Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: If the performing arts maintained an endangered species list, intermissions might well be ranked somewhere near the top. During the past decade, many theater and dance events and some concerts have downsized to performances of 90 minutes or less, eliminating the need for a 15-minute break. Neither "Electra" nor "Red,"the first two plays on Pittsburgh Public Theater's 2011-12 season feature an intermission. Mark Power, managing director at City Theatre, points out that, on average, half of the company's productions are performed without the traditional break.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Arts groups increasingly skipping intermission
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: If the performing arts maintained an endangered species list, intermissions might well be ranked somewhere near the top. During the past decade, many theater and dance events and some concerts have downsized to performances of 90 minutes or less, eliminating the need for a 15-minute break. Neither "Electra" nor "Red,"the first two plays on Pittsburgh Public Theater's 2011-12 season feature an intermission. Mark Power, managing director at City Theatre, points out that, on average, half of the company's productions are performed without the traditional break.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I miss intermissions. Even though I am part of the younger crowd that is mentioned in this article I am in favor of intermissions because as an audience member I like to have a break from the action to consider what I think about the piece and how other people are reacting. In addition theater's make tons of money during intermissions because of purchases and intermissions also give the actors a break which will add to creating a better performance.
The only times intermissions are useful to me are if I legitimately need to use the restroom. Other than that, I would rather do without them. They take me out of the action of the play, and I have a very difficult time getting back into it afterward. I don't disagree with the concept of not having an intermission for shows that are 90 minutes or less, because anybody should be able to plan ahead well enough that they can go this long without needing to get up for any reason, but if the show is any longer than 90 minutes I understand the reason for one. It shouldn't be a surprise that we are trying to shorten everything as society becomes less and less able to control its attention span, but I have to sum up that I am largely indifferent toward the idea of an intermission. After all, there are some movies that are much longer than 90 minutes without any thought of an intermission
I NEED INTERMISSIONS. Anyone who knows me knows that I can't go the entire duration of a performance without having to pee. I'm sure there are other audience members who would sympathize with this. The only way I wold appreciate this is if the run time were less than 90 minutes - but then again a show with that short a run is rare. Intermissions also provide a ground for theatres to sell more merchandise and for audience members to get up and walk around, which makes a more enjoyable experience all around. So, to sum it all up, whether it be bathroom, money making, or just general refreshment, there is no downside to an intermission. Fifteen extra minutes isn't hurting anyone.
Let's face a dramatic fact that this article doesn't even mention, much less deal with:
Intermission is the time when people who disagree with, are bored by or just plain don't LIKE your play leave. Assuming you can keep your show down to a reasonable runtime, if you're afraid people might leave the performance given the chance: Don't give them the chance.
It's a guerilla tactic that's just a little too sneaky for my tastes. Most people who would walk out during an intermission are too intimidated to do so in the middle of action onstage [rightfully so, I believe] and cutting the intermission, ESPECIALLY when it's under a pretense of cutting runtime [we get to go home fifteen minutes early! Hurray!!] or stream-lining a production, can potentially make your ideally captive audience ACTUALLY captives. And I think that's just connivingly unfair.
I have to disagree with Brooke, intermissions can be extremely useful to the scenic designer when a major change needs to occur. Also, there are just some shows that cannot be cut down. No one should have to sit through 3 hours with no break.
However I am one of the people who loves a good intermissionless show. An effective show is one where I'm not counting down the time or looking at my watch. Sometimes creating a show without an intermission can be an artistic challenge for the team that produces great things, or terrible things. I approve this movement and I hope it carries on. Cut the fat, get to the good stuff.
It seems like the article is pointing out two purposes for having an intermission, artistic and financial. While One-Act plays are becoming more and more commonplace (and one-act rewrites of classic works), the intermission has served several important purposes in the performing arts. One of the most important is allowing the audience to rest their brains and think over what they saw. On the other hand, some writers and directors might prefer to keep the audience in the story rather than waste time trying to reel them in twice. Some classic shows, like Chorus Line perform better without an intermission. Also, in many cases, intermission provides the audience with a chance to leave. Something that producers may want to avoid. It is interesting to see how modern pieces respond to the reduced attention span of their audiences. However, at times these pieces can have more power than longer ones.
