Each film is actually a compilation of shorts-instructions, PSAs, commercials for local businesses. This Gallery contains a collection of films that were the drive-in movie equivalent of the TV commercial break. Even though it wasn't LVT's best film (it was still magnificent) it was certainly one of the best cinema experiences I've ever had and I think the intermission played a part.Remember the drive-in movies? Remember double features? Shit) but at the time we thought it was worth it, and it certainly proves you're point. These weren't cheap, they we're $14 AUD per glass but they sure where worth it! At the intermission we bought another round of drinks (now that I think about it that's $56AUD in total. The wine glasses had, what they called, an epic pour, witch means they top it up with an extra large serving, equal to 2 glasses. The cinema we where, palace cinema, had a bar. These cuts made the film an even four hours total with an additional 15 minutes between each volume. Now the version that my SO and I saw was censored Australian version (I don't know how this is possible as the film seemed more graphic and sexually explicit than nearly all the other films I've seen). I had a delightful experience with my lady over the weekend, we're both huge Lars Von Treir fans and we where waiting desperately to see his latest film 'The Nymphomaniac', a film with two volumes that make up more than four hours. During separate b showings may also be a pointless battle since most won't notice which showing they are signing up for. I honestly feel your going to have more people going "Fuck, I gotta sit here for a half and hour and twiddle my thumbs". They really aren't trying to spend 30 extra bucks on popcorn and pop. ![]() If people aren't buying food before the movie starts then I don't really think they are going to get it during the intermission. What's stressing you out that you need a smoke break at a place of entertainment? Need to smoke? Then maybe you should have rethought going to the movies. You need to eat? Do it before going to the movies and get food before the movie starts. I feel if you need to go to the bathroom then get up an go. I honestly would not want to deal with so many people going back to their seats and people showing up after the movie started again. ![]() Others can't do it after half an hour.Īlso it would force people to spend at least half an hour more at the theater. I can't sit through a 3 hours film and not need to pee. You got some people who would like it and others who wouldn't. Nowadays, it probably is not done because theaters like films to be relatively short so they can fit as many screenings into a days as possible (the more screenings, the more separate admissions they can charge). ![]() That would have come later when the film business was seeking ways to distinguish themselves from TV. ![]() So obviously, in this scenario theaters were not showing long films with intermissions. It seems hard to believe to ME but apparently it was normal to walk into a movie that was in process, stay and watch the other stuff, and wait for the film to start again to see the rest of it (if anyone is interested I will find a link to a post in David Bordwell's blog about this). As such, when you went to the movies you would go at any time. Keep in mind at this time not just a feature film was shown, but usually at least 2 feature films (an "A" picture and a low budget "B" picture), and shorts (cartoons, newsreels and actual short films). Intermissions may be something of a 'gimmick' from the days when movies began having to fight with TV for audience members.ĪFAIK, from the earliest days of films till maybe the late 40's, early 50s, a movie would not have an official 'start' time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |