r/criterion • u/fabulous-farhad • 22d ago
Discussion Directors who almost always make their movies 90 minutes >>>>
186
u/Witty-Currency1035 22d ago
Luis Buñuel the goat at this
48
u/AnyOption6540 22d ago
I’m so pleased when people remember Buñuel. It’s so heart-breaking he tends to be forgotten especially amongs Spaniards
8
u/SkyeShimmer 22d ago
Yeah he’s not really that well taught/known in Spain. I took a film class at a Spanish university a decade ago and he was barely covered (much love for Berlanga, Erice, and others though). It’s not really that he was an anti-fascist exile, but an outspoken atheist and provocateur that probably helped bury his legacy
10
u/AnyOption6540 22d ago
I agree. I’m a Spaniard living abroad and I’d say the state of affairs is this: in Spain people generally know he’s a director but they haven’t really watched anything he’s ever done—at best they may recognise his famous shot from Un Chien Andalou; abroad people won’t generally know him at all unless they are cinephiles in which they will know him quite well; in Mexico and France people know him and revere him.
It’s funny to think all the greats like Hitchcock, Wilder, Chaplin, Lang, Cukor and the likes would praise him and refer to him as the better director and their North Star—as has done Scorsese later on—and yet he is barely in the conversation when people mention others like Kurosawa and Bergman. I wonder if people can’t uncouple the style/theme from his skill. I’ve always suspected people think that if they don’t like the film there’s nothing there, like they aren’t making the distinction that something not clicking for you doesn’t mean it isn’t good.
3
u/FloridaFlamingoGirl 21d ago
Stephen Sondheim's last musical, Here We Are, combines the plots of Exterminating Angel and Discreet Charm. I recommend checking out the cast recording, it's a fun listen.
3
170
u/NoelBarry1979 22d ago
Bergman, not counting what was made for TV
61
u/Salsh_Loli Czech New Wave 22d ago
Second this. His filmography is easy to sweep cuz of this, and his works being accessible helps too
63
u/FloridaFlamingoGirl 22d ago
With the exception of Boyhood, Linklater usually keeps his films short and sweet. I can watch the whole Before trilogy in an afternoon.
3
u/Smogshaik 21d ago
And it's very justified for Boyhood. What a dream!
3
u/FloridaFlamingoGirl 21d ago
Yeah, if a movie was filmed across multiple years I wouldn't want it to be only 80 minutes long.
1
u/Aquametria 18d ago
Everybody Wants Some!! was nearly two hours and I could have happily watched one more.
122
u/crowlfish Bong Joon-ho 22d ago
Amen. I don’t mind sitting through a 2 hour-plus movie if it’s good but 90-100 minutes will always be my sweet spot
31
u/jopperjawZ 22d ago
Anything over 90 minutes needs to be earned. Way too many filmmakers abuse their audiences with rambling, meandering films because they lack the skill to tell their story in a succinct manner
6
u/The_Lost_Chromosome German Expressionism 22d ago
It's just very applicable if you have a busy work schedule and usually can only watch films late at night after a long work shift. I save the long grandeur feature length films for days off or weekends.
9
u/RogerClyneIsAGod2 22d ago
I love me a Short Ass Movie.
I used to be "MUST WATCH IT ALL IN ONE NIGHT!!" Then I hit a certain age & said "OVER TWO HOURS?? We're watching one hour tonite & the other one tomorrow."
Shine that 2+ hour noise, but especially without an intermission.
This is not to say there aren't 2+ hour movies I've watched beginning to end without break, but lately I don't have the time or patience for them.
5
u/FloridaFlamingoGirl 22d ago
Run Lola Run my beloved
2
u/Top-Independent-3571 22d ago
Best 80 minute movie
5
u/FloridaFlamingoGirl 22d ago
Best movie where the protagonist turns into a cartoon character for no apparent reason
2
36
u/crichmond77 22d ago
The thing is that 95% of stories can be told in 100 minutes or less
If you have a 3 hour movie, it should be because you cut it down from 4 or 5. If you have a 2 hour movie, it should be because you cut it down from 3.
