Last month, Brady Corbet’s The Brutalist was one of the most-discussed films at the Oscars, with its award-winning cinematography, score, and direction rightfully generating great critical acclaim. Equally, though, another feature of the movie has also sparked much discussion: the decision to split the film into two halves, separated by an intermission.
It’s a rare feature for a modern movie, but it’s one which raises an important question: do films need to bring back this tradition? Is there anything about it that’s still relevant today?
There are definitely valid concerns associated with its return. Intermissions, by nature, disrupt the flow of a form of entertainment designed to be immersive, telling a complete story in a few hours. The return of the intermission, with this in mind, appears to feed into a worrying trend of declining audience attention spans in the era of short-form online content. Some have argued that it normalises being unable to concentrate on something more than two hours long — even though intermissions came long before short-form Internet content.
The reasons for intermissions earning their place in a film, too, have undeniably changed since their origins in the 1930s. In this Golden Age, intermissions were essential for a practical purpose: to allow the changing of film reel. Without them, a full-length film couldn’t be shown in a cinema. In the age of digital projection, intermissions don’t need to serve this purpose.
However, while intermissions don’t serve this practical purpose anymore, they can still adapt to suit the needs of contemporary audiences. Similarly, recent decline in audience attention spans is worrying, but pre-Internet films had intermissions without diminishing audience attention.
Epic films like Gone with the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia, in fact, used their intermission to enhance a film’s immersive quality. They weren’t designed to be viewed in one uninterrupted sitting; intermissions enabled audiences to focus on epic films that ran for nearly four hours in total. The intermission therefore isn’t an excuse to normalise poor attention spans; in fact, it’s served to sustain concentration on unusually long films.
Giving the audience time to take a break acts as a mental refresher, which eliminates attention spans waning after an hour or so. This makes intermissions even more important, therefore, because of the growing demand for entertainment that builds audience focus. Rather than shrinking attention spans, they give audiences a tool to strengthen their concentration for longer than an ordinary, uninterrupted movie.
Secondly, as we become more aware of accessibility in the arts, we are also aware of another strength of the intermission: its power to increase a film’s potential audience in an inclusive way. Older people, those with medical conditions, neurodivergent viewers — all these groups will undeniably benefit from a break in the viewing experience of a film. If intermissions enable more people to engage with films (particularly longer ones), then their use should be encouraged.
Finally, though, the most important function of the dying art of the intermission is the fact that it makes films more social. In the words of Brady Corbet, it ‘eventises’ the cinematic experience.
The idea of ‘going out to the cinema’ doesn’t fill us with the same excitement as it once did. Cinema-going used to be a prestigious event. Venues were ubiquitous, and film stars commanded great cultural power, with iconic figures like Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable having significant sway over fashion, behaviour, and social trends of the time. In short, they were a hugely influential site of community and escapism that has been undeniably lost.
Why, though, when it’s one of the cheapest ways to go out and do something? When it’s guaranteed to spark conversation?
The intermission is an important step that the film industry can take to revive this lost enthusiasm from the cinematic experience. Like the interval in a play, it provides audiences time to discuss what they’ve seen and what is to come. It encourages memory-making that is present and active. And it differentiates cinemas from the home streaming experience, cementing the cinema as an exciting and inexpensive social activity.
With this in mind, the benefits of the intermission are clear. It increases accessibility, makes cinema-going social, and, if anything, helps attention spans rather than depleting them.
They’re long overdue for a comeback; it may change the way we view films for good.
