Long wait.But how long will Baz Luhrmann's epic feels once the projector is running? Hollywood Elsewhere suggests that the final running time is nearly 3 hours. More alarming is the news that there's apparently still no final print. I'm no great fan of the marathon movie and I always worry about rushed post-production but I still can't wait. About that three hour running time: With Baz working his mojo, Hugh all heroic and Nicole in period finery I suspect it will fly by. Especially because that killjoy voice in the back of my head keeps reminding me that we're not going to get Bazmark's next film until at least 2013, you know? I suppose good things come to those who wait.
Posts
15 comments:
3 hours? Really? I mean, I love super long movies. LOVE THEM. But I can't imagine a Luhrman movie with the same wildly kinetic (i.e. schizophrenic) energy to sustain itself as a romantic epic over 3 hours. I am definitely all for it (says the guy whose second fav movie at NYFF was CHE) but we'll see if it can hold up for that long. I would call myself mildly skeptical, but quite hopeful...
James, I don't believe the movie will display that "wildly kinetic energy." This marks a new trilogy of Baz that is separate from the Red Curtain Trilogy. Of course there will be a touch of Baz, put the shots will be lengthier and more.. epic.
Anon- I hope you are right.
There's been absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that this'll be three hours of Moulin Rouge style edits. Why would it? If it is it'd be disastrous. I think Baz is a little bit smarter than that.
170 minutes (the reported running time) really isn't that long. Considering you will routinely find comedies and horror movies stretching beyond the 120-minute mark these days I think at least Australia belongs at that length.
Kamikaze- I agree that 170 minutes isn't actually that long (I'm all for super long movies all the time), but, so far, the Luhrman films of note have all had the same style. Even if they slow down a little bit (as the last half of MR does somewhat), they have the style that can lead to weird pacing that either works or doesn't. I do think he has more in him than that, and I think he's smarter than choosing to use the same style with this kind of epic, but when a director consistently shows the same style I think its safe to think about the style being there in any new work. I don't mean to pigeon hole him like that, but it's my only slight concern about the film. I think it will get past that, but I think its one of the only concerns to raise in what looks like a damn good movie.
Us mere mortals are in no way, shape or form to question Baz or anything pertaining to Baz at all, ever. Its blasphemy of the highest order. Australia shall be an epic. Probably a great one at that.
Amen!
The preview makes the movie seem ponderous, predictable, and dull. And, maybe that's just the preview. But GODS why am I being tortured by a series of cliché in half-second flash-cuts?
why does everyone lose their shit when it is announced that a film will run close to three hours or at 3 hours? Who gives a fuck. Longer running times can sometimes mean far more character and plot development. Many of the greatest films of all time are over three hours. More time can and many times is a good thing. It all depends on the material and what the director does with it. If you cant sit in the theater for three hours then dont go see the damn movie. It's that simple. Why is it that all americans have fucking ADD now when it comes to film watching?
anon -- i think it's just a response to how redundant so many movies are. running times have been creeping up over the years as if no one can edit themselves. particular comedies and action films.
but my guess is that it's a personal preference thing mostly. I think Woody Allen's best work (late 70s and 80s), for example, crams in FAR more interesting character profiles in 90 minutes than most filmmakers can accomplish with 180 minutes.
it's all in what the filmmaker can do with it.
Hasn't Baz made it pretty clear from the get-go that this film is NOT part of the "Red Curtain Trilogy" or the "Red Curtain style"? I know directors have certain "styles" but that notion that a director has one style and only one is more of an outgrowth of the "auteur" theory than anything else, and is absurd, because it implies that directors cannot make choices or try different things. (think Jonathan Demme:
Something Wild and Silence of the Lambs. etc etc)
Check out this schedule from Anne Thompson at Variety - she also says it will be between 2:30 and 2:40.
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/11/australia-where.html
No worries. Braveheart was 177 minutes and Dances with Wolves was 180.
Braveheart was 177 minutes too long though. Perfect running time: 0.
;)
Well, Australian cinemas are pre-selling tickets and the Reading branch is stating a running length of 175 minute.
Post a Comment