MovieChat Forums > Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Discussion > Film Editor Says Theaters Showing Killer...

Film Editor Says Theaters Showing Killers of the Flower Moon with an Intermission is "A Violation"

posted a year ago by roger1 (3626)
11 replies | jump to latest

From "World of Reel," October 27, 2023:

"There have been reports of some movie theaters inserting an intermission into screenings of Martin Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon. This seems to have angered Scorsese's editor Thelma Schoonmaker.

"In an interview...Schoonmaker calls the insertion of an intermission at some screenings "a violation" going as far as to mention that she's looking into theaters that are doing this.

"I understand that somebody's running it with an intermission which is not right. That's a violation so I have to find out about it. " (Like what -- is this a CONTRACT violation?)

Martin Scorsese says: "People say its 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 (live) theater 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."

---

Funny the extent to which this discussion inherently brings up the issue of urination (holding it) without raising the issue. Bodily functions as a part of movie going -- finally on the table. (Defecation, as we know, is not the same issue with movies if one is regular.)

I dunno. Is Scorsese THAT familiar with watching TV for five hours straight?

---

But hey: when I saw this movie, the theater put about 25 minutes of trailers in front of it, pushing the show to 4 hours. (A good time to leave BEFORE the movie, yes?)

---

Evidently both Schoonmacher and Scorsese feel that an intermission ruins audience involvement in the story. I guess.

A lot of long movies in the 60's had intermissions as part of their "road show" engagements. It was part of the package to GET an intermission, complete with music played in the auditorium "during." Turner Classic Movies often shows 1960s movies in particular complete with their intermissino and music.

One 60s movie that used its intermission as part of the "dramatic storytelling"(in a great way) was Its a Mad, Mad Mad Mad World. As the first half of the movie came to an exciting close, all the characters involved in the chase after a fortune got "cross cuts" to their actions: by car, on foot and a plane crashing through a billboard and ...continuing on.

Then a cut to star Spencer Tracy as the cop watching all the racers, in his office dealing with family issues on the phone. His assistant walks up and says "Anything wrong boss?" Tracy looks forlorn. Fade out.

In the theater, the curtains of the theater slowly closed over this final scene -- the CURTAINS CLOSING became part of the story. And when the intermission was over 15 minutes later, the opening shot was on a close up of a lit fuse flaming in the dark...again, the intermission was PART of th timing.

But no more under Scorsese...

----

I saw The Hateful Eight in 2015 with an intermission and got double crossed.

I went out to the Men's Room, but it was an old theater with very few bathrooms. The line was so long(and I elected to stay in it) and I went back in the theater and I'd missed the first five minutes of the second half. Thank God a sig other was there to tell me the plot(something about poison being placed...)

So...maybe depending upon intermission breaks is a bad thing. Let's follow the dictates of Marty and Thelma.

Hold it! For five hours if necessary..

[–] PayMeScorsese (42) a year ago

Marty and Thelma are out here talking like they have perfect control over their bladders when it's a fact that, as you get up there in age, the bladder becomes less controllable. Don't know why Mr. "I love movies" is so against intermissions, a natural component of longer films and theatre plays. Apparently audiences must sit in discomfort to witness a 5th insulin shot and 1000th instance of DiCaprio making this face>:( otherwise we are plebs who do not appreciate ART.

And Marty fell asleep during his own movie as shown by the fact that he allowed those Brendan Fraser scenes to remain in the Final Cut.

[–] ElizabethJoestar (946) a year ago

Okay, Scorsese is being ridiculous. Surely he must know that when people watch a show for 4-5 hours at home, they pause the show to pee, or take little 5 minute breaks between episodes to get a snack. Even live performances have freaking intermissions where people can pee, Marty!! They don't just sit literally 3.5 hours.

[–] capuchin (3182) a year ago

'The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.' -- Alfred Hitchcock.

"People say its 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 (live) theater for 3.5 hours."

