Should you expect to be able to see everything when going to the theatre?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:28am

As an audience member, I want to be able to see everything that happens on stage. I do have a preference to whether I sit in the Orchestra, Mezz, or Balcony; however, I don't care that much as long as I can see everything.

So far, I have seen three shows on Broadway in the past year from partial view seating. I knew ahead of time it was partial view. I believe only twice the ticket prices were discounted because of it?

I know theatre is a business, but I think that not blocking or designing the set so that every seat can see defies the purpose of theatre - to tell the story.

Do you think that:

a) More effort should be put in from directors and set designs to eliminate "partial view?" Or, should we just accept things as they are now (theatre is a business)?

b) Should the presence of "partial view seating" be a factor in giving away Tony Awards to set designers? After all, part of designing a set is making sure it fits the house it's going into.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:50am

I've mentioned this in the past, but I'll repeat it here. A few years ago, The Biltmore Theatre underwent a renovation, and part of the redesign was to re-place all of the seats in the house so that every single seat offered a full view of the stage.

With the $1.25/$1.50 theatre restoration fee that we all pay for tickets, whether it be a full price, discounted ticket, or even a rush ticket -- the restoration fee is always the same -- I feel that money would best be put to use by creating new seating designs for every Broadway house so that every seat offers a full view of the stage, no matter what the set design of any future production is on stage.

The Biltmore's renovation obviously was an expensive undertaking, as not only the seating design was changed but the theatre itself underwent restoration (and the result is gorgeous), but all that is really necessary in any renovation is to create new seating designs and re-place every seat so that whoever is sitting there gets a full view of the stage.

Paying money for partial view seating is silly. But for some of us, the choice is either don't see the show, or see it and see only some of it. I've done it, and it's a frustrating experience.

Updated On: 3/19/07 at 11:50 AM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 11:59am

Sometimes seating in the rear of the Mezz/Orch means that the overhang of the balcony blocks the top of the proscenium of the stage. This is a structural issue with the design of the house. Should designers design their sets to accomodate those seats by designing to an "imaginary" lower proscenium?

I think it's fine as long as it is just part of the set and no action happens there.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:00pm

I think that, ideally, partial view should be eliminated where it can be, or at least heavily discounted, but some theaters are designed in ways that make that pretty difficult without major architectural renovations. I don't really see an easy fix for theaters like the Richard Rodgers, bafflingly housing Tarzan of all shows, where from the last rows of the orchestra, you can only see the very bottom of the stage because of the overhang of the mezzanine. Companies probably aren't willing to sacrifice seats so that every seat has a full view.

[WishingWells]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:02pm

Interesting...For some reason, I am enjoying your threads. Anyway, here are my thoughts on this:

I am as far away from a theatre/drama major as you can get nor do I know that much about designing sets, but I once took a class in London where we saw london theatre and then discussed the shows. Of everything I learned in that class, one thing the instructor said has stuck in my mind. We were talking about buying tickets and she said that if you are going to have an experience in the theatre, make it the best, pay the money, and never obstruct your view, so you can see it all! Is she right?

Well, if I am going to see a show for the first time, I try not to get partial view. But, I have to admit that as a student, partial view has allowed me to see shows without having to pay a hefty price - although I will admit to having left the theatre with a strained back from having to bend around a pole.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:08pm

Capn, a good example of a show in which some of the audience missed crucial moments in the show because of the set design (and this set design won the Tony that year) was in THE PILLOWMAN. High up at the top of the set were these shadow montage scenes which, must have been innovative and beautiful, but as someone who sat in a partial view seat, I missed most of them because they were so high up and I was far in the back of the orchestra. The mezzanine overhang was blocking my view of those moments, as in the instance you described, which was really disappointing.

Updated On: 3/19/07 at 12:08 PM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:08pm

With all that mentioned -- you get what you pay for.

Shows are simply designed for the CENTER ORCHESTRA perspective, so in all realities -- the more center you are, the better. This is why I only sit within the first 10 rows Orchestra Center (preferably between the 4th to 7th row -- close enough to see the actor's faces and far enough to get a scope of the set design). Or aisle seats on the Left or Right Orchestra. First row Mezzanine Center at certain theatres are simply sensational.

Unfortunately, these are the top ticket price seats, so again...if you're looking to save money, expect to sacrifice certain aspects of the show due what they have available at your price range.

[misschung]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:15pm

Not to mention how the sound quality is effected sometimes too - not so much in Broadway shows but at NYC Opera, for example, if you seat in the box at the back of the ground level, the sound is totally muffled

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 12:22pm

i dont mind partial view seats. theres only one theatre where I hate sitting on the far side and its the Hirschfeld. The overhang of the boxes obstructs 1/4 of the view of the stage. Other than there, I usually enjoy seeing little things going on in the wings.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 1:46pm

One of the greatest examples of "partial view problems" is Tarzan. The Rodgers is notorious for having a view-blocking mezzanine if you're sitting in the last 5 or 6 rows of the stadium-style orchestra.

