Intermissionless Shows

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 10:55am

Are they a blessing or a burden?

"90 minutes, no intermission " That's what you are told. Well, that sounds good. If it's bad, then it's over quickly, and in any case, you can get home early.

Except that when they say 90 minutes, it invariably ends up being 10 minutes more. So now you have 100 minutes, no intermission. And if you're told 1:45, and you add ten to that, then you've got nearly two hours without intermission. And if the seats are uncomfortable and if the play is bad.....

And if the play is bad, then even 30 minutes can be an ordeal. I know from recent experience, having sat though two such ordeals in succession.

I wonder if this no intermission business is just a way to prevent audiences from walking out early, though I've seen intrepid souls do just that during the performance. Good for them.

Recently I saw a 90 minute play, including intermission. That worked out very nicely, and as a bonus, the play was pretty good. More plays should follow this model. Cut 10, 20, 30 minutes of pointless blather, and give us a 10 minute intermission so we can stretch, down a drink, buy a $5.00 candy bar, or escape into the night.

[lightguy06222]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 11:12am

Just because theres no intermission, doesn't mean people wont walk out.... THE LAST SMOKER IN AMERICA for example.

One woman walked out after about 20 minutes...
Another couple left at the hour mark...
a final couple left 5 minutes before the end...

I dont know HOW i managed to stay for this trainwreck...

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 11:14am

^

Likewise.

Posted: 8/27/12 at 11:34am

But on the other hand there is the utterly delightful 100 minutes (nearly to the second) one spends at a show like "The Drowsy Chaperone" where an intermission as the man in chair says would "take you right out of the moment" Plus all the joy that follows with "Message from a Nightingale"....

[Playbilly]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 11:39am

I tend to think intermissions these days are for the house and performers. People are used to sitting theorugh 2 1/2 - 3 entertainment at movies.

Most shows are created with the intermission, so to take them out would disrupt the flow.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:00pm

They sometimes are soley for the front of house. I worked a show (on Broadway) where the show with intermission was 1 hour 45 minutes. They fully intended to cut the intermission (the ensemble was fine with it from what I understood) but the bar company flipped out. Since the show and theatre get a piece of that pie they oblidged and the unnecessary intermission stayed.

I think shows like Follies, Chours Line, Xanadu, and Pippin all play better without an intermission. People manage to sit through Saving Private Ryan and the Avengers, why should a 2 hour play be THAT difficult? I've seen all of those shows performed with intermissions and other than the fact it stops all momentum dead in its tracks, it makes running times odd. Since there's no written logical place to break the action it often makes the first act 1 hour 30 minutes and act two 45 (or vice versa).

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:01pm

Intermissions usually are placed at a high turning point in the show where there may be some major costume/set change and the cast and crew would need intermission to facilitate whatever changes need to be made. Having an intermission for a 2.5-3 hour show is often necessary. Additionally, the audience can go to the restrooms, grab a bite, get a drink, whatever.

However, I think for shorter shows (like Xanadu and Drowsy Chaperone), having no intermission is appropriate.

"People are used to sitting theorugh 2 1/2 - 3 entertainment at movies."

Going to a movie for me is different. A movie theater is a more relaxed, laid-back environment, and I am rarely distracted if someone around me gets up to use the restroom or leave early. Plus tickets are a lot cheaper, so if I miss a few minutes of the show to get a snack or stretch my legs, I won't really care.

Updated On: 8/27/12 at 12:01 PM

[spike3]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:03pm

people these days are NOT used to sitting thru 2 1/2 -3 hr films. Note the constant parade up and down the aisles. As a matter of fact you have the same parade, though not quite as obvious, at Broadway shows. At about 9:05, people all of a sudden get the urge to use the bathroom, stretch or try and get something to eat or drink. The attention spans of most people these days is nil. I for one prefer a show with no intermission.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:04pm

^ And the actors on screen are not doing 2 1/2 - 3 hours of work with little breaks.

I think that's why Godspell has an intermission. There's not a need for one in the story, nor is there a need for costume/set changes. But the entire cast is on stage for the duration of the show after Save the People.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:22pm

I saw a production of A Chorus Line that had an intermission and it truly ruined it.

