Intermissionless Shows- Page 2

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 4:39pm

Good thread A8!

I admit that I sorta see the intermission as a part of the theatre going experience. You get out, get to discuss what you've seen, talk about what might happen, etc. What baffles me is the idea that people bring that intermission experience back with them in the second act--bringing food and drink into the theatre, etc. I admit, I'd love an intermission in a lot of modern movies as well.

That said, some shows really don't work with an intermission. Chorus Line and Follies being the ones that come to mind first.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 5:26pm

If intermissions were necessary to provide a break in a show under 2 /12 hours, then we would complain about not having them at the movies. Which, understandably, no one ever does.

Unless the show is considerably longer than that, the decision to have an intermission should be an artistic one. A great many plays are best suited to a two act structure and a first act curtain. And a great many plays have no place for one. It's all in the writing. The play's the thing.

Can anyone imagine what VENUS IN FUR or GOD OF CARNAGE would be like as two acters? No. Because they work as full length one act plays (I'm not bringing up these examples to provoke a discussion of whether these plays work or not; I think we can all presume that anyone who hated them in one act, would hate them more in two). In comparison, many plays, regardless of their overall merits, benefit greatly from the two act form and the peak that tops the first act (the first act curtain of the ON A CLEAR DAY revival may well have been the best thing in the show).

Still other plays work best in a three (and occasionally, even more) act structure.

Updated On: 8/28/12 at 05:26 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 5:31pm

Absolutely. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf would never work without its structure (and its length...).

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 5:34pm

I actually think intervals should be longer. They're always a mad scramble to try and get everything done.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 5:49pm

Absolutely. I guess people drink faster than I do--it always seems like the bell to return to your seats happens just as I am in line.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 5:55pm

"I think we can all presume that anyone who hated them in one act, would hate them more in two)"

Not necessarily, as one would feel freer to leave during the intermission.

[Quiche2]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 6:32pm

I think WICKED's intermission is very neccessary. If there was none, it would have gone directly from Glinda and Elphie just meeting the Wizard to Glinda becoming Glinda the Good. After intermission, the plot is probably set a while after it was at the end of Act 1.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 6:53pm

I love when I hear a play I'm going to is 90/100 minutes with no intermission. And I'm talking new plays, not revivals like Virginia Woolf or Death of a Salesman.

It's almost a bad omen when you find out a new play is going to be 2 and a half hours. Sometimes you get lucky and find an August: Osage County, but most of the time you are stuck with a play that is too long for it's own good (and the good of the audience). This is especially true at places like Playwrights and Second Stage.

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 7:09pm

West Side Story: Could this be performed without intermission?

Obviously there's no real answer, but I'm interested to see what people think.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 7:41pm

I did a number of years in stock houses and it was de rigueur to insert an intermission into MAN OF LA MANCHA or any piece that had the temerity to try and go without one. And khakis is right: it was all about bar sales: those watered-down cocktails represented a good percentage of the house's profit margin.

Nonetheless, I think theaters should stick to the original script. If there's no intermission (as in FOLLIES and A CHORUS LINE), it's a good bet that very smart people were unable to find a place for one.

And now that patrons can take their cocktails to their seats and so few people smoke, what's the point of an intermission anyway?

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 8/27/12 at 10:46pm

It's the seats!!
I've yet to feel pain in my knees from lack of legroom in a movie theatre, but it's a common experience when seeing a stage production. I'm 6'2" (and at 240#, pretty wide). Far too often, I've been taken totally out of the experience because I was about to pass out from pain. (at 10+ times the ticket cost of a movie)

If I can sit comfortably, I don't mind spending more time in the experience. If I'm being tortured by the seats, I need as many breaks as possible.

[sondhead]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 8:49am

Don't know if this has been stated, but at least on Broadway, theatre owners charge producers a additional fee on top of the rent if their show is intermissionless, due to perceived loss in food/drink sales, the revenue from which goes to the landlords.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 12:05pm

I was involved in a show written without an intermission. When it toured, every single presenter insisted on one so they could sell their crap.

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 12:29pm

If Springsteen can go 3 and a quarter hours without intermission, so can B'way.

But adding intermission to a Mamet show might make it reach 80 minutes. If the intermission is long enough.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 12:42pm

I went to an Elton John concert last spring-he went for about about 3 and a quarter hours, too! (At concerts, though, like the movies, people get up and go to the restroom and purchase concessions.)

Also-remember that concerts are often spaced out-the performers aren't doing eight shows in a week, typically. (Or, if they do, they get a break in between gigs. On Broadway, you keep going.)

[temms]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 1:26pm

Concerts are a pointless analogy. No concert tour plays 8 performances a week for a long stretch with 1 day off per week. I don't think even Bruce Springsteen could do what he does every single night, twice a day two times a week, with a one-day weekend, for months at a stretch.

