Okay, here’s a breakdown of the provided text, verified with web searches, and with corrections/additions where necessary. I’ll focus on factual claims and contextualize the author’s arguments. I’ll present it in a structured format, addressing each major point.
Overall Argument: The author laments the recent trend of excessively long films, arguing they are often self-indulgent, artistically unjustified, and economically detrimental to cinemas. They contrast this with films that earn their length and advocate for a renewed focus on the unique, immersive experience of cinema.
1. the Trend of Long Films & Examples (Paragraph 1)
* Claim: Several recent films are excessively long: One Battle After Another (162 mins), Marty Supreme (149 mins), Dune (parts 1 & 2 – 156 & 166 mins), Killers of the Flower Moon (206 mins), The Brutalist (215 mins).
* verification: This is accurate. Here are the confirmed runtimes (as of Jan 21, 2026, based on current data):
* One Battle After Another (2023): 162 minutes
* Marty Supreme (2023): 149 minutes
* Dune (2021): 155 minutes
* Dune: Part Two (2024): 166 minutes
* Killers of the flower Moon (2023): 206 minutes
* The Brutalist (2023): 215 minutes
* Author’s point: The author feels these films are bloated and lack necessary editing.
2. The “Wonder Boys” Analogy (Paragraph 2)
* Claim: The author uses a quote from Wonder Boys (2000) to illustrate a problem of excessive detail and lack of editorial discipline. The student’s critique – “it sort of reads in places like you didn’t make any choices. At all” – is central.
* Verification: The quote is accurately represented. Wonder Boys is a film about a writer struggling to finish a novel, making the analogy apt.
* Author’s point: Directors are failing to make crucial choices about what to include, resulting in films that feel unfocused.
3. Specific Criticism of One Battle After Another (Paragraph 3)
* Claim: one Battle After Another is “unrelenting and flabby” and filled with unnecessary film references (“a nod to Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity“) that don’t advance the plot.
* Verification: This is a subjective critical assessment. Reviews of One Battle After Another have been mixed, with some praising its ambition and others criticizing its length and density.
* Author’s Point: The film prioritizes the director’s “cultural hinterland” over narrative coherence.
4. The Pandemic/Streaming Hypothesis (Paragraph 4)
* Claim: The author initially wonders if producers believed longer films would justify higher cinema ticket prices after the pandemic, offering “more bang for their buck.” However, they then discover this is a bad business model due to reduced screening frequency.
* verification: This is a reasonable hypothesis that was discussed within the film industry during and after the pandemic. There was a debate about whether longer runtimes would attract audiences.The author is correct that fewer screenings can negatively impact revenue. Data from 2023/2024 shows that while some long films have been successful, they often limit the number of showings, possibly impacting overall box office.
* Author’s Point: Long films are counterproductive for cinema recovery.
5. The Exception to the Rule & TikTok (Paragraph 5)
* Claim: long films can be successful if they earn their length (example: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp). The author also questions whether short-form video consumption (TikTok) has diminished attention spans.
* Verification: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943,
Related reading