One Act / No Intermission

I searched for past threads but didn't see anything. I thought this was discussed before. Anyway, I'm curious if all of you see a trend toward more one act/no intermission productions now, and if so will that continue in the future.

It seems like we're seeing more of this format today, or is that not the case. Decades ago in the Oklahoma, West Side Story, Sound of Music days, were there one acts produced?

How many times have you watched a show and thought, gee, they could have cut out alot of fluff and had a wonderful, tight one act show, and that things were only stretched out to fill about two hours with a twenty minute intermission tossed in.

In this new world of ADD and ADHD, and rapid communication via social media, do creators think a growing group of audience members can only hold their attention for shorter lengths of time?

Are peoples' lives getting so fast-paced and busy that they can only take 90 minutes versus three hours for a show?

Could actors' and crews' salaries be reduced if they are working shorter shows, perhaps producers like the reduced expenses? (I don't know Equity rules about salaries so this argument may have zero validity.)

Do show creators see value in tightening up story ideas and arcs, telling a great story in 90 minutes?

Are producers or theater owners concerned about losing intermissions when they sell alcohol and souvenirs?

Me, personally, if appropriate I would prefer a no intermission show. I like to see the full story at one sitting. The exception is when there is a clear and logical break between two periods in a show and the first act ends on such a whirlwind that you're grateful for a break to think about the first act, take a breath, and then see the resolution. One example is Phantom. The betrayal on the roof (betrayal in the Phantom's eyes), the threat of destruction, the crescendo of music, and of course the chandelier all make for a tidy act one ending, a break before six months later when the show resumes.

PatrickDC said: "Do show creators see value in tightening up story ideas and arcs, telling a great story in 90 minutes?"

THIS. i feel like this would have made Frozen a better show. 90 min, no intermission.

I think it's basically that once musicals started deviating from the time-honored musical structure, and Follies, Man of LaMancha, and the rest demonstrated that a show can be successfully presented without one, that more and more authors and composers found their tales worked better without a stop and restart midway through.

As far as economics, I think that it's more of a situation of parallel trends. Along with the movement to one act shows, there was a movement toward smaller, less expensive shows. And many of these non-traditional shows fit well into the 90 minute format.

Personally, while I'm not a fan of bloated shows with no reason for the bloat, I DO enjoy an old-fashioned musical with intermission (and fingers crossed, an overture. And maybe an entr'acte.) ...and when a 90 minute wonder is disappointing, like the Woody Allen joke (the food is terrible - and such small portions!) I tend to feel extra disappointed.

I don't at all mind an intermissionless production, there's something very satisfying about that straight, uninterrupted shot of stage activity and some of my recent favorites have been so-called one-handers (The Wolves and Fun Home come to mind). I often find myself impatient for the second act during a show with an intermission, as well, mostly because I usually wind up going by myself so I'm just sitting around with my program in anticipation. On the other hand, there's something very beautiful and exciting about a well-placed intermission and return - Sweeney Todd's act one finale is one of the great dramatic flourishes and I can't imagine what it must have felt like walking out into the lobby for intermission during the original production.

As long as it's good I don't care. Both parts of angels in America combined felt shorter than 90 mins of the horrendous play the anarchist.

Personally this is very welcome for me.

I've seen many shows recently where I loved the first Act 1 and then ended up not liking the entire show because they just outstayed their welcome with a weak, torturous 2nd part as they limp their way to the 2+ hour mark.

Bandstand, Groundhog Day, Mean Girls and Spongebob immediately leap to mind.

Shows like Come from Away and Bands Visit meanwhile are so good because they have no 'fat' and are a perfect 90 minutes with no padding.

Great discussion topic.

I like intermissionless musicals, not because I can get out sooner, but because it means that unnecessary padding has to be cut, which (usually) results in quality over quantity. The Band's Visit and Fun Home are great examples. They could have added superfluous chorus numbers, elaborate set changes, or fleshed out other characters' stories extending the running time and requiring an intermission—adding “bang for your buck” to justify ever-increasing ticket prices. Instead, they gave us concentrated, emotional experiences that I felt were worth every penny of their ticket price.

Some stories are just too complex for a two-hour time frame, like Les Miz or Gypsy, but I feel shows like these earn that extra time. Being free of the “1.5-2 hour first act/intermission/1 hour second act” model has allowed productions to choose a time frame that suits it best, in the same way that Netflix allows an episode of a show to be free of half-hour or one-hour constraints. They can simply be just as long as they need to be.

Merch and drink sales factor into these decisions too, so I respect producers and creatives who forgo intermissions-as-profit-motives at their own expense for the sake of the play and the audience experience.

On Broadway it certainly did not.

BroadwayNYC2 said: "On Broadway it certainly did not."

Actually you are right it didn't, if it'd had an intermission I would left at intermission.

When it comes to Broadway shows, due to the price and the trouble one usually goes through to get to the show, I do feel like it being only 90 minuets can feel like a rip-off. That said, if it’s 90 minutes of groundbreaking beauty, i.e. Fun Home, that’s different.

However, even in regional theatre I don’t get the appeal of true one-act plays, like ones that run for only an hour. If you’re going to do a show that’s only an hour long, pair it with another one act and make it worth the drive.

On the flip side, three hours really is the longest one evening of theater should be unless it’s truly amazing. Les Miz, August Osage County, Angels Parts I and II, and really good Shakespeare productions earn that kind of attention, but that’s about it.

To me, 90 minute plays are like short stories; some of them may be excellent, but they just don't give me the same satisfaction as a 'full-length' play that typically has more threads to follow, more depth, etc. Last year I saw The Little Foxes and ADHP2 on Friday night / Saturday matinee. While I was entertained by ADHP2, running at 78 minutes the performance that I saw, I just kept on thinking that it was the outline for a great play; as it was, IMO it was a Cliff Notes version of a great play. When I left Foxes, which I never thought of as a 'great play' so much as a great melodrama, I felt so much more fulfilled. I thought about it much longer, despite the fact that (over many years) I had seen at least 5 different productions prior to that one.

When I saw The Band's Visit, I was again entertained, but I wanted to know more about the characters... maybe it would not embellish the message of the play; but it would have provided a more satisfying performance for me. Excellent -- yes; great -- IMO needing a little more.

While I acknowledge that length should not be a factor, I will also share that for many years, I drove in from New Jersey, hitting a lot of traffic in the process. (Ironically, public transportation from where I lived is much better now that I am gone). On more than one occasion, I remember being annoyed that all that work went into a 90 minute play...even when I was entertained, I questioned whether it was worth all of the hassle for 90 minutes (or 73 minutes when I saw 'For Colored Girls...'.

Of course, there is another perspective. I can think of some 90 minute plays / musical that to me were interminable; I was grateful that they were short.

On balance, in the final analysis, I stand by the short story analogy...I have read some excellent short stories, but always viewed them as 'one-note' in the final analysis.

Personally, I prefer shows that have an intermission. Maybe it's just because that's the norm, but it feels weird without one.

Out of curiosity, where was the intermission for Fun Home when it had one?