Bob Crowley and Pichon Baldinau (spelling?) seemed to take none of this into consideration when they designed and directed the aerials within Tarzan. Early on in previews, much of the show took place in the air and the people sitting far back couldn't see anything. Couldn't see ANYTHING.

The house manager had numerous complaints but his hands were tied - there was nothing he could do besides give out Tom Schumaker's address.

I think that widely reported negative publicity contributed to the show's negative reviews and near-Tony shut out.

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 2:00pm

I don't mind partial view seating as long as it's discounted, and far too often it isn't.

[Princeton78]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 2:21pm

Rush tickets at "Company" put me in a box seat which greatly impacted my view of the performance. At intermission, we moved to some seats in the center of the orchestra which were obviously empty. It was like seeing a totally different show. I was quite upset that the tickets were not stamped "Partial View." I know it's not right to complain about 2 tickets that were so cheap, but I think the buyer should be alerted even when rush seats are obstructed.

[WestVillage]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 2:37pm

I had front row dead center seats (at full price) for Jersey Boys, and the set design often got in the way of my sightlines, esp. when set pieces (I remember a bar scene in particular) rose from the stage floor very close to the front of the stage. The front row seats are so close to the stage that any set pieces that were placed toward the front of the stage completely blocked my view of the action onstage. These seats were sold at full price, and were not considered "obstructed view", although my view was obstructed numerous times throughout the performance. I think this was both a set design "oversight" as well as a directing "oversight". I'm sure that people in second and third rows probably encountered the same problem, but not quite as severe as the first row. It was really annoying.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 2:48pm

For decades I sat in the fourth row center of the Balcony at the MET. Good news - probably the best sound in the house because of no overhang and you are closer to the ceiling which is actually (as I understand it) the best reverberation source in that house. Bad news, no view of the upper 20% of the stage - not that anything really happens there but it wasn't till I "graduated" to orchestra seats that I discovered that the last act of TOSCA has a statue on the battlements! Even if the seat is designed to give you a full view, I have more trouble seeing around audience members in front of me than anything, especially if they move around a lot or constantly lean over to the person next to them.

[RevolutionaryCostume]

Posted: 3/19/07 at 3:13pm

I'll have to admit, I was really pissed off that the top of barricade was blocked by the balcony at Les Miserables at the Broadhurst. I paid over $100 a piece for my seats, so I think at that price, I should be able to see the whole thing, especially since action happens on top of the barricades.

It was annoying, and I think there should be discounts available, or they should change the setting so that everyone in the house can see.

~Jacob.r

[CapnHook]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 11:43am

My experiences were:

COLOR PURPLE: Set piece obstructed my view sitting in Orch Left.

HISTORY BOYS: Balcony overhang obstructed the video projections.

JERSEY BOYS: Sat front row Orch Left in farthest left seat and couldn't see much of the stage right action.

LIEUTENANT OF INISHMORE: Sat in the Orch Left section and couldn't see very few moments that took place stage right. Mainly entrances and exits.

GREY GARDENS: Sat in the front row balcony and had to actually move to an empty seat in the second row to see without straining. Both seats I couldn't see the very top of the set where actors would be entering/exiting from a staircase.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 11:51am

SRO at Les Mis gave me the same problem. I missed all the action on top of the barricade. So disappointing.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:16pm

As long as it's discounted, I don't mind.

Some partial view seats don't even give that bad of a partial view. For example, I sat front row at the Al Hirschfeld Theater after I did student rush for Wedding Singer. The tickets were stamped as "partial view." The stage was so high up that you couldn't see the actors feet. But you also missed a scene where Steve was on a bed further upstage (from the audience's point of view). To me, it wasn't that big of a deal since I saw 98% of the show's main action for $26.25.

I've also heard that Wicked's $55 partial view seating was one of the better deals on Broadway. Considering the popularity of the show and lack of discounting, $55 partial view seats seem to be the way to go for those looking to save money.

I also recently rushed Producers. For $26.50, I couldn't have really asked for a better deal. They were partial view (though the box office did fail to stamp the tickets as partial view like Wedding Singer had), and I couldnt see some of Max's office and Max during some parts of "King of Broadway"; however, I saw most of the action of the show, so it didn't really bother me.

It seems a lot of theaters just happened to be designed where the seats to the extreme sides of the orchestra happen to be partial view. And regarding making sure the show fits the theater...sometimes producers have to make sacrifices as to where they want their show to go. For example, one theater might have spectacular views from each seat, but the size of the theater isn't appropriate for the show. Plus, Broadway theaters are limited.

If I miss a few set pieces that don't really contribute much to the meaning of the show, I don't really mind the partial view seating IF I get it at a discounted price. If crucial action is missed due to partial views though, the seats should be heavily discounted otherwise the producers have no business selling them to patrons who could've gotten a full view seat for the same price.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/20/07 at 12:29pm

CapnHook raises a very serious problem and offers some great suggestions. I know it angers me, on the few occasions that I accpet a side seat and miss, sometimes, 1/3 of the action and the set. I know they used to offer discounts for obstructed view seating at the old Met. Broadway, and other, theatres should do the same, if they already don't.