Shoe Strings & Timing

Here is something I've been struggling with for a while - My therapist says talking about it with a mass audience of faceless strangers might help. (Kidding - I don't have a therapist - I have theater instead! Nowhere near as helpful.)

So my problem - many of the plays/productions I've done in the past and those we plan to do in the future tend to focus around a number of short plays rather than full-length, three-act epics. As always, part of this is technical - short plays require less from actors, are easier to put together, cost less, and don't live/die on their own.

These "shorty-groups" also tend to be quicker. Hamlet, they are not. They can't be - without common characters/themes/problems, audiences can't stay engaged for hours on end. There is no hook in a shorty group. Without a hook, even an hour of small works tends to test an audience's stamina.

With that said, shorty groups aren't in any way "lesser" works any more than a short story is worth less than a novel. They are simply two superficially similar narrative forms saddled with their own rules and audience preconceptions. Granny Smith Apples to Golden Delicious Apples.

What constitutes value in theater? Specifically, does "length" mean value? In video games, people expect the game to be 10 hrs long to be "worth it". Movies have to be over 70-80ish minutes to be considered features. Does a similar time = value equation apply to theater as well? Do people have expectations of how much "value" they get when they purchase a ticket?

As this is dragging long, I'll delve deeper in a later post. I just wanted to put this out and see what people thought first: Do you feel better spending more money for a long show than a short one? What sort of expectations do you have?

Nate