Movies Getting Longer (But Just Barely)
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, June 17, 2008 |
Somebody has taken the top fifty movies, as ranked by IMDB, for each decade and produced the graph at right.
Andrew Sullivan, who I gather has just seen the “Sex and the City” movie and found it long, quips, “They don’t all have to be endless.”
But Andrew is only two years older than I am, which means contemporary films he’s likely to remember date from no earlier than the very late 1960s. Since then, the range has been within +/- 2 minutes, a duration not likely to register in the consciousness of the average moviegoer.
“Sex and the City” in particular ran for 148 minutes, a whopping 19 minutes (or 14.7 percent) more than average. That’s noticeable but likely objectionable only if the movie isn’t particularly enjoyable. By contrast, “Iron Man” was a measly 126 minutes; I’d have been happy for an additional 22 minutes worth.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- Movies Getting Longer (But Just Barely)
- Renogiating Mortages
- Health Care Reform Tax on Low Income Earners
- Middle Class Tax Cuts
- Netflix Value Calculator
- What’s the Difference, Jed?
- Lower Economic Growth
- Obama Gets ‘Big Bounce’ in Gallup Poll
- The Money Value of Time
- McCain Tax Cuts Favor Taxpayers (aka, ‘Wealthy’)
- House Trades Freedom for Health Coverage, Senate’s Move
- Hasan a Muslim First, American Second?
- OTB Caption JamTM
- Taking “No” As Iran’s Answer
- Update on the Fort Hood Massacre
- OTB Latenight – Soft Cell
- Caption Contest Winners
- Breaking: Shootings at Fort Hood (Updated)
- Pentagon Expected To Ask For Supplementary War Funding. As Usual.
- Marking the Anniversary of the Embassy Seizure
One's perception of what is 'endless' is perhaps tempered by the material on the film itself. I don't recall many people complaining about the overall length of Lord of the Rings, for example,which in it's full version ran 250 minutes, give or take.
The reader's imagination is invoked here as to why a movie about women and their sexual relationships with men would seem overly long to Sullivan.
Self-important and self-indulgent directors. I won't dispute that there are occasional stories that support a treatment at length. More common are a half hour of story expanded to fill a two-hour slot (with commercials during replay on television).
Why is this a surprise? It takes longer for todays movies to lecture than it did for movies in the past to entertain.
