On Why I Love Long Films
When Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” was released
last year, a friend of mine complained about the film’s running time that was
close to the three hour mark. However, that did not affect me in watching it.
In fact, a lot of my favorite films have a running time close to three or even
four hours. Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather” films, David Lean’s “Lawrence
of Arabia” and “Doctor Zhivago”, Akira Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai”, Sergio Leone’s
“Once Upon a Time in America” and Stanley Kubrick’s “Barry Lyndon” are some of
my favorite films that exceed those running times. The running times of those
films may seem daunted but by the end, you are awarded an experience. I get
that film studios today try their best to keep a film’s length right around two
hours so that there will be more showtimes. For all that, cutting a film’s
length just to get that two hour mark will tarnish the story. Take for example
Ridley Scott’s 2005 historical epic “Kingdom of Heaven”. The theatrical cut was
two hours and forty four minutes and was criticized for the uneven plot. The
following year, Scott released his director’s cut that added forty five
minutes, bringing the film’s running time to three hours and fifteen minutes. This
made the film not only better but also necessary to tell a story, especially
for an epic. Those kinds of films were made to be watched on the biggest screen
at the theater. “The Hateful Eight” was shot on 70mm as was Paul Thomas
Anderson’s “The Master” that only a select number of theatres were presenting
it in that form versus the preferred digital projection. Next summer, Warner
Bros. will release Christopher Nolan’s war epic “Dunkirk”, shot in IMAX 70 mm
in select theatres that will show it in its true form. Hopefully, that will
transition into more films that are longer and visually stunning.
What are some of your thoughts on long films? Love or Hate?
No comments:
Post a Comment