To the question, “How long should a man’s legs be?,” President Abraham Lincoln is credited with responding, “Long enough to reach the ground.” The quote may or may not be accurately ascribed to Lincoln, but it has been on my mind a lot of late, although not in regard to physical stature.
If you are a regular theatergoer, you are undoubtedly in the habit of ascertaining, before you see a production, what the running time will be. Your motivation may be practical: notifying the babysitter, figuring out what train to catch, making post-theatre dining reservations. But undoubtedly you have found yourself cheered, more than once, when your inquiry results in the answer, “90 minute, no intermission.”
It is the cheerfulness which concerns me. I am not entirely certain when the tide turned towards the single-act play (and in some cases musicals), but they seem much more prevalent of late. Perhaps this is simply evolutionary, as we’ve watched theatre go from five acts to three acts to two, and the standard is turning once again. But unlike other devolutions in theatrical scope, which have been economically driven (playwrights say they can’t get large cast plays produced, and therefore write more “practically,” to name one troublesome example), the “full-length” one-act play is actually counter to theatrical economics, as it wreaks havoc on intermission concessions sales, to the dismay of many managers and producers.
Years ago, in my press agent days in Hartford, I would regularly get a call from the major local critic, on a Wednesday or Thursday, asking about the length of the production that would open on a Friday night. His query was practical; he would leave the theatre immediately at the end of the production and go back to the paper to write for the next day’s edition, a schedule that even the New York papers had abandoned (and because we had only five previews, we were loathe to invite him sooner). As we came to know each other better, I would try to call him preemptively, and if I forgot, and received a Thursday call, I would pick up my phone and announce the number of acts and running time before I even said hello. After we had presented a few shows that were single act, intermissionless plays, for which the critic voiced his enthusiasm, I brashly asked, “Look, if all our plays were one act without an intermission, would we be assured of better reviews?” I was met with the only half-joking response, “It wouldn’t hurt.”
In recent weeks, I have noted an articulate and enthusiastic theatre tweeter lobbying for exactly that – that all plays should be unbroken and brief. We have debated the issue as effectively as one can do in 140-character snippets, but his advocacy of this position, and my prior experience with such opinions, moved me to say more on the topic.
Yes, I will confess that on occasion, I am heartened to know that I can make it home with enough time to brush my teeth and settle into bed before the start of “The Daily Show” at 11 pm. But it has never occurred to me to hope that playwrights would simply write shorter, which is in fact code for “less.” I am, however, an enthusiastic advocate of 7 o’clock or 7:30 p.m. weeknight curtains, which we had instituted in 1986 at Hartford Stage when audience surveys revealed a 2 to 1 preference in the audience for earlier start times – among an audience that snapped up tickets for the decidedly wordy works of Shakespeare and Ibsen. I like getting home early, but not at the expense of theatrical complexity.
I want to say to playwrights, already hobbled by the number of sets and number of actors they can utilize, please don’t restrict yourself by word or page count. Write the stories you want to tell, and take the time you need to tell them. As a notoriously discursive essayist myself, I also urge you not to be afraid of digressions if they illuminate your story, your characters, your themes. We cannot afford to have you put in a position where you must sacrifice texture and subtext in favor of train schedules or simple impatience. I am not naïve, and marathon events like Angels in America and The Norman Conquests have their economic and logistical challenges, but they are in fact the exception, not the rule (yet often all the more recognized precisely because of that fact).
The issue of play length is perhaps most on my mind because of two plays I’ve seen in the past fortnight: Caryl Churchill’s A Number and Elevator Repair Service’s Gatz. The former I saw recently in London, having been enthralled by its New York premiere several years back. The latter I saw for the first time less than 24 hours ago, after reading about it for years. Both (even the second viewing of A Number, in a wholly new production), were profoundly memorable events for me. The former, with only two actors, four characters and a chair, manages to encompass a vast array of themes: familial love and loss, the nature of identity, the ethics of cloning, the slipperiness of truth. The latter transcends the dingy office in which it’s set and lifts the act of reading a classic book into rarified realms while illuminating an extremely familiar (to me), brilliant text, in a way that made me examine it as if new. Both experiences could only take place live, in a theatre; they would make no sense and lose their impact on film, radio or television. The former runs perhaps 50 minutes and says all that needs to be said, the latter requires some eight hours altogether, including a dinner break, and its very completeness is part of its impact.