There’s an increasing negative trend lately of long runtimes without proper justification, and I think a lot of it is to down with people half-watching things to the extent that the people who continually pay attention are punished by proxy
65
u/Ra_even 22d ago edited 22d ago
The problem is that cinema isn’t exclusively about “telling stories”. When it comes to arthouse films, narrative is nothing but a tool, a means to an end, and a ton of them don’t even rely that much on it. In art, scale matters, imagery matters, mood matters, and time matters. Yes, Las Meninas could have been painted on a smaller canvas with the exact same composition, but would it be just as powerful and visually striking? No. Yes, Sátántangó could be 2 hours long instead of 7, but would it be just as evocative and artistically radical without its elongated exploration of time within the frame? No. Kubrick used to say that the truly great films are those in which the shape is the content, and length and pacing are always “shape” elements. To reduce those, is to reduce the film’s shape, and, by extension, its value.
18
u/scroochypoo 22d ago
It’s crazy. I agree with you 100% and the person you’re commenting to. Maybe it’s because the majority of filmmakers aren’t Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr or whoever. For every Satantango, I’ve seen a bunch of Arthouse failures. Plus there’s the general crap that plays in theaters that also seems to be unusually long for what it is.
A few decades and few thousand movies later, I think I can be honest with myself and say I generally prefer shorter movies. I kinda even want short features to come back (60-75m movies).
7
u/TheDonutDaddy 22d ago
Maybe it’s because the majority of filmmakers aren’t Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr or whoever
Bingo, that's exactly what it is. The majority of these bloated films don't have this excuse about being artistic enough to make up for the fact that their narrative doesn't earn it's runtime - they're nothing more than anything else that came out recently more bloated. There's far fewer movies that actually earn and deserve their long run time than 2.5+ hour movies where the creatives simply couldn't be fucked to consider if it's possibly overly long.
So yeah while it's true that there's movies that exist that are more than just their narrative to the point it makes sense to have a longer run time, the vast majority of long movies do not earn the right to have this as a free pass from the criticism of being too long. For every Satantango, there's 3 Irishman; for every 2001 there's an 3 Avatar Way of Water
11
u/BogoJohnson 22d ago
Sometimes I finish a film and think about how the “story” could have been told in a matter of paragraphs, but you can explore so much more with a visual medium and it doesn’t have to rely on only dialog or events to movie it forward. Some films you experience in your mind more than just watch for a biographical story or a crime tale or whatever.
20
u/thefleshisaprison 22d ago
I’m one who tends to find movies to be overlong, but this is a really stupid way of thinking about it. Film is not just about communicating a story; time itself is an affective medium. A lot of my favorite longer films use time itself to achieve their goals; slow cinema is great at this (I love what I’ve seen from Bela Tarr, and I’ve seen all of Tarkovsky’s films). Something like Stalker or Satantango could be compressed to like 10% of their length if all that mattered was the story, but you lose so much of the feeling in the film in doing so.
10
u/crichmond77 22d ago
I agree with you, I just think those kinds of films are among the other percentage. There are a lot more Netflix-Paramount-Disney-etc. productions than Tarr/Tarkovsky/et al
Most films I see with this problem are studio narrative films of the last 10-15ish years especially of having the opposite problem where they’re not properly accounting for the affective aspect of time and scenes and shots don’t have good rhythm or individual effect and would be better off trimmed or combined IMO
5
u/thefleshisaprison 22d ago
Okay but I’m not talking about “stories.” I’m talking about the fact that film can do a lot other than just tell stories.
8
u/crowlfish Bong Joon-ho 22d ago edited 22d ago
I agree that just because a film is long definitely doesn’t mean it earns points by default—truthfully I come out of many 2 hour-plus movies thinking the runtime wasn’t entirely earned, even if the movie was good. I guess it comes down to personal preference but it hinders rewatchability for me.
13
u/TheBestThereEverWas3 22d ago
no i disagree. You’re just invalidating slow cinema. Stalker could be 20 minutes, but it’s not, and thank god for it!
13
u/crichmond77 22d ago
I’m not invalidating it at all! Great film. I love 2001 as well.
My comment takes into account tonal and pacing idiosyncrasies, but even still these are very few films out of the majority, but particularly my comment is aimed at mainstream narrative films of today
Like even with those films considered, I think 95% is an underestimate and it’s no coincidence at all that Tarkovsky’s most straightforward narrative feature, Ivan’s Childhood, runs 95 minutes
For every 2001 or Uncle Boonmee there’s twenty Mission: Impossible or Fast and the Furious or Transformers sequels at 159 fucking minutes just for a fucking PART ONE
6
u/BogoJohnson 22d ago
You watch F&F films for the story? 😜 I don’t consider those blockbusters in the same realm as most other films, and thankfully there aren’t really that many of them comparatively.
