The Two-Act Musical Structure (Condensing)

[Solipsist234]

What I've noticed in a few of the preview threads (especially in the Head Over Heels thread) is a lot of people seem to feel that a few of the newer shows in previews would have been a lot better if they had been truncated and condensed from two acts to one.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. The average tourist can only keep their attention spans so foucused on what they're watching that it creates this problem of "people checking watches" and "clearly seeing bored people around me", which some blame on the fact that a certain show (this thread is chiefly about Head Over Heels) is two acts instead of one.

My question is where did this idea come from that we need to condense a show in order for it to not only flow better, but be better as well?

[dramamama611]

We don't say this about every show. This show would be improved because there is so much filler- things that dont make the story better, or don't move it along. Its about editing - which means improvement.

No one is complaining about the length of Harry Potter, or Angel's in America. Many think there is a decent/ good show in HOH that would be better if edited. There is good stuff there, but a lot of stuff that's not.

[newintown]

I think that many contemporary young(ish) writers, having grown up on a diet of television and movies much more than theatre, are not entirely comfortable writing in a two-or-three act structure.

Related, some young songwriters, having grown up on pop songs that fade out rather than end, seem to be uncomfortable writing songs with buttons that lead to applause.

It could be about writing in the idiom with which one is most familiar.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

I would argue that, to some extent, it really is about shrinking attention spans to an extent (the revival of Pippin commented on this just before intermission in its revised book). But dramamama611's point about 'filler' and newintown's notion as to why the 'filler' exists are certainly part of it as well.

[haterobics]

Seems show-specific. If a show doesn't have enough consequences and moving parts to sustain a compelling narrative, then it should shrink to whatever length that story supports (or get bulked up by the creative team before it lands on Broadway). The issue with shows like Head Over Heels is that they can fall victim to needing to shoehorn all the hits of their jukebox overlords into a show, and sometimes the seams are more visible than they should be. 

It is like what Roger Ebert said about movies: “No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”

[BroadwayConcierge]

It’s definitely show-specific, but I think we’re increasingly finding the potential for one-act shows to nail a genre or tone by cutting superfluous junk and giving us 100 minutes of precise perfection. I look to The Band’s Visit, Come from Away, and Spelling Bee as the top three one-act musical successes. The best kinds of shows are what I call “laser-sharp.” Clearly focused, streamlined, and knows what it’s out to do.

One of the reasons I suggested a show like HoH (as you mentioned) should be one act is because it clearly intends to be a fun, funny evening with catchy Go-Go’s music. Right now, it gets caught up in its own self by making it 2+ hours with overlong scenes and unnecessary songs from the Go-Go’s catalog. Don’t get me wrong: I’m still a fan of the show in its current form, but it would be so much more focused, witty, and “laser-sharp” if they chopped it down a bit.

[newintown]

"I look to The Band’s Visit, Come from Away, and Spelling Bee as the top three one-act musical successes."

I rather preferred Spelling Bee in its original two-act version, when Chip was forced to sell candy in the lobby; Jose Llana was hilarious in his improvised interactions with audience members.