A CHORUS LINE revival....intermission??- Page 2

[west end artist1]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:38pm

All the UK productions had an interval(intermission)when it was on tour because the theatres don't make money on ticket sales they make money on sweets,drinks,ice cream etc.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:40pm

When I go to a two hour film, most people are able to sit in their chair without getting up to relieve themselves. THE DROWSY CHAPERONE is just about the same length of ACL and I didn't hear anyone complaining; in general I think most people would rather go home early and not hang out for fifteen minutes in the middle of the show. Intermissions in the UK are 20 minutes which adds a fair amount of time to your evening better spent getting a drink AFTERWARDS.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:44pm

No way we love our 20 min intervals so we can get a drink and take it back in with us(gives us chance for a cig to haha)

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:45pm

I don't know why we're aruging about it, but it's cool. I just prefer an intermission to talk about the show or grab something to eat or go to the bathroom. Going to see a musical or a play is so different from sitting in a theater, at least to me. It's different when there's so much energy in the room and stuff is playing out right infront of you. I don't know, but it tires me more than sitting in a movie. I just feel cheated when there's no intermission. I think that's what maakes theater different from movies. It's more personable and you can talk to other audience members about the show and what you think is going to happen, etc.

[west end artist1]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:47pm

And a theatre needs them to make money.
Updated On: 7/16/06 at 10:47 PM

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:54pm

They make plenty of money on ticket prices, premium tickets, "Theatre restoration fees" tacked on to those, pre-theatre over priced drinks, high priced show programs, etc.

"ACL" was intended to have no intermission. That's the way it should be presented.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:55pm

I just feel cheated when there's no intermission.
Technically, you're cheated if you do have an intermission, since they're charging you the same amount of money to bring the show to a grinding halt and make everyone stand around for 15 minutes waiting.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:57pm

And how many intermissions actually last 15 minutes? Many drag on to 20 or 25!

[west end artist1]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 10:59pm

Ok well things must work different over there but in the uk the theatre doesn't make money on ticket sales it just makes money on the show been booked in to theatre.
The theatre makes its money through ice crem,bar,sweets,programmes and a cut from merchandise and only every so oftern a small cut from the ticket sales.

[kenmarksnj]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 11:11pm

i'm tired of people saying how "sad" it is that times have changed.

i agree, things are changing and the theater is becoming very different.

but if things don't change, there is no history. and the history of the theater is, in part, what makes it such a unique and thrilling spectacle.

so if there is an intermission in a chorus line, it will be different... it may interrupt the flow of the performance, but that we shall decide when we see it.

thought it was probably a typo.

and don't get me started on the way people dress when they go to the theater. are you going to start complaining that people wear sneakers while they walk to work in the city and change once they get to the office? i think not.

times have changed... there is no reason to see it as bad though. negativity is what kills a progressive society.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/16/06 at 11:19pm

LOL! Adding an intermission to "ACL" is far from furthering a
progressive society. I've seen it with an intermission and there is nothing to be decided. It does ruin the flow of the piece.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 12:48am

I wasn't debating the fact that the ACL revival should have an intermission, I'm just saying I enjoy a show that has an intermission. I feel like there's more story, etc. It makes it for a longer, grander (is that a word) night out at the theater. Personally, I think they should keep the intermission if they're going for a replica of the original, but I some quibbles about that. I don't under reviving something that's been seen exactly like it was before. If there's nothing new to add to it or anything, I'm not sure I see the point. I guess it's like preserving a historic landmark, but it just seems like it would have interesting to see this show with a new director and a new take on the show.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 12:58am

"Personally, I think they should keep the intermission if they're going for a replica of the original, but I some quibbles about that. I don't under reviving something that's been seen exactly like it was before."



What?


The original did NOT have an intermission and I'm not sure what the second part of what you wrote above means.

Updated On: 7/17/06 at 12:58 AM

[Kringas]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 1:21am

I know I have seen professional productions with an intermission - inserted right after the final "Go to it" following GIMME THE BALL. Second Act opened with NOTHING.

That doesn't make sense, unless those productions changed the montage completely. "Nothing" comes before "Gimme the Ball" in the montage.

The one time I saw it with an intermission it came after the montage. Act Two opened with Val's monologue and "Dance: Ten; Looks: Three."

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 1:35am

I thought Gimme the Ball comes before Nothing, which is then followed by T&A.

In almost 20 years of theatre going I think I have gone to the bathroom once during an intermission. For the longer shows, I like an intermission just to stretch. It also give the authors' a nice way to show a lapse in time.
Updated On: 7/17/06 at 01:35 AM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 1:39am

Sorry, was typing and talking to someone at the same time. Anyways, you got my point all wrong, which is understandle due to the typing. But I was saying, I understand that they're going for a replica of the orignal, so sticking with "no intermission" is fine, it makes sense. I was never arguing getting rid of the "no intermission" thing, I was just stating that I enjoyed intermissions. The 2nd part said that "Even though they're going for a replica of the original, I don't see the point in recreating something that's already been done." Something to that effect. I just like new revivals that take a twist on something old like Chicago or Sweeney or even Pajama Game to a certain extent.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 1:57am

Multitasking is always dangerous...

However, good point RentBoy about revivals that should be truly revised instead of re-hashed.

I don't truthfully know what is in store for this revival or Les Miz for that matter, but I hope there will be no intermission.

The arch of the piece really doesn't allow for a break.

Author's are generally very specific about building the tension to a certain point and knowing where to break it. Some musicals that used to have three acts are now reduced to two for modern audiences. Most of the time it feels clumsy and flat. "Most Happy Fella" is a good example. Each act should end with a mini climax that draws you into both the next act and the ultimate climax of the show.

Kinda like sex. Sometimes a break is necessary. Sometimes it works better when it plays straight through...

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 1:59am

Tom - are you saying "A CHORUS LINE" isn't like sex? Or that it SHOULD be like sex?

[TomMonster]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:09am

I'm saying ALL theatre is like sex. Conflict, Crisis, Climax, Conclusion. The four elements of drama that relate to Kinsey's 4 stages of sex: Excitement phase (foreplay, etc), Plateau phase (the moment you can't stop from...) the Climax (duh), and the Resolution (the cigarette at the end...well, you know)

This is also why a symphony is in four movements, why early plays were in 4 acts, etc.

A theatrical evening should always have that shape. Intermission or not.

EDIT: spelling error

Updated On: 7/17/06 at 02:09 AM

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:13am

Somehow I knew that BSo would jump on the opportunity to comment because you made a connection between theatre and sex.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:17am

I didn't make a connection. It's always been there... That's why as humans we respond to theatre.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:19am

I should have said stated the connection. I know you obviously didn't single-handedly make the connection.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 2:30am

I'm sorry, I assumed that! But it's true. All great art is based on tension and release. Just look at a Van Gogh painting, a Matisse sculpture, a Martha Graham dance or a Sondheim song. (Which is why I think Andrew Lloyd Webber is probably a bad lay...)

[Kringas]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 4:34am

I thought Gimme the Ball comes before Nothing, which is then followed by T&A.

Only on the cast album. "Nothing" on stage comes in the middle of the montage. "Gimme the Ball" ends it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/17/06 at 8:26am

You're right Kringas - I was trying to remember what came after "Gimme the Ball" and I reverted back to the cast recording - the intermission was between "Go to it." and "Dance Ten"