Your Intermission Talk

Wow! I need an intermission after reading all of your e-mails to me about intermissions. But I do thank you, for I never expected such generous and terrific responses when I asked you last week, “How do you feel about intermissions?”

“Hate them,” Ann Miner wrote succinctly. “Love them,” opined Dave Chapin before continuing, “Remember that column you wrote last year on ‘The 50 Most Dynamic Act One Finales in Musicals? Well, none of those would be possible without an intermission.”

Allen Neuner said, “It’s not whether the playgoer needs or wants an intermission — it’s whether the play needs it. There’s the type of plays where, if there were an intermission, there would be a terrible time getting the audience back up to speed. The intermission would break the dramatic tension. After all, isn’t the play the thing?”

Chris Connelly concurred. “I generally prefer the judgment of the play’s author. If there is no intermission, that’s fine. If there are two — leave ’em be.” A reader who identified himself simply as Bill took a hard-line stance, too. “If the original producers of a play decide there should not be an intermission, then future productions should be the same. Productions of Follies add them for no reason other than to sell more souvenirs and drinks.” But Donald Butchko disagrees from at least one practical stance: “I found the intermission at Follies in 2001 welcome simply because I had obstructed view seats which were really terrible, and I changed seats during the blessed intermission. Until then, I didn’t know that Buddy was watching Sally and Ben.”

Don Gibbs mewed, “Most people want intermissions because they are accustomed to them. If a show is longer than 90 minutes, people start getting restless, even though they’ll sit still at a movie for far longer. They need an intermission because they’ve always had one.” Christopher Pazdernik saw his point: “An intermission gives one a chance to stretch out a bit — especially as most theaters have slightly cramped seating, as opposed to the almost-Lay-Z-Boys that are in movie theaters.” Neil677 agreed: “I have a bad back, so I welcome the chance to stretch and walk a bit after sitting down for an hour or so.”

But David Hudson noted a problem: “My biggest gripe about intermissions is the inability of theaters to properly service patrons. If you want a drink, you’ll spend the majority of the time in line, get the drink, and toss it back as the lights are flashing. At the Heartland in Kansas City, before the show they allow folks to pre-order drinks, which are waiting for them at a wrap-around counter at intermission. Since we’re in the efficiency age, theaters need to help us optimize our time at intermission, too.”

Eric Hurst spoke from a directorial stance. “I won’t keep an audience seated for more than two hours with no intermission. So I included the optional intermission in Follies and 1776, but I would never put an intermission in Passion or Assassins. I did take the scripted two intermissions in Peter Pan and The Boy Friend, for those involve major set changes. And neither show is overly long, even with the two intermissions.”

Matt Windman, meanwhile, spoke for the performers. “The intermission is also necessary for the actor. Some shows prove so demanding that a 15-minute break is necessary. I played John Adams in 1776, who is onstage in almost every scene, so I welcomed the break during ‘Cool, Considerate Men’ and ‘Momma Look Sharp.'” Aman1016 seconded this emotion: “As a performer in a theater that has no climate control at all, I welcome the intermission to loosen up, especially if I have a warm costume to wear.” And Kevin Daly wrote: “Three years ago, I was in my high school’s production of Funny Girl, which has one hell of a long first act. It was very necessary to insert a break for the beleaguered performers. Especially Fanny. And just as you said about Gypsy — that the audience will be saying ‘Wow! Can you believe what you’ve just seen and heard?!’ — you need that, too, after the rush of ‘Don’t Rain on My Parade.’ God bless Jule Styne!”

Some of you chose to remember specific theatergoing instances, such as Chris Van Ness, who wrote, “I remember wishing desperately for an intermission during the seemingly endless Raul Julia Man of La Mancha, while recalling how quickly the original, Kiley-helmed production flew by.” Ed Glazier noted, “Some years ago, a friend and I saw a matinee of Geraldine Page and Maya Angelou in Jerome Kilty’s Look Away. As I awakened from my stupor at the end of Act I and noted other slumbering forms around me, we took advantage of the intermission to stumble out of the theatre and into the welcome sunlight. Later we went to Circle in the Square to see Irene Papas in Medea. Having seen her in a phenomenal film of Electra — in Greek, no less — we were looking forward to this. After the opening chorale ode and the speech by Despo, who was costumed with a box over her head, Medea entered and uttered ‘Things are rotten here’ — followed by Creon (pronounced as ‘crayon’) dressed as a brick wall. (I’m not making this up, you know.) My friend and I looked at one another and agreed that we would be leaving at intermission. But there was none, and we were trapped by the seating configuration and had to see the horror that was this production. So intermissions are sometimes effective, sometimes disruptive, and, sometimes, a consummation devoutly to be wished.”

Scott Cain related: “I was at the first preview of the Broadway Wild Party, without intermission, where they gave us every piece of material that had been written. By the time Eartha Kitt sang ‘You think the party’s gonna last forever,’ the audience was thinking the same thing about the musical. When the curtain came down at 10:55, many bolted for freedom and the restrooms.”

And, speaking of restrooms, Nancy Rosati penned: “My prediction is that you’re going to get a lot of complaints from women who attend shows in older theaters. And I’ll start the ball rolling. Didn’t women attend the theater when these places were built? Didn’t they need to use the ladies room? Then why do theaters that seat 1,400 people have five stalls? I gladly pay the restoration fee at the Martin Beck because they increased the lounge floor ladies room by at least 300% and the line moves quickly.”

Seventeen others wrote to say how much they, too, wanted their intermissions so they could have enough time in — shall we say, Urinetown. Jessica Jackson snarled at my wanting no intermission: “Spoken as a true man. The real necessity of the 20 minute intermission is the line to the ladies’ room, regardless of the age of the lady.” But this observation wasn’t just limited to females. Said Val Addams, “Anyone who drinks as much water as I do could stand more three-act plays. Intermissionless shows are downright abusive to one’s internal organs.” Howard Lev brought up another side of the coin when noting, “If you have small children, this way, you won’t miss the big production number.” To which Frank Soldo said, “Let the show dictate the intermission and not the bathroom breaks. Go before or after.” (Spoken like a true man, don’t you think, Ms. Jackson?)

I haven’t even gotten to the remarks made by Andrew Barrett, Bill Curtis, John Petrikovic, Matthew Murray, and Ricky from PA. They hit upon a whole different argument for and against intermissions. See their ideas on Wednesday.

********************

[To contact Peter Filichia directly, e-mail him at pfilichia@aol.com]