As an audience member I like intermissions. I like the time to share with companions what I thought of the play so far and speculate on the rest of the play and buy refreshments which is good for the audience and for finances. I also like having time to visit the restrooms, but mostly, I like show long enough to have some substance to them. I don't usually like shows which are only 90 minutes or less with or without intermissions. I often find that it is hard to get to the heart of a show in that brief time. However, it is understandable that shows are getting shorter. Peoples attention spans are getting shorter. One wonders when will it stop? Will we soon be playing only 90 minute shows with no intermissions? Then will be only play one acts? Perhaps there will be intermissions between them. Perhaps all shows will soon be just a few minute anecdotes and we will just be going to the theater to enjoy the intermission, sad but true.
This article brings up the fact that plays and performances in general are getting shorter and shorter. I had a theatre professor once who absolutely livid about this, cursing out hollywood and the media for destroying our attention spans and rendering us incapable of sitting through a traditional 3 hour or longer performance.
I think intermissions have their place, but should be used with caution. Not every play needs an intermission, for both time and other reasons. The action in some plays is destroyed by an intermission; other plays don't matter. I think more things than length should be taken into account when deciding on and planning an intermission.
There are so many great points made in this article. I am very much in favor if keeping intermissions in theatre. It is very true that intermission is a time for audience members further on in their years to use the restroom or simply to stretch their legs. Intermission, for myself, is a time for me to sit back and take a breath. It is a time for reflection, as the article said, on the show and by the time the break is over I return refreshed and ready for more. I feel that were intermissions to be fully removed from performances there would be much arguing from the theatre world indeed.
I won't take a set stance on pro or con intermission. Intermissions are appropriate for some shows and are unnecessary for others. If a show is particularly long, an intermission is warranted. It can't be expected of the audience to sit for more than 90 minutes for purely physical reasons alone. If a show is short, an intermission can be disruptive to the story. On the other hand, if a show is particularly dense or complicated, having some time to reflect before proceeding can be helpful. I personally love surveying how many people duck out for intermission - and having that information about audience perception can be useful. The only plays during which I've wanted to leave did not have intermissions and it felt like a trap. I wondered if they didn't have an intermission to try and force the audience to stay for the whole show. Intermissions provide some interesting social insight and time to use the restrooms but besides that, they're not necessary.
The decision to not have an intermission is becoming more and more popular these days which to me comes as a big surprise. Though many theatre and other performance groups are doing what they can in order to shorten their run time in order to satisfy an audience with an ever-shrinking attention span they are losing one of the key times of performance. Intermission for many works is the time that the audience can take in what they have seen so far and prepare themselves for the climax of the performance. yes this doesn't work for all productions but more importantly and suprising is that they are losing the money made at concession which keeps many venues afloat.
I still like intermissions. I know I'm from the younger generation that is suppose to hate them but I think they make a show more enjoyable. It gives you suspense (hopefully) and a yearning to get back into your seat and find out what happens (again hopefully). You also get a nice bathroom break which is sometimes much needed and appreciated. Who wants to miss part of a show because you had to go to the bathroom? I think intermissions are still great and shouldn't disappear entirely. Of course not every show needs them but I don't think we should just throw them away. They are still very useful.
I'm from a town where intermissions are a no-go. Shows on the Vegas strip are always 90 minutes without an intermission because the casinos want people to get out of the shows quickly and go gamble. I'm actually fan of the short and sweet "Vegas versions" (as I like to call them) of shows such as Jersey Boys and The Lion King. The shows are long enough that you feel like you're getting your money's worth, but also not too long to ever lose your attention. I completely understand the necessity and benefit of intermission for other shows, though. Some shows just wouldn't be the same if you cut them down. I also see the benefit of intermissions for companies like the PPT, who might make some money on concessions and do little PR work during intermission. I think it all depends on the company, and the choice to go without an intermission is appropriate for certain venues based on audience members (and their age and attention span) as well as the intentions of the producers and their obligations to other companies (i.e. to the casinos that house their show)
Shannon brings up an interesting point. What is the culture of your venue? Is it standard to have intermissions? I would assume in a cabaret-type setting, you may not have an intermission. We have gotten a lot of personal opinions thus-far regarding the placement (or not) of an intermission. But there is a lot more that goes into an intermission than just "I have to pee".
