<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Long and the Short of it</title>
	<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/</link>
	<description>Milo Wakelin showers you with film-related detritus...</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Celluloid Confetti &#187; Blog Archive &#187; In the Nick of Time</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1758</link>
		<dc:creator>Celluloid Confetti &#187; Blog Archive &#187; In the Nick of Time</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1758</guid>
		<description>[...] short while ago I was be-ranting the epic-isation of the summer blockbuster. The Peter Jacksonification of the mindless action [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] short while ago I was be-ranting the epic-isation of the summer blockbuster. The Peter Jacksonification of the mindless action [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: milo</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1584</link>
		<dc:creator>milo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1584</guid>
		<description>Thanks for all those suggestions! I am taking notes.... I'll try to include a final list in a future blog. Also, can I add The Wild Blue Yonder? Werner Herzog's slightly demented sci-fi monologue has a depth well beyond its 81-minute running time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for all those suggestions! I am taking notes&#8230;. I&#8217;ll try to include a final list in a future blog. Also, can I add The Wild Blue Yonder? Werner Herzog&#8217;s slightly demented sci-fi monologue has a depth well beyond its 81-minute running time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Sleet</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1515</link>
		<dc:creator>William Sleet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1515</guid>
		<description>Re. 'The Long and the Short of it'
Some films that are very Great and very SHORT!
Zero de Conduite (Jean Vigo) 41 mins!
She Done Him Wrong (Lowell Sherman) 66 mins
The Red Badge of Courage (John Huston) 69 mins
Le Crime de Monsieur Lange (Jean Renoir) 76 mins
The Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale) 75 mins
I would like to include the stupendous 'Dekalog' by Krzysztof Kieslowski. Although, strictly speaking, it was a TV series, each of the ten stories is a mini masterpiece of cinema - two of the stories of course had been released theatrically in longer versions but even they were both still under 90 mins!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re. &#8216;The Long and the Short of it&#8217;<br />
Some films that are very Great and very SHORT!<br />
Zero de Conduite (Jean Vigo) 41 mins!<br />
She Done Him Wrong (Lowell Sherman) 66 mins<br />
The Red Badge of Courage (John Huston) 69 mins<br />
Le Crime de Monsieur Lange (Jean Renoir) 76 mins<br />
The Bride of Frankenstein (James Whale) 75 mins<br />
I would like to include the stupendous &#8216;Dekalog&#8217; by Krzysztof Kieslowski. Although, strictly speaking, it was a TV series, each of the ten stories is a mini masterpiece of cinema - two of the stories of course had been released theatrically in longer versions but even they were both still under 90 mins!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: colinr</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1259</link>
		<dc:creator>colinr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:42:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-1259</guid>
		<description>Do documentaries count? If so, I would vote for Night and Fog, which manages to condense all the salient information about the holocaust into just over thirty minutes - I don't think I've seen anything more perfectly concise!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do documentaries count? If so, I would vote for Night and Fog, which manages to condense all the salient information about the holocaust into just over thirty minutes - I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve seen anything more perfectly concise!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: znah</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-707</link>
		<dc:creator>znah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-707</guid>
		<description>Intervals are definitely something worth cherishing. My local cinema has the same one-projector-problem, and it actually made some interesting cliffhangers in The Lord of the Rings. With only one projector you actually need two intervals for a film like that, and the second one occured in the Mines-of-Moria sequence, at the exact moment when something fiery shows up down the hall, and Legolas says: "What's that?" Ta-daaaah: INTERMISSION (organs, etc.) And you have to wait for a full fifteeeeen minutes before you can hear Gandalfs answer: "A Balrog!!" 
Quite nervy, and it took you right back to the days of Saturday matinée serials! 
Perhaps filmmakers should start to think in cliffhangers again, and put in loooong intermissions, for the audience to drink, eat, go to the lavatory, and still stay excited!! (There's something for Tarantino's next stunt!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Intervals are definitely something worth cherishing. My local cinema has the same one-projector-problem, and it actually made some interesting cliffhangers in The Lord of the Rings. With only one projector you actually need two intervals for a film like that, and the second one occured in the Mines-of-Moria sequence, at the exact moment when something fiery shows up down the hall, and Legolas says: &#8220;What&#8217;s that?&#8221; Ta-daaaah: INTERMISSION (organs, etc.) And you have to wait for a full fifteeeeen minutes before you can hear Gandalfs answer: &#8220;A Balrog!!&#8221;<br />
Quite nervy, and it took you right back to the days of Saturday matinée serials!<br />
Perhaps filmmakers should start to think in cliffhangers again, and put in loooong intermissions, for the audience to drink, eat, go to the lavatory, and still stay excited!! (There&#8217;s something for Tarantino&#8217;s next stunt!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Snowdon</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-704</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Snowdon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-704</guid>
		<description>Great short films? I agree with you on ROPE. My suggestion? Look at Val Lewton:
CAT PEOPLE 73 mins, CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE 70 mins, THE BODYSNATHER 77 mins, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE 69 mins, THE LEOPARD MAN 66 mins (it's barely a feature! runs out of steam part way, but it's got a great first half), BEDLAM 79 mins.

Elsewhere, EYES WITHOUT A FACE clocks in bang on 90 mins, though if you've got a UK VHS, it might run a little shorter, what with the PAL conversion... in the 'Guilty Pleasures' box, you might try THE MONSTER SQUAD with clocks in at 79 mins. Or in classic noir PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET 77mins or DETOUR at just 67 mins... All of them absolutely brilliant, and the former titles tie in quite nicely with horror double bill theme of Julians blog...

