Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: All our movies compulsorily break once. Do your ?

This is topic All our movies compulsorily break once. Do your ? in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003880

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 08-19-2002, 02:27 AM:

A very unique feature about all films that are released in INDIA (I mean and assure, every one of the 13150 Single screens and 75 Multiplex screens) is that there is a customary break in between the run of the movie for atleast 10 minutes.

During this break, theatres play some music or the other. Lights inside the auditorium are turned on brightly and the audience go over to the food counters and come back to their seats. The movie will resume in 10 minutes in most theatres and in some, the interval is usually 20 minutes.

As far as INDIAN movie are concerned, for theatrical exhibition in INDIA, the director/producers themselves mark the "INTERVAL" logo on the print and usually this INTERVAL is at half the duration of the film. That is, if the film is a three hour movie, the interval is after 1.30 hours from the start.

When it comes to foreign movies in INDIA, each theatre will itself decide when to break for the interval.

There is no requirement for an interval under the LAW in INDIA.It is only a customary thing everybody does without fail.

I for one always resented in this practice. I believe this might be one reason why 99.99 % of all INDIAN films are real CRAP. These days, I have been communicating with a number of directors and producers and asking them to do something about it. But I am sure they are so stupid and will stay this way forever.

My theatre in BANGALORE is one of the leading movie theatre for the city. I have decided to give everyone a jolt now. On 30-Aug, the movie SIGNS is releasing and I am going to play it. Without an INTERVAL.

For the first time in this country, I want to show people that our practice of INTERVAL is insanity itself and for the time being, I am already becoming a big nuisance for the food and beverages industries. But, I am going to do it anyway.

I have learnt that SIGNS is about 1 Hrs.45 mins. I am making this reslove public today among the press. And there is going to be a very big public debate here about this.

What I would like to know from those who read this is :

In your country, is there anything like this insane practice of INTERVAL at all ?

If Indian films release in your country or city, do they each come with such an INTERVAL ?

To remind people again, I do not believe INTERVALS are required at all and they are an insult to the medium of cinema itself.

------------------

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-19-2002, 02:46 AM:

While I'll agree that you can show the movie thru without the break , it is a little hard with most of the Features , as you get a build up to the Intermission and titles for intermission , so you will need to cut abruptly before the normal intermission and miss some the normal build up to the break or show the Titles and just carry on which is not too professional and those waiting for their normal smoke and snack will most likely make their way the the manager to complain.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 08-19-2002, 03:15 AM:

We make a feature of having an intermission.
Generally anything approaching or over 2 hours gets a half time.
Kids movies as a rule all have one.

People from the cities love this & we get people driving 1 - 2 hours to watch in our 100 + year old building. (Bypassing 22 first run screens)
While this can be a real bitch to programme, the goodwill generated (and concession dollars) are incredible.

Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 08-19-2002, 03:18 AM:

I believe that any movie that is less than 2 hours in length should never have an intermission and having one is indeed insanity itself! That being said, one thing I've always wanted to know is what kind of treats you are selling at the concessions stand in India. Offering no intermission (INTERVAL) may improve the flow of the film, but if everyone is accustomed to buying concessions at the break, you will probably be hurting your concessions sales.

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-19-2002, 03:49 AM:

As a Rule when I used to do the Bollywoods at our cinema , the film distributor supplied the snacks (Indian Varity) and we would split the sales , but more that likely the customers were also shop owners who would bring their own snacks (which was discouraged) but we would make a killing on Coke Cola (we would have to get extra stocks of it for a Bollywood)
One thing you need to remember with a Bollywood Film is that it is a Family outing and the Intermission is a time to get together and talk about the movie and see other friends that may be at the movie as well.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-19-2002, 04:21 AM:

Personally, I wonder why we have done away with intermissions. They provide a real breather in longer films, and give many people the chance to buy more drinks, drain the lizzard, or whatever. It also gets people to get the jiggles out so they arent all talking at the end of the film making it just unbearable for all.

I come from watching tons of films. But I also come from a long line of stage actors as well. I am well versed in theatrical stage productions, and no intermission just seems horrible. My ass starts to fall asleep within fourty five minutes. Could be my fat ass.

