WhatsOnStage.com: To break or not to break, that is the question. The decision of director Dominic Cooke to play Follies at the National Theatre straight through, as Stephen Sondheim intended, is the most recent example of the way that today's audiences can never quite know what to expect when it comes to the traditional theatre interval.
5 comments:
What's interesting about this is there is a lot of research that shows the positive effects of taking a break. I can understand why having intermission in the middle of a show can be jarring and break the tension, however I wonder if it helps humans process a show more thoroughly.
Breaks in a show have their advantages and disadvantages. I like having a break in a show to let me process what happened in the first part of the show, like Ella said, and get insight from those I am seeing the show with. The social part of seeing a show is also important when watching a show, like the article stated – the absence of a break in a long running piece implies the absence of enjoyment meant to be had by the audience. Additionally, a well placed break can add amazing dramatic effect to a show. I saw a play at the ART in January where the intermission happened after the biggest plot twist in the show's storyline, and the intermission gave me and my girlfriend time to process what had just happened and to try and figure out what was going to happen next. The show picked back up and told the story from another character's perspective, revealing the reasoning behind the sudden plot twist and then finishing out the plot. It was a great transition. What is NOT necessary, is a break in a short show. I pains me when I work with children's groups and the show runs barely 40 minutes and it has an intermission. I guess with younger children, maybe the break can be justified, but in my opinion it is entirely unnecessary, and it is just distracting having a break the same length of the two intervals of theatre you are watching.
The article brings up the point of making the audience have to endure a show without an intermission but I think it is extremely powerful to sit through a two-hour experience in the world of the show. I disagree with the suffering that is eligible endured by the audience members. I also disagree that the "interval" as the author calls offers enough time to process the show. 15-minute intermissions rarely at least for me additional time to process the show. I think it can sometimes be a breather from very intense shows but the shows intensity will be lost. I think intermissions don't give audiences more time to think, I just think they are breaks that interrupt the show. I personally disagree that they add time to think or dramatic tension.
I'm not sure if Follies was the best example to take on this issue, particularly because even the article points out that Stephen Sondheim himself originally intentioned to have Follies play without a break, but I definitely have to agree with the idea that not having an interval does tend to put the focus on the audience's focus, rather than putting the focus on entertaining the audience. Just like the author of this article stated, theatre is and should continue to be a social event. Sharing my thoughts about the production is one of my favorite parts of intermission. Not to mention that intervals provide critical breaks for the audience to purchase merchandise, take photos, buy snacks, and of course use the overly-crowded restrooms. I often find that intervals are never long enough to actual diminish or take away from my experience, and I think if anything it helps to build anticipation for what is about to happen next.
I think intervals or intermissions are important if a show is over the 2 hour mark. If a theatre is going to sell drinks and food then they have to let their audiences go to the bathroom half way through the show instead of making them sit for over 2 hours without a break. I understand the reasoning of wanting the audience to be immersed and not interrupt the story with an interval, but if they have to go to the bathroom then their concentration from the show will break. They will be more focused on the fact that they have to pee then the most important moment that is currently happening on the stage. I agree that theatre should not be an endurance test for the audience. They did not sign up for that, they signed up to see a show and to get mentally invested for a reasonable amount of time. Especially since theatre audiences are often filled with an older crowd, they should not be forced to hold their bladders for over 2 hours.
Post a Comment