Mind you, Epics with interval are a grand thing in my mind, and I seem to be at odds with you, since TITANIC when i saw it, didn't have an interval, while, LORD OF THE RINGS did (at least at the cinema I was working in at the time, since you couldn't fit that much celluloid on a single projector reel for the kind of projectors that we had). The self decided place was the arrival at Rivendel, tho we were later informed that if a cinema necesitated an interval that they were required to put it at the reel change that saw Aragorn and the Hobbits reaching Weather top and starting to cook bacon and stuff... which was a bit awkward since that meant when you switched back on, with people still settling down and running back from the lavvy etc, you were thrust right back into a moment of near peril without so much as a by your leave, nor any chance to settle and get back in to things. Oh well, I'm sure New Line knew what they were doing...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great short films? I agree with you on ROPE. My suggestion? Look at Val Lewton:<br />
CAT PEOPLE 73 mins, CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE 70 mins, THE BODYSNATHER 77 mins, I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE 69 mins, THE LEOPARD MAN 66 mins (it&#8217;s barely a feature! runs out of steam part way, but it&#8217;s got a great first half), BEDLAM 79 mins.</p>
<p>Elsewhere, EYES WITHOUT A FACE clocks in bang on 90 mins, though if you&#8217;ve got a UK VHS, it might run a little shorter, what with the PAL conversion&#8230; in the &#8216;Guilty Pleasures&#8217; box, you might try THE MONSTER SQUAD with clocks in at 79 mins. Or in classic noir PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET 77mins or DETOUR at just 67 mins&#8230; All of them absolutely brilliant, and the former titles tie in quite nicely with horror double bill theme of Julians blog&#8230;</p>
<p>Mind you, Epics with interval are a grand thing in my mind, and I seem to be at odds with you, since TITANIC when i saw it, didn&#8217;t have an interval, while, LORD OF THE RINGS did (at least at the cinema I was working in at the time, since you couldn&#8217;t fit that much celluloid on a single projector reel for the kind of projectors that we had). The self decided place was the arrival at Rivendel, tho we were later informed that if a cinema necesitated an interval that they were required to put it at the reel change that saw Aragorn and the Hobbits reaching Weather top and starting to cook bacon and stuff&#8230; which was a bit awkward since that meant when you switched back on, with people still settling down and running back from the lavvy etc, you were thrust right back into a moment of near peril without so much as a by your leave, nor any chance to settle and get back in to things. Oh well, I&#8217;m sure New Line knew what they were doing&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: milo</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-687</link>
		<dc:creator>milo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-687</guid>
		<description>Re: the Elves - I concur. Though JRR Tolkien's writing is not immune to criticism, the fact he had the foresight to work toilet breaks into his narrative speaks volumes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: the Elves - I concur. Though JRR Tolkien&#8217;s writing is not immune to criticism, the fact he had the foresight to work toilet breaks into his narrative speaks volumes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-686</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:29:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-686</guid>
		<description>Re. The Lord Of The Rings . . . there may have been no interval, but research shows that most people choose to use the elf-focussed sections of the film to relieve their bladders. Surely this must have been the plan - I can see no other reason for the elf-bits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re. The Lord Of The Rings . . . there may have been no interval, but research shows that most people choose to use the elf-focussed sections of the film to relieve their bladders. Surely this must have been the plan - I can see no other reason for the elf-bits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-670</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-670</guid>
		<description>Picture the scene - There I am suffering through Pirates of the Caribbean III (a trip to see Casino Royale having fell through due to the strange notion of the better movie selling out that night).  Now, as my friends will attest, I love all things Pirate-y - my adherance to International Talk Like A Pirate Day every Sept 19th is proof of this - but I was desperately waiting for the film to end.  I have a strange desire never to walk out of any movie (in fact, I hold it as a badge of honour that the only film I could not bear too watch all the way through was Coyote Ugly) but then the words 'INTERMISSION' came up on screen and I realised that I was going to have to sit through another half of this soul-sucking nonsense.  It almost killed me and only bribery with a large bucket of ice-cream kept me in place.

My entirely apposite recommendation for a good film in less than 90 minutes is Brief Encounter</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Picture the scene - There I am suffering through Pirates of the Caribbean III (a trip to see Casino Royale having fell through due to the strange notion of the better movie selling out that night).  Now, as my friends will attest, I love all things Pirate-y - my adherance to International Talk Like A Pirate Day every Sept 19th is proof of this - but I was desperately waiting for the film to end.  I have a strange desire never to walk out of any movie (in fact, I hold it as a badge of honour that the only film I could not bear too watch all the way through was Coyote Ugly) but then the words &#8216;INTERMISSION&#8217; came up on screen and I realised that I was going to have to sit through another half of this soul-sucking nonsense.  It almost killed me and only bribery with a large bucket of ice-cream kept me in place.</p>
<p>My entirely apposite recommendation for a good film in less than 90 minutes is Brief Encounter</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-669</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:43:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs2.moviemail-online.co.uk/confetti/2007/10/16/the-long-and-the-short-of-it/#comment-669</guid>
		<description>I must say, a film in my house has got a much better chance of being watched if it's under 2 hours. King Kong (2005) is, obviously, one exception and I take great offence at you encouraging monkey suicide!

Good short films that I saw recently - Good Night, and Good luck (93 mins),  Night of the Demon (95 mins).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must say, a film in my house has got a much better chance of being watched if it&#8217;s under 2 hours. King Kong (2005) is, obviously, one exception and I take great offence at you encouraging monkey suicide!</p>
<p>Good short films that I saw recently - Good Night, and Good luck (93 mins),  Night of the Demon (95 mins).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