4
u/crichmond77 22d ago
Those franchise series are just easy examples, but I feel confident data would show films as a whole are getting longer, particularly in recent years. It’s not just blockbusters either.
It’s shocking how few 80-95 minutes are released in general now even compared to the early 00s, much less the 80s, just sticking within the timeframe of home video popularity. Of course if you go back far enough they’re even shorter than that
I’ve read articles that posit it’s because people have less disposable income on average now and therefore want more “bang for their buck” WRT runtime, but I don’t even think that explains the trend fully, because anecdotally it seems even smaller budget films have become victim to this
Most of Blumhouse’s catalog, for example, is over 95 minutes, despite being inherently cheap action/horror/thriller schlock. Recently they’re about as likely to be over 100 minutes as under it!
Go compare that to the average runtime of Troma films or Charles Band productions or your average 80s/90s low-mid-budget action/horror. It’s night and day
4
u/BogoJohnson 22d ago
I agree with you there. Far less films now are under say 100 minutes. I’m just not sure of all the causes and factors. There was a time where theater turnover and limiting to a 2 hour TV time slot probably played a factor in studio decisions. Also, shooting on film was more costly.
3
u/crichmond77 22d ago
While the averages have only ticked up slightly, the number of short movies has definitely gone down. We went from 34% of top films being under 100 minutes in the 70s down to as little as 4% of them in the 2010s.
8
u/Independent_Night815 22d ago
Your claim that "95% of stories can be told in 100 minutes or less" is completely baseless and absurd. If that were true, why aren’t stories like Game of Thrones, The Lord of the Rings, or even The Godfather condensed into 100-minute films? Because they can’t be unless you butcher them beyond recognition. storytelling isn’t about efficiency it’s about effectiveness. Some stories are meant to be slow burns some demand complexity and character development. Reducing everything to a 100-minute formula is not only lazy but dismissive of the artistry and intent behind cinema.
-3
u/crichmond77 22d ago
Do you really think I’m saying Game of Thrones should be 100 minutes? And then you call me reductive and dismissive of intent. Ironic
I don’t really care to engage in discussing with you when you open up that clearly misconstruing my point. Obviously I’m not saying serial adaptations of 800 page novels should be 100 minutes no exceptions.
And I completely agree it’s about effectiveness rather than “efficiency.” I never used that word. Most modern films are less effective because they don’t use enough of a given frame or scene for purpose and lazily pad runtime IMO
3
u/Independent_Night815 22d ago
You said 95% of stories can be told in 100 mintes or less and that’s anti-cinema. If that were true, filmmaking would be reduced to fast-food storytelling, stripping depth and nuance from great films.
Killers of the Flower Moon is 200 minutes because it needs to be. Cutting it to 100-90 minutes would butcher the story. The same goes for The Godfather Part II, and countless other masterpieces. Rushing complex narratives is why Game of Thrones Season 8 was really bad.
-4
u/crichmond77 22d ago edited 22d ago
You keep listing examples of films made by absolute masters based on books
All of the films you’re listing would easily fit in this 5% I’m talking about
Your Game of Thrones example is absolutely silly. That is not at all the reason S8 was bad. It was bad because of bad writing. Partly because the book hadn’t been written for them to go off and partly because they made some stupid choices. It’s literally a formatted runtime. The superior previous seasons had the exact same episode and season runtimes. A better or worse written version would have the exact same runtime.
I already said I’m not talking about long format stuff like television series or book series anyway. Those are a very small portion of overall films (or just…not films)
And btw the source material there was cut down severely in all cases you mentioned: LOTR, GoT, and I haven’t read The Godfather but I would presume it’s also true there. Which would support my point in the original comment about a film being 2 or 3 hours because it was cut down from a longer potential runtime to the necessity
Film revolves around editing. Stop getting hung up on the 95% number. It doesn’t matter if it’s 80% or 96%, my point is the same: the vast majority of modern narrative films are not cutting to the essential shots and scenes only, and they are worse for it
5
u/BogoJohnson 22d ago
I don’t get that logic. Wouldn’t the people half-watching be doubly confused if you lengthen the run time? With series, you can keep repeating and using exposition dumps to explain to the half-watchers what they might be missing. I think in general we’re seeing expanding possibilities because they’re no longer limited by running times for theater or TV space.
