I miss something when the filmmaker and production company have so little respect for their audience? The audacity of these people.
I’m a big movie guy. Many of my favorites have runtimes over 3 hours. I go to the movie theater more than once a month. And even I am not sure if I’ll see this movie in theaters because of the runtime.
Anything over 2 hours requires me to pre-manage my liquid intake AND be conscious of the runtime vs what I'm drinking during the movie.
That kinda diminshes the immersion for the movie.
Not to be “that guy” (kidding I love being that guy) but as an editor, I think putting an intermission in this is kind of like sawing the statue of David in half to stick a water fountain in the middle. It is edited and paced to perfection for the specific experience it is attempting to provide in my opinion, and simply is not made for an intermission. There’s nothing inherently wrong with intermissions, but they are something that do affect the pacing and structure of a film. This is something that can be used as a positive (West Side Story, Lawrence of Arabia), but it is just a spit in the face of the entire art of editing to just stick one in the middle imo.
Sure, if there was an art to the editing, but I would argue that the editor in this movie did not “edit and pace to perfection” either. I had to leave for a piss around 2:45, where I missed a major action scene, followed by some uneventful (and predictable) dialog when I came back in.
This movie could have been 2 hours long, and I would argue that runtime would have been even more impactful by keeping the systematic exploitation of the Osage Nation at the forefront of the story.
Instead the movie heavily focused on Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro, the two stars. It almost feels too on the nose how much Scorsese focused the plot/camera on
his croniesthese actors given the movie’s main plot about white people taking control of Native American narratives. The poorly telegraphed “I sure do love my wife!” lines that were repeated throughout also feel like sloppy movie-making.This is one of my least favorite Scorsese films, and I do consider myself a cinephile who despises modern Marvel films with the same passion the esteemed director. I find myself agreeing with the general sentiment that there was no respect for the viewer, especially with the new dynamic of home viewing alternatives. Oppenheimer had me glued to my seat for the full runtime. This movie could have done better, and I don’t think any filmgoer should be chastised for regular bodily functions at regular intervals.
If film tickets are going to increase in price and demand a longer runtime, then it would make sense to change the overall formula. I am increasingly drawn towards the relaxed “dinner and a movie” atmosphere (e.g. Alamo Drafthouse), where a movie like this would probably fare better than the packed theater I was in.
Surprised by all of the angry responses here to be honest. The film is gripping enough to keep you engaged the whole way through. It's three hours, yes, but it doesn't overstay its welcome at any point. I highly recommend it, even if you wait until it hits streaming so you can pause to take breaks if you need to.
The issue isn't whether the film is gripping or not. Not everyone can actually physically sit through a 3.5 hour movie without taking a break at some point. And IMO movie theaters providing that break for people who may need it shouldn't be being punished, especially since intermissions have been a standard for movies of that length going back to the earliest days of cinema. E.g. Gone with the Wind (1939) had an intermission, as did Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Sound of Music... the list goes on.
More importantly, not even giving people the option for an intermission. Theaters could have some showings with intermissions and some without and facilitate everyone but that is apparently offensive to the filmmakers and isn't allowed to happen.
I'm not annoyed at all by the length of this (or any) film. I'm very annoyed by the lack of an intermission at a length of 3 hours+. There's nothing shameful or cheap about intermissions. Many of the finest films ever made had them. I genuinely don't know how to read this refusal to bring them back except as outright disdain for the audience, and if I wanted to be disrespected by a movie I'd go watch one of those superhero things that Scorcese is always complaining about.
I actually do wonder whether there is a bit of a stigma around intermissions in Hollywood films. During the 60s era of anxiety over colour television's potential to compete with films in theatres, there were various attempts to distinguish theatrical films as something worth going to. This included larger screens and formats, larger-scale cinematography and subjects to leverage those, and... intermissions. I think there's a question as to whether having intermissions was actually motivated by length for all of those films, or whether they were, in some sense, a cheap way to try to associate the film with other performances (operas, plays, concerts, etc) that the audience would see as culturally important. One definitely gets this sense watching some of them, often with their rather tacky intermission announcements, as though they were trying to tell the audience 'aren't you glad you're at this big culturally prestigious event, where you'll go mingle with people at the intermission, like other culturally prestigious events, instead of sitting around your little television watching something small?'
I could see contemporary Hollywood wanting to avoid that. Yet it is amusing that here filmmakers find themselves with very similar anxieties, now with streaming in place of colour. And in perhaps wanting to avoid one cheap way to position their art as prestigious, they fall into another: making the uninterrupted length grueling, and casting the suffering as prestige.
Yeah, ideally a modern intermission would be somewhat less bombastic and intrusive than the Cecil B. Demille version with the orchestra and matte painting of a Roman villa or whatever. I don't know what it would look like, but I'm confident that plenty of filmmakers have the skill to craft something that enhances the experience. In fact Scorcese is at the top of that list, should he ever remember that the audience exists.
In the Netherlands it's the norm for long films to have an intermission. You also have some dude before the start of the film, that basically just says a quick 1 line premise and goes "enjoy!".
It's completely normal for the Dutch, and lots of people welcome the opportunity to pee or get more snacks, but to be honest I think intermissions can be immersion breaking. I can go 3+ hours in a car or plane without an intermission just fine, a cinema isn't a problem.
I find it very funny that your defense includes admitting that you were physically unable to experience the work as the author intended.
Would it have been more to your liking if someone commented saying "I don't know what people are complaining about-- I didn't have to pee once!"?
Not at all. The first version was honest and unintentionally funny. Your version is less interesting and less likely to be true.
I think "less likely to be true" is a bit presumptuous, I've been to quite a few of these 3+ hour movies and I've certainly never seen so many people getting up that half the theater was cycling out to the bathroom during the movie. Personally I've never had to go to the bathroom so bad during any movie that I'd actually get up and miss something but that doesn't invalidate people who do.
Both sides have good points and clearly it's a matter of preference for the audience, there just needs to be different showings with and without intermissions. The split can be determined in contract and editors can include a timestamp for a "least disruptive" intermission so long as they know non-cut showings are out there for people who want the full artistic vision at the cost of convenience.
The last film I can remember with a planned intermission (and frankly the only one I know of made in my lifetime) was Grindhouse, and that wasn't even a real intermission; it was a bunch of fake trailers made as part of the film. I can understand why directors, editors, etc would be upset at a break being forced into the middle of a film where one wasn't planned, yet even if that Scorsese quote is out of context, the fact remains that films just aren't being made with a planned intermission. Why? I mean, even if you assume most directors are full of themselves, surely someone would buck the trend. It makes me wonder if there's some pressure from the studios to prevent them.
The Hateful Eight had a planned intermission, which was only made visible during the roadshow I believe (at least I don't remember the intermission being a visible thing in it's home video release). Tarantino even did a voice over to remind the audience what had happened before the intermission.
My best guess is that it is the theaters that don't want it. Having an intermission takes time that could be used to fit more screenings in on the same day. I assume the business people have run the numbers telling them that even extra sales of drinks doesn't add enough.
Here is an article about it.
I think there's plenty to say about long movies needing intermissions. But this is a case where the exhibitor altered the artists original work without permission, which I think is a big no-no. If they let this slide, then what is to stop theaters in backwards hellholes like Florida from editing movies to remove LGBT characters?
If I recall correctly, some countries did edit Oppenheimer to remove either the religiously controversial sex scene or all of the sex scenes and nudity.
Update: Just saw the movie! I utilized runpee (a site/app that tells you when and for how long you can leave to go pee without missing anything important) for the first time after hearing about it over a decade ago and it worked great! Even with my concession stand beer beforehand it wasn't an issue.