two to three person plays

[bryan32]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 9:10pm

hi do you guys like or dislike two to three person plays I am dislike them.

[DoTheDood]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 9:14pm

I mean that's kind of a generalization though, because it all depends on the written play and then if the actors can hold it up. Like I saw this play call Box Clever a few weeks ago and I think the two actors there killed it because they worked so well together. If the script was not meant for a really small cast or if the cast does not work together, then yeah it's going to suck, but 2-3 person plays can still be super good, if done right.

Updated On: 4/22/19 at 09:14 PM

[Rainah]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 9:19pm

2-3 person (or even 1 person) plays certainly have to work harder to keep the audience's attention, especially if it's a full two act play instead of a one act. Doubt, A Parable is carried entirely by 3 people (with a 4th appearing for half of one scene) yet it is one of my favourites.

Any kind of minimalism in set/lights/costumes/action/characters/directing/etc puts more load on other elements. We can all name 'spectacle' shows where it doesn't necessarily matter that the writing is weak, because there's pyrotechnics and a kickline. If you've got two actors in a bare room and expect me to care for 2 1/2 hours, those two actors better be generating their own fireworks.

(IMO the general recipe for success is moderation in all parts. Let the writing and acting shine, but a bit of spectacle never hurt anyone)

Updated On: 4/22/19 at 09:19 PM

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 10:34pm

Why would anyone judge how good a play is based on the number of actors in it?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 10:37pm

Never have I ever used the number of actors in a show as a determining factor in my enjoyment (or not).

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 11:05pm

^Perfectly Said!

[JBroadway]

Posted: 4/22/19 at 11:35pm

I have nothing against two or three person plays, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for that to be a factor in someone's taste. The number of characters in a play can definitely have a strong affect on the general feel of the play. Smaller casts can feel more intimate, but larger casts can feel more grand and epic. Plus the structure and dynamics of a 2-person scene will inevitably feel different from that of a 5-6 person scene. And because of that, having a larger cast can allow for a wider variety of scenes - not only because there is a wider variety of characters, and viewpoints being expressed, but because there are more combinations and group sizes that can be utilized and explored. 

Anyway, like I said, I'm perfectly fine with two-person plays and 3-person plays. I'm just making a potential case for why someone might prefer larger casts. I think it's kind of silly to imply that the number of people in a play is arbitrary enough that it can't or shouldn't factor into someone's personal taste in storytelling styles. 

[magictodo123]

Posted: 4/23/19 at 7:27am

Doesn't make a difference to me, however, after a particularly unexciting one-woman play about Emily Dickinson, I found I prefer a lot more action in my shows. I recently saw Miracle In Rwanda, which was a one woman show, but it was done brilliantly, and along with enjoying it found it to be an incredibly important production. So...I guess maybe it depends on the content for me. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 4/23/19 at 7:59am

Betrayal, Happy Days, Art, Red, Zoo Story, Out Cry, Copenhagen, Venus in Fur, The Tale of the Allergist's Wife, True West, The Beauty Queen of Leenane, Having our Say, Speed-the-Plow, 'night, Mother, Talley's Folly, Same Time Next Year, Luv, Gideon, Two for the Seesaw