Running Times and the Economy of Storytelling

This right here is pretty much my answer. As long as the movie holds my interest throughout, enough so that I feel the running time is justified, I don't really care how long it is.

A couple of recent examples; I recently watched Lagaan, and I was a bit hesitant at first because of it's four hour running time, but the film was so enjoyable and entertaining, the time just flew by (to be fair, though, I took a 15 minute break during the intermission).

Same goes for Dark Knight...all the stories of the nearly three hour running time seriously put me off, but as I was watching the film, I was never once bored. I felt that the movie just had a nice flow to it, and I was fully engaged throughout.

In regards to both films, everything in the film seemed to serve the story, and I'm hard pressed to think of anything that could be cut out of either one (though I really think the sub-plot about the guy discovering Batman's identity could have been dropped from The Dark Knight, and I wouldn't have missed it).

But as you said, as long as I feel everything that appears in the film is there to serve the story, enough that it sustains my interests in what's going on in the film, I have no problem with a longer running time.

A film should be as long as it needs to be in order to accomplish its goals and not one frame longer. LAGAAN is the right length for what it is. HEARTBREAKERS is horribly overlong while being two hours shorter than LAGAAN. THE LONGEST NITE is well under 90 minutes and is exactly the right length.

Needless to say, there's no definitive formula for this.

I agree with this in theory, but since Ledger just nailed the living shit out of every speech he had, I didn't mind it in the slightest.

Here are a couple of quotes from very intelligent people on the subject.

George Roy Hill: If you can't tell your story in an hour and fifty, you better be David Lean.

Roger Ebert: No good movie is too long. No bad movie is short enough.

William Goldman: I hate movies now, they're SO LONG! I think the problem is a lot of directors think "length" equals "weight." Like: It's an important subject, it should be an important movie... So it's two and a half hours and you wanna scream.

I guess I lean more towards Ebert. I think a movie shouldn't be longer than it needs to be for whatever it is that it wants to achieve. There are plenty of movies that could tell their stories in less time. But maybe streamlining would hurt them: There Will Be Blood is a good example of this. It's a sprawling movie, yet at heart the "plot" is pretty simple. However, PT Anderson needs that time. He needs to let the movie breathe. It would not be the same at 2 hours and 4 minutes. Though, it conceivably could be told at a length like that.

Or, look at The Professional. The American theatrical cut of that movie and the European Leon both tell the same story. And both deliver a satisfying punch. But which cut has more nuance? In the end, I think the European cut is the clear winner here. And at 135 minutes it doesn't even feel longer than the American version. At least, I didn't think so.

At the risk of sounding self-serving and/or arrogant, a little personal perspective:

My film - The final shooting script ran 150 pages, which would entail a movie well over two hours. I shot pretty much everything in that draft (with the exception of an elaborate prologue that had to be scrapped for budgetary reasons and a sex scene that I ultimately deemed superfluous).

Now then, the first cut of the film ran 2 hours and 10 minutes. During the editing process, I discovered that there were some scenes that worked well on the page but were simply not essential to the cinematic flow of the movie... I ended up tightening the movie down to 1 hour and 55 minutes. But this is something I couldn't see until the editing process.

It stands to reason that, often, the actual pulse of the movie isn't discovered until you're sitting there and putting it all together. I don't think you ever really know what will make the cut. The screenplay and the finished film are usually two very different animals.

Which is why many screenwriters tend to be a bit resentful of directors. I honestly don't really know why things tend to vary. They just do, I think because you're really making three movies. The one you write that exists only in your head. The one you shoot which is an interpretation of what was on a printed page. And the one you edit, which is the actual finished product and feels very much as if it's been passed through a thick filter.

I've only made one film so I can't claim to be any kind of expert on the subject. But it's an organic process. You write one thing. Then you shoot it, and things don't necessarily play out as written (improvisations, last minute changes, scenes you end up scrapping from the script) and then you sit down and sift through your footage and see how you can put it together into a coherent film narrative.

In my case, there was a very important scene that came at one point in the script. And it made sense there from a storytelling perspective. But, in putting the movie together, I realized it would have a more cinematic impact if it came earlier. (Not entirely true... The thought actually crossed my mind as the scene was being shot and I realized what I might have.)