I will never seek to silence anyone’s opinion about theatre, but I will ask those who advocate or agitate for more compact works to, similarly, try not to direct the playwright’s voice. Let’s not create a producing and theatergoing environment in which only the brief can survive. We need plays of every shape, size, subject and length if the theatre is to remain alive and vital.
And so I return to my opening epigram, but only to transform it. How long should a play be? Long enough to reach its audience.
Posted on Monday, October 18th, 2010 at 10:57 am
by
Howard Sherman
Filed under:
Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed.
You can
leave a response, or
trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
October 18th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SteveOnBroadway, AmericanTheatre Wing, Michael Henry Harris, Lauren Rutlin, Tyler Phillips and others. Tyler Phillips said: RT @steveonbroadway: RT @TheWing In this week's blog, @HESherman questions the increasing popularity of 90 minute intermissionless shows: http://ow.ly/2Virk [...]
October 18th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
On behalf of all playwrights everywhere, thank you. I could not agree any more strongly with your assessment, nor could I appreciate the encouragement any more greatly.
October 18th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Even our Reduced Shakespeare Company “Complete (abridged)” plays have intermissions! I can see why people who are required to see theatre for their jobs would want to get out sooner. But intermissions can add to the Event aspect of going to the theatre, add to the communal fun.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
[...] By: American Theatre Wing [...]
October 20th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Very prolific read.
I think that the tendency towards television shows being 44 minutes tops has conditioned our modern-day world to prefer bite-sized drama. Which is sort of a shame.
I wonder if people seem less excited about the 90-minute-intermission-less notion during weekend performances.
October 20th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Shortened attention spans and a desire to write simpler, more easily produced plays may contribute to the “no intermission” phenomenon, but I think you omit two other factors.
1) Intermissions require a natural stopping point to occur somewhere around 50%-65% of the way through. When Act I is, say, 50 minutes and Act II is 75 minutes, the action in Act II has to be extremely fast-paced and thrilling or the audience is going to start thinking “when is this going to be OVER already?” Conversely, I recently saw a production of “Fully Committed” — originally conceived with no intermission — that had a 15-minute break with only about 20 minutes left in the show. During the curtain call I was wondering why they had bothered with the intermission. In some ways, not having to worry about an intermission frees the playwright rather than constricting him.
2) On many occasions I have left a play thinking “I understand why there was no intermission. If there had been, half the audience wouldn’t have come back for the second act.” I wonder how many directors and producers — and possibly even playwrights — actually think that way.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Those are two different things.
If a show is good, I’m happy to watch for longer, although I’m sure some people prefer it to be snappy.
Intermission, on the other hand, feels like a nuisance. Movies has proven that people can sit still and watch something for 2 or even 3 hours without a break. A 15 to 20 minute period of time that basically amount to standing in line or standing in a crowded lobby often just doesn’t feel like fun to people.
Take it as a sign that they want to keep watching the show.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Sorry, “movies ‘HAVE’ proven” not “has.” I has obviously proven that I should type more carefully.
October 20th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Casts are getting smaller for economic reasons, so there is less business to transact between them. Also, audiences are trained by commercials and videos to get the point more swiftly (more swiftly, not more deeply), so a lot of the old throat-clearing is not necessary. And, as a tactic, I like intermissionless plays because, during breaks, people tend to turn their cell phones back on and forget to turn them off for the second act. I can’t remember the last time I saw a two-act play that a cell didn’t go off in the second act.
