chicagotribune.com: "Within the last week, I've twice found myself complaining about running time. I thought 'Mistakes Were Made,' the hugely entertaining Craig Wright play at A Red Orchid Theatre, needed to lose about 15 minutes. And I thought 'Stoop Stories,' the artful solo show by Dael Orlandersmith at the Goodman Theatre, needed to add at least that much.
Which would mean both shows would clock in about 1 hour and 30 minutes. Was I positing some kind of ideal length for a show?"
14 comments:
I think that many peoples attention spans have gotten shorter. In the past, people could sit through a three hour play and not think it was too long, but now if something is just two hours they feel that they couldn't sit still for that long. On the other hand, I hate going to a show that feels too short. When I leave the theatre I often feel like it was missing something when it was so short.
I think that the problem with long shows is when a show with little substance is lengthened to a long show that is just boring. I have also seen a lot of shows like this. It is important to find the right length of a show, but at the same time, I don't think that important parts of a show should
We are constantly complaining life moves to fast, especially in American culture. Could this ideal that 90 minutes is plenty long enough be a child of that? For for the flashy but fun shows, much like the ones in Vegas, and the one women shows 90 minutes is perfection. However, when I think of the Pride and Prejudice movies I always hated the short but sweet Keira Knightly version over the 6-hour long BBC version. It depends entirely on material. Perhaps out material is lacking and not just our intention span?
I agree that there are many shows that just run too long for their own good and others that we wish would keep going, but sometimes it has to do with the age of the script. Having worked on the premiere of "Stoop Stories" at Studio Theatre this year, I can say that this play is a new work still very much in development and during tech we cut a whole monologue and transition, taking about 10 minutes off the show. Sadly, audiences are often unaware that although new plays are being fully produced, their finals scripts are still being edited. I personally prefer the 90 minute model, without an intermission, and agree there is something magical about this number, although the economics of selling concessions at intermission often have a strong influence.
I agree with this article that intermissions are important. I would much rather sit through a 3 hour long show with one admission, than a 2 hour show with none. I feel that attention spans have indeed changed, but in the sense that most people need breaks in some way or another. Having an intermission on anything over 90 minutes allows the audience to collect their thoughts and go in fresh to the second act. On another note, I think it's interesting how the article points out that Phantom in its 90 minute version wasn't lacking much compared to the 3 hour productions. I really like how technology has advanced theatre, by elimanting the need for filler for scene changes, because I always felt that that filler detracts from the overall show, although it may be technically necessary
Running time is a very important factor for the producer, director, and stage manager to consider. How much time does the show justify taking up? Like the author of the article mentioned, it is ok to have a long show as long as the story and the production justify it and keep the show going forward. On the topic of Stoop Stories, I agree that the play needed substance. I worked on a staged reading of the show this summer and it some connecting material to make it a cohesive whole. In this time of economic uncertainty, producers are also probably in favor of shorter shows as they usually have smaller casts and less rehearsal time which make them cheaper to produce. TV has shortened the American attention span. We tend to want problems in stories resolved for us instead of making us think and work it out for ourselves.
While I agree that these days people's attention span is limited to a great degree. Like the author said it depends on the show weather or not a three hour show is better than 90 min show. What I do think is important factor in this is the placement of an intermission. As the author brought up a three show with an intermission is much better than a two hour with no intermission. People can handle longer shows if they have a break in the middle to refresh and to just take a mental break. Perhaps if theaters had multiple intermissions or placed intermissions at different times it might help.
Over the last few years I have become a huge fan of the 90 minute, one act. I never need to use the bathroom at intermission (I'm not brave enough to face that line), I eat before the show, and I don't smoke. The worst is when you see a show with someone who's already seen it and then while you're pondering during the intermission, they tell you the ending. I'd prefer to get the whole show at once and then go home and ponder from my couch where I don't need to be wearing shoes.
I understand that attention spans have gotten shorter and 90 minutes may seem like the perfect running time. But theater shouldn't focus on times or how long a show is. IT should tell an engaging story. If that story takes 5 minutes or 500 minutes it should still tell that story while keeping the audience interested. Often times the problems lie int he playwrights. Dialogue and action onstage needs to be stimulating to keep the audience's attention. IF you cannot do this then you are creating bad theater, where they can write about how much longer/shorter the show should have been.
August took 3 hours 30 mintues to tell and then entire time I didn't want it to end. It was engagaing and I yearned for it to last. The shows that are dull and boring- that is just bad writing or written for the wrong audience, and thus should be 90 minutes so I know when I can politely leave the theater.
While the attention span of many people have gotten shorter, I do not think this is an excuse for effect the length of a show. Theater is a subjective art form. This drastically efects how the story is told and who would enjoy the way it is presented. I think that if the story were compelling or capitvating enough, then audience would easily, and enjoyably, sit through a two or even three hour performance. But the story needs to be capitvating. That is something that most people doesn't realize. That because it is a subjective art form, people's opinion differ greatly as to the level of enjoyment attained.
Intermissions can be important for simple biological needs, but that aside, I don't believe that there's any one right length for a show. I've been to some that lasted 45 minutes where I wished they were shorter, and I've been to others that ran 2:30 and they seemed to end too soon. It reminds me of the old joke about someone asking someone else how long a paper (or speech, or report, etc.) should be and receiving the answer "as long as a woman's skirt - long enough to cover the subject but short enough to keep it interesting". Far too many shows seem to fail at one or the other of those, regardless of length.
Show length should be only determined by content of the show, and the intentions of the artists involved. I have seen many 3 hour shows that are amazing; but, that is only because their content is exciting.
I hate seeing shows keep me sitting in my seat for hours on end, without making me care about what's happening. I do think that most shows that are for merely "flashy" purposes, like in Vegas or Disney cruise ships, are more likely to succeed by keeping to a 90 min show time because audiences are there simply for spectacle. You got to keep their attention.
Brevity is key, I think; but, don't sacrifice content. If you're just blowing stuff up the whole time in a new action movie or show, I think 90 mins suffices.
I completely agree with many of the comments in the fact that the length of the show should be determined by the content of the piece. However, when reality is taken into consideration, no one wants to sit through a six hour production (and I have...). The fact that the modern audience is used to getting a complete story in the 30min sitcom or the 1hour drama, makes putting a three hour piece on stage extra challenging. It is a truism that no one can stay fully focused for any long amount of time. You focus, zone in, focus on a small detail, zone again. However, in a well crafted production, this is taken into account. The artistic team must accept that certain parts are not as important, and thus give the parts that are integral to the show, more meaning.
Now I am not saying that some work calls for longer than 90 min (a lot does), I am just saying that if you are using that amount of time, consider what you really want the audience to see, and if you really need all of that content to tell the same story.
It's not reasonable to try to establish an "ideal length" for theatrical performances in general. Maybe people have shorter attention spans than they used to, but if a show is artistically successful, two hours (with intermission) should not be too lengthy.
I appreciate it when I know how long a play that I'm seeing is before it starts; it's nice to know when you should expect to be home.
There are a few shows that call for more time than others. However, I think that it cannot be summed down to a simple standard; each show is different. Within the ballpark of 90 minutes seems good, but sometimes, two hours are actually needed. however if the show is just bantering away or showing unnecessary activity without action, then its time to cut some.
Post a Comment