Are Bloat and Long Runtimes Souring the Cinematic Experience?
How long is too long for a movie to run before we start questioning what we’re doing with our time and money? Earlier this week, Amazon MGM Studios revealed that Ryan Gosling’s new science-fiction adventure film, Project Hail Mary, would be 156 minutes long! That’s more than two-and-a-half hours! While I’ve not read Andy Weir’s space exploration epic, I’ve seen the book in stores countless times over the past few weeks. I’ve developed a book-buying problem in the new year, but that’s neither here nor there. Weir’s novel is 476 pages, depending on the format. Could we not find a way to make Phil Lord and Christopher Miller’s adaptation a more agreeable length? One that doesn’t test the fortitude of our kidneys and ADHD-ravaged attention spans? Anyway, Project Hail Mary is just a stepping stone on the way to my genuine concern: bloat.
Old Man Yells At Cloud
Back in my day, movies were, on average, 90 minutes a pop. Or, if you were a blockbuster affair, 100 to 120 minutes. There are exceptions, of course, but that’s why I said average. Whether it was because of story choice, artistic vision, or leaving a whole scene on the cutting room floor, filmmakers in the ’80s and ’90s often killed their darlings in the interest of their film project landing in the “sweet spot” or “butter zone.” You could literally set your watch to a movie that took no longer than an hour and a half, and there were fewer commercials and coming attractions at the theater, too. Today, if you want to engage with something like Project Hail Mary in theaters, you should clear your schedule. You can time your arrival so that the film starts as you take a seat, but good luck. There’s no telling how long it will take to get snacks, settle into your seat, and suffer through the same car and medication commercials. Oh, and don’t forget to leave time for the misadventures of sentient popcorn that wants to sell you more debt through a theater-approved credit card offer.
Christopher Nolan Defends Long Runtimes
I could go into how movie bloat extends the theater-going experience by alarming proportions, but perhaps it’s time to hear from the other side of the aisle. According to Tenet and The Odyssey filmmaker Christopher Nolan, younger viewers want longer, denser films, preferring to pay for a substantial experience rather than a quick, shallow one. Nolan urges studios to “trust the audience,” asking that they not force filmmakers to make edits to their projects based on the perceived habits of select audience members. Nolan also thinks TV is the culprit in the “corruption” of the cinematic experience, saying TV relies heavily on dialogue rather than communicating through atmosphere and sound. Even if movies are a combination of sight and sound, Nolan argues that film is a visual medium, first and foremost. A filmmaker’s job is to invite audiences into a world through art. It’s possible that we don’t reach great heights without an extended runtime to establish worlds and characters.
Social Mediots
I’m not here to argue with Mr. Nolan. He knows far more about the industry than I ever will. Still, I wonder if the romance of filmmaking clouds his perception of how audiences receive and engage with cinema in the modern age. We live in an age where nearly everyone has a smartphone, a seemingly endless source of information and entertainment at the touch of a button. For some, the moment there’s a lull in the action, or a movie’s plot isn’t developing fast enough, it’s time to whip out the phone, play a game of Arrows (look it up, it’s fun), or doom scroll on social media. If a movie doesn’t command our attention, there’s a device that will give us the dopamine we crave until the ball gets rolling again. Yes, phones are discouraged in theaters, but as more and more people choose to stream movies at home, the likelihood of a smart device winning over a film increases. The more bloat there is in your movie, the more opportunities there are for audiences to disengage.
Wicked is Six Hours Long, Y’all!
Getting back to the subject at hand, I’ll give another example of bloat in Hollywood. We can’t let Project Hail Mary (a movie that looks awesome by the way) have all the fun. Instead, let’s shine a spotlight on Jon M. Chu’s Wicked films. Chu’s Wizard of Oz-inspired epic is an adaptation of a three-hour Broadway musical. With that in mind, did the theatrical version of the story need to be split into two three-hour films? I’m sure Chu has his reasons for presenting the fantasy adventure in two parts. However, I can’t help but wonder if Universal wanted two movies in the interest of making more money, concise storytelling be damned. Even as I type these words, I can hear you grumbling, “Well, duh.” I know. I get it. Still, could we not shave off a song or two (admit it, some of the songs in Wicked: For Good are not bangers) to help mitigate bloat in the overall experience?
Solutions? Bueller? Solutions?
I’m not going to pretend like I have any answers to this “issue.” I’m not going to tell a filmmaker what to do with their own project, nor do I want to throw a wrench into creative works. Maybe a solution is that we need more mini-series, six-part events that give filmmakers the time and space they need to create a concise story, then get the hell out of Dodge. We can present those presentations in a theater, with limited-time screenings ahead of the project’s streaming debut. I’m not here to figure out the logistics of that idea, but I can’t help but feel like there’s something there.
What do you think about bloat in modern-day filmmaking? Is three hours too long to spend in a theater? Is Christopher Nolan right about contemporary audiences wanting more bang for their buck? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
The post Are Bloat and Long Runtimes Souring the Cinematic Experience? appeared first on JoBlo.