I think just about every film could use an intermission, and it also provides an easy way for people to sneak out without the embarrasment they might feel if they really just got up and walked out. I wonder how many people dont do that just because they dont want people to even think about them.

I have seen many instances where a show just went wrong and after intermission we lose about 5 percent of the audience. In a bad movie, such as pluto nash, that would be only one person.

Dave

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-19-2002, 07:20 AM:

Some movies benefit from having an intermission. I really enjoyed the revival of "Lawrence of Arabia." I was still smoking cigarettes* back then, so that intermission was much-needed.

An intermission is probably good for concession sales but, really, I think the average 90min - 120min movie should just play through without a break.

~Manny (get some every morning)

*How did I quit smoking? Nicorette works. Start with a dental checkup/cleaning and a chest X-Ray.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 08-19-2002, 09:15 AM:

In many situations, an intermission may cost you enough time to not be able to show an extra showing during your day, if we're talking about a full day of shows. If we're talking about only evening show(s), leave the intermissions. It's what they're used to, and it really doesn't hurt anything, does it?

Posted by Terry Downing (Member # 1394) on 08-19-2002, 09:33 AM:

Normally, movies in England are not shown with an interval. However, we recently showed a Bollywood 'epic and the performance was shown with an intermission! Our automation does not allow for this event, so every show had to be done manually. What a pain!! Hopefully, we won't be having too many of them.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-19-2002, 11:49 AM:

I've wondered why extra-long movies don't have intermissions here in the US. For example, I thought an intermission in Titanic would have worked very well. Right after they strike the iceberg, and they realize the situation is hopeless and the ship is going to sink, have an intermission. Let the audience take a short breather and anticipate the spectacle that's about to come...

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 08-19-2002, 01:37 PM:

I miss intermissions. The US exhibition industry did away with intermissions to cut down on staff hours and to gain an extra showing each day. I think any film over 3 hours should have an intermission.

Ky grew up in Great Falls Montana and the town decreed that all film shall have intermissions. Ky used to delight in those 80 minute Disney films that had to have intermissions. Watch two reels, have an intermission and watch two more reels.

Right now we have The Fast Runner which comes in right at three hours; it could use and itnermission.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-19-2002, 03:25 PM:

I think that just because people are used to not having intermissions as why we shouldnt have them is a fine thought, but really doesnt address the question of what do the customers want. Many people will leave anyway to get a break, yet they may miss a very important part of a movie.

Yes there are many short films that would seem silly to have an intermission. I have seen live shows with two intermissions just becuase it was so long.

Yes you lose a showing. For most movies, that is not really a loss. If you aren't filling up the seats on five shows, you might get closer on just four. And think about the increase in revenue to the snack counter. You get eight hits instead of five. Better for everyone. You probably would even get the same number of dollars anyway on ticket revenue for the studio. Considering it would take longer for everyone to go see it, it would have better staying power, and increase overall profitability.

That is just my opinion. As NOT an avid movie goer per se, as in going to the cinema, I cannot say with certainty that having intermissions is good for everyone. BUT, one of the main reasons I do not like to see movies in the cinema is that If I have to go to the restroom, I am going to miss something. knowing there is no chance of a film break in lord of the rings, I just wait until I can get a private screening where I can get them to turn it off every hour or so. Films are too long to go without intermissions these days. AAAAAAUUUUGH!!!!!! Some movies are just to dumb to care about anyway.

Dave

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 08-19-2002, 05:08 PM:

From some of the figures I have seen recently (Screen Daily?) not a lot of money is being made on ticket sales any way.

Dump 1 screening per day & add an intermission.

It may help profit.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-19-2002, 05:29 PM:

"LAGAAN". the Academy Award nominated film from India is now playing at one of our art theatres and I have not seen it yet but I know it is a very long movie running almost 4 hours. I am almost sure that the movie is not playing with an intermission although it should. The movie must have been in general release in art house here in the United States for some time now because it is alread availabe on home video and perhaps I should watch the DVD at home because I can personally take an intermission break whenever the need arises.

-Claude

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-19-2002, 05:56 PM:

Lagaan was re-released by Sony Pictures Classics this year with an intermission. That's because the 2001 Bollywood release via Sony Entertainment TV had an intermission.

