Leaving early = Leaving ??

I've been asked recently whether I ever leave a show at intermission.  Easiest question I've ever answered: no~at least not in the absence of some emergency or other non-show-related reason.  I mean, we did leave "Mary Poppins" at intermission when my seven year old niece began throwing up...seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

The only other time I can think of that I left a show at intermission was in the case of a play that was four hours in length and I had a 6 a.m. flight the next day.  It was the only chance I had to see the play and I at least wanted to see as much as I could (and I was glad to have seen even a truncated version).

So, as the title of the post suggests, leaving early amounts to a huge gamble that I am simply not willing to make.  Even the shows that don't make it onto my top ten list have:

• informed me in some new way;
• introduced me to a playwright from whom I'll want to see more even if I didn't love this show;
• introduced me to performers I will always remember and hope to see again;
• displayed some incredibly cool use of the stage;
• gifted me with a song that became a favorite;
• gave me a new way of looking at theatre; and/or
• gave me a new way of looking at life.

It's not about the money.  There is no glory or satisfaction in making myself miserable simply to justify the ticket price.  I've paid for that ticket; I'm not getting reimbursed if I leave early.  

But one of the many reasons I love theatre so much is that each time is different; even if I'm seeing a show I've seen before, the "of the moment" nature of live theatre means it will be a unique experience.  I have noticed things I didn't see the first time, heard a song a different way or have seen a character reaction that helped me understand the story a bit better.  

It's the great unknown~those question marks~that keep me there.  When it comes to a show that doesn't thrill me early on, my curiosity is piqued about what will happen with the second (or third or fourth) acts.  Will I like it better?  Will I understand the things I didn't like a little more and why they were done?  Will I get to see a performance/actor/dance number/song in the second act that will make the whole show worth seeing?  Most importantly: will I get to know my personal taste in theatre better and make more informed choices in the future?

Some examples of how this has played out for me:

• The multiple shows where the character played by the legendary actor I came to see didn't appear until the second act.
• The show where the first act was plagued with technical problems but was smooth and enjoyable the second act.
• The show where the most spectacular dance numbers were in the second act.
• The show where the story and action were intense and uncomfortable during much of both acts, but the ending provided the reason and resolution I needed to be thankful I'd seen the show at all.
• The show that I can't say I liked at all, even at the end, but gave me several days of interesting thought as to why it didn't work.
• The show during which I was melting from the heat (I couldn't imagine the performers' pain!) but which was so playful and exuberant in the second act that I didn't care!

Sometimes we need the whole story to understand the choices that the cast and creative team have made for a production.  And I may not agree with those choices, even at the end; but I will have shared a full experience with that cast and my fellow audience members that was once in a lifetime.  

Leaving at intermission is always a personal choice and, so long as you wait until intermission so as not to disturb the production, there's no judgment coming from me.  I would just encourage giving the show the chance to change your mind!

---