October 20th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
These days audiences and the media seem to love their theatre either really short, or really, really long. To me, “Gatz” (8 hours) and “Angels in America” (6 hours) are not exceptions to the 90-minute mania, but part of a countervailing trend, even as they make “The Merchant of Venice” and last season’s “Hamlet” and Sarah Ruhl’s “Passon Play” – a mere three-and-a-half hours each – seem brief. There are also hefty, multi-evening works such as the Wagnerian “Ring” (16 hours) now being staged by the Met, recent productions of Ayckbourn’s “The Norman Conquests” (9 hours), and others. Audiences enthusiastically embrace the kind of sustained attention these works demand. But I wonder about the middle. If long = “event” and short = “in bed by 10:30,” will mid-length plays and musicals struggle in the theatrical marketplace?
October 20th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I admit that I often get excited when I hear the running time is 90 minutes. But, that is mainly because my life is extremely busy and every minute makes a difference. I also have to commute approximately 30-40 minutes both ways when I am seeing theatre. If a show starts at 8pm, it ends by 9:30 and I get home before 10:15 if I’m lucky. this barely gives me enough time to wind down, do some work, have personal time so that I can wake up the next morning for a 9-6 job.
If every play were 2 or 3 hours, I would be forced to go to the theatre less and my attendance would be less spontaneous. I’m grateful for the current trend as it enables me to realistically see a lot of theatre.
Long plays, like Gatz, require serious pre-planning for a ticket-buyer. I’m so happy that these longer scripts exist and I can not wait to see Gatz! But, let’s face it, shorter scripts mean that many of us can schedule more variety of theatre productions into our busy schedule.
And, let’s be frank: it takes a pretty fantastic production to sustain peoples’ attention for three hours. In my opinion, most productions don’t sustain the energy from beginning to end. If it’s good, we’ll find a way to see it.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I think it may be a product of how people have been trained to watch a story. Movies have left people used to an unbroken story line, and people even TIVO their television so they don’t have to watch commercials. I personally can find an intermission hugely distracting, long lines for the bathrooms, drinks you don’t have time to finish, and nearly everyone on their cell phone. There is something to be said for the experience of following the narrative from beginning to end, as an unbroken story.
October 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I never go to theater on weekends (Fri-Sun)- never have – the audiences are terrible. Now with more and more weekday performances starting at 7pm (7:30 was bad enough)or no performance given – I very rarely attend. So for someone who used to attend fifteen to twenty performances a month, I now go once or twice an entire season – instead prefer Carnegie Hall, City Center or Lincoln Center, etc. which start for most part at 8pm and sometimes later!
October 20th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I’m as happy to see a 90-minute-no-intermission play that plays well without the interval (borrowing a phrase from across the pond) as I am to see a 3-act chestnut that was carefully crafted around two intermissions. Nearly 20 years ago I worked in a theater that was premiering an Edward Albee play, also directed by Mr. Albee. Total playing time was 90 minutes, plus one intermission. The artistic director lobbied for him to try it without intermission. He muttered to me one night, “No intermission tonight. It’s her theater so we’ll try it her way. The intermission goes back in tomorrow.” After the performance he came up to me and muttered, “Well, she was right. It plays better without the intermission.” Without interruption it had reached the audience.
October 20th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Thank you for this posting, which I appreciated not only for its thesis but also for the fact that you mention Elevator Repair Service´s current production of “Gatz” at the Public in New York.
The thing that I come away with, reading and reflecting on your essay, is how theater should attempt (wherever possible) to accomplish what other mediums cannot. In other words: events like “Gatz” or “Angels in America” or Stoppard´s “Coast of Utopia” are notable not just because the material and the performers are so extraordinary. Another element is that the form is something that could only happen live–when´s the last time you watched an 8 hour television show, or an 8 hour film?
For all of the talk of people having small attention spans due to the rapid increase of technology, I think what must be stated is that there is still a tremendous amount of live performance–by some measures, more theater, dance, puppetry, cabaret, magic, and so on than every before.
Perhaps this speaks to a hankering on behalf of our audiences, that crave live work that is unconventional–that defies what we can get so easily on our laptops or on our flat-screen tvs.