If I hadn't written the screenplay, I'm sure that's something the writer would have given me shit for.

I'm directing my first feature film in a few weeks. I've written several scripts (Wes Craven was actually interested in one, but I kept it for myself -- a good or bad decision, I guess), but since I am financing this flick out of my pockets (which are empty), I wrote in an extremely economic fashion. It's exactly 90 1/8 pages long, and at last week's table read, it clocked in at 90 minutes without credits. Everyone's opinion seems to be that the fucker has zero fat, and takes off like a shot and never slows down.

I feel most films have been on the bloated side during the past few years. As much as I love LOTR, it inspired a newfound self-indulgence in the part of contemporary film makers, and studios are more willing to green light a weightier running time. Length seems to equal quality now. "If it's three hours, it's an Oscar contender." I disagree heartily. As I said in the Stephen King thread, unless you're making an epic, don't try to make it into one, because it takes a very special story to justify the time it could take to watch two films spent on one alone.

This is quite similar to what was voiced by William Goldman. I agree with you. Though, maybe it isn't the "story" so much as how a filmmaker has chosen to tell the story. I disagree with people who felt The Dark Knight was too long. It certainly didn't feel long to me and Nolan was definitely going for a Crime Epic feel with the movie... Something he achieved, in my opinion.

I guess, the way I look at it is: If it actually feels long, it probably isn't working and it is too long. The actual length of a movie should be irrelevant if the filmmaker has done his job. I've seen some 100 minute movies that felt interminable.

And there are some cases where you get that a filmmaker has intentionally padded out a scene or two because the script was so flimsy it barely filled an hour of screen time. Look at the first Friday the 13th. It clocks in at 94 minutes but there are some real drags in there... This entire sequence where Adrienne King makes herself a cup of tea unfolds in REAL TIME and is completely pointless. (watch the movie again if you don't believe me. It happens about 40 odd minutes in) But the funny thing is I'm sure Sean Cunningham would justify it as "building suspense" or "establishing mood" when all he was doing was: "This is a feature and it has to last more than 62 minutes, we're not in 1951 anymore."

Wouldn't you agree that running times are actually relative if we look at it like that?

Good luck with your project, by the way.

Smeagol: Thank you for starting this thread. I love discussing craft with people.

A film can be an epic without being long. It's in the scope, not the running time.

You're right. The point I was trying to make was that Nolan felt he needed 2 hours and 32 minutes to achieve what he was going for and it didn't bother me.

But Interview With The Vampire is pretty epic and it clocks in at 122 minutes. So, I agree with you. But epic films do tend to be well over two hours because there is often a lot of story to tell I guess and it's difficult to make things lean all the time.

Actually, Interview With the Vampire is an interesting example. Because it's just a couple minutes over two hours but it actually feels longer while you're watching it. I guess that's the "scope" that you're referring to. It makes movies feel heavy. The same can be said for Batman Begins. Nolan gave it a pretty epic feeling as well. But it's only 125 minutes before credits. Interestingly, The Dark Knight felt shorter to me. But maybe I'm alone in this?

My personal opinion falls in line with the idea that a movie should only be as long as it needs to be; sometimes it's 90 minutes, sometimes three hours. Generally speaking, the problem seems to be filmmakers and studios not knowing (or blatantly ignoring) how long a film needs to be. That's not necessarily an indictment. I'm not a filmmaker but I am a writer, and it's remarkably difficult to tell what's absolutely necessary and what's fat when you're the creator and not the audience. You may lay up and feel like you've laid out all the oblique exposition you need, but the story may still require more. Or vice versa. You might spend a couple of pages on dialogue you feel is vitally important, when a glance between the two characters six pages before already did that lifting. It's difficult to know what the line is when it's impossible to step outside of yourself to see the work with new eyes.

That said, I think one major thing at play is basic marketing. The silly seasons are so crowded with tentpole releases, and studios are spending such huge portions of already bloated budgets on selling the product, they know they have to deliver. They want to make sure audiences get what they pay for. So, say, instead of three or four major set pieces in a tightly wound summer popcorn flick, you get five or six. That's partly why so many big summer movies are closer to 140 minutes than 120 minutes. Need that extra showpiece.