What is the taxation on the performers? Do they need 15 minutes to rest their voices, bodies, or both? What is the need of the technical elements? There are plenty of times in which an intermission will be extended to assist in a technical fix, or even casting fix. This does explore the idea of a planned intermission versus an "in the moment" intermission, or extension there of.
Going back to the "cultural" idea. There are plenty of houses or types of show that must have intermissions, or always do not. You need to also consider your audience, and what they are expecting. You may be able to do a 5 hour Brecht show in Germany with no intermission, but that probably wouldn't fly in the American theater culture.
I agree with the notion that if the show is shorter, like a 1 act play that last less than 1.5 hrs, NOT having intermission is the best choice. Sticking it out has the potential to make the audience become more enthralled by the plot, where it "helps you focus when the stakes are higher". If you're cutting out half way through, some of that momentum may be lost.
On the other hand, more so for longer shows, there are benefits from having an intermission. Social connections can be made at that time, and that's important because That's important because it's a shared experience with the community, and interaction is part of that community experience.
I also miss intermissions. I think it's important to have that break in the action so you can soak in what just happened in the last hour (or so). It's a little off-putting that going to the theatre is no longer the exciting experience it was in the past, and getting rid of intermissions is a part of that. I also think that an intermission helps with being able to concentrate on the second half of a show. The truth is that people no longer have long attention spans, and I think that companies think getting rid of intermissions will help people still want to see shows, but I really miss having that 15 minutes to reflect and clear my head.
I'm on the fence about intermissions. I think it really depends on the show. If your company feels that the production will have the intended impact on the audience in 90 minutes, then be my guest. Otherwise, I don't see intermissions as a bad or debilitating aspect of theater. Most of the time, an intermission is expected from a theater production. In cases of operas and musical performances, it's completely understandable as to why an intermission would be needed for the performers. Intermission or not, the production's story should come across and leave an impact. That's what the audience paid for.
I feel like intermissions are both necessary and an inconvenience. Some shows just really need them, imagine sitting through Waiting for Godot without a break, but others are better off without. It's one of those things where you just have to decide based on the needs of the production. I would tend to agree that if the play is interesting enough to skip intermission then it damn well should. Why break up the energy of the play if it's going well?
What's I don't like about theatre now is that many shows are either cut to or written to be 90 minutes.
I understand this if cutting a show to 90 minutes really helps tell the story--but does it always? I think we need to give audience members more credit.
Besides, intermissions are great because they leave the plot at cliffhangers. It is a really effective way to keep people interested in a story once attending a performance.
I think that if you actually take the time to go and see a performance you are going to enjoy and take in the entirety of the atmosphere that is created. I for one still enjoy getting to take a break at intermission, even though as mentioned in the article, my generation as a whole is veering away from them. When I go a see a show I want to be able to have a chance to step back, collect my thoughts and think about what I just saw, so that I can make my own interpretations about it. This way when I go back to see the second act I can go in with a fresh mind and outlook on things.
We have become a culture of people that needs constant stimulation. Without that stimulation we become bored. No intermission helps the audience stay engaged. Although this is a sad fact, it is the world we live in. Art must evolve.
This is a bunch of BS. The theaters are like a carnival atmosphere upon entering them anymore and seeing all the stuff available for sale in the lobby. They (the arts organizations)want intermissions and secretly extend intermissions in order to pond their material for patrons to buy things. For Example: The peanut machine in the Benedum center earns likely $4,000 cash money per night on sold out shows. The idea was taken from the lion king that was netting $8,000 per night. Do the math folks!
Post a Comment