A Lengthy Debate

Are movies these days too long?

The runtime for No Time to Die was recently announced. Clocking in at 2 hours and 43 minutes, it’s the longest James Bond movie to-date. It’s also reignited a discussion over whether or not movies are getting to be too long. After all, older movies were shorter…right? Well...it’s complicated.

Back in film’s infancy, it’s true that movies were more to the point. They were hard to make, so anyone who had the skill and funds had to convey their message quickly. But as technology made it easier, as well as opened up more possibilities, longer and more ambitious stories could now be told. Metropolis is considered one of the big innovators in science-fiction, and it’s a black-and-white silent feature that clocks in at 2.5 hours. Even back in the 1920’s, long movies weren’t unheard of.

This debate ignores that part of film history. True, many films for a long time were under 2 hours. Some, like comedies, wore out their welcome when they surpassed that. But for every film under 2 hours, you always had an event movie that was longer. Mary Poppins, arguably one of Disney’s best movies, was close to 2.5 hours. The Ten Commandments, arguably one of the greatest Biblical films, was over 3.5 hours. Lawrence of Arabia, largely considered one the greatest movies ever made, was also over 3.5 hours! Clearly, the precedent for a longer film was there.

I think the real turning point was in the early-2000’s with the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films. For the former, it made sense considering how dense the source books were. For the latter, there was so much intricate detail that the final entry had to be split into two films to do the adaptation justice. In both cases, the films were hits critically and financially, showing that, among their other strengths, you could be rewarded by taking your time and not rushing to meet arbitrary runtimes.

Naturally, filmmakers and studios took note, with each one trying to one-up the other: your film was 158 minutes? Well, mine will be 160 minutes! You’re making a movie bordering on 3 hours? Joke’s on you, I’m making one close to 4 hours! This pissing match is one we’re still seeing today, such that longer movies are the norm now.

Which circles back to the initial question. And while, yes, some movies are too long, the justification for their length can be distilled to two points:

The first is that theatre experiences aren’t what they used to be. A few years ago, pre-COVID, a study showed that the average person only goes to the theatre 3-6 times a year. There are many reasons for why-accessibility, prohibitive ticket prices, too many options, ease of comfort with streaming, to name a few-but one of them is because going to theatre isn’t as exciting anymore. In order to justify driving to see a feature with hundreds of other people, there needs to be something special. Movies need to be events, essentially. And one of the ways to accomplish that is by making them longer.

The second is that, when it comes to storytelling, length is a construct. No two movies are the same, and each requires a different length for its story. Personally, I’ve seen movies that were both too long and too short. Some needed to be longer, while others could’ve stood to be shorter. “The Goldilocks Zone” varies.

Not to mention, storytelling standards are also different with each country. Japanese filmmaking, for instance, thrives on longer-format storytelling, with their animated films sometimes surpassing 2 hours. And let’s not forget Seven Samurai, often discussed as one of Akira Kurosawa’s best. Many of these films are regarded as masterpieces, so why is length an issue again?

I guess what bugs me about the “make movies shorter again” thinking is that while some movies might be excessively long, not all of them are. And that’s fine. A movie’s quality is reliant on other factors than simply its length. It also needs good scripting, good acting, good directing, good pacing and many other areas. That gets lost in the discourse.

But that’s the beauty of theatrical storytelling. And yes, maybe longer films should have intermissions for bathroom breaks, like they used to. I won’t argue with that, not as I’ve gotten older. But I don’t think length alone is the issue. If it was, then so many movies wouldn’t be considered masterpieces.

So, are movies these days too long? Honestly, yes and no. But does it matter? Not really. If anything, and more pressingly, studios need to come up with more original stories. And they need to do it fast, as opposed to constantly rebooting, remaking and franchising established IPs. You want to complain about a problem with modern-day filmmaking? Start there.

(And FYI, I recognize the irony of being succinct on a piece about length. Sue me, okay?)