Should Long Movies Have Intermissions?

With recent 2024 releases such as Dune: Part Two and Wicked, which runs for nearly three hours, some audience members are faced with a difficult decision: to sit in discomfort or miss part of the movie?

As movies with run times over two hours continue to make a comeback, debates of whether or not these films should include an intermission resurface as well. Some believe that the inclusion of the intermission removes the audience from having the viewing experience that movie makers intended them to have, while others argue it is necessary for bathroom breaks or to stretch regardless of what is happening on screen. 

Average length of the top 10 highest-grossing movies in the United States and Canada from 1980 to 2023 (statista.com)

When movie theatres first became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, audiences were guaranteed an intermission. This is due to movies being printed on multiple reels of film that needed to be replaced once the reel was finished playing. However, this problem was later solved by loading reels into multiple projectors. 

Although the problem of changing film reels was resolved, intermissions stuck around until the early 80’s. Movie theaters later phased out the short break to allow time for more screenings to be shown in a day, thus resulting in more profit. According to an article by the SF Gate, movie intermissions were “…discontinued so more screenings could be packed into the day.” 

Some older movies with built in intermissions include: Gone With the Wind (1939, 3h 40m), Ben-Hur (1956, 3h 32m), and The Sound of Music (1965, 2h 52m). Recent movies such as Avengers: Endgame (2019, 3hr 1m), Killers of the Flower Moon (2023, 3hr 26m), and Dune: Part Two (2024, 2hr 46m) do not include built in intermissions, despite the length. Although some theaters may include an intermission for the movie, it is rarely customary. 

While films and movie theatres move away from intermissions, live theatre productions such as plays, musicals, and operas continue to utilize this. Nearly all theatrical productions that exceed the two-hour mark feature an intermission between two acts. This is an intentional practice done by the Broadway community, allowing patrons to discuss and process the story on stage, as well as giving time to use the restroom and purchase concessions. Intermissions are also used in live theatre to give cast members a small break from performing. 

Recently, Brady Corbet’s The Brutalist (3hr 35m) debuted with a 15-minute intermission embedded into the film. The film has received high praise from many film lovers, while regular movie-goers don’t seem to be as pleased. In a review from The Bulwark, he describes the movie as follows: “...the first half of the film is a near-masterpiece; transporting and riveting and beautiful in its casual cruelties. The second half of the film has some issues—there’s a very unfortunate storytelling choice…” (Bunch).

Intermission screen featured in The Brutalist

The film is often reviewed by its two halves, split by the intermission in the middle.  Others are not too fond of the intermission, with reviewer “Larry D” on Rotten Tomatoes commentating, “The brutal part was having to watch it for nearly 4 hours. Who has an intermission in a 3 & 1/2 hour film? VERY slow and agonizing.” Will Corbet’s intentional inclusion of intermission be followed by more films in the future?

Should movie theaters have a say in whether their customers get breaks during a long movie, or should it ultimately be left up to the director or writer, as shown in The Brutalist?