Act 1 vs. Act 2

I am not too sure if this topic has been discussed or not. But I was wandering if there has been a particular show that you have seen where Act 1 was brillant but Act 2 was disappointing? Or vice versa, where Act 2 stole the show and after Act 1 you contemplated leaving but decided to stay to see if it got better?

For me IMO that is what happened in a few shows. I am a huge Wicked fan and I do have to say that Act 1 was so strong and Act 2 was a little disappointing for me. Also I felt that way after seeing Candide, Act 1 had all the laughs and just built the story up so high that I felt Act 2 did not really deliver it fully.

What do you all think? What show did that for you?

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 09:01 AM

Several Sondheim shows took a lot of slams from the critics (even the ones who adore him) for their second act shortcomings. Particularly "Pacific Overtures" (original Broadway run), "Sunday in the Park" and "Into the Woods" have been knocked badly for having second acts that fell apart or lost their steam.

---

Best12 - I'll never forget when my high school did Into the Woods. After the show, so many people were saying "I just don't see why it couldn't have ended after the first act. I mean, it was a happy ending!" Apparently they didn't realize that was the point...

---

ha. I never saw the ITW revival, but my mom saw it, and I remember that her major complaint was that Act I was so happy, and then it got dark and unhappy. She didn't like that. However, this WAS coming from a woman who did not like Les Mis because it wasn't happy enough for her.

See, I like Act I of Chitty better. Just do. It's cuter.

---

Personally, I don't know why Sondheim gets bashed for his "Act 2"s.

I think "Sunday in the Park" in particular has a very emotional and dramatic second act. I don't think this show succeeds without it all tying together with the two time periods and views about art and its legacy.

And the whole point of "Into the Woods" is the second act. What happens AFTER "happily ever after." Yes, things grind to a halt, slow down, shift gears, etc., but that's the point. So does LIFE. Too many of our stories end with the guy getting the girl and walking off into the sunset. But that's where their life together begins, in truth. I guess nobody wants to see truth like that on stage? I doubt Sondheim would have wanted to do this project without the Act 2 concept. Act 1 is clever and entertaining by itself, but it's basically a setup for the point of the entire show in Act 2.

---

best12bars, I definitely agree with your thoughts on "Into the Woods" - Act One is nice enough, but I don't think the show would connect with the audience nearly as well without the second act, because I believe that's when the characters become the most relatable. The show also loses a whole lot of its meaning if you only look at its first act. I just really think it depends on the company's ability to handle the sharp contrast in Act 2 and not on what Sondheim and Lapine wrote - I've seen really terrible productions where the second act fell flat and left the audience just wishing for it to end. Which is really a shame, because I think it's one of my favorite shows.

---

Updated On: 11/7/05 at 02:36 PM

I saw the second act of "Woods" fall flat on its face in the first national tour when it hit L.A. (A terrific cast, by the way, but they had to fight hard to win us back... which didn't happen until the last 20 minutes.)

The problem is that everything does come to a halt when Mrs. Giant comes to town. Characters are standing around drop-jawed wondering what will happen next. As a director & cast, you're fighting this in the plot, since everything clipped along so briskly with plot twists and turns in Act 1. If everything literally comes to a halt on stage, the show will completely lose steam and the audience will quickly lose interest and "zone out." You solve it by working vigorously on the pacing of Act 2. Keep it moving along, despite what the plot and characters are saying. The audience will "get it" but not fall asleep waiting for something interesting or lively to happen. At least it's still moving forward. Otherwise, you might very well have a flounder on your hands. And good luck winning your crowds back.

But keep them interested... and I think the payoff is terrific with this show.

---

"For sure not WICKED!!!!!!!!!!!

It is all amazing!!!

And to everyone that said it is not a good score......BLAAAH

and "it's gAlinda with a GA""

ummm...what?

*scratches head*

I am sober as I write this but when I saw the recent revival of Gypsy I hated the first act, and I mean HATED I could not see anything good, and then the second act was not as bad even perhaps enjoyable, I think it was because I don’t like Bernadette, but that’s really all for me.

-Horton (the elephant)

Sober, perhaps, but easy on the "refresh," Horton.

Sam Mendes' "Gypsy" was a different take on it (with Ms. Peters). I wish you'd seen the Tyne Daly production in the '80s, which was a faithful recreation... completely brilliant. Tyne's singing was adequate... but her acting was incredible. Well-deserving of her Tony. I'm guessing that you might have a different view about "Gypsy" had you seen a faithful version of it.

---

I agree Fosse - Jan Maxwell keeps Chitty flying, and she soars in Act 2 (pitiful, I know.)

I prefer ITW's Act 2 when it rips ("rips") apart the fairy tales we all know and love (or hate).

I thought SWEENEY'S ACT 2 was amazing.

A prime example of a first act being much stronger than a second (to me) is Les Miz if you ask me.

A prime example of the second act being more dominant is Phantom.

A prime example of both acts being equally well-balanced is Gypsy.