Of course, plays such as “Angels” and “Gatz” and so on are also performances that are gargantuan in form, because the scope of their conceptual canvas is so vast. These are multilayered, sophisticated, dynamic, powerful works. And those do not come around every year, every season.
I hope that playwrights continue to make bold plays, where the form suits the content. If your play needs to be 3 hours, 90 minutes, 9 hours…so be it! Let the story and the characters determine how long it should be, and then find an audience for it. They´re out there / we´re out there.
Brendan McCall
Director, Ensemble Free Theater Norway
October 20th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
You know what would go a long way toward keeping an audience happily inside the building for 2+ hours? Allowing drinks and concessions inside the house. It’s an issue that constantly comes up in discussions about how to make theater more accommodating and fun, and yet rarely moves past the discussion stage.
October 20th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
While I,too, admit to loving the “90 minutes, no intermission” line, it’s really a question of quality, not quantity. So few new plays are written well enough to sustain an audience’s rapt attention for a prolonged period of time.
To paraphrase Roger Ebert, who said this about movies, but it’s equally applicable in the theatre: No good play is too long, and no bad play is short enough.
October 20th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
In accord with your conclusion, an anecdote I hope is true: Edward Albee, when asked if a play he was working on was a one-act or full-length, replied, “ALL my plays are full-length.” (That is, including the one-acts.)
October 21st, 2010 at 5:52 am
Your sentiments are appropriate. But consider that virtually all Pulitzer Prize plays of my lifetime seem to me to be 15 minutes too long. The increased power of the playwright today is not invariably in his/her best interest! Producers used to be able to force such changes to gassy material. To pick a specific example, I think that August Wilson’s (whose work I adore) peripatetic regional-trail development process resulted in longer and longer plays with each stop, instead of uniformly better and better texts.
While I’m a guilty-feeling “bridge and tunnel” customer, we need to consider to what extent 90-minute evenings are perhaps encouraged by theaters themselves. A short evening may suit starry (i.e. powerful…) casts or parsimonious producers who have to plan a rehearsal period or pay for nightly overtime. Is a 90-minute show with only one cast preferable to adding a “matinee” cast for a grueling-evening event? Does the well-established “per Service” payment model influence enthusiasm for programming shorter evenings? (I don’t suggest that theater workers should be paid by the hour for performances. That’s not fair. This issue applies as well to salaried managers.)
October 22nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm
[...] Howard Sherman on taking breaks Do you light up when you hear that a show is 90 minutes long with no intermission? Why? Howard Sherman wonders the lengths we’ve gone to in streamlining productions and asks if this is a good thing. There should be room for shows of all shapes, sizes, lengths, breaks… [...]
October 23rd, 2010 at 12:20 am
@Wendy:
“You know what would go a long way toward keeping an audience happily inside the building for 2+ hours? Allowing drinks and concessions inside the house. It’s an issue that constantly comes up in discussions about how to make theater more accommodating and fun, and yet rarely moves past the discussion stage.”
Funny you should mention that. I’m doing this for my staged reading (check blog for more info).
October 25th, 2010 at 6:46 am
Last night’s trip to “The Scottsboro Boys” (Lyceum Theater, NYC) revealed some other problems with short shows: Since the management has no financial incentive to start on time, customers who do come on time are penalized by having even longer than they expected without a bathroom break. Latecomers get positive reinforcement for bad behavior, because they manage to get their seats anyway! And while waiting in a long line to enter, I noticed that only one ticket taker was hired for all 950 patrons, despite the physical installation in the lobby of three ticket scanning wands.
October 29th, 2010 at 8:48 am
[...] You may also want to read this post by The American Theatre Wing called Long Enough to Reach. [...]
April 11th, 2011 at 10:18 am
[...] just as I feared that theatre was shrinking even more and forcing its creative artists to write to fit a mor…, I am flabbergasted that movies may be doing the same, accepting that the paradigm has changed, [...]