Dear Marty
I went to see Killers of the Flower Moon (dir. Martin Scorsese, 2023) at the cinema this weekend. The least interesting aspect of the film is the one I am about to pick upon. After watching the film, which runs 206 minutes, I read a couple of articles online that made want to (*gasp*] share some thoughts with the www.
Voicing my opinion is not something I have been used to doing in the last thirty years of my life, so doing so lately, especially when online, makes me feel vulnerable, scared and triggers my rejection sensitivity disphoria. But it’s like with tattoos, you know? Once you get one, you realise it wasn’t that big a deal to have something imprinted on you for life because ultimately, it doesn’t actually matter. So here it goes:
Dear Mr. Scorsese,
With utmost respect to your latest feature and in response to the following comment: "People say it's three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours. Also, there are many people who watch theatre for 3.5 hours. There are real actors on stage; you can't get up and walk around. You give it that respect; give cinema some respect."
I have a couple of thoughts to share on the subject:
I have not been to the theatre in the US many times, but from my 11 years of experience attending the theatre in London, I simply cannot remember attending any three-hour play that did not include an interval.
Yes, there may be people who can watch TV for 5 hours straight, but I am pretty sure they will get up for a toilet break, snack, etc. at some point, and most of the time, they can pause what they are watching.
The issue with a 3.5-hour film, in my opinion, is that if I do need a toilet break, for instance, I will have to gage when I think it will be a good time to leave for 5 minutes, so I will be distracted thinking about that until I finally make a decision and then worry that I will miss an important scene or part of the plot.
Unless you're sitting at the end of a row (which I tend not to do because I'm pretty picky about where I sit at the cinema to have the most central viewing experience when given a chance), you will likely have to bother several people whilst leaving your seat. Depending on the theatre, the spaces between rows can be very narrow, and it may require viewers on your row to stand up, remove their bags/clothing from the floor, etc., so I'm unwillingly disrupting their experience because of an inevitable physiological necessity.
Not only do I feel uncomfortable bothering other cinema-goers when leaving, but I also have to do it all over again when coming back to take my seat, which may or may not coincide with an emotional, impactful, etc. scene.
This is more disrespectful to the film than to have an interval during which all the audience in the room gets a chance for a bathroom break, replenish liquids, etc., at the same time, avoiding individual viewers' stress over when to get up or if to get up at all - perhaps, as I have done many times, they will just uncomfortably sit it through until the end, feeling distracted and in pain by the impetuous nature of their physiological needs.
On top of that, when you come back from disrupting others twice already, you may feel compelled (as I do) to whisper to my companion, "What did I miss?" - consequently bothering everyone around me all over again.
Allowing intervals may increase revenue for cinemas, given those breaks could mean a second chance for audiences to grab another drink or snack - especially when a film is almost the length of two average feature films, which means it will be likely taking up around two schedule slots, and therefore, half the chance for cinemas to sell tickets (and snacks and beverages).
I agree with the quote from Phil Hoade cited in this article: "No one's going to pretend that bringing back intermissions would suddenly reverse the post-pandemic malaise of movie theatres in the face of Netflix, Disney+ and others. However, especially compared with the degraded home viewing experience, interrupted by social media every 30 seconds, they might help bolster the status of cinemagoing as a prestige event."
Last but definitely not least, it is also a matter of accessibility. Not everyone is comfortable sitting for so long without needing a break of any kind, and not everyone can do it for various reasons, including non-visible disabilities.
I respect your craft and understand how disrupting an interval could be in some instances. Still, since feature films are only getting longer, if we implement intervals for longer than average films, these could be written into the script or recommended at a certain point by the filmmakers themselves.
I am an autistic ADHDer who finds comfort in knowing the running time of any film I'm about to watch. Over the years I have identified potential bothersome distractions and implemented little tricks to not let my mind go adrift and allow me to immerse myself in the cinematic experience. Most revolve around anticipating likely disturbances, such as to always carry a snack, a fidget and a water bottle with me, going to the loo before the film starts, carrying a little note book where I can write thoughts on the films (and note down anything in my to-do list that may be cluttering my headspace during the film). Because there is only so much I can do to control how often I need a loo break, I would have welcomed a well-placed interval in Killers of The Flower Moon. But that's just me.
I am all for respecting film and the cinematic experience, but the audience deserves respect just as much.
Kindest regards,
Irene
