Martin Scorsese doesn’t need to defend his long movies—people like them
The "movies are too long" debate has been going on for too long
Aux Features Martin Scorsese
It is happening again. Martin Scorsese made a movie that’s longer than 120 minutes, and the world lost its mind. No one’s opinions on movies matter more to everyone than Scorsese’s. Whether telling people he’s de-aged De Niro, Jesus Christ had a last temptation, or Marvel movies aren’t real cinema, Scorsese’s hold over the cinema is unmatched. But every few years, he blesses us with a new film, and the year leading up to its release is all about runtime.
Runtimes are always weirdly breaking news in the movie world, as if the length of Oppenheimer tells you that much about the movie. Scorsese made headlines with the runtime of his upcoming $200 million historical epic Killers Of The Flower Moon, which clocks in at an astonishing three hours and 26 minutes—though before the official time was released, some reports stated it was closer to four hours. That’s three minutes shorter than The Irishman and 26 minutes longer than The Wolf Of Wall Street. What will people think? Probably that Martin Scorsese has a new movie out.
As Scorsese puts it, making long movies is a risk (heck, making short movies is a risk) because people supposedly won’t see them, which is only accurate if you ignore the successes. Nevertheless, in a recent interview with Deadline, he makes a compelling argument for enriching one’s life through art.
“The risk is there, showing in a theater in the first place,” Scorsese said. “But the risk for this subject matter, and then for running time. It’s a commitment. I know I could sit down and watch a film for three or four hours in a theater, or certainly five or six hours at home. Now, come on. I say to the audience out there, if there is an audience for this kind of thing, ‘Make a commitment. Your life might be enriched.’ This is a different kind of picture; I really think it is. Well, I’ve given it to you, so hey, commit to going to a theater to see this.’”
“Spending the evening, or the afternoon with this picture, with this story, with these people, with this world that reflects on the world we are in today, more so than we might realize.”
The long movie debate is a seemingly endless conversation. But today, we imagine a sea of moviegoers who no longer have patience for a three-and-half-hour movie in between bingeing Succession or the latest 90-Day Fiancé: The Other Way. People hate giving up their shows, and they have TikToks to watch, a strawman probably believes, especially when you consider three of the highest-grossing movies ever were longer than three hours—and that’s before getting into the Gone With The Wind of it all.
With much less aggression and far more compassion, Scorsese echoes James Cameron’s comments about his “agonizingly long three hour” Avatar: The Way Of Water. “I don’t want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours,” Cameron said. “I can almost write this part of the review. ‘The agonizingly long three-hour movie…’ It’s like, give me a fucking break. I’ve watched my kids sit and do five one-hour episodes in a row.”
It feels like the complaints about movie length come from people who either don’t like movies or are more concerned about how many times Avengers: Endgame can realistically play on a single screen in a single day, which probably shouldn’t be a concern for non-theater owners. But, ultimately, do people dislike long movies and love short ones? That’s a tricky question to answer. Roger Ebert, quoted in every article like this, probably came the closest when he wrote, “No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough.” That seems like a good place to end it. We wouldn’t want this going on too long. What is this, a Martin Scorsese movie?
36 Comments
Just put an intermezzo scene so audience can pee. Bollywood/Tallywood had those dance singing sequence near bodies of water (river, fountain, waterfall, rain etc) to give you que to go to the bathroom (which basically the corner of the theatre in Mumbai).
And yes, Avatar: The Way of Water basically give you hint when to go to the bathroom. It’s the part where James Cameron do “other” thing while watching it.
The AVClub waiting for Martin Scorsese to say something, anything about movies:
Um, yeah— ‘cause it’s not like he’s Martin Scorsese or anything!! 😀 😀 :DMeanwhile— you’ve got old memes. 😀 😀
After rehashing his critique of Marvel movies, and then every reaction to that critique, I’m going to say, seven thousand times, the headline feels pretty ironic.
Martin Scorsese doesn’t need to defend his long
………movies.
I wonder if he is circumcised. Then it would be “cut” so to speak. I know he’s not Jewish, but there was a time for several decades starting in the 1940s where it was pretty common among non-Jews in the US as well (as it supposedly was “cleaner”).
Most common in the upper-midwest, but he’s famously a New Yorker.
This article needs to mention Thelma Schoonmaker more. She is such a talented editor that a 3 hour 30 minute movie like the Irishman just flies by. Scorsese movies are rarely short but they don’t feel the length.
this is interesting. “The Irishman” felt really, really long to me, and I think that is also a credit to Schoonmaker—because it felt meaningfully long. Like, grinding-passage-of-time-reducing-everything-to-ash long.Whereas “The Departed,” which was a healthy 150ish minutes if I remember correctly, with a really convoluted plot… that thing moved like a Jackie Chan movie from the 90s. The way a good director and a good editor work together has a lot to do with how we experience duration. The actual runtime has more to do with the scope of the story and what it contains.
