After Midnight . Better with an intermission

[goldenboy]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 8:56am

I saw After Midnight. The talent on that stage is astounding. The voices, the dancing...what's not to be impressed by? The costumes are gorgeous. And what a great review.

But it was like a gourmet meal that went on and on and on. Too much of a good thing. I found myself wanting a break to digest what I saw. It was almost assaulting my senses.. Enough... please let me take a break. It was a gourmet meal that needed some digestion. I can't enjoy the duck because I just had the cassoulet. I think not having an intermission was a bit of a detriment. And if they had an intermission, they could have opened Act Two with that fabulous riff by the orchestra which ended the show.

Does anyone have thoughts on this?

[tinysmagic]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 11:24am

Perhaps, but I didn't miss it.

[Patash]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 12:37pm

This whole "no intermission" thing is getting to me too. Sure, shows used to have 2 intermissions (back in the dark ages) and that was too much. Then there were the straight plays that run about 90 minutes and they play better with no intermission. But when the 90 minutes starts stretching to an hour and three quarters or pushing two hours -- well, come 'on, give us a break. No wonder I see more and more people leaving their seats to go to the restroom or whatever during a show!

[NYC4Life]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 12:47pm

It really depends on the production to me. I am one who likes to have supper after a show rather than before so I'm happy when I am out of the theater by 1030. It's funny most people can sit through a 120 min movie but not the theatre.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 1:28pm

I don't mean generically. I love Drowsy Chaperone without an intermission. I mean with this show. This show needs an intermission to really appreciate it.

[Wickedmonkey332]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 2:08pm

I totally agree. I could not have loved the show more, but I am having trouble remembering all of the great moments that I so loved in the show. An intermission would have allowed for more of it to really sink in and be remembered.

[Playbilly]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 3:28pm

Did it have an intermission as "Cotton Club"?

[HorseTears]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 3:31pm

Not sure why this couldn't have gone in one of the 15 existing After Midnight threads, but I have to respectfully disagree. I generally prefer having an intermission, but I think this show works very well without one. This show is a damn locomotive of pure joy hurtling toward the stars. To suddenly pull the breaks for a 15-20 minute break would totally disrupt the momentum this show builds upon until its red hot group dance finale and the band's final cap number. I actually like that before you've had a chance to catch your breath from a dazzling tap number, a gorgeous vocal trio or a group ballet or jazz dance or a torchy solo from Fantasia throws you for another loop. It's an exhilarating experience. I don't know how the audiences have been at other performances, but at the preview I saw, the 90 minutes sent the audience into hysterics. By the band's final number. nearly everyone in my row was leaning forward on the edge of their seats as though they were trying to soak it all in.

And as others have said, it leaves you wanting more. I have a feeling this show will have some strong repeat business as a result of that euphoric feeling the audience seems to experience by the end.

[yfs]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 5:57pm

I agree completely. The damn thing hurtles at you at 90 miles an hour and that's what creates part of the thrill. It also moves from a light mood to a darker, sexier one in a subtle way that sucked me in completely, and then comes around to the joy part again at the very end. I really felt like I went from JUST after midnight to about 5 am in 90 minutes, and I liked that feeling.

[HoundDoggydog]

Posted: 11/5/13 at 6:05pm

I have to agree with HorseTears on this one. I think that an intermission would hurt the momentum. To make it work they would have to add more to the production, and quite frankly if they added more time to the show, it would start to lose its appeal. It was the perfect length. I am pretty sure if they added more time, audiences would start to get antsy since there is not a book.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 5:50pm

I was not a fan. I thought everyone involved was crazy talented, but it's just not my thing. I need more to a show than some pretty dancing and some okay singing. But if you're into jazz, you're sure to love it.

[stevenycguy]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 6:15pm

This is a wonderful show and a major part of the charm is that it's 90 nonstop minutes. An intermission would have substantially lessened my enjoyment of it. When you're into a show, you don't want a 15 to 20 minute break.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 6:35pm

Def could have worked with an intermission but it would have needed more material. I think it's fine the way it is. It didn't feel too long or too short.

[sklabam]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 9:18pm

The merch stand people would be happier with an intermission. I don't think it needs one though. The swift trip of AM is something I really dig.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 11/6/13 at 11:36pm

I'm actually surprised a lot of shows tend to do 90mins. You'd think the theaters themselves would push for more intermissions to make more money.