January 9th, 2012 / 9:01 am

How Many Movies Are There?

A Shanghai DVD shop.

First, it depends on what you consider a movie. If you define “cinema” as broadly as I do, then the answer is probably “countless.” So let’s pick something more discrete: feature films (which is what most people mean, anyway, when they say “movie”).

There’s no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes a feature. The term itself is a relic of theater-going: the feature film was the featured film—it was what the theater advertised outside, and presumably what compelled you to purchase a ticket and enter—as opposed to the various newsreels, cartoons, and serial installments that also ran (and then, eventually, stopped running). Theater-going in 2012 seems an increasingly old-fashioned hobby (see Roger Ebert’s recent article on declining ticket sales), but we still use the word to mean “a long film.”

But how long? The Wikipedia informs us:

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,[1] the American Film Institute,[2] and the British Film Institute[3] all define a feature as a film with a running time of 40 minutes or longer. The Centre National de la Cinématographie in France defines it as a 35 mm film longer than 1,600 metres, which is exactly 58 minutes and 29 seconds for sound films, and the Screen Actors Guild gives a minimum running time of at least 80 minutes.[4] Today, a feature film is usually between 80 and 210 minutes[citation needed]; a children’s film is usually between 60 and 120 minutes[citation needed]. An anthology film is a fixed sequence of short subjects with a common theme, combined into a feature film.

Let’s go with that 40-minute cutoff. Are we ready to start counting?

As of today, the Internet Movie Database records 268,246 features (that’s counting from 1888 to 2017—it includes films that are only in production). I’m not entirely sure how they define “feature,” but it does seem pretty thorough—for instance, they presumably include Jacques Rivette’s masterpiece Out 1 (1972), despite the fact that it was never released in theaters or on video, or broadcast on television. (It’s been shown only at festivals, retrospectives, and a few special events.) This kind of situation is more common than you might think: many films play festivals but fail to get distribution (i.e., no one thinks they can sell them). Just this week in the Chicago Reader, critic Ben Sachs called attention to the fact that Takeshi Kitano’s recent “autobiographical trilogy” was never distributed in the US. And one of my favorite films of 2003, the Japanese feature Warabi no kou, has to date screened only in Japan and Hungary. (However, I saw it in Thailand—so there’s one example of the IMDb’s incompleteness.)

I actually think it’s safe to assume that the IMDb figure is far too low. I doubt it includes every Bollywood film, not to mention many other movies from other parts of the world. For instance, during the 1960s, over 300 films were produced in Cambodia alone, and none of them seem represented here. But, the IMDb number—268,246—does offer one possible answer to our question—one possible count of all of the movies that are 40 minutes or longer and that were at least intended for theatrical distribution. Or to be released on video. Or to be shown on TV.

What about, however, when films get revised? I adore Blade Runner (1982), but I adore only Ridley Scott’s 1991 director’s cut. The original 1982 domestic theatrical release is terrible. (I haven’t seen the 1982 international version.) I was similarly unimpressed with Scott’s “Final” director’s cut, theatrically released in 2007. The IMDb records these as “alternate versions” of the same film, but can an argument be made that they’re separate films? I think so—if you told me that you watched Blade Runner last night, and then said that it was the 1982 domestic version, I’d say, “You haven’t really seen Blade Runner!” And that’s not just because you missed out on some missing footage: the two films are different visions of what Blade Runner should be.

And the IMDb does sometimes count different versions of a film as different features: the 1980 theatrical release version of  Superman II, which was started by Richard Donner and finished by Richard Lester, and the 2006 video release, which is Donner’s original cut. (This makes me wonder why it didn’t record Scott’s 2007 Blade Runner re-edit as a separate film, especially since it was released theatrically.)