Disagree only to say that a film can feel long, but "long" doesn't have to mean "boring." Personally, I love epics. Some people don't. I just can't stand ninety minute films with an extra hour tacked on. I agree that DARK KNIGHT felt suitably epic, but I'll reserve an opinion regarding run time when I've had the opportunity to see the film in my own home, where things tend to play differently.

(And speaking of interminably long films, if you ever have the chance to see RAPE IS A CIRCLE, it's the longest 75 minutes of your life, due in no way to content.)

See, and that's the thing that kills me (ha ha!) about FRIDAY THE 13th. Cunningham used damn near ever shot in the final cut, since they had so little money that what they filmed was used. Considering a theatrical needs to clock in at 80-85 minutes, that film could have lost ten minutes and been better for it. For such a minimalist piece, it certainly has long, excruciating sequences.

Thanks. Maybe I'll shoot you a cut and you can let me know how it paces.

I think pacing is way more important than length. While a shorter film is usually better paced, it's not always the case. A good example of this are the LOTR extended editions. The extended editions because of its effect on pacing, felt shorter than the theatrical editions. That's just off the top of my head.

Agreed one hundred percent, particularly in regards to THE TWO TOWERS, which felt, theatrically, exactly as it was: a four-hour film with whole sections lobbed out. If I have any complaint, it's that I felt the things Jackson put into the EE should have been the things left in the theatrical, rather than the other way around (Aragorn's death, pre-Helm's Deep rallys, etc).

Exactly. And that's why the editing process is what finally makes the movie. Because those little things are almost impossible to pick up when you're shooting and even more so when you're writing. In fact, when it comes to the screenplay, you tend to overcompensate. You stick in exposition you think is necessary... Extra scenes to flesh out a particular conflict or subplot... Then you sit down to put it all together and realize: I don't need this. That look she gave him 3 scenes ago really tells you all you need to know. So, fuck it. Nice scene. Good acting. But fare thee well.

But screenwriters don't always see beyond their own personal vision of the project. And, unless they were very intimately involved with production or post (which is rare), they probably won't understand why "That bastard cut out the great scene I wrote on the pier. Directors have no vision!"

Erik Myers: I'm flattered that you'd even consider showing me your work. If I can be of help, I'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise, I'll be just as happy to enjoy your film when it becomes available publicly. Popcorn in hand.

I have to echo the sentiment that it's really entirely dependent on the movie in question. Sure, in this day and age where almost every move is 2 hours + I find it to be pretty admirable when a filmmaker can tell a story with a degree of brevity, but some movies just need that extra length.

I think a good rule of thumb is if the movie bores you, it's too long. Now obviously that doesn't mean you need beat after beat of action, but the second that the movie loses your interest, you've found something to cut. Take something like Batman Begins. There's a lot going on in that movie and it keeps up a fairly good pace, but the last time I watched it I found myself counting the minutes until it ended. There's some fat and just a lot of points where I just didn't give a shit about what was going on. But then on the opposite end of the spectrum, take something like Funny Games. There are many long stretches of time where nothing really happens, but you're fully absorbed by what's happening. The performances and the writing and the plot are so engaging that the movie never once loses your attention, even when all your watching is a ten minute shot of someone trying to stand up.

But then there's the question of how much is too much. I don't mind if a movie goes off on a tangent or takes its time telling the story, but at some point you just have to say enough is enough and tell the story. Even if the movie is interesting and engaging for its entire runtime, eventually the filmmakers just have to say enough is enough and tell the story. No one wants to watch a four hour movie that goes nowhere.

But like I said, it really just comes down to the movie. Seven Samurai just breezes by for me, but Spider-Man 2 bores the hell out of me. It's all subjective and entirely dependent on the movie itself. It's up to the filmmaker to go through the movie and find the fat and the right length for the story.

Yeah. A movie should never be longer than it needs to be. And it is true that movies nowadays tend to be over two hours. A good example of recent tight, to-the-point storytelling is Cloverfield. And that thing was over in 73 minutes. I also think you can learn a lot about lean storytelling from watching cartoons. Few Disneys are over 90 minutes and many of them tell sprawling stories.

But, yeah, the final argument seems to be the importance of pacing over actual length. I think we can all agree that pacing is the key thing. A movie can be 4 hours long but move like a demon. And that's what you're striving for as a storyteller.