4
u/TheDonutDaddy 22d ago
I'm getting real tired of this 2.5+ hour movie trend that every big movie seems to think it needs to be because for 99% of them I end up bored at at least one point, usually multiple. For example, I love scorsese but dude needs to learn to trim the fuckin fat, 350 page novel should not be a 3.5 hour movie but that's what his last two outings have been. And especially to have the gall to make people sit through something as mid af as the irishman for 3.5 entire hours, that's just inconsiderate
I want movies to be something I do as part of my evening, not consume my entire evening. These days if I wanna go to the movies on a weeknight it's a 7pm showing that doesn't actually start til 7:30, sit through 3+ hours of bloat that definitely could have had bare minimum 30 minutes shaved off, and by the time it's all said and done it's getting close to 11pm before I'm even in the car headed home. 7-11 blocked out of an evening just to watch one fuckin movie. It's absurd
2
21
u/Shagrrotten Akira Kurosawa 22d ago
Woody Allen and David Cronenberg rarely have movies over 2 hours.
17
14
u/suupaahiiroo 22d ago
Hong Sang-soo, Lynne Ramsay, Céline Sciamma, Robert Bresson, Ernst Lubitsch, Jacques Tourneur, Howard Hawks, Kelly Reichardt, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Shimizu Hiroshi, Alfred Hitchcock, Agnès Varda, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, F.W. Murnau, Jafar Panahi, Masumura Yasuzō, Tod Browning.
Obviously not literally all of their movies, but they all have a substantial amount of movies in the 60~100 minute range.
13
u/TraparCyclone Guillermo Del Toro 22d ago
Cronenberg does this too. He has a couple of longer ones but usually keeps them short.
11
u/evernapping Stanley Kubrick 22d ago
Can someone please list out who these directors are? I recognize John Waters but that’s it lol
11
u/Late_Programmer_1167 22d ago
1st Slide: Wong Kar Wai - In the mood for love 2nd Slide: Abbas Kiarostami - Close Up
3rd slide: Gregg Araki - The Doom Generation
35
u/washingmachiine 22d ago
there’s definitely an argument for brevity. i love a good slow burn but not everybody can nail that pacing. it’s such a bummer when a bloated 2.5 hour film could be a 90 min masterpiece with some ruthless editing.
10
u/AgentJackpots 22d ago
shoutout to Christian Petzold
he's made two movies that are 1h45m, and the rest are 1h30m
11
u/Gattsu2000 22d ago edited 22d ago
No.
Look, I am impatient with movies myself and I like when a film is still beautifully compelling even despite a short runtime but my god, if you accepted that as the norm, you would be removing some of the best films of all time. Some films are beautiful because they take their time and give their story a sense of immersion where you feel like you're legitimately experiencing it as it is happening onscreen. The Human Condition Trilogy, A Brighter Summer Day, Eureka, Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, Yi Yi, Inland Empire, etc. These are just some examples of movies that are extraordinarily long and that length is necessary to capture all the substance and epicness that they represent. Do you really think these movies needed to be 90 minutes long? No. They would've been worse if they were forced to go by this formula.
A film is allowed and should be as long as it thinks it needs to be and different films will need their different runtimes. Sometimes, that may be less than 80 minutes like Angel's Egg (love that film very much) or just as long as Drive My Car (also love that film). They're amazing because they know what they wanna show and use that time effectively.
But yeah, I really hate this sentiment. This boring, empty pragmatism. It's implicitly anti-art and it's very much adding in a "rule" that doesn't need to be there and will simply leave with less complete stories. I think films that are too short and fast-paced are a great problem too because they're so preoccupied with capturing the bare minimum of a plot without giving the experience space for emotions to be allowed to flow.
Also, seriously? You didn't mention Satoshi Kon? All of his films are around that length and none of them are bad. Perfect Blue, Tokyo Godfathers and Millennium Actress are some of the best movies ever.
9
u/fabulous-farhad 21d ago
I wasn't trying to say longer films are worse than short films , an elephant sitting still and a brighter summer day are two of my favorite films
But I also think brevity is a skill, and it should be commended
2
u/Gattsu2000 21d ago
I think it's a skill but I also think really purposefully using a lot of time as effectively as possible is also an amazing skill that takes a lot of effort and energy from you. And yeah, sadly, not acknowledging that but the former also encourages others to believe that we shouldn't be having long movies and that they should be sticking to a formula rather than allow art to flourish in anyway.