[HistoryBoy2]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:29pm

I don't understand how so many people can't go two or three hours without "buying a candy bar". You are not at the theatre (or cinema for that matter) to eat, you are there to enjoy the show that's being put on for you. If you're diabetic or absolutely have to have a little energy boost, plan for that in advance, but 99% of people should be able to sit still without shoveling sweets into their jowly faces for a couple of hours.

Updated On: 8/27/12 at 12:29 PM

[ChiChi]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:39pm

Well movies have always had a strong affiliation with food, and people expect it. But those of us who grew up going to the theatre when even WATER wasn't allowed, to see the extent in which food has been incorporated to the attendance of theatre is upsetting.

I mentioned the same thing to my Uncle who used to be the Executive Director of the chapel at Temple University and the Executive Director of the Lied Center in Lincoln and he said presenters feel that have no choice now. He said they first decided to let water into the auditorium, but that wasn't sufficient. People wanted their cocktail and snack right at their seat, so the facility felt they couldn't fight it any longer.

[wonkit]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:48pm

When I checked the movie listings this weekend, I was amazed at how many movies are only about 90 minutes long. That may be the new American attention span.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 12:53pm

But let's be honest, movie theaters have way more comfortable seats that Bway houses.

Many films this summer were 2 and a half hours and Batman runs close to three.

I definitely need to stretch a bit after sitting more than an hour and a half in a bway or off bway theater.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 1:01pm

That is very true. The seats are not comfortable in most theatres. The most uncomfortable I have ever been was at Night Music.

[spike3]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 1:13pm

as far as I know, shows, that is the actual production, do not get a cut of the bars profits. The theatre owners, yes, as in the case of Theatre Refreshment and the Shubert Organization. A production may though get a cut of the merchandise sales.

Also it seems a bit odd that the producers would give in to the company that supplies bar service demand for an intermission. The producers/creative team are usually the ones who call the shots for show related actions.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 1:30pm

Believe me, I heard the producers talking. I'm not going to say the bar was 100% of the reason they put in an intermission, but the week they tried the show without one the bar was SCREAMING mad because it cut their profit by more than half. Sure, maybe one of the lead dancers may have complained and requested it as well, but it was a heavy drinking type of crowd/show. The bar/theatre's demands won out.

I love nothing more than the quiet and dramatic moments in the second act of a show to be filled with slurping and shaking ice. Class-y.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 1:44pm

I've seen bad community theater productions of A Chorus Line that simply for concession sales insert an intermission right after "Hello Twelve". The show resumes with "Dance Ten.."

[spike3]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 2:07pm

just out of curiosity nasty, what show and or theatre here in NY are you speaking of?

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 2:13pm

"Sure, maybe one of the lead dancers may have complained and requested it as well, but it was a heavy drinking type of crowd/show. The bar/theatre's demands won out."

"just out of curiosity nasty, what show and or theatre here in NY are you speaking of?"

Sounds like Rock of Ages.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 2:44pm

To be honest, I'd rather not say just to avoid putting words in people's (the producer/bar company's) mouths. Like I said, I wouldnt testify the ONLY reason it was added was because of the bar, but it was the reason I was given whenever I asked anyone why it was added back.

[Holster2]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 2:49pm

I love 90 minute (or less) shows with no intermission. If the show is really good, I'll forgive it for going up to 1hr 45 or so.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 3:00pm

My community theatre added an Intermission for both Spelling Bee and Once On this Island for concession sales. It ruined the flow of the material.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 3:54pm

Saw Man of La Mancha in a region theatre the inserted an intermission so that the bar could make money. It did very much interupt the flow of the show.

Though the one of the few times I had to leave the theatre before curtain call was at the recent revival of MOLM due to the fact the wine I had had with dinner was complaining quite loudly and painfully it wanted to flow free! That night I wish it did in fact have an intermission!

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 4:27pm

With the most powerful people on Broadway being the theatre owners, intervals are definitely here to stay.

In my native West End intervals are now 20 minutes, which is just the right time to pop out of the theatre for a Latte.