Efficient Movies?

I watch/read/listen to more than my fair share of moviemaking theory.  Be it  books, movie commentary, screenwriting podcasts, etc...

And there are several touchstones of the biz that I don't tend to agree with.  Perhaps I'm just naïve, but I think there's some bad tradition in there too.

The one that keeps coming up recently is "Efficiency".  Something along the lines of "Cut everything out of your story/screenplay unless it advances the plot."  Or "If you have two scenes that only advance the plot in one way, try to combine them so that you have one scene that advances the plot in two ways."

We watched a movie recently from which the writer/director said that he had to cut his favourite scene in the interest of efficiency.  He said it was extremely moving and that the actor just hit it out of the park... but that he really needed to cut those 3 minutes from the runtime and that this scene didn't really advance the plot so it had to go!  The interviewer agreed that it did indeed have to go.

What, really?  If it's a great scene, and it's well acted and it works on your emotions... why in the world would you cut it? 

They seem to be saying: "emotion is only good when it serves the plot."  Whereas I would say: "the only reason you need a plot is to help you create strong emotion."  If you have a bit of raw human emotion and you've somehow managed to get an audience to see it without unneccisarily driving the plot through it, then I say "Good for you!"

This actually part of my grand theory on why the second part of trilogies are often the best...  It's because they are free to go explore emotions, emotional content without worrying about starting or wrapping up a plot!  When part 3 rolls around, and it's all "back to business" that usually isn't nearly as interesting or "good" as the poetic meandering of part 2.  (But enough there, I have another thread for that.)

Those of you who have opinions: Do you agree or disagree?  Is efficiency an almighty story god to whom we must sacrifice the best parts of our story so that the rest of it may live?  Or are Hollywood screenwriters nuts?

It depends on the pacing and the type of movie you're attempting to make.

I think it is possible to be too efficient but a movie full of details or scenes only interesting within themselves would be a bit tedious. It would be like reading a novel full of parentheticals and footnotes which might be interesting but not move the story forward.

In my own writing I do have a tendency to make the same point over and over again. Mostly because I find my various formulations clever or I feel that they express some extra nuance (when they usually don't). And I think that's where the problem of inefficiency lies. A scene that is clever, emotional, or well done should exist for the purpose of the story you're trying to tell...not just to show off how clever, emotional, or well done it is / you are.

I've seen movies that are too efficient where you can practically see the cinematic strings being pulled and the film moves from scene to scene because that's where it has to go and characters express certain feelings because that's what they have to feel.

In Star Wars there were inefficient parts, like being stuck in the garbage compactor...with Luke being pulled under a second time for absolutely no reason. That has annoyed me for as long as I can remember. I was also still worried about all the Imperials chasing them as they were stuck in that room. Still, the scene served to pace the movie and interject some humor in the middle of a chase. I just wish he hadn't fallen in the second time.

In terms of efficiency for the PT, it would have simply made for a better movie if the romance of Anakin/Padme weren't stand-alone scenes. That was grossly inefficient and ultimately unbelievable. Han and Leia didn't need to run off to a big grassy field or retreat to a bedroom to move their romance forward - it happened in corridors, with glances, with a stolen moment in the middle of action.

I think in most instances, inefficiency is really just unnecessary and a sign of sloppy writing. I think it is possible to tell a story without sacrificing anything while being efficient. And with the format of a movie, time is an issue. In the example you give it sounded like the time constraint determined that something had to be cut, not just the fact that the scene was inefficient. But if the director truly wanted to keep that scene he would have had to cut something else apparently more crucial to the story.

The first scene in Groundhog Day (my favorite non-SW movie) bothers me. It is totally unnecessary. That is a place where I wouldn't mind seeing efficiency work to eliminate a scene.