The Brutalist is a long film, that goes without saying. Clocking in at over three and a half hours, it is now the fourth-longest film to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Such a long runtime may be a turnoff for many cinemagoers, but the 15-minute intermission goes some way to addressing that.
Director Brady Corbet says this was done to “give everyone time to reset,” letting them head to the bathroom, stretch their legs, and otherwise just take their mind off the movie for 15 minutes. This has sparked a question among filmgoers about whether longer films should have intermissions more regularly, particularly in an age where cinemas are often seen as being at risk of closure thanks to the convenience of streaming and the ability to pause a movie whenever the viewer pleases.
Intermissions are not a new feature for films, in fact, they were once considered commonplace. For the first half of the 20th century, cinemas would regularly have intermissions for all sorts of movies. This was primarily so that staff had time to change the film reels, but it also harked back to cinema’s roots as recorded theatre. The theatre would give its audience and crew time to breathe and prepare for the second half, and so would the cinema. By the second half of the century, however, technology had advanced to the point where an entire film could fit on one reel. Combined with cinemas wanting to screen more films in a single day, intermissions were slowly phased out by the early 1980s.
It’s understandable from a business angle, but in their heyday, film intermissions offered several benefits to the cinema experience beyond just changing the reel. The truth is, even for the most hardened of moviegoers, sitting through a long film can be a challenge—whether it’s waiting to use the bathroom or simply maintaining concentration and emotional energy. There have been many times I’ve felt exhausted getting through a slow-burn drama, only to check my phone and realise there’s still another two hours to go.
Film critic and blogger Delton Cox points out that, from an artistic standpoint, intermissions could also benefit longer films. He notes how the epic films of the 1950s and 1960s took great advantage of the intermission to create a larger-than-life cinematic experience.
“It [intermissions] worked for older movies like Gone with the Wind, The Ten Commandments, The Sound of Music, and it will most certainly work again. A movie should not feel like an extended TV episode, but more like great chapters in a book, with a proper breather in between.”
By incorporating an intermission, these larger films were able to break down their lengthy runtimes into more digestible chunks, allowing the audience time to absorb each part without feeling drained. They transformed cinema from a mere trip out of the house into an immersive experience, weaving a grand tale that captivated viewers for an entire evening.
Of course, there are still potential downsides to bringing back intermissions. Martin Scorsese actively prevented cinemas from adding an intermission to his three-hour-long drama Killers of the Flower Moon, stating that it would go against his vision for the movie as a director.
It should be noted that several cinemas across the US and Australia decided to add intermissions to the movie. Benjamin Zeccola, Chief Executive of Palace Cinemas in Australia said that he felt it was discriminatory not to allow cinemas to have intermissions when streaming and DVDs have pause buttons allowing viewers to take breaks when needed.
“I think that it’s absolutely imperative that the people that are contemplating this put the customer at the centre of the decision-making process,” says Zeccola. “It’s not about the director, it’s about the viewer.”
Likewise, some audiences may prefer to watch a film in one sitting rather than spending 15 minutes waiting for it to start up again. If the primary issue audiences have with long movies is their excessive runtime, then making them even longer could exacerbate the problem.
It would probably be best if intermissions were reintroduced on a film-by-film basis, keeping in mind the creator’s intentions and what would best serve the intended audience. With many movies embracing longer runtimes in recent years—from Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer to the more mainstream Avengers: Endgame, both exceeding three hours—intermissions could provide filmmakers with a valuable new tool to experiment with storytelling.
Returning to the issue of streaming pulling audiences away from cinemas, it’s important to consider what cinema offers that a home viewing experience cannot. Speaking more broadly about The Brutalist, Corbet emphasises his desire to give cinema audiences a special experience:
“You need to eventise moviegoing so it feels like a night out. You need to get something special, so it feels worth it to spend $20 or $25 on a movie ticket.”
It’s easy to see where he’s coming from. For me at least, the cinema offers a more immersive experience—it’s easier to give a movie your full attention when it fills the room with sight and sound. Intermissions can enhance this, transforming a film into an event with distinct phases, piecing together a grander saga. They provide filmmakers with new creative possibilities for the silver screen, truly bringing their epics to life.
Words by Alex Daud Briggs
Support The Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.