5 ms·
It's not that a long movie is inherently bad. Indeed, the subtitle here absolutely call out that a three hour film from the right filmmaker could be great! It'
by ubermonkey 3y ago
It's not that a long movie is inherently bad. Indeed, the subtitle here absolutely call out that a three hour film from the right filmmaker could be great!
It's that the financial constraints that previously existed, that would drive filmmakers to a tighter narrative, have been removed. And now there's little constraining the desire to turn in a 180+ minute opus.
Are there stories that need 3 hours, or that can justify that kind of length? Sure. But there's a whole lot of films being released that are far longer than they really need to be. JOHN WICK 4 is almost 3 hours long. That seems absurd. THE BATMAN was a fucking SLOG of a film, and absolutely did not have 3 hours of content. It badly needed editing.
You know who else needs editing? Scorsese. His later films, including and especially the ones called out in the linked article, are fat, fat, fat. No word of it a lie, I'm not sure he's made a film I liked in nearly 20 years.
- Avshalom 3y agoHe's got one of the best editors in the business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelma_Schoonmaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelma_Schoonmaker
- rurban 3y agoDoesn't help when esp. his editing sucks. You can see that easily when he does remakes, and compare them. Internal Affairs vs Departed. Either the editor is thinking the audience is too stupid, do they have to overexplain everything, or the editor is too stupid, or the director is too stupid. The third option being the most likely. And not even Asian directors are the best with bold cuts, African movies treating their audiences as the most clever. There's no need at all for lengthy introductions so that Aunty Karen will get it. Apparently Africans get it better than Asians, and esp. Americans. Internal Affairs run 30m longer, even with extensive backstory cuts. Unfortunately I wrote my critic in German only, https://letterboxd.com/rurban/film/the-departed/ https://letterboxd.com/rurban/film/the-departed/
- ubermonkey 3y ago<whoosh>
- Avshalom 3y agonah man, editing just isn't the art of telling creators no and shortening their work.
- ubermonkey 3y agoAgain, <whoosh>. The expression in popular usage definitely implies "someone to tell the auteur NO THIS IS TOO MUCH SIMPLIFY IT" or similar, which results in a tighter work. This is a pattern we see in long-established novelists, for sure. They win awards or sell a ton, and their books get LONGER without getting BETTER. Stephen King is a great example. The same thing is true of some filmmakers. No one is telling Marty his movies are too long. They should.
- Avshalom 3y agoYeah, I understand that it's a phrase that morons often use under the belief that editing is just deleting things, but again, editing is not actually about telling people "no". He's got an editor, he's got one of the best most respected editors in the game, she has been working with him for as long as he has been working. You disagreeing with her editing is, as objectively as anything can be in art: a you problem.
- ubermonkey 3y ago"Moron" is it? It's true what they say, you know: it's rarely a winning or charming rhetorical move to resort to ad hominem attacks when challenged.
- Avshalom 3y agohttps://www.google.im/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=it%27s+rarely+a+winning+or+charming+rhetorical+move+to+resort+to+ad+hominem+attacks+when+challenged&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs= https://www.google.im/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=it%27s+rarel... they don't say that at all actually
- throwaway5Am1k 3y ago>I'm not sure he's made a film I liked in nearly 20 years You didn't like Silence (2016)?
- ubermonkey 3y agoHated it. I was apparently not alone; it did poorly at the box office. I'm also generally not a fan of religious films. Also hated (and could not finish) the utterly turgid THE IRISHMAN. WOLF OF WALL STREET had its moments, but I'm honestly not sure why the film existed -- I mean, it's the same sort of story as GOODFELLAS. SHUTTER ISLAND was crap. THE DEPARTED was maybe ok. The last one I loved was THE AVIATOR. Given how awful THE IRISHMAN was, and the trendline I see with his work, I have no plans to see the adaptation of KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON.
- throwaway5Am1k 3y ago>I was apparently not alone; it did poorly at the box office. Box office response is hardly a barometer for anything. It can be a proxy for good, it can also be a proxy for marketing budgets (just look at how "successful" Marvel movies are, and they are the absolute worst types of movies). >I'm also generally not a fan of religious films Filtered. Absolutely plebeian take. I know it's uncool to be religious in tech circles/SV, but it shouldn't stop you from enjoying great cinema.
- tehnub 3y agoI thought the Batman absolutely justified its runtime, and for me did not feel like a slog whatsoever. I wished it would go on longer when it ended.
- Sateeshm 3y agoI would probably not hate The Batman as much as i do if it was only 2 hours. Terrible film.
- snake_plissken 3y agoWhat about Casino? That always comes back as my favorite movie of his. And at a respectful 178 minutes.