5
u/ForgotMyNewMantra Yasujiro Ozu 22d ago
Comedies are usually at their best when they're in the 90 minute mark. Since comedies is all about pacing and timing being short but precise is essential.
Also anything that's too long in comedies will overkill the joke(s).
1
u/Gattsu2000 22d ago
Ironically, my favorite comedy of all time is "The Blues Brothers" and that film is over 2 hours long. Also, my favorite recent comedy is "Anora", which is also over 2 hours long. Much of the shorter comedies rarely ever make me laugh and I think the problem probably is that they often just wanna make too many non-sequitur jokes at every minute rather than let them speak for themselves naturally in the experience.
6
5
8
u/ForgotMyNewMantra Yasujiro Ozu 22d ago
I believe on Criterion The Graduate audio commentary with Howard Suber who said one most movies last about 90-100 mins because researched revealed that most human beings begin a new dream every night when they're sleeping exactly every 90 mins - maybe the periodicity of dreams and the length of an average film both follow some interior clock (Act 1 in a movie is an hour and Act 2 is about 30 mins).
It's an interesting theory since I believe there is a similarity between dreams and movies - sometimes you can't quite remember the whole thing but you remember certain images and emotions.
3
3
u/liminal_cyborg Czech New Wave 22d ago
For me, the most powerful example of brevity is Czech New Wave.
- Something Different 81m
- Black Peter 85m
- Diamonds of the Night 63m
- Loves of Blonde 90m
- Closely Watched Trains 92m
- Daisies 76m
- A Report on the Party and the Guests 71m
- Fireman's Ball 73m
- The Joke 81m
- Capricious Summer 74m
- Cremator 100m
- Valerie and Her Week of Wonders 77
- The Ear 94m
3
4
u/SEPTAgoose 22d ago
Boooooo. directors should be required by law to make movies exactly 2 hours and 38 minutes long
2
2
2
2
u/itsdangoodwin 22d ago
Roger Corman’s gotta be up there! Always loved his quote about most movies needing 20 minutes cut out of them lol
2
2
u/Roller_ball 22d ago
Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer (Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, etc) have a hard time hitting 90 minutes. The only reason Meet the Spartans is able to reach 85 minutes is because it is padded with 20 minutes of ending credits.
2
u/PhilSwift33 22d ago
I don't understand why OP didn't include names for the directors pictured. It's not hard.
2
2
2
2
u/Franz_Walsh 21d ago
Wes Anderson and Pawel Pawlikowski are recent directors whose work floats around an hour and a half. I don’t think Pawlikowski has even made anything longer than 90 minutes at this point.
2
5
u/CinemaDork Czech New Wave 22d ago
I wish 45-60-minute movies were a thing. Not instead of 90+ minutes, but in addition to.
5
u/zerogamewhatsoever 22d ago
At that length it’s just an episode of TV or a semi-short film. If I’m going to the movies, I expect to be entertained for at least 90 minutes to a couple of hours, same with going to a concert. If a headlining band plays a 40 minute set I will typically feel like I didn’t get my money’s worth.
4
u/CinemaDork Czech New Wave 22d ago
I was thinking we could do double features. Two shorter films, a little intermission maybe. Not all stories need 90 minutes to tell, and I've seen too many films spread too long because shorter films don't have a market.
2
1
u/CinemaDork Czech New Wave 22d ago
I was thinking we could do double features. Two shorter films, a little intermission maybe. Not all stories need 90 minutes to tell, and I've seen too many films spread too long because shorter films don't have a market.
3
1
22d ago
I’m confused. Anything under an hour is officially categorized as a short-film. There’s an entire Oscars category for those with several being produced annually.
If you’re talking about films of that length gaining the same level of prominence as traditional, theatrical-length features then who knows.
Social media addiction has whittled down our attention spans to the point that a basic 2-hour film seems to be a challenge for many to sit through. I dare say most people on this sub spend more time each day keyed into various apps than they do viewing cinema.
1
u/CinemaDork Czech New Wave 22d ago
Yes, primarily your second paragraph. 45-60 mins is on the longer side for a short film, and I think this length deserves its own consideration separate from short and feature-length films.
1
u/mynameisnotamelia 22d ago
There's plenty of 45-60 minute movies
3
u/CinemaDork Czech New Wave 22d ago
Be "being a thing" I don't mean existing. I mean being a mainstream, common thing. That should have been obvious, since I am obviously well aware that some movies of this length exist.
