Why are today's films so 底（に届く）-numbingly long? BRIAN VINER 明らかにする／漏らすs why directors (and writers) are keener on indulging themselves and flexing their egos than serving their audiences

• e-mail

The first James 社債 film, Dr No, was 解放（する）d 60 years ago this year. 大統領 John F. Kennedy requested a 私的な 審査 in the White House, which kept him away from running the country for an hour and 49 minutes. At the time, sword-and-sandals epics aside, that counted as a pretty long film.

If, by contrast, Joe Biden had asked to see the 最新の 社債 movie, No Time To Die, he’d have needed to take two hours and 43 minutes out of his busy schedule.

The point is that cinematic story-telling has become a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 flabbier since 1962, and has reached ridiculous levels in 最近の years, with directors (and writers) keener on indulging themselves and flexing their egos than serving their audiences.

JFK watched Dr No in the White House and needed?an hour and 49 minutes? - which in 1962 was a long movie. If Joe Biden 手配中の，お尋ね者 to watch No Time To Die he’d have needed to take two hours and 43 minutes out of his busy schedule

House Of Gucci ― about the 殺人 of the fashion 巨人 Maurizio Gucci by his ex-wife Patrizia ― lasted two hours and 38 minutes, 概略で the duration of a train 旅行 from London to Newcastle

The worst miscreants are the big-指名する directors, because too few studio (n)役員／(a)執行力のあるs will stand up to them and order a 削減（する）.

Sir Ridley Scott’s 最近の House Of Gucci is a good example. At the London 首相, the picture’s 星／主役にする, Lady Gaga, wore a みごたえのある purple Gucci frock with an extravagantly long train. It looked 広大な／多数の／重要な from the 前線, but went on for ever at the 支援する. That symbolised the film perfectly.

House Of Gucci ― about the 殺人 of the fashion 巨人 Maurizio Gucci by his ex-wife Patrizia ― lasted two hours and 38 minutes, 概略で the duration of a train 旅行 from London to Newcastle.

It should have stopped at Darlington. With half an hour or so taken out, it would have been a much better film.

But the 生産者 was Giannina Facio, whose husband of almost seven years is . . . Sir Ridley Scott. For all we know she might tell him to 削減（する） his toenails, but 明らかに lets him keep his movies as long as he likes.

The irony is that before Scott made films he made TV 商業のs, such as the famous 1973 Hovis advert with the 配達／演説／出産 boy 押し進めるing his bike up a 法外な hill. 支援する then, he understood the art of rigorously concise story-telling. Even his 1982 sci-fi classic, Blade 走者, （機の）カム in at under two hours.

Psycho by Alfred Hitchcock, in 1960, one hour, 49 mins

Quentin Tarantino's 1992 classic 貯蔵所 Dogs was one hour, 39 minutes

But 急速な／放蕩な-今後 40 years and it’s a different, much longer story. Before Gucci （機の）カム The Last Duel, Scott’s film about a 強姦 告訴，告発 in 中世 フラン, with Matt Damon and Jodie Comer.

That, too, lasted more than two-and-a-half hours. Scott, 84, is a wonderful film-製造者 with some seminal movies to his 指名する. But that shouldn’t mean he is 許すd to do 正確に／まさに what he wants.

Of course, there have always been long films, and there are still succinct films. Next week sees the 解放（する） of Belfast, Sir Kenneth Branagh’s beguiling autobiographical 演劇 about a boy growing up in The Troubles. It won Best Screenplay at last 週末’s Golden Globes, and is の中で the 前線-走者s for Best Picture at the Oscars. But here’s one more 決定的な 詳細（に述べる）: it only lasts 97 minutes. Branagh tells his tale with 抱擁する charm and, just as importantly, admirable economy.

Regrettably, too many celebrated directors have forgotten that economy 事柄s. Perhaps as 巨大（な）s of the 商売／仕事, they feel an 義務 to make gigantic films.