What about DVD commentary tracks? If I buy a DVD copy of Total Recall and watch it only with the (superb) commentary track by Paul Verhoeven and Arnold Schwarzenegger, can I claim to have seen the film? Or a film? I’ve seen something, certainly. Some commentary tracks are pretty highly regarded. (I’d half-argue that, until you’ve watched Lair of the White Worm with Ken Russell’s brilliant commentary, you haven’t really seen that film. Or at least all of that film.) And what about things like Rifftrax? Or Mystery Science Theater 3000? MST3K is the only way that I—and I suspect most people—have seen Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966). Can I include that as a feature film that I’ve seen? (The recent Shout! Factory release includes both “the classic MST3K episode, AND the original Manos feature film as well.”)

Mind you, I’m not suggesting that watching the MST3K Manos is akin to watching the original feature; rather, my question is: is it is own feature? To claim that it isn’t raises two problems. First, it suggests that new features can’t be derived from other ones. Second, it questions what it means to see a feature—it starts pushing us in the direction of film critic Fred Camper, who refuses to claim that he’s seen a film unless he’s seen it projected on film in a theater:

Sadly, though, viewing any film on video is now seen by most as an equivalent to viewing the film. “I rented (insert title here)” is a common locution. “I saw (insert title here) last weekend” can be used to mean that one viewed the video, though almost no one would say that they’d been looking at Michelangelo’s paintings last weekend unless they’d been to Italy. I’m constantly correcting people by replying, “You mean you looked at a video reproduction of the film,” and everyone finds my corrections quite quaint and amusing. [emphasis in the original]

By Camper’s logic, I’ve never really seen Blade Runner, because I’ve never seen it projected—which is what Ridley Scott intended when he made it. (I’ve seen only the 2007 cut theatrically.) This may seem a snobbish quibble, but there’s real substance to it, especially given that we now can watch movies on our cell phones—not to mention the fact that one often can’t see films the way they were originally intended. (I encourage you to read Camper’s full article, which I return to regularly, and which never fails to impress me.) Another, related issue: I saw a restored print of The Red Shoes in 2009—one of the best theater-going experiences I’ve ever had—but the print I saw probably looked better than the one that greeted audiences in 1948. Along the same lines, a key selling point for the Star Trek: The Next Generation Blu-Ray DVDs slated for release throughout this year is that they will look better than what we saw first-run broadcast in the late 1980s and early ’90s.

It’s worth pausing to mention that TVs are substantially different these days, too. Whenever I go home to my parents’ place, one of the first things I do is turn off the “motion smoothing” feature that their flatscreen keeps resetting as default. And the actual material of the TV is different, including the ways in which it renders the image. In some ways the quality is better than the old vacuum tube models of the past, but in some ways it’s worse: there are new, unwanted artifacts to deal with. My point is: watching Star Wars on TV now is quite different than in the 1980s, and not necessarily because it’s “better” or “closer to” the original theatrical release (and that’s without even getting into Lucas’s endless changes to that film).

Camper’s essentially right that watching a movie on TV—no matter how large home sets get—constitutes a very different viewing experience than seeing it in the theater. Consider commercial interruptions alone (although does anyone still watch movies on network or basic cable?). Don’t they make for a feature film that’s constantly changing, because it’s constantly being interrupted by numerous other short films? (It’s a return, of sorts, to older theater-going!) And can’t those short films impact the way we see the feature? Or have value in their own right? I have a VHS copy of Star Wars, taped off of TV in the ’80s, which I value now just as much for the vintage commercials it captured as for the fact that Han shoots first.

This line of thought is pushing us into John Cage territory (it’s across a raging river from Camper Land), where one can have only experiences with a film, and never definitively see it. Reeling ourselves back in a little, it’s at least valid to point out that movies screened on TV are routinely fiddled with:

The following film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit this screen, to run in the time allotted and edited for content.

Isn’t a TV broadcast of Pulp Fiction, with its toned-down violence and dozens of minced oath substitutions, a substantially different movie from what appeared in ’94?

