Getting Rid of Intermission and a Few Other Things...

I personally love shows that are one act, especially when they clock in around 90 minutes or so. But I also think that if a show is over 2 hours there needs to be an intermission of some sort. I totally understand the appeal of every scene having the momentum of the previous scene, and not unnecessarily breaking up the action with an act break. But at a certain point, I'd much rather be able to give my full attention to the final ten minutes of a show, rather than be forced to focus on not pissing myself. To me, it's a worthy trade-off to allow a short break at the story's natural midpoint than have the entire audience antsy and otherwise occupied at the show's climax.

hearthemsing22 said: "They'd be stuck in a booth for however long the show is without a bathroom break or anything? That's not healthy. Second, the ACTORS can't sing and dance for an hour and a half, two hours, without a break and I think it is EXTREMELY unrealistic to think that they could. And don't say "then they shouldn't be an actor". No one can do that."



I genuinely admire your desire to prioritize worker safety and comfort, but these are simply not true statements, or at least not universally true. 2h+ shows with no intermission are uncommon on Broadway, but they're not that uncommon in the theatre world at large. The longest production I've seen with no intermission was 2h45m. Granted, that's an outlier, but I've seen tons of shows that were about 2h to 2h15 with no intermission. Not to mention there are plenty of other jobs in the world that might require someone to go 2h30m without a bathroom break. So to say that "no one can do it" is simply not true.

Does that mean there should be no regard for circumstances, and the difficulty of the show, and the demands on workers? No, of course not. It should be case-by-case, as it already is. No show is required to have an intermission or not. So yes, I agree that intermissions shouldn't be eliminated willy-nilly, especially if the decision is based solely on audience experience, without regard for the demands of the show - both in terms of the storytelling, and the workers.

But I do think sometimes the intermission on Broadway is given too much power. Merch/drink sales shouldn't dictate whether a show has an intermission. And likewise, neither should general expectation or custom. For example, you see shows like Frozen, which bend over backward to have the Act 1 Finale that the audience expects, that they sacrifice the logic of the story. So I am in favor of getting rid of unnecessary intermissions, if they are in fact unnecessary. And if that's the case, we can't dismiss that possibility offhand just by saying "cast and crew are incapable of doing that" because in many cases, they probably are capable. And they'd be able to get home 20 minutes earlier every night.

Updated On: 5/12/21 at 10:40 PM

HogansHero said: "It absurdly assumes that audiences will sit still without intermission for more than 2 hours max, even if the cast and crew would."

Please! They can't even sit still for a 90-minute show!

Silly. Just look at the new Justice League movie that is almost 4 hours and, I'd assume, most people would have sat through at the theater. Sure, some people would get up and go to the bathroom, but for the most part, people would have sat through no problem.

But live theater is different. I mean, even in a live concert the start leaves the stage for a good bit to change costumes, regroup, drink some water, etc. You need a break. The audience needs a break. It's just a different beast.

And musicals, for the most part, are structured this way. and I think it's wonderful. You get to turn to your date/friend/guest and talk about what you saw, you get to stretch your legs because those theaters are so damn small, you get to go refresh your beverage or check your phone.

I just don't think people get that these are living breathing people who are WORKING literally 5 feet from you and to respect their space and what they are doing.

Many shows with an intermission have a major set change during intermission and I can't see many of them altering their show just to eliminate it. It's also a good 15 minute break for the actors to sit, hydrate and actually use the bathroom.

"So what did it say? Not all of us know the story."

I think this is the article in question, JayElle.

"Many shows with an intermission have a major set change during intermission and I can't see many of them altering their show just to eliminate it."

Exactly. This is just one of the many flaws of the article.

A CHORUS LINE runs about 2 hours and never had an intermission. Only non-Broadway productions add an intermission smack in the middle of the “Hello, 12” number.

fosterfan2 said: "hearthemsing22 said: "On a different platform I read an article about how showsshould be getting rid of intermissions.

Now there would be a few problems. First: how about the crew members working the show? They'd be stuck in a booth for however long the show is without a bathroom break or anything? That's not healthy. Second, the ACTORS can't sing and dance for an hour and a half, two hours, without a break and I think it is EXTREMELY unrealistic to think that they could. And don't say "then they shouldn't be an actor". No one can do that. Elle Woods is non stop through Legally Blonde but even an actor in that role deserves a break (just an example).



Second, I read something about how people think theater has too many rules. That theater should be more relaxed, have people coming and going, be able to have late entrances, get up to use the bathroom whenever they want, etc. First, late entrances...isn't that just a TAD inconvenient to house managers, ACTORS if they have house entrances in the audience, if they exit through the audience...could you imagine Eliza in My Fair Lady leaving at the end of the show, RIGHT when an audience member thinks, "Gee, now is a great time for me to get up and stretch my legs" before she even exits, before the show is even over? Is it more about what the audience wants now? Is there no respect for actors???"

Isn't Bobby/Bobbie onstage throughout most (if not all) of Company? That's also a role with a lot of singing,solos and numbers.

"

Bobby/Bobbie might be onstage a lot, not all throughout the show. I did see the first preview of the revival. Bu this show also has an intermission.

This is something that's been in discussion in the opera world as well, as we prepare to go forward to with post-pandemic programming. Obviously the needs of the story come first - if a stage production is best suited to being a four-hour, two-intermission monster (e.g., Osage County), then that's necessary. On the other hand, it's been pretty broadly demonstrated that an 80-120 minute no-intermission piece can be extremely successful on its own (e.g., Fun Home), and in some cases can snag a different audience than a more classic full-evening piece.

The point about the differing architecture of stage and movie theaters affecting audience behavior is also valid, though there's also a discussion to be had about the construction of a stage piece itself and the different demands it makes on an audience's attention as opposed to a movie. I think it was Jack Viertel who talked about the main benefit of standing at the back of the auditorium during a performance as being able to see the audience lean forwards in their seats, which is an indication of group enrapture. Perhaps that's a payoff of restricting the audience's mobility.