I’m in the tribe that finds The Irishman immensely watchable. Just a click below Goodfellas and The Departed, both of which are channel surfing resting points. And Thelma is the reason.
Me too. There’s been a few dull days where I just put it on and just watch the hours fly by. That woman is a real miracle worker of editing.
The Irishman flew by?! lol…
Infernal Affairs > The DepartedI tried to keep this comment as short as possible.
I honestly hate that each time a character dies that do a montage of moments, it feels really unnecessary.
Yeah, it also struck me as inferior. I hated the screenwriter fiance talking about how her character is internally conflicted too. I just didn’t buy it for the actual character. I also prefer the surprise of who is a mole later in the film, whereas Infernal Affairs begins by showing a group of them like a graduating class.
Oh god the character that kept talking about character motivations and twists? Awful, it was a good idea to cut her in The Departed.
Absolutely. Much better ending and didn’t have the stupid subplot of two opposing moles who are looking for each also happen to be sleeping with the same woman at the same time. It’s incredibly stupid in The Departed.
Two of my favorite movies are Lawrence of Arabia (3h42m) and Sherlock Jr. (45m). Let the movie be as long as it needs to be to tell the story it needs to tell.
I have no idea who this is directed at. It’s so aggresively hostile against these supposed people who say they hate long movies, but who actually says that? Yes, long movies that are done well and earn their runtime are well-regarded. Just like shorter movies that are well done and earn their runtime. But this comes off as nothing more than a Reddit screed against some strawman someone saw one time on the internet. And the rant against attention spans because of Tiktok makes it sound more like “old man yells at clouds”.The bottom line is: If you’re going to make a movie longer than 2 hours, you have to make sure you’re earning it. And if you make a movie longer than 3 hours, you really have to make sure you earn it. Also, binging 5 hours of a show is much different from watching a 3+ hour movie. The show is meant to be consumed in small parts, and those parts are meant to satisfy you while also making you want to see what happens next. It’s a completely different format from a single, long-narrative movie.
It’s like Hitchcock said , the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder, give or take the size of any empty drink cups you have lying around.
Yes, the three hour show was pretty common in the age of live theater but they made sure to put in an intermission to take care of that. (And even some older longer films did that too – as late as Kubrick’s 2001:A Space Odyssey in 1968).
The intermission really needs to come back. Ten minutes per showing isn’t going to change how many times a theatre can screen a film in a day, and it would give patrons another opportunity to stock up on over-priced concessions.
How did you find the bathroom when you were tripping balls?
Hell, I remember standard-length films having intermissions in the early 80s, tho that might’ve been more of a ruse to get people to buy more snacks.
The trick to making it feel shorter is to fall asleep in the first 30 minutes.
I was riveted by every minute of The Irishman. Yet I think GotG 3 could have trimmed its 2 hours and a half. Drive My Car probably needed it’s 3 hours. But did Avatar: The Way of Water? Runtimes aren’t a one-size-fits-all, ‘let every director do whatever they want!’ kind of answer to me. Because that can lead to a director’s ego running wild. It really depends on the information that matters in a story. And arguably, genre also matters. I have more tolerance for long movies if they are dramas or history-based. CGI action flicks, maybe less so.
GotG 3 didn’t drag like 2 did for me, I thought it used the time a lot better.Then again the daddy issues plot in 2 didn’t really grab me in general.
I really enjoyed 3 and there were many touching moments that really get you. Also that movie is full of nightmare fuel lol.
The Irishman was anything but riveting.
I feel the editor is the most important person when it comes to length and pacing. Director has imput but this isn’t a one man show.
Yeah … when we complain that movies are too long now, we’re talking about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny and Black Panther 2, not Killers of the Flower Moon.
The main thing about long movies is whether or not everything is actually necessary. Most of the time, there’s lesser and/or unnecessary material that can be cut in a movie that’s over 3 hours long.
With the long movies I usually really enjoy them the first and second time I watch them but then wish there was a shorter cut of it. There was a YouTuber who cut Lord of the Rings trilogy into three 1.5 hour movies and I really enjoyed those more as a re-watch (they were obviously taken down fairly quickly) even though I probably would have disliked them if that was what was released if that make sense.
Sometimes instead of Director’s Cut I want the Brutal Cut edition that cuts longer movies down.
I need to find those cuts, bc LotR…zzzzzzA good friend is a major devotee, and he was indignant when I would do the “get to it already” hand gesture during them. Wonder if the YouTube guy could work some miracle and whittle those Pirate movies down to something.
I am not sure. His account was deleted within a day of him posting those and it was years ago.