Most network television prints eliminate (or at least blank out) profanity and dialogue to an absurd degree. For example, the aftermath of the scene where Vincent shoots Marvin by accident is replaced by a fade to black and a John Travolta sound-alike saying “Oh man I just shot Marvin in the face”, and Butch’s profane outburst in the hotel room is silenced (both making his physical rage unintentionally comical and neutralizing the actual punchline, “It’s not your fault.”).

And what about the chronological edit of that film? Or Memento‘s younger sibling Otnemem? I think we could argue that some re-edits are unique feature films in their own right—e.g., Star Wars: Episode I.II—The Phantom Edit.

Returning to television, what about episodes of shows that play like features? For instance, Red Letter Media’s web-TV program Half in the Bag is of variable length. Most episodes are well under 30 minutes, but the most recent installment, a critique of Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill, runs over 58 minutes long. I thought highly enough of it to include it among my favorite new movies of 2011. Can I do that? I’ve watched Jack and Jill (well, most of it), and Mike Stoklasa and Jay Bauman’s takedown feels more cinematic. (Along similar lines, it seems somewhat arbitrary to call Stoklasa’s Star Trek reviews shorts, just because they’re all 3–10 minutes shy of 40 minutes.)

What about TV series, when taken as a whole? Over the past decade, cable television has produced more and more long-form serial narratives. Are shows like Madmen and Breaking Bad and The Wire and 24 and The Sopranos and Curb Your Enthusiasm not, in some sense, features (especially since so many people tend to watch them straight through on DVD)? What about earlier examples like Twin Peaks? The Singing Detective and Pennies from Heaven? Berlin Alexanderplatz? Perfect Lives? Are these less features—less long works of cinema—than, say, Green Lantern? And if so, why exactly are we counting features again?

What about home movies? They are often longer than 40 minutes. And while they’re not projected in theaters, they’re increasingly uploaded to YouTube, which seems by now a perfectly valid exhibition venue. (More people watch YouTube than go to theaters.) And while most home movies probably won’t interest anyone who isn’t in them, or related to someone in them, some demand broader attention: the shot-for-shot remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the infamous found film Memorial Day 2000 (which has titles and credits and everything!). (One of the most experimental videos I ever saw was footage of friend’s birthday party, videotaped by his grandfather, who didn’t know how to use the camera in any conventional way.) It’s well worth remembering that the first films of many eventual “real” filmmakers—including Orson Welles—were amateur shorts they made in their backyards. (Indeed, that’s almost all that film legends like Kenneth Anger and Maya Deren and Jack Smith ever made.)

A lot of amateur films are short. But what’s so magical about that 40-minute limit, anyway? Recall again that it’s a relic of theater-going, which is increasingly passe. (The French Centre National de la Cinématographie criteria even expresses it in terms of 35mm film length, surely an irrelevant distinction in this era of digital projection.) There are some “technical” shorts that feel like features—Kanye West’s 35-minute-long Runaway (2010), for instance. Joseph Cornell’s 19-minute-long Rose Hobart (1936). One of Guy Maddin’s most critically-acclaimed film is the 6-minute short The Heart of the World, which was commissioned by the Toronto Film Festival as a festival trailer and went on to win several awards, including the National Society of Film Critics’ award for Best Experimental Film. Maybe the feature/short distinction is relevant these days only at festivals, and there only because of programming purposes? (I’ve argued elsewhere that it’s unfortunate how so many film critics consider only features for their end of year lists, as though features represent the entirety of cinema.)

So, taking all of this into consideration, how many movies are there? The conclusion I’ve come to is twofold:

  1. The number of feature films (let alone movies) that have been made is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.
  2. What matters more, therefore, is the reason why one wants to count them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


  1. 971menu

      thanks for this 

  2. A D Jameson

      Thanks for reading!

  3. Gregorygerke

      Nice one. The 40 minutes seems very arbitrary. Can one really say that Meshes in the Afternoon or Un Chien Andalou is not a feature?

  4. JSA Lowe

      Indeed—and another 28-minute feature: Chris Marker’s La jetée.

