This article by Nardos Haile argues that real long movies don't need to have intermissions if the filmmaker doesn't think they should have them. I am all for creative people having a strong, perhaps dictatorial say in how their films are exhibited…but let's say I want to see Killers of the Flower Moon, which is the film under discussion here. If I understand Ms. Haile correctly, she thinks I have three choices…
- See it in a theater in one three-hour-and-twenty-six minute sitting and don't leave to use the restroom or do anything else or…
- See it in a theater where it's being shown with no formal intermission but in this option, I just make my own by leaving when I want to and coming back when I've done, probably inconveniencing others in the theater and missing some large chunk of the film or…
- Wait until it's available on streaming and then I watch it in my own and pause it once or twice or ninety times if I need to pee or take phone calls or have a pizza delivered or stop for the night because I'm getting sleepy and/or serialize it over several days.
In other words, my options are to experience it exactly the way Martin Scorsese would like it to be seen or to see it (1) the way its director wants it seen or (2) missing one or more chunks of the movie — including possibly key, important scenes — entirely or (3) seeing it on a smaller screen without the same undivided attention we muster in a movie theater but not in our dens and inserting pauses anywhere I, not Mr. Scorsese, would like. And let's not forget (4) don't see it at all.
Option #1 gives him close to total control of how I see his film. Option #3 gives him absolutely none. I don't think Option #2 would please him. If he thinks an intermission would distract from my enjoyment of his film, how would he like the fact that my bladder or I pick a random time to miss fifteen minutes of it? And distract other audience members in the process of exiting and re-entering?
I feel odd suggesting how Martin Scorsese should make his movies but I wish those who make long, long films would consider not just our bladders but other concerns. I had a couple of years there where either my girl friend or my mother had serious medical needs to which I had to be responsive. If my phone vibrated with a call, I didn't want to check who was calling while others around me were trying to watch a movie…but it would have been damned irresponsible of me to wait three hours to do it.
I also have problems with my knees if I sit too long. When I work here at the computer, I make a point of getting up every hour and doing some chore or task that involve a little walking. A three-and-a-half hour movie with no intermission can be bad for my health.
And I wonder how the folks who operate movie theaters feel about this. A lot of theaters have closed in recent years due to declining revenues. Maybe some of them would like a nice little intermission to sell some of their overpriced popcorn, overpriced sodas, overpriced candy bars and maybe a couple of those overpriced hot dogs that have been sitting that in little roller display since the last time a new Walter Matthau film came out. If I had the chance to talk to Martin Scorsese…
No, I wouldn't do what I was about to write what I'd do. I wouldn't tell that man how to make movies. I'd probably just slather him with praise for most of the ones he's made. But I might sneak in something like, :"You know, you're so good at creating mood and dramatic tension in your movies that I bet you could give the people a ten-minute intermission and then get them right back into the story as if they'd never left it."
But someone's probably already said that to him and he's decided to do it the way he's going to do it. And if he and other directors keep making movies that last longer than Mike Pence's presidential campaign, I more and more may have to go with Option #4.