That said, with ticket prices climbing so high and the economy doing so badly, do people really feel like they're getting their money's worth on a 90-minute Broadway show? Is it really worth that kind of outlay for so little?

And now with curtains at 7:00 for so many shows, you're getting out at around 8:30. It's still light outside much of the year, and your evening at the theatre costing several hundred dollars is over. Maybe it's a personal thing, but I just remember back in the day when I was excited about shows and would road trip to NYC with friends for Spring Break and spend the week seeing as much as we could cram in. I would have hated to be "done" for the evening that early.

I'd say my three favorite things I've seen in the past year or so were "Götterdämmerung" and "Satyagraha" at the Met, and "A Quiet Place" at City Opera. All were well over 3 hours (the Wagner was nearly 6) and I was never bored for a minute.

In fact, I've wondered why the Producers of these short shows don't pair them with something else - a curtain raiser, a second shorter one act showcasing a newer writer, something. I just don't see how in this age of "austerity" and a sinking economy that hundreds of dollars for the equivalent of one-and-a-half TV drama seems like the kind of thing that won't sustain itself.

But hey, I never imagined people would willingly go see "Spider-Man", so what the hell do I know? And "Hedwig" remains one of my favorite theatrical experiences ever, and I don't even think that hits 90 minutes. But that was also off-Broadway, and I never paid more than $25 to see it.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 3:30pm

"If Springsteen can go 3 and a quarter hours without intermission, so can B'way. "

But his shows are designed that way (I assume). The Pet Shop Boys have often had an intermission partly because their shows are so theatrical, and designed that way. Kylie Minogue has done the same (albeit partly due to her recovery from cancer, but she still structures it that way).

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 4:36pm

I was, of course, kidding about The Boss, who does at most 4 shows/week (and I saw 3 of 'em last week). But we really have been turned off by Mamet whose last two shows didn't total 3 hours, for that kind of money.

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 6:52pm

I am never as happy as when I open my Playbill to find that there is no intermission.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 8/28/12 at 7:58pm

I know here in the UK that bar sales and sweet sales etc are really how the theatre makes money, they don't really get anything from ticket sales. They get the fee of the production booking to the venue but the actual venue needs sales to survive. If a show has no interval they are charged more for putting the production in there.

[jazzynat]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 4:27am

I saw Les Mis last week in SF for the first time, and the intermission was approx 2/3 of the way in. It was sorta odd because the show kept going and I was starting to wonder how long the show would be since its usually 1/2 way through. Thankfully it didn't end up being a 4 hour show.

Driving Miss Daisy had no intermission and it was just fine. I too need to stretch my legs, I've had several surgeries but luckily I'm short so often I can make myself comfortable despite the cramped seats.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/29/12 at 6:25pm

Actually in musicals having the intermission roughly around 2/3rds in is pretty standard. I believe Oscar Hammerstein II talked about Act I should be roughly 90 minutes (though lately they seem to be shorter), and then II amost half that--45/50 minutes. That's partly due to one problem with intermissions. Afterwards, audiences tend to be harder to keep interested for a long time, and kinda restless during Act II, so a lot of it is down to structure.

[Comden Green]

Posted: 8/30/12 at 7:05am

wow, i can't believe the feelings of most on this thread. i am so different. i don't get to nyc that often. and shows are expensive. i want my broadway experience to be as big and wonderful as it can be. when there is no intermission i feel like i have been cheated. the shows are usually disappointing. if the story isn't good enough to be made into a good 2 hour show, maybe it should be somewhere besides broadway.

and who doesn't love the big, wonderful end-of-act-one number - west side story, wicked, in the heights, la cage, anything goes.

and then there is the wonderful first song of the second act - that has to be so wonderful that it can bring the audience right back into the show - thoroughly modern millie, anything goes.

i remember the days of movies that had an intermission. i loved it. it helped make the experience a big deal. my first job was working at a movie theatre that had one showing of hello dolly each evening. we had usher's jackets and seats were reserved. (and gay boy that i am, i never tired of watching that movie)

nope, i have almost sworn off 90 minute broadway shows. i feel like i'm not getting my money's worth. i'm back on the street way too soon.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 8/30/12 at 9:21am

I agree that 90 minute shows priced like 2h45min shows feel like rip-offs.

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 8/30/12 at 9:39am

Read Ted Chapin's "Everything Was Possible" about the tryout of FOLLES and how Prince and company kept moving the intermission in and out of the show. And no, it had nothing to do with bar sales, it was all about the show's integrity.

The funniest intermission "put-in" I ever saw was at Ogunquit Playhouse years ago, when John Raitt was doing MAN OF LA MANCHA. He sang "Impossible Dream" to thunderous applause and intermission, and when the show resumed, he sang the damn thing again!