You're right--I can't figure how they can present Il meglio gioventu' .It'll be interesting to see how they go about marketing this one for the audience that nowadays doesn't usually appreciate anything over 90 mins.
I think you're overstating the length issue, though. a lot of successful movies are two hours or more, and American ones seem to tend to be longer than European ones.
Registered User
I wouldn't say a lot but yes there are of course a few successful films that qualify as long, but I think we both agree that this is a special case. However, the average length of a feature film has decreased over the last decade or so.
On a relating note, it bothers me and perhaps it's just the sign of the times we live in that mostly everything now is expected to finish in a particular block of time. And when it doesn't or lasts longer there are words that get attached to the work. Why can't a Chris Marker short stand alongside a Bela Tarr film w/out any special labels?
I agree that there is a kind of "lengthism" afoot perhaps inspired by how much tv time costs and the omnipresence of "soundbytes", whereas things should be just as long as they need to be, and how long they feel is different from clock time. I thought though that maybe there was a concomittant trend of US films that aspire to seriousness to run a bit long as with Mystic River (2:17) and 21 Grams (2:04), not to mention such weighty pretenders to auteur glory as Magnolia (3:08) and Short Cuts (3:07), though I admit I'm going back five and ten years for those. Whereas I thought generally European ones tend to be shorter. About how many minutes has the length of the average film dropped?
P.s.
By the way, Did anybody see La Mala Educacion, Bad Education? Or the interview appearance of Almodovar at the NYFF? The movie is opening NY/LA November 19th (Sony Classics).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks