In Praise of Shorter Movies

In the context of film, 70, 80, or even 90 minutes is considered a short length of time. Many such movies rarely play in cinemas nowadays, because there is this idea that the longer something is, the easier it is for a moviegoer to justify the effort of traveling to the theatre. But in the past few months, I’ve had two cinema-going experiences which really made me think about how an awful lot can be done with a short run-time to create experiences as fulfilling as any three hour epic.

The first of these was Rye Lane, one of the best romcoms I’ve seen in a while, clocking in at 82 minutes. What’s interesting about the movies I’m praising for being short is they don’t necessarily feel short, and I think in the case of Rye Lane, its place in the genre has a lot to do with that. I enjoy a good romantic comedy, but so many mainstream ones do have an awful lot of fat on them: subplots involving supporting roles, detours for further comedy which only pads things out further…I could go on and on.

Because it only has an hour and twenty minutes to tell its story, Rye Lane never leaves the viewpoint of its starring couple. Minor characters still play a major (and often very funny) role in the movie while the duo’s budding chemistry always remains at the forefront of every scene. As they meet various supporting characters and get into the odd shenanigan, packing the background and even foreground with vibrant background extras to make the films world feel alive without taking the focus away from Dom and Yas’ blossoming chemistry. One almost gets the impression that if more romcoms had a similar level of focus, they’d clock in at a similar run-time and still be just as heartwarming. Rye Lane is a movie which moves fast yet never rushes through the story, holding your attention for every efficiently used second of its duration.

Wanna know just how little runtime matters to me when rating a film? Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is my second favourite movie of all time despite its even leaner 70-minute duration. I recently had the chance to experience it the way it was intended to be seen: on the big screen, at the Prince Charles Cinema in London. In fact, I had requested the movie via their request board, and was honored to see it finally chosen – kudos to the Prince Charles for embodying the spirit of ReSee!!  It was glorious to see it with the booming surround sound and appreciate how brilliant its visual construction is. And despite being barely over an hour, it manages to establish several new characters, boasts riveting action set-pieces, and masterfully exposes both the plot and backstory.

Of course, for obvious reasons animated movies aimed at children and families have always been a bit shorter (think of the Classic Disney era), but Mask of the Phantasm always stood out to me as a great example of why movies don’t need to always be so long. A film can be high-energy, immersive, and take time to breathe, yet still get you to sleep by your bedtime. Mask of the Phantasm gives the audience enough moments to absorb the gothic atmosphere and ponder the tragedy at the core of Batman, all in the span of 1 or 2 Netflix Original series episodes’ worth of time. It never feels like the relatively brief length is there out of studio obligation; that was simply all the time the creators needed to tell this story.

Great films, as with great books or any other work of art, don’t always need to be huge to hit hard, and when you really think about it, 70 or 80 minutes really isn’t that short, especially with how busy we are these days.  It’s not like the people behind Rye Lane or Mask of the Phantasm are scrambling to wrap things up with their endings – they have plenty of time to build towards their satisfying conclusions – they just don’t bother with any fat. And as someone who needs to get back to work on his screenplays as quickly as possible, I really appreciate that!