One Act / No Intermission

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 11:55am

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.

 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 12:05pm

I think producers/creators/authors are simply getting better at not overburdening their shows with "filler" material that increases the runtime, and better at editing themselves to make the shows tighter. I've worked quite a few plays that started with intermissions and ended previews intermissionless.

[robskynyc]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 12:08pm

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.

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 12:36pm

As a direct comparision to 50 years ago...sure, there are way more 90 minute musicals than before, but as an acutal trend?   I don't think so.  Or at least not so much that the next 20 years will be giving us mostly One acts.   Do I mind?  Not one way or another.   

There is no reduction in salaries for any of the union people.  It's still a full time job. 

 

However, the loss in income certainly comes from concessions and merchandising.   I know once or twice I never got a chance to look at merchandise after a show, as I was ushered out a side door.  I won't buy merchandise before a show - how will I know I'll like it enough to do so?  Truth be told, I don't buy that much merchansise anyway - pretty sure this year a mug from TBV was my only purchase.  (I never buy cds at the theater)   But I do like to look at it!

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 10:39pm

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.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/23/18 at 11:32pm

In the interest of clarity, I think we should save the term "One Act" for a short play (certainly less than an hour) with no intermission.

A 90-minute play or musical is still "full length", and may have multiple acts whether intermissions are taken or not. (Precedent: Shakespeare's plays have 5 acts, but nobody presents them nowadays with four intermissions. Yet they still have 5 acts.)

The British solve the problem by speaking in terms of ovations: a "one hander" means there is no intermission, only an ovation at the very end, whenever that comes. A "two hander" has an intermission ending with applause plus the final ovation. Etc.

Calling an intermissionless, 2 hour and 10 minute production of FOLLIES a "one act" just invites confusion.

***

As for long-term trends, I'm sure there are many influences, but historically every era tends to have a dominant art form that influences all others. (See the influence of Renaissance painting on the theater of that day.) The dominant art form of the 20th century was film, so it shouldn't surprise us that plays became more and more cinematic--from their length to their internal structure--throughout the 1900s. Thus far, the 21st century seems dominated by digital production on many media; it remains to be seen how theater will accommodate that. (It wouldn't surprise me if the idea of a theater audience all viewing the same thing with the same focus may decline in favor of more montage-like work where the viewer chooses from among many things to be heard or seen. Such works were experimental 60 years go, but may be the norm 60 years from now.)

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:24am

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.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:30am

I love it. Especially a 90 minute show that starts at 7. That means I’m home in time to watch Maddow.

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:34am

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.

[Wick3]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:34am

I prefer an intermission as that's normally the time when I can talk with friends and briefly discuss the show especially if I missed any important or subtle parts. I think I would have appreciated Band's visit more had there been an intermission as I didn't fully understand everything they were saying due to the accent (totally my fault though since I'm not used to hearing Israeli or Egyptian accent.)

I agree with the others stating the merch/bar will lose out on the $$$ by not having an intermission.

I understand the standard movie is 90 mins or so and they never have an intermission but I guess that's what makes theater different to me. It's an experience. 

[Impossible2]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:35am

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.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:42am

I always say: I prefer shows to either be under 2 hours, or over 3 hours. 

Under 2 hours feels like a quick in-and-out. Even if a show feels long, at least I'm still home relatively early (like Jordan said). Over 3 hours feels like an "experience." My mind-set changes to prepare myself for the long-haul. But in between 2 and 3 hours just feels like I'm in for a slog.

Now I should note I'm being a bit facetious; of course there are tons and tons of brilliant, beautiful, perfectly-lengthed shows that are between 2 and 3 hours. And of course I've hated many shows that were under 2 hours. But when I look at the program/website to see the runtime before the show, I'm always disappointed to see "2 hours and 30 minutes with one 15-minute intermission." 

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 12:18pm

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. 

[Impossible2]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 12:24pm

Fun Home definitely had an intermission when I saw it.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 12:32pm

On Broadway it certainly did not. 

[TimesSquared]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 12:35pm

An interesting point. I saw Fun Home at the Public first, where it did have an intermission. It was dropped for Broadway, and for me, that was part of what made the Broadway experience a richer one. 

[Impossible2]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 12:41pm

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.

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 1:04pm

These days, intermissionless shows are a draw for me (and they've been some of my all-time favorite productions lately, namely The Band's Visit, Three Tall Women, and Come From Away).

Updated On: 6/24/18 at 01:04 PM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 5:52pm

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.

[RemlapLBC]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 7:37pm

My opinion only.  (and II'm in Los Angeles, so don't see everything that plays on Broadway)  Musicals w/o an intermission generally seem like they have been cut because too many people were walking out and not coming back.   If I see a show that originally had an intermission and lost it along the way, i'm generally scared.

Plays seems to handled the one act setting better.  (I'm going to see The Humans tonight which says 100 minutes, no intermission.  I'm excited that with a 6:30 curtain, that I assume will be 6:45, I'll still by home by 9.

And to disagree with myself, or at least show the exception to every rule, The Las Vegas Production of Phantom that ran 100 minutes without an intermission. was great.  

[Jarethan]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 9:35pm

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.

[scarlet721]

Posted: 6/24/18 at 10:40pm

as i say to author friends, a story should be a long as it needs to be  

if someone wants to write a 90 -120 minute play or musical, great.  i can sit through that.  

if someone wants to write a longer play or musical and have it presented with an intermission, great, i can sit through that.

however, one thing i dislike is when a revival changes a two act show to a one act and cut things.  i almost feel that it is disrespectful to the writer and original production team. 

[colorsblend]

Posted: 6/25/18 at 12:09am

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?