Another 違反者／犯罪者 is ツバメ Scorsese. His 2019 film for Netflix, The Irishman, about a Philadelphia mobster played by Robert De Niro, lasts an almighty three-and-a-half hours. In parts, it is like watching a 固める／コンクリート overcoat 乾燥した，日照りの.

It’s true that Francis Ford Coppola’s 1972 masterpiece The Godfather lasts only just under three hours. But it never drags. Every でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる, every line of 対話, moves the story 今後.

Even Michael Curtiz's 1942 movie Casablanca? is one hour, 42 mins

‘I think there’s not as much attention given to scripts as there used to be,’ he says. One 推論する／理由 for that is most features nowadays are 発射 on 数字表示式の ビデオ rather than film.

‘Before, when you were 狙撃 on film, you had to be very disciplined because it was so expensive,’ says Baird. ‘Everything you 発射 had to be of value, and a 35mm magazine of film would last only so long before it ran out.

‘But 数字表示式の will 記録，記録的な／記録する for ever. So now, when you shoot on ビデオ, you can do take after take after take.’ But there are many other factors in play, 含むing 実験（する） 審査s 落ちるing out of favour.

Some directors these days are 明らかに too powerful and too arrogant to 許す their films to be 裁判官d by a 無作為の audience, even though there are countless examples of 実験（する） 審査s making 広大な／多数の／重要な films greater.

For some, James Cameron’s 1997 epic Titanic seemed to last as long as the ill-運命／宿命d voyage itself, but had it not been for 実験（する） 審査s, the movie would have 要求するd even more bladder-支配（する）／統制する.

Cameron 削減（する） no より小数の than ten scenes after they 実験（する）d 不正に and 得るd 11 学院 Awards.

If there were more 実験（する） 審査s now, this dispiriting 傾向 of ever-lengthening movies would surely be curtailed. After all, look at television. There are 選び出す／独身 hour-long episodes of 広大な／多数の／重要な 演劇s such as the HBO 攻撃する，衝突する Succession, with a coherent beginning, middle and end, that could almost be 満足させるing little films in their own 権利.

They are m 広告 with greater discipline than feature films 大部分は because they have to fill a time slot. The movies we see at cinemas are 支配する to no such 強制 which should be a 肯定的な, but is all too often a 消極的な.

But then TV is part of the problem, too. With so much fantastic 演劇 利用できる to us in our living-rooms, 特に since the advent of subscription streaming services, cinema 解放（する）s are getting longer in the mistaken belief that if we are to be 説得するd to leave home we need more bang for our buck.

In fact we need いっそう少なく bang, ideally for より小数の bucks. Data 解放（する）d this week 示唆するs that Britain is 現在／一般に the tenth most expensive country to go to the pictures.

Encouragingly, the cinema 産業 has 生き残るd existential crises before, not least when TV became a 集まり-medium in the 1950s. If it is to do so again, 特に after the 破滅的な blow dealt by the pandemic, then directors need to be いっそう少なく self-indulgent, and to stop assuming their wares are 価値（がある） やめる so much of our time.

The seemingly unstoppable 殺到する of superhero movies over the past １０年間 hasn’t helped. Marvel’s 2019 behemoth Avengers: Endgame lasted more than three hours and has so far made more than $2.7 billion at the 全世界の box office.

All the major studio (n)役員／(a)執行力のあるs like the sound of that equation, and appear to have 結論するd that we all like sitting on our backsides so much that we’ll do it, interminably, even for films that aren’t about saving the 星雲.

Jon Baird, however, prefers the sound of another, much simpler equation. ‘If you can’t tell a yarn to your pals in five minutes 負かす／撃墜する the pub you shouldn’t be a film-製造者. Because making films is just an 延長するd 見解／翻訳／版 of that discipline . . . that’s what it’s all about.’

Unquestionably, he’s 権利. Sixty years ago in Dr No, Sean Connery’s James 社債 観察するd that ‘our 亡命s are 十分な of people who think they’re Napoleon, or God’.

It would be a little 不公平な to 示唆する that modern-day editing-控訴s are, too. But we need film-製造者s more willing to prioritise our entertainment over their own egos. さもなければ, cinema as we know it could be finished.?