Film, I think about at least a dozen times a day, from new films, to classics to my favourites and technical stuff, lets just say I think about everything film related very often. One thing that is a common thought concerns runtime. As a regular goer, I want to be entertained for a sufficiently decent length of time, so when a film finishes after 80 odd minutes I can’t help but fell a little cheated. If I’m honest it’s mostly kids films that have these low runtimes and as we know kids don’t have fantastic concentration, something to do with either Sunny Delight or a 20 Silk Cut a day habit just makes them a bit hyper. But I can’t help but feel that regular films keep scaling back towards the sub 100 minute mark and beyond. The value of a cinema ticket is actually going to skyrocket in terms of £/min.
Now I realise that pacing is an important factor in editing a feature film and that an audience should never be left to get bored but film as an art form allows you to tell stories at whatever pace they need to be told, by the film maker not by an impatient audience.
There is a solution, sort of, which is to split a film into two separate parts. On one hand this is great as the story can be told in all it’s detail, on the other hand I’ve got to pay for two separate tickets as well as wait for the second part to come out.
But what do you think about the length of films these days? What was the last film you saw that went on for too long? What was the last film you saw that finished very quickly? Should a cinema ticket entitle you to a set amount of time of entertainment?
No comments:
Post a Comment