Intermission OR not!

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 7:57am

Personaly i think shows should not have an intermission. Any other opinions out there?

[TWSFan4Ever]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:07am

Why? And then have even more people leaving during a performance to use the restroom!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:07am

I do think that there is a need for intermission on longer shows. A lot of people for all various reasons ~ most legitimate ~ cannot sit for two and a half to three hours. Take out intermission on shows longer than 2 hours and you're going to have a lot of people getting up and crawling over people...and then there will be complaints about that.

I think they seem to have worked it out. If it's under a certain length, no intermission. If it's over, intermission. It seems to work.

[TWSFan4Ever]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:10am

Exactly! Example: The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, A Chorus Line & The Drowsy Chaperone all do not have intermissions, due to the fact they are all 2 hours or under.

I wouldn't want to go see Les Miserables with no intermission. I would be able to handle it, but I'm sure there would be DOZENS of people getting up and going to the restroom in the middle of a performance.

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:13am

No intermision =means people should prepare themselves to sit through a theatrical experience that they and others have paid a hell of a lot of money to see. People should think about going to the toilet before curtain time, eating before the show so they wont feel hungry, phone homw to say they are safe etc etc- most shows run no longer than 2hrs without the intermission.
Intermission =means increased t-shirt, mugs and bar sales!

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:15am

What wouldnt you 'not be able to handle' with Les Miserables playing without an intermission?

[Born To Reign]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:19am

I would love to have no intermission at shows. I hate that the audience has to settle in twice. Takes long enough the first time!

[Weez]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:21am

People *should* think about eating and going to the toilet in advance, but they don't. I'm sure that a great deal of plays would come under the two hour marks with no intermission, but musicals tend to be longer beasts. Personally, my preference is for no intermission, but if "no intermission" means "people going to the loo and being obnoxious while the show is actually happening in front of them", then I'm happy for there to be one! The final performance of 'Frost/Nixon' was marred for me slightly by the amount of people who just couldn't quite wait for the end before going for a wee.

Besides, traditional theatrical structure means that two acts work better in most cases. Take, for example, the 'RENT' movie. There's a very definite END OF ACT ONE! moment that makes the direct continuation into the second half of the movie a bit disconcerting. If a show were structured more like a movie (as 'Frost/Nixon' most definitely is) then you wouldn't notice so much. But most shows build to an act one climax, the very purpose of which is to send you away buzzing and anxious to come back for the second half. It just wouldn't work if you tried to do those shows with no interval.

So... personal preference aside, it depends on the show. The ones with traditional theatrical narrative that scream out for an interval, those work best with one. The shorter ones that have no such definite moment and work better all in one go, those work best without one. ^_^

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:22am

Because without an intermission, it would still be 2 hours and 45 minutes. People can't sit in the same position without stretching for so long, and some people have small bladders.

It totally depends on the length of the show.

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:25am

I do agree and its all down to todays audiences and how attitudes change to things. Nearly all the old Hollywood musicals of the 50s 60s and 70s were made with an intermission very obviously. Shakespeare didnt write all those amazing plays with ice cream sales in mind. Also consider back then most of the audience were standing.

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:28am

Im sure most playwrights would rather their long worked on work of art on be played without an intermission but its almost a dead cert that they write it thinking that they have to.
Updated On: 6/26/07 at 08:28 AM

[Prisoner 24601]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:31am

It seems a shame that playwrights could be writing intermissions to accomodate the bladders of their audiences, but some shows are written in two definite movements, where a break in the action would be normal, and good for the audience to mull over what they've seen. It depends on the pacing, content, and style of the show whether there should be an intermission.

[Zeitoujo]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:40am

i love intermissions because it's more time in the theater haha

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:44am

Take your seat earlier then before the show as i and take in what is mostly some stunning auditorium decor that most never take any notice of.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:45am

Name me any writer who writes with the audience's desires in mind.

If writers didn't want their works to have intermission, they'd write a one-act. Updated On: 6/26/07 at 08:45 AM

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:47am

Playwrights get demands from producers and theatre owners for intermissions

[keen on kean]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:50am

Talk Radio was an hour and forty minutes without an intermission - about as long as the second act of Wagner's Walkure. I think, frankly, that is about my limit.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:51am

I would need an intermission for a play or musical over two hours, not for any bathroom related reasons, but because sitting still that long is very hard. I would need to stretch a bit.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:52am

It's not just an issue of bladders. People who have back injuries due to circumstances beyond their control often cannot sit for long periods of time. One of my coworkers was injured doing her job ~ teaching autistic children ~ and cannot sit for more than an hour or so at a time without getting up to stretch. She plans her theatregoing around that. If there is no intermission, she will either not go or get an aisle seat towards the back. But should she be denied the chance to see theatre because some people don't like intermissions and would complain if she was getting up and down?

[Marcus2]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 8:54am

Even people with the best intentions can find it hard to keep their bladder empty for 2-3 hrs full on without a break, especially if they had a drink before the show and even went to the toilet before the show.

Also people's attention span would wither significantly. The interval gives audience a bit of time to talk, move around and think about whats happening infront of them.

For example (using wicked as most people know it) if that went from Defying Gravity into Thank Goodness, there would be an awful anti climax!

An interval just gives you a bit to feed through all the information, have a talk, go to the toilet and chill for two seconds if its a musical like Les Mis or something with alot of emotion it could be a bit too much to have no intermission!

[Kringas]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 9:00am

I do agree and its all down to todays audiences and how attitudes change to things. Nearly all the old Hollywood musicals of the 50s 60s and 70s were made with an intermission very obviously. Shakespeare didnt write all those amazing plays with ice cream sales in mind. Also consider back then most of the audience were standing.

And a lot of them had syphillis, too. Would you like the audience to rub a couple of open sores before they take their seats?

And furthermore, in Shakespeare's time many folks would have just pissed and shat right where they were.

Updated On: 6/26/07 at 09:00 AM

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 9:42am

Nicely put i must say

[Weez]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 9:51am

It seems a shame that playwrights could be writing intermissions to accomodate the bladders of their audiences

That smacks of creative interpretation to me. Why not commiserate the fact the novel writers write in continuous prose to accommodate the reading skills of their audiences? Or that screenplay writers write in dialogue and directions for ease of filming? Or that poets write in verse because that's how The Man wants it done? I'm pretty sure playwrights aren't sobbing into their tea because omg they have to write an intermission and they really don't want to. If they were *that* opposed to it, they wouldn't put one in. They put intermissions in because that's quite often part of writing a play, and I'm almost positive that none of them care as much as you do (and I'm again almost positive that you don't even care that much, which just helps hammer home my point ).

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 9:51am

"No intermision =means people should prepare themselves to sit through a theatrical experience that they and others have paid a hell of a lot of money to see."

I personally cannot sit through a show for 2.5 hours. I'm not restless and I can hold my bladder; however, I sometimes get headaches just from sitting there and staring at the stage for a while, especially with flashing lights and so much going on. It's nice to have an intermission to stretch your legs and grab a quick snack (so I won't disturb people by eating through the performance). Usually my headache fades.

[Wicked63]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 9:55am

Jez Weez you love comeing down on me dont you. this is a chat site not a 'pull someone down site when ever i can' site whats up with you?