TV -- Stretching out on the couch, pausing it, wandering off to get yourself a drink, talking to the person sitting next to you, going to the toilet, &c.
Live theatre -- almost always an intermission in a play. Big part of the theatre tradition.

I saw Satantango in the cinema. Satantango is seven and a half hours long. I'm not against long films. But -- guess what? -- that exhibition of Satantango had two intermissions.

To be fair, I could probably quite easily get through Killers of the Flower Moon without a break myself. I do manage to watch three hour films in one sitting most of the time. But that may not be the case for me in ten years time, and that's not the case for a lot of the potential audience now.

They're being a bit precious on this one.

[–] olioz (3673) a year ago

I wish there was an intermission at my local theatre. I want to see this, but 3,5 hours is too long without a break so I'll wait for a digital release.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

[–] david80848688 (290) a year ago

It is unusual he feels that way since he's a fan of old Hollywood epics like Ben-Hur and the like.

[–] MonStar (12897) a year ago

I agree with others on here. Live stage plays have an intermission. Scorsese is full of himself; a self absorbed asshat. If Thelma Schoonmaker was a real editor, she would have cut 90 minutes from this overlong movie.

[–] enriquesingh (1810) a year ago

I always check a movie's runtime before watching in theaters... anything over 150 minutes I wait to watch at home.

[–] quartz (482) a year ago

he's gonna hate what *ALL* TV networks do to "every film" then

"film makers put specific pauses in action for tv networks to put adverts in"
"tv networks insert advert when car is halfway through the air in a jump"

(audience usually changes channel because they have seen the film before anyway)

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

Odd that Scorsese would not be familiar with Hollywood putting intermissions in longer movies. Spartacus had one. Even 2001: A Space Odyssey. Why not let people stretch at the two hour mark? It's not healthy to sit for that long.

---

The focus thus far has been on "going to the bathroom," but perhaps it is more important to note that indeed, even if one CAN "hold it"(and many can)...simply sitting in one place for that long is not good for the body and not good for one's comfort.

Given that Scosese not only spoke of "the cinema" in defense of length, but talked of people "watching TV for five hours" or "going to the live theater for three hours without a break" -- I think we may need to face an unfortunate fact of life for Mr. Scorsese:

He is getting old. 80 or thereabouts. And I think that age is reflected somewhat in the overlenght and "quietude" of his last two movies -- "Flower Moon" and "The Irishman." I liked The Irishman a LOT -- Flower Moon less so -- but BOTH movies have been approached(rightly) by critics as "the work of an older man." I mean, go take a look at Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull and see how a more youthful filmmaker operates.

Because of the actors' strike, Scorsese pretty much had to go it alone promoting Flower Moon and doing interviews. Maybe, under that stress and at his age, he simply FORGOT that stage plays have intermissions and Ben-Hur had one and folks pause their TVs, etc.

"Don't get me wrong." I think that both The Irishman and Flower Moon are well-made and interesting enough(with great casts) to show that Scorsese can make quite a few more movies if he wants to (see: Clint Eastwood) but...maybe we are starting to hear a once-great "movie talker" get a little old and forgetful talking about them.

CONT

[–] roger1 (3626) a year ago

Note: Scorsese in one of his new interviews was asked about Tarantino's opinion that older directors' last films aren't that good and that QT intends to "quit after 10 movies" in his 60's. QT was thinking of Golden Era directors like Hitchcock, Capra, Ford, and Hawks -- men born in the 1800s with poor health care and surgery, drinking problems(some of them)..old age was HARDER on them. Modernly, we have a few directors working in their 80's(Woody Allen, Ridley Scott, now Scorsese) and they just seem healthier.

Scorsese's answer about QT was succinct(paraphrased): "I can't really speak to that. But its different for Tarantino -- he's a writer. I don't write my own movies." Fair enough. A WRITER must be depended upon to keep writing good scripts as he ages -- and that's hard.

Methinks that QT may wish he had not said what he said given Scorsese and others working into their 80's. But maybe QT would say: The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon prove his point...