That's in italics because it's the name of the movie. I read this very intriguing review this morning, and may even go so far as to check local theaters to see if it shows here, which is probably unlikely.
In 75 concise minutes (as long as any movie needs to be), About Endlessness is completely provocative and satisfying. Each sketch dramatizes a random incident in a Scandinavian city. These scenes, stylizing the real and the imaginary, are light as air — capriccios that go to the heart of human experience.
It's by a Swedish director, Roy Andersson, whose name I don't recall having seen before, but based on the review I think I might like his other work in addition to this one. Of course it helps that the reviewer invokes the near-sacred name of Ingmar Bergman.
I wouldn't agree that 75 minutes is enough for any movie, but it strikes me as a reasonable target for most.
Here's the trailer:
76 minutes seems quite reasonable when I compare it to the last Terrence Malick movie I watched (A Hidden Life) that seemed to go on for a week.
Posted by: Stu | 05/06/2021 at 02:56 PM
Actually I think 90 minutes is optimal, 120 acceptable if the movie is unusually good, and any more than that...better be Terence Malick level.
Posted by: Mac | 05/06/2021 at 06:42 PM
I don't find that the length of a movie has any specific relationship to my enjoyment of it. I've watched tedious 90 minute films, and have been thoroughly engrossed by much longer ones. I do think that the old practice of having intermissions in longer films is a good one, but I don't know of any recent films that have had one. The last one I remember is Branagh's Hamlet and that's going back to the late 90's. I don't recall if Titanic had one or not, and I'm pretty sure that one ran at least three hours. I do remember needing very badly to hit the head when it was over!
A Hidden Life was just shy of three hours, and thus could have stood an intermission, imo. Of course if you're watching a long movie like that at home you can pretty much make an intermission yourself wherever you want one.
I had a friend recently complain about the length of Scorcese's The Irishman. My immediate thought was, "What's the big deal? No one's forcing you to watch it in one sitting!"
Posted by: Rob G | 05/07/2021 at 06:10 AM
No argument with that—I guess what I’m actually saying is that I frequently find that longer movies don’t sustain my attention, rather than that there is some ideal length.
Posted by: Mac | 05/07/2021 at 10:30 AM
I agree with you guys. There are many very long movies I love. So did you both like A Hidden Life? As much as I love most Malick, I didn't really enjoy this one at all. A 90-minute version might have been good for me - an "abridged" version LOL
Posted by: Stu | 05/07/2021 at 10:59 AM
I haven’t seen A Hidden Life. Wanted to see it in a theater but it didn’t show here, or not for very long.
Posted by: Mac | 05/07/2021 at 01:11 PM
I liked A Hidden Life very much -- went to see it twice -- but I did feel that it wouldn't have suffered by maybe being 20 minutes shorter. I wouldn't have cut it much more than that though.
Posted by: Rob G | 05/07/2021 at 01:12 PM