  5. A D Jameson

      La jetée, that’s a good example. We could probably make a list of “technical shorts that feel like features,” ranked by run time, from 39-minutes-long on down, until we arrive at a the Guy Maddin short. (Or shorter!)

      I do think there are some venues where the feature/short distinction is useful—like festival programming/awards—but outside of that… Why is a 39-minute-long film a short, a 41-minute-long film a feature, and a 241-minute-long film a feature? It doesn’t make much sense…

  6. Evan Hatch

      Very interesting and surprisingly well thought out. As a fellow fan of Blade Runner, I’m curious as to what you disliked about the ‘final’ cut though.

  7. deadgod

      The length determinations – short/feature/feature long enough for meal breaks/series of features – must be tentative and arbitrary, because the practicalities that these ‘definitions’ respond to are themselves produced in a flexible, mobile context.  Something between ‘How quickly do you blink?’ and ‘How long can you sit comfortably to take in a movie, counting breaks of any length?’ – if that’s not too narrow . . .

      Of course, writing has the same ad hoc clarity/vagueness of definition.  With fiction:  flash or short story or novella or novel or series of novels?  Most readers are comfortable with categorizing most of the fiction they read; a novel, say, is ‘unitary prose fiction that takes longer than an afternoon comfortably to read’.  –but every reader should be able to think quickly of challenges to this (or any) heurism, no matter how many texts the definition would pragmatically accommodate.

      La Jetee is a complete and successful movie (or not)–even if a ticket-buyer will feel cheated paying ‘full’ price to see it.  As you conclude in 2., the question of whether a movie is a “feature film” is subordinate – to the point of irrelevance! – to matters of quality or meaning or whatever criterion of discernment one wants to discover in or impose on the material.

  8. deadgod

      [O]ne can have only experiences with a film, and never definitively see it.

      That’s true; the essence of a film – if it has one – is never encountered unmediatedly.  One could take Camper’s technology-based historicism to the level of historically mediated reception itself:  if one watches a film (that was made with the expectation of being projected in a theater) projected in a theater, but one watches it after one has seen films made since it was first released, one isn’t ‘really’ watching the film in its originary character, because one’s ability to watch the film at all has been changed by circumstances that can have had no effect on that film–including the effect on film-going that that film has itself had.  I think originalist purity is a blind alley in which one ultimately is being asked with tendentious skepticism whether one actually sees anything at all.

      The distinction between the different cuts of a film is more practical to make–after all, you can get ahold of the three (or however many) Blade Runners and choose the most effective.  But it’s a distinction that might cause one to wonder – really, to doubt – whether there is a “definitve” version–whether a person or team might not, with her/his or its own good reasons, put together a ‘new, improved’ version of the thing every few months.  Is each version of Blade Runner a different film – or a different version of the ‘same’ film?  (–like the enigma of whether Alice is the ‘same’ person she was this morning.)  The continuity between the different Blade Runners establishes the intelligibility of them being “versions” (in the way that Gladiator isn’t a version of Blade Runner).

      Again, as you suggest with 2., whether some particular version of Blade Runner is the ‘real’ thing is less material than – or perhaps not material compared to – why one version would be superior to the others.

  9. A+

      Really good concluding, wrap-up questions. 

  10. A D Jameson

      Thanks for the comment! As for the Final Cut, I saw it only once and can’t entirely remember what my objections were, but I recall thinking that the additions added very little, and in some places they detracted. (The whole thing had a pretty glossy look to it, and there were some added shots that I thought unnecessary.) Personally, I don’t really see anything wrong with the 1991 Director’s Cut. I think it’s one of the best Hollywood films of the ’80s. Or ’90s. So my impression was that Scott was fiddling (a la Lucas) more than doing than anything substantive. But, again, saw it only once, would be willing to reconsider…

  11. A D Jameson

      THAT ALL SAID—my main purpose in writing this was trying to think through the question, “Can we count all the movies that have been made?” (regardless of whether they’re features or shorts or something else). And I think the answer is, no. While it’s reasonable in theory that we could define things such that we could then count them all, and then proceed to count them all, it’s not practical to do so. And, as such, the number of movies in existence is then effectively infinite.

