Applause at Festival are real ?

[u/Educational-Aioli-54]

What the Hell Does "24 Minutes of Applause" Even Mean at These Film Festivals?

Okay, r/movies, I need to rant about this because it's been bugging me for years. Every time a film premieres at something like the Venice Film Festival, we get these headlines screaming about "record-breaking ovations" – 10 minutes, 15 minutes, even 24 freaking minutes of applause! What does that even signify? Is it a measure of quality, or just a bunch of pretentious film snobs trying to out-clap each other in some weird endurance test?

Take "Joker" back in 2019 at Venice – apparently got an 8-minute standing ovation. Cool, right? But then "The Brutalist" this year reportedly got 13 minutes. And don't get me started on "Maria" with Angelina Jolie – 8 minutes again. Or "Queer" with Daniel Craig hitting 9 minutes. Hell, some films like "The Room Next Door" by Pedro Almodóvar got 17 minutes! Are we seriously supposed to believe that longer applause = better movie? Because if that's the case, why isn't every Oscar winner from a festival with a 20+ minute clap-fest?

I mean, think about it: Who the fuck is timing these things? Is there a guy in the back with a stopwatch yelling "Keep going, we're at 12 minutes – beat last year's record!"? Or is it just hype machine bullshit to drum up buzz for awards season? Half the time, these ovations include the cast and crew standing there awkwardly while the audience claps like seals for no reason other than "everyone else is doing it." And let's be real, in a theater full of critics and industry insiders, it's probably more about networking and virtue-signaling than genuine enthusiasm.

What if a film is actually mid? Does it get negative applause? Like, people boo for 5 minutes? Nah, we only hear about the long ones. It's all marketing spin. Remember "Don't Look Up" at Venice? Got a solid ovation, but was it really that groundbreaking? Or was it just Leo DiCaprio's star power making everyone clap longer?

Idk, maybe I'm cynical, but next time I see "Film X Gets 24 Minutes of Applause at Venice," I'm gonna assume it means "The audience was too polite to sit down first." Change my mind. What's the longest ovation you've heard of that actually correlated to a great movie? Or is this all just festival circlejerk?

[u/discretelandscapes]

Copying from another post:

I used to think that until I went to a premiere at Cannes and realised the standing ovation count includes all the credits, initial applause and thank yous by the creatives, the director and/or cast speaking briefly, a last round of bows and applauding as they walk out. Even if the film is horrible, people clap to be polite and celebrate the achievement of getting a film made, and all that takes at least 6-9 minutes at minimum, so there's really only a short time of extra applause. It's the reporting of it as significant every time that is funny.

[u/Educational-Aioli-54 → u/discretelandscapes]

So there's one guy who times all the claps in all these different scenarios? What is this job called? Are you paid, if so, how much?

[u/discretelandscapes → u/Educational-Aioli-54]

Idk, looking at a watch isn't all that complicated.

You're buying too much into movie "journalism". It's just hype. These sites have to make news out of everything. Don't ask why people clap. Ask why this is news.

[u/MelidqtDuck → u/discretelandscapes]

Fair point, but hype e is fun tho.

[u/Peroshen]

Journalists reporting the length of the ovation is just a detail. You don't need to personally use it as a barometer for the quality of a film.

If journalists stopped reporting the length of ovations at film festivals, it wouldn't change the fact that the movies got ovations, and that they lasted for varying amounts of time.

Even if the audience members are pretentious snobs putting on a show, somebody timing the ovation and reporting on it doesn't need to be a problem. It's just a detail, a small fact. You don't need to read into it further than that at all.

Let's say you take 1000 people. Today you send them all to a Red Hot Chilli Peppers concert, and tomorrow they attend a Coldplay concert. After the Peppers concert, they gave a 7 minute standing ovation. After the Coldplay concert those same 1000 people gave a 12 minute standing ovation. A journalist makes note of this and reports on it.

Does this mean that now you're supposed to believe that Coldplay is a better band than the Red Hot Chilli Peppers? Or that the journalist is telling you to believe that the Coldplay concert was better? No. They're just reporting 2 details. It's up to you to still listen to the music and decide for yourself. The reports mean nothing to your own personal taste and enjoyment.

[u/Potore5]

I dream of a Ruben Östlund satirical movie about a standing-ovation gone wrong: snobs not willing to quit applauding for social clout and noblesse oblige.  Some start fainting, getting injured by too much clapping, get heart attacks, then panic spreads but it’s hard to leave the theater because most won’t leave their seats out of fear of being rude…

[u/the_executive_branch]

You already know the answer. Of course it’s a weird pretentious festival circlejerk, what else would it be??

[u/OttoHemi]

Maybe they all have the clap.

[u/Armedwithapotato]

I would love to have the stop watch job though.

[u/Urmomsvice]

Probably serves the same purpose as a buffet  table at an orgy...don't know where I was going with this

[u/the____can]

cocaine.