Intermission OR not!- Page 4

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 10:16pm

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/26/07 at 10:42pm

I say NOT! I think NICHOLAS NICKLEBY was ruined--absolutely reuined by all those intermissions.

If you can't sit through an 8 hour play without taking a pee, you shouldn't be going to the theater!

Updated On: 6/26/07 at 10:42 PM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 6/27/07 at 2:39am

Actually, I think Avenue Q could do without its intermission. I mean, I love the show, but there's no need for it dramatically or structurally other than to give everyone involved a breather.

~Steven

[TLKfan]

Posted: 6/27/07 at 3:19am

Ok, I always make sure I don't drink liquids in advance before seeing a show and make sure I go to the bathroom before the show, but sometimes ya gotta go. Plus I think the intermission is a nice 'reflection' time. Depending on the show of course. But I do think ACL and Bee, etc. is great without a show. Again, depending on the style or topic does make a difference.

[Nosferatu]

Posted: 6/27/07 at 4:47am

Back to the original comment : It's a matter of business to for Häagen-Dazs and merchandising around the show too !

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/27/07 at 5:07am

"Shakespeare didnt write all those amazing plays with ice cream sales in mind. Also consider back then most of the audience were standing. "

Yeah you woulda loved playgoing in Shakespeare's days--the audience was noisy the whole time, in the groundlings areas people often peed right then and there, people sold food and other things DURING the play, etc.

I think many authors are happy to have an intermission. Sometimes it also is to the benefit of a performer (ballet performances nearly always have two intermissions simply because the dancers need a break). Sometimes set changes and other major things are also built in there. And for certain plays (Sunday in the Park, Into the Woods and Fantasticks all being obvious examples) the two act sturcture helps shape the piece.

I don't get how you can flatly say you never like intermissions--I think it depends on the piece. Sondheim even thougt that Follies SHOULD have an intermission--in the ned he fought to have one (and lost with the original production).

I'm a young healthy guy, and I have to admit but usually past the 2 hour and 30 mins point I have to go to the bathroom--yeah I can hold it in but it's not too pleasant. I also am tall, and often theatres have very bad legroom for me (I could go on but everyone's said the basic reasons).

Also theatre is a social event--I kidna enjoy havign a drink at intermission hearing whatpeople think of the work so much, getting to stand outside maybe for a bit in the gorgeous night air and think about what I've seen so far and can expect to see coming up, etc etc...

(I went to a brilliant opera performance of Don GIovanni in Rome a while back and the first intermission didn't hit till about 2 hours and a half into the piece--trust me, that huge theatre wouldn'thave been able to sit still for much longer without a break)

E
Updated On: 6/27/07 at 05:07 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 6/28/07 at 5:25am

Besides Follies and Pippin and Passion are there shows that people can think of that were done with only no intermission originally but are often now done with one?

[Elphie4ever]

Posted: 6/28/07 at 11:26am

so i watched the drowsy chaperone yesterday
i have to agree with the man in the chair a intermission does destory the mood and well brings you back to reality

but for the long 2 hr musicals yes you do need a short break for actors and for the theatregoers

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 6/28/07 at 11:48am

I actually did a production of Assassins where we added an intermission. Although I really like that show straight through as written, I don't think the break upset the momentum of the show that much.

~Steven