  12. A D Jameson

      So I get an A+? :)

  13. deadgod

      I agree–every tiny edit makes a ‘new’ film (interactivity in the form of movie ‘fan fic’–does this exist yet? alternate versions of, say, Rules of the Game assembled, by fans, from Renoir’s version?), and there’ve been – ‘home movies’ and all moving-picture cameras all-in – a lot of films made in the last century.  So, sure:  “effectively infinite” in number.

      I was, in the course of agreeing with conclusion 2., responding to the length-of-a-“feature” consideration that the blogicle raised and comment returned to.

  14. Mason Johnson

      Dammit, Adam, I want a concrete number.

  15. How Many Movies Have You Seen? | HTMLGIANT

      […] list doesn’t take into consideration most of the questions I raised in my last post, “How Many Movies Are There?“, as to what constitutes a feature.) That doesn’t sound like too many, not after […]

  16. The Lowest-Grossing Movies of 2011 | HTMLGIANT

      […] I’ve been suggesting in my past two posts (“How Many Movies Are There?” and “How Many Movies Have You Seen?“), regardless of how one defines the […]

  17. Joshua Brown

      If you define ‘cinema’ as broadly as I do, then the answer is probably no.”

      The answer to “How many movies are there?” is “no”? How many movies are there? No.

  18. My Favorite New Movies of 2012 | HTMLGIANT

      […] half of the films are from 2012; the rest hail from 2008–11. As I argued in my posts “How Many Movies Are There?” and “How Many Movies Have You Seen?“, no one can watch every new release when it […]

  19. Mega Movie Showdown: A Thorough Comparison Of Movie Selections On Netflix, Amazon, Redbox Instant, And Google Play

      […] necessary to establish some sort of baseline. Put simply, how many movies are there? Thankfully I'm not the first person to attempt to answer this question. I won't rehash other people's articles, but the short version […]

  20. Mega Movie Showdown: A Thorough Comparison Of Movie Selections On Netflix, Amazon, Redbox Instant, And Google Play | Ngetrend.info

      […] to establish some sort of baseline. Put simply, how many movies are there? Thankfully I’m not the first person to attempt to answer this question. I won’t rehash other people’s articles, but the […]

  21. An inventory of all my writing on cinema | A D Jameson's Blahg

      […] How Many Movies Are There? […]

  22. David Bandel

      i saw this was a tl;dr so i skipped to the bottom. and there were no numbers there.

      conclusion: this article was written by a human of the idiot variety.

  23. There have always been too many albums.

      […] have to spend about 60 years with your eyes glued to a screen 24 hours a day in order to watch the 270,000 or so commercial films cataloged by the IMDB alone. (Make that 80 years if you wanted to leave time for sleeping. And add […]

  24. 2015: A Film Odyssey | Live on Camera

      […] creative with this dream of mine, I can’t stop looking inspiration and material. There are a countless number of films out there, so I’ll never run out of films to see. I’ll still be picky, but it should not be an […]

  25. Why FilmStruck is the future of streaming – The Week Magazine | Bcst Connect

      […] in 2012, during what were still the early days of Netflix Instant, HTMLGiant sought to answer the question. Its conclusion, after a long and winding digression about how one might even define a movie, […]

  26. Why FilmStruck is the future of streaming – The Week Magazine

      […] in 2012, during what were still the early days of Netflix Instant, HTMLGiant sought to answer the question. Its conclusion, after a long and winding digression about how one might even define a movie, […]

  27. Why FilmStruck is the future of streaming – The Week Magazine | EcoGreenData

      […] in 2012, during what were still the early days of Netflix Instant, HTMLGiant sought to answer the question. Its conclusion, after a long and winding digression about how one might even define a movie, […]