Running Times

In college, my friend Greg used to frequently say that a movie had "pacing issues."  It took me a little while to realize that this was just a fancy way of saying, "The movie's too long."

He had a point.  For decades, Hollywood films typically meandered to around the 2-hour mark, whether it made any sense for them to or not.  In recent years, Hollywood's blockbusters have only grown more bloated, sometimes nearing the 3-hour mark.

You could argue that the longer lengths are merited.  Hollywood is stuffing more characters and more subplots--some of which only get paid off in a later film--into its tentpoles.  But there is a point at which a movie becomes so long that it grows numbing.  Old Hollywood epics offered audiences an intermission.  (And were also made in an era when attention spans were longer.)  But there's no respite in a movie like "The Dark Knight," which is so long and overbearing that I barely cared by the time Gordon intoned his closing monologue.

Thankfully, most serious adult dramas have migrated over to the indie world, which has never had the luxury of padded-out running times.  To cut costs, many indie films now have only four or fewer characters of any real significance.  They clock in at an hour and a half or so, usually more than enough time to express what they're trying to say.  The "tiny or tentpole" syndrome of American movies has become almost literal: it often feels as though movies can either be 90 or 150 minutes, with no in between.

Could some "feature length" films grow even shorter?  (Obviously artists have long made short films, but that's a separate playground.)  HBO's recent comedy, "7 Days in Hell," was a fleet 42 minutes.  Star Andy Samberg and writer Murray Miller, who produced the film, initially thought it could be a theatrical release.  But I suspect that as Miller was writing it, he realized what a challenge it would be to sustain the outrageous tone of the film, which starts to run out of gas halfway through.  (He probably wasn't thrilled about the prospect of drumming up the financing, either.)

As movies move away from the theatrical experience, the pressure to extend a film to justify the consumer's $10 purchase could dissipate.  Video on demand could offer different pricing points for different running times.  Shorter films could mean fewer financing hurdles, smaller obligations for stars, and more suitable plot structures.  Directors wouldn't have to spend many years of their lives on one project.  And, oh yeah, consumers could see more films for less money.