Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)
Are movies too long?
A spoiler-free pseudo-review
Killers of the Flower Moon, the latest film from Martin Scorsese, is nearly three and a half hours. The film’s extended runtime isn’t out of character for the legendary director. Gangs of New York (2002) and The Aviator (2004) are just shy of three hours each, Casino (1995) and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) are three hours a piece, and The Irishman (2019) and Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) exceed three hours. As one of the greatest contemporary directors, Scorsese is not beholden to brevity.
With that being said, Killers of the Flower Moon’s theatrical release was mostly defined by people balking at the film’s runtime. I admit that I was among the detractors, but my reservations were rooted in noble concerns. My issue isn’t that the movie was long. Rather, it was essential to me that I see every minute of the film, a personal imperative that clashes with the realities of the human bladder. In a theater, I cannot pause the film when, inevitably, I need to pee. A few brave theaters inserted an intermission, drawing the ire of the film’s production company and distributors.
“If Scorsese didn’t intend for there to be an intermission, I think that should be at least the primary way people can see it …That being said, it was a long movie. And I think if there is enough demand out there, and especially if it means a difference in helping someone make the decision to go and buy a ticket, rather than not go see the movie, then maybe there’s an economical and practical argument for at least a limited option.”
-Shawn Robbins, chief analyst at Boxoffice Pro, quoted in Variety
When Killers of the Flower Moon was available for home viewing, I paid $25 to digitally purchase the film. It was good value, especially considering what my family would’ve had to pay for theater tickets. Plus I could pee whenever and never miss a moment, which I consider priceless.
With the film entering the digital marketplace, it is thrust into the attention economy’s crucible. The 206-minute film is a large stone in an endless river of content. You subscribe to four different streaming services. Unlike the theater, your home is filled with distractions: Your phone buzzes, your laundry is done, and your dog needs a walk. So you pause the film, your attention diverted. You watch the movie in pieces, maybe over two or three days. As a result, the movie feels endless and disjointed. You’ve accidentally bastardized the story’s narrative structure and pacing. Marty would be displeased.
Maybe our collective attention span has atrophied so severely that there is no longer a place for cinematic epics in our media diet. If we are to accept this as true, if movies “shouldn’t” be three and a half hours long, then we accept our collective devolution into a society of goldfish-brained content consumers.
If that were truly the case, Quibi— the platform that promised original content in 10-minute morsels— wouldn’t have folded in 8 months. There’s a reason Quibi is a laughingstock among people who remember it even existed: the unique selling point is insulting to the users. It was a streaming platform designed with goldfish brains in mind. Within the year, it went belly up. I know pet goldfish that lasted longer than Quibi.
I don’t think that the issue is a lack of attention. Nor do I think most people truly lack the time for an epic cinematic experience. Rather, I think it’s a question of how we define “time well spent.” I will concede that some people actually do not have time to watch movies, but are you really one of those people?
How many TikToks have you watched today? Have you seen all of your acquaintances’ Instagram stories? How many times have you rewatched The Office? How long was the football game you watched? Was any of it worth watching? Maybe you feel like it was, and I’m not here to convince you otherwise. You might not care about movies, but I’m willing to bet you have time for them.
“People say it’s three hours, but come on, you can sit in front of the TV and watch something for five hours.”
-Martin Scorsese in an interview for the Hindustan Times
Even I, an aspiring film critic, often find it difficult to sit down for a movie. Everything is vying for my attention and I feel pulled in a dozen different directions. It can lead to a critical lack of “quality time” (i.e. taking time to do something without feeling compelled to be doing something else instead). This is something I struggle with constantly, with film and in other areas of my life.
I had to schedule a time to watch Killers of the Flower Moon with my family weeks in advance. I set aside an entire day with the sole intent of watching the movie from start to finish. It was a worthwhile endeavor. Scorseses’ epic, true tale of Native American prosperity intermingling with the envy, greed, and violence of white supremacy is a story worth telling. It is a story worth hearing. It’s a film emphatically worth seeing.
It’s a story as long as a single episode of the H3 Podcast, which I watch three times a week. It staggering to realize I spend a minimum of ten and a half hours a week watching people I don’t know talk about things that do not matter, and yet I do it without a second thought. How am I choosing to spend my time? What constitutes value? Is my time spent “quality time?” Not always.
It’s fine to waste time. It’s fine to invest time in things other than film. I’m not here to judge your diversion of choice. Over the last two weeks, I’ve played eighty hours of the video game Baldur’s Gate III and I have no regrets.
However, carving out quality time requires conscious effort. It is a question of time commitment intersecting with evolving attitudes towards cinema as a medium for telling stories.
Do I think Killers of the Flower Moon is the apotheosis of cinema? No. Is it worth seeing? Without a doubt. Will you like it? I don’t know you. Do you have the time for such a long movie? I’m willing to bet that you do.
We all choose how we spend our limited time on this earth. Maybe you went to see Avengers: Endgame a half-dozen times in theaters. I have no judgment, your choices have no impact on me. However, if you’ve seen Star Wars twenty times and have watched every spin-off series on Disney+, you might have time to watch movies.
You will decide for yourself if this cinematic experience, and the cinematic form generally, are something that you value. If you are, consciously or not, choosing to spend your time elsewhere, that’s your prerogative. However, it suggests that the problem isn’t that Killers of the Flower Moon is too long. It’s more likely that you’d rather be doing something else, and that’s not Martin Scorsese’s fault.
Subscribe to Acquired Tastes for a free newsletter delivered every Sunday.
See you next week, film freak.
I appreciate your viewpoints because I get a different angle and also many chuckles when reading your reviews. I would suggest seeing a movie in a theater is a treat for my budget and so worth it with the dark space, great sound, no distractions and snacks and beverages of my choice but the need to pee is real so an in theater long movie is a difficult choice for me. An intermission with a long bathroom line is also not palatable. Watching long movies at home then becomes a self care choice. I do differ with one written word, “aspiring” within the context of film critic in that your take on films opens my perspective, inspires me to pay attention differently and causes me to pause and smile with what I had not noticed or considered. Your weekly reviews are entertaining and equally a welcomed diversion in the context of my watching, reading and listening choices.
What a great commentary on this film and the whole "it's too long" argument that keeps many viewers away--you should try to publish this in the Boston Globe, or Washington Post (Ty Burr might be able to suggest some ways to pitch it, and to whom). Odie Henderson might also help--I can send you his email address. Or perhaps you can find another online outlet. Give it a shot!