COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES
Once upon a time, the length of a film was an afterthought in the public conscience. Massive and sprawling epics, like “Lawrence of Arabia,” approached the four-hour mark and were widely celebrated by the public and industry alike. Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather” duology has a run time of six hours and were similarly greeted with acclaim and commercial success. Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy combines to over nine hours and is celebrated as one of the greatest artistic and box office achievements in film history. As recently as 2019, the three-hour “Avengers: Endgame” conquered records and satisfied nearly $3 billion worth of fans worldwide.
It is not like long films have ceased to succeed since then. “Avatar: The Way of Water” (192 minutes) was the first and only $2 billion plus grosser of the decade until this year and “Oppenheimer” (180 minutes), a cerebral dialogue-heavy biopic about a physicist, made nearly $1 billion. Despite their enormous successes, they have caught some flak for their lengths. Much like other hits like “Wicked” (160 minutes), the “Dune” films (155/166 minutes, respectively) and “RRR” (182 minutes). There seems to be some hypocrisy whenever a long film does flop, with the long runtime becoming the main culprit behind audience rejection.
A film’s length should only conform to what the material calls for. The aforementioned films fill their runtimes with purpose and focused pacing. Yes, Martin Scorsese’s last two crime tales, “The Irishman” and “Killers of the Flower Moon,” are nearly three-and-a-half hours apiece, but it is hard to think of a single minute that can be cut without compromising their artistic values. Yes, action extravaganzas like “Furiosa” (148 minutes) and “John Wick: Chapter 4” (169 minutes) might run considerably longer than their smaller-scale peers, but they waste no time with glorious extended set pieces and addictive mythology. So, what’s with the criticism?
There are many factors at play that can be blamed for this pushback, whether it be the pandemic encouraged at-home viewing for non-tentpole releases (allowing viewers to break whenever they want) or the detrimental effects of the rapid-fire scrolling of social media on attention spans. The main issue here is that the post-COVID-19 marketplace has shifted to be more mainstream and tentpole-skewing than before as inflation rises and wages stagnate. As a result, criticism comes down to a film-by-film basis.
“Dune” and “Oppenheimer” might spark some handwringing, but their mass appeal and IMAX-worthy spectacle are more than enough to overcome that trepidation. For more niche films like “Babylon” (189 minutes) and “The Brutalist” (215 minutes), the excessive discourse around their hefty lengths becomes more of a turn-off for audiences who are fiscally pickier than ever. In the former titles’ case, mixed reception and/or lackluster marketing only make matters worse.
It all comes down to personal preference, but to place the blame for a film’s financial underperformance or subpar quality on its runtime is completely unfair. Long films have existed since the dawn of the medium and have continued to captivate film lovers everywhere. It is annoying when people raise their nose at a movie because of the length. The reality is that the passionate harping stems from a vocal minority while the main issue is the conditioning of audiences to only come out for a select few types of films. If that is fixed, hopefully this ridiculous discourse can finally be put to rest.