When I was a kid, movies often had intermissions. Intermissions allowed people to use the toilet when they went to see a long film, to stretch their legs, or to buy overpriced snacks from the snack bar. Nowadays there are no intermissions. I can tell you that my bum was getting pretty sore whilst I was sitting through Return of the King. I suspect that ‘back in the day’ the intermission was used to change reels and to rewind the film.
I wonder why the custom has stopped? Here are some ideas:
[ul][li]I’ve heard that multiplex cinemas show the same film in different theatres by passing it through the projector of one and ‘chaining’ it into the projector of another. By doing this, they can accommodate more people without having to rent an extra print of the film.[/li][li]Eliminating the intermission may allow one more showing (and one more auditorium full of paying customers) over the course of a day.[/li][li]It was once thought that an audience would not sit for more than two hours, so films used to be shorter. Now films tend to run more than two hours (not all of them, of course), but audiences have grown accustomed to there not being a break.[/ul][/li]
Another question is, why are intermissions included in DVDs of older films? The home viewer can pause whenever he wants.
When I was in the theater business the rule of thumb was 3+ hours usually got an intermission. Since films are rarely that long, there was seldom an intermission. The last thing I remember having an intermission was Gettysburg. In some instances it has to do with how much room the print itself takes up; a 4 hour movie is about 12 reels of film, and most projector platter systems can’t fit all that on one (especially if it’s a 70mm print, which is twice as heavy), so the film is split between two platters and there needs to be a break while someone goes up and threads the second half of the film into the projector.
The procedure you mentioned for sharing the same print between two projectors is called “Interlock” and while it was all the rage for a few years, I’m under the impression it’s sort of frowned upon now because there is such a potential for things to go horribly wrong, and the print itself is exposed to more grit and grime while it’s travelling along the rollers between screens.
My recollection is that the intermission was between two different movies. You see, they used to have this thing called a “double feature.” You viewed on movie, then went out and bought stuff, visited the bathroom, then returned to the same seat and saw a completely different movie! Also the theater was one big auditorium where everybody sat at once, as opposed to a gazillion little boxes each showing a different film. Lordy, some of you make me feel old!
When I saw Kenneth Branagh’s 4 hour 2 minute Hamlet in the theater, it had an intermission - though I’m not sure if it was planned by the theater, the director, or the distributor.
Gandhi was the last movie I saw with an intermission too (it came just right after the scene where the British troops massacred the demonstrators). As for why intermissions are virtually extinct in American theaters, Johnny LA pretty much nailed it in the OP when he said having a 10 minute break halfway through a 3+ hour movie means having to cut back on daily showings thereby impacting the bottom line.
Of course, one might consider that patrons of a 3+ hour movie without an intermission are less likely to load up on soft drinks at the concession stand because nobody wants to have to dash out of the theater at an important point in the movie to answer an urgent call from one’s bladder.
Those weren’t intermissions, those were breaks between movies. In those days people came in whenever they bought a ticket, and left whenever they wanted to. I sat through 2001 twice in one of the second places it played in NY when it opened. The first place, the Capitol, was a roadshow performance with an intermission and tickets to specific showings.
I loved the intermission on the 2001 CD and tape - it took me back to seeing it for the first time.
Doesn’t really answer the question, though. This same affect happened back when there were intermissions in long movies. Why didn’t they mind it then, but they mind it today?
My guess is in the era when the largest multiplex had no more than four screens and there were still a lot of one-screen theaters around, intermissions didn’t eat as much into the overhead as they do now. You also have to take into account they run about 20-30 minutes of commercials and previews before the main feature.
Why would intermissions cut into the overhead any more at a multiplex theater than at a single-screen theater? Proportionately, it should be the same per screen.
As for the commercials, remember that back in the 1920s-1950s, no movie show was complete without a cartoon, a newsreel, and a one or two reel short subject — and of course, the trailers for upcoming attractions.
[geezer mode] Because back then theater owners cared more for the comfort of their patrons, and relatively less for squeezing every penny possible out of a run. Was anybody not likely to go to a movie because there were no cartoons? No, so there go the cartoons. Would anybody not go because they stuck commercials in front? No, so here come the commercials. [/geezer]
BTW, those in the Bay Area can go to the Paramount Theater in Oakland, a restored movie palace which shows old films with a newsreel, a cartoon, a drawing for prizes, and the mighty Wurlitzer - and all for less than a normal theater. Highly recommended.
It’s really not the theater owners whose overhead is being eaten into (they make most of their money from the concessions). It’s the movie studios. Most modern multiplexes have 12 or more screens and, often, a “big” movie will be on two or more of them. Adding intermissions means they’ll lose showings.
Also, keep in mind that the movie studios owned many of the theaters from the 1920’s-1950’s. As the result of an anti-trust suit, they had to divest themselves of their theaters in the late 40’s and early 50’s. (Of course, that’s another topic.)
I think intermissions in film is a holdover idea from live theatre. Many movie palaces in the US also ran live shows so the idea seemed natural at the time. Stage shows almost always have an intermission.
Film was obviously influenced by stage productions but it has evolved along it’s own path. Today’s film makers, for the most part, do not want an intermission. They feel it breaks the flow that they have worked so hard to establish.
Also I should point out the an intermission is not a theatre level decision. If a film has an intermission today, it is because the film maker put one in there. Now some theatres will add an intermission without the consent of the film company but that is a different story.
There are no more intermissions because today’s film makers don’t want them. If you are a director with the clout to put a big budget three hour epic on the market and you wanted a 15 minute intermission, you could get one.
**Zebra ** has worked in the film industry for all of his adult life. From managing a theatre for a huge chain to owning and operating a theatre to working presently in film distribution for a major Hollywood studio.
Intermissions also affect how employees are scheduled. You are going to distribute your staffing differently (and generally, less heavily) if you know one theater’s occupied for 3+ hours than if you know in the middle of those three hours you are going to get a huge slam at the concession stand and in the bathrooms. Plus, intermissions mean one more thing the (usually sole) projectionist has to worry about.
In those days people came in whenever they bought a ticket, and left whenever they wanted to. I sat through 2001 twice in one of the second places it played in NY when it opened. The first place, the Capitol, was a roadshow performance with an intermission and tickets to specific showings.