nrc.nl
Venetian Film Festival Shows Trend of Increasing Film Lengths
The Venice Film Festival highlights a growing trend of longer films, with many exceeding 90 minutes, impacting programming and viewer experience, potentially linked to increased directorial control and streaming platform influence.
- How significantly are film lengths increasing, and what is the impact on film festival programming?
- The average film length has increased from 81 minutes in 1930 to 107 minutes in 2022. This year's Venice Film Festival showcases this trend, with many competing films exceeding 90 minutes, creating challenges for cinema programmers who aim to schedule two films per evening.
- What factors contribute to the increase in film lengths, and what are the implications for the film industry?
- Increased directorial control and streaming services offering creative freedom to big names are contributing factors. This can lead to bloated films, impacting programming, and potentially viewer engagement, as longer films may not always maintain audience interest.
- What are the potential future implications of this trend, and are there any counter-measures being considered?
- The trend towards longer films may continue, particularly with streaming services. While there's no formal solution, the suggestion of incentivizing shorter films through subsidies was made, highlighting a potential industry response to address this issue.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the increasing length of films as a problem, highlighting several examples of long films from the Venice Film Festival. The inclusion of statistics from The Economist and comments from film programmers reinforces this negative framing. However, it also presents a counterpoint by mentioning a shorter, critically acclaimed film. This creates a balanced, albeit subtly negative, framing.
Language Bias
The language used is mostly neutral, but there are instances of subtly negative connotations. Phrases like "steuntje in de rug nodig heeft" (needs a boost), "bijna 156 minuten lang Russische politieke geschiedenis over de kijker uitstortte" (poured almost 156 minutes of Russian political history over the viewer), and "overbodige momenten" (superfluous moments) carry negative implications. The use of "bombast" in relation to Guillermo Del Toro's film is also a loaded term. Neutral alternatives could include: 'requires support,' 'presented a detailed account of...', 'unnecessary scenes,' and 'extensive'.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential benefits of longer films, such as allowing for more nuanced storytelling or character development. It also doesn't explore the audience's preferences regarding film length in detail, focusing more on programmers' perspectives. While the article notes the impact of streaming services, it doesn't delve into the specific reasons why streaming platforms might encourage longer films.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between shorter and longer films, implying that only shorter films are good. It doesn't acknowledge that film length is a stylistic choice, and longer runtimes can be justified depending on the narrative and director's vision. The article's focus on programming difficulties also presents a false dichotomy of film length against practicality.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article indirectly relates to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by highlighting the increasing length of films and the challenges this poses for cinema programming. Longer films require more resources (energy for projection, etc.) and potentially lead to less efficient use of cinema screens. Encouraging shorter films could contribute to more sustainable consumption of cinema resources. The discussion about optimal film length touches upon efficient resource use, a key aspect of SDG 12.