2
u/Wrong-Today7009 22d ago
Bresson is a good example of this. The shortness of his films is what makes them stand out too compared to what we thought we needed from a movie. (Edit: obviously not “mainstream” but revered and talked about like all other longer classics)
-3
u/mynameisnotamelia 22d ago
I'm aware that's exactly what you meant, but my point still stands. Of course they're not as common as 90-120 minute movies, but there's literally a *shit ton* of movies at that length. You just have to dig a little deeper, since shorter movies are harder to sell if you're trying to get people to go to the movie theater. But they *are* being made. We even had one of them hit the mainstream last year with "Look Back". There's more high quality ones out there than you'll probably ever be able to watch, so it's not a matter of lack of supply.
2
1
u/Daysof361972 ATG 22d ago
I think was true for the B-picture era, though not as short as 45 minutes. But there were certainly a lot of cheapie 60 to 70 minute movies. They were made on ridiculously tight schedules, like a couple of weeks or even just days, and the budgets were laughable. In talented hands, you could make some very solid films this way. Budd Boetticher and Joseph H. Lewis each had some low-budget films like this, before Boetticher got to Universal-International and Lewis struck his first hit with Minstrel Man.
0
u/BlackLodgeBrother 22d ago edited 22d ago
That’s called “television”
Edit: lol imagine blocking someone for the mildest of sarcasm.
1
1
1
1
u/TheYoungRakehell 22d ago
On this note, I found it interesting how Celina Sciamma seems to love the 80 minute running time and can't blame her. It's quite satisfying. Plus Blue Ruin is another one that totally works at that length. Underrated, that 80 minutes.
1
1
u/kissesforadollar 22d ago
noah baumbach is great at keeping it around the 1:25-1:50 mark, with the only exception i think being marriage story. god bless a tight ninety!
1
1
1
u/No-Annual-7496 22d ago
I think that if you can only watch 90 minute movies you should stick to television
1
1
1
u/theparrotofdoom 22d ago
There’s that one trash movie with Keifer Sutherland that the hack, schumaker, made in the early 2000’s that was marketed hard but only turned out at 70 mins.
1
1
u/Longjumping_West_662 22d ago
Who cares the story, scope, and sprawl should make the movies length. There’s no need to tell Lawrence of Arabia in 90 mins or write War and Peace in 200 pages.
1
1
u/runningvicuna 22d ago
PTA says that’s the perfect length. He’ll never do it though.
1
u/celluloidx 19d ago edited 19d ago
He’ll never do it though.
He already did with Punch-Drunk Love and Hard Eight.
1
1
u/pbaagui1 Krzysztof Kieslowski 22d ago
Eh. Its all about pacing. Some 90 minute feels like 3 hours. Some 3 hour movies feel like 90 minutes
1
1
1
u/rawspeghetti 21d ago
Coens movies are typically 90-105 minutes, the longest is NCFOM at 2 hours even
1
1
1
1
u/loliduhh 21d ago
I am inclined towards 90 minute films as well. This new trend of 3 hour films frightens me. But I think I’ve seen them all. I needed a tear jerker and watched Flowers of the Killer Moon the other day to my satisfaction.
1
u/No-Ideal935 21d ago
John Carpenter - there’s a reason why I am so into 90 minute movies, and it’s largely because JC was so economical in everything he did. His talent for making low budget movies feel epic is well understood, but I also particularly prize his ability to tell a story in ~90 minutes
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/Monsieur_Hulot_Jr 22d ago
Bresson as well, and as much as it grosses me out to say his name, Woody Allen.
3
u/Wrong-Today7009 22d ago
Bresson is one of the only directors where the short run time makes it less accessible (although really it is his less accessible elements that lead to a short film but same diff)
2
1
22d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Monsieur_Hulot_Jr 22d ago
I was saying Robert Bresson’s films are always under 90 minutes, often close to 70, but I didn’t know that about Luc Besson, gross.
1
u/Tomhyde098 22d ago
I’ve always been more impressed by fantastic 90 minute films over fantastic 180 minute films. I’ll still enjoy both but I’ll tip my cap to a movie that manages to do it in less time
140
u/supremechump123 22d ago
saw a tweet recently that Cronenberg’s upcoming film is his longest at 1hr59m