At least 1 non-Bollywood picture I know of has an intermission: The Sorrow and the Pity, about the French Resistance to the Nazis in WWII. That documentary was intended for TV in France but never saw telecast and wound up becoming a surprise hit in French theaters. The Film Forum in NYC ran The Sorrow and the Pity twice a day for 2 weeks in May 2000. Total running length, counting intermission, is 4 hours 30 minutes.

These days any non-Bollywood movie running 9 or more reels is edited to play straight through. When New Line re-released Gone with the Wind in 1998 the intermission was incorporated into the print. Search the Features and Trailers forum for the particulars.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-19-2002, 06:26 PM:

Charles,

Thanks for the information about "LAGAAN". Since the movie is now available on home video, I think I will rent the DVD instead of seeing it at a Wallace Theatre where it is now playing here in Honolulu. As I had mentioned on another thread, Their theatres sucks big time with poor sound and projection. Not to mention their very drab decor.

By the way, "GONE WITH THE WIND" has always had an intermission ever since it was premiered in Atlanta in 1939. The break comes right after Scarlet says something like this", As God is my witness, I shall never be hungry again"

-Claude

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-20-2002, 07:19 AM:

Do booking contracts ever specify a minimum of five shows per day for movies under 2 hours? Are theatres specifically forbidden to add their own intermissions?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 08-20-2002, 05:24 PM:

John
Our company policy seems to be 5 shows per day on films running between 90 and 100 minutes, at least for the first week. The 2 hour plus films get four shows.
I'm not a fan of putting intermissions in regular type running time releases, especially with all the multi-plexes. The longer films, like Lawrence etc, do have built in intermissions and should.
By the way, who is to determine where an intermission is supposed to go. Someone might screw up the continuity of the film, if there ever is any.
Cheers.

Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 08-20-2002, 05:32 PM:

John, here that is certainly sometimes the case. There was a bit of a stink kicked up with Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings where cinemas had towers, certain combinations of tower and spool will not allow films this long to be run in one. In every case I've seen the distributors see common sense and allow an intermission. I had the dubious pleasure of seeing both of these in my local multiplex, which has the most uncomfortable seats I've ever sat in (more than 45 minutes without moving and you're into serious 'numb bum' territory!), so an intermission would have been very welcome!

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-21-2002, 12:40 AM:

James Cameron was quoted by Randall Frakes in Titanic: James Cameron's Illustrated Screenplay:

quote:
I don't believe in intermissions because I've worked hard as a filmmaker to capture an audience's hearts and minds. I don't want to let them leave the dramatic space I've created for ten minutes so they can get more popcorn or go to the restroom. If they need a break, let them pick their own time to run to the lobby. If I do my job as a storyteller then no one will want to take a break, even after three hours. I told people "There will be an intermission in this movie over my dead body."

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 08-21-2002, 05:03 AM:

Yes. I completely agree with JAMES CAMERON that intervals are not good for movies.

FIrst of all, the moviemakers do not have any compulsion to entertain anyone. Do they ?

When they do not, why then talk of any such thing like relief at all ? Where is the need to bore people first and then to let them out ? Particularly in movies such as SIGNS where the director might have wanted to hold the audience's attention at a particular time, how inappropriate it would be to break then and let off the people out. I have done some research in my theatre and I have learnt that people mostly forget about the movie during the intervals.

People at my theatre have agreed that MOVIES are enjoyable only if their continuity is preserved.

That theatres in INDIA are really huge and in my own theatre, a sold out show holds 1156 people, the reality of the movie is thrown apart during the interval when people meet other people face to face. And, once it happens, there is nothing that can be done to get the movie look real to people.

Lets look at the whole process this way - You set down to lunch. Everything is offered on the table at once. Half way through, you get out of the dining room and spend some 10 minutes away. When you come back, how preserved is your appetite ? Movies too work similarly.

Did LORD OF THE RINGS which ran for nearly 3 hours play with intervals at US theates ?

------------------

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-21-2002, 05:21 AM:

It really depends on how comfortable your Theatre is , if you have hard seats and poor ventilation , then you would be killing your customers by closing them up for 4 hours in a hot unbearable place and remember that these films are designed to have a break where as most Western films are designed to flow and if you look at most films however long you could find a natural break to give your patrons a break and for time to make money at the Candy Bar , but it seems you are making enough from the Ticket sales .

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.