Are theatre intervals really necessary? – open thread

Few of the reviews for Robert Lepage's disappointing Playing Cards 1: Spades at the Roundhouse have failed to mention the show's two-and-a-half-hour running time without an interval. It's not the only show to be putting theatregoers' bladders under such pressure. The revival of A Chorus Line, currently in preview at the London Palladium and which will attract a more mainstream crowd, runs for two hours and 10 minutes, also without an interval.

Artistically speaking, sometimes this makes sense, but for a West End audience – for whom the interval drink or ice cream is very much part of their night out – it may be disappointing to discover there is no pause in the art. In conversation with a regional theatre director, I once remarked that a particular production would have been better without an interval. He pointed out that for audiences coming from far away, a play that lasted less time than it took to travel to and from the theatre would leave some people feeling short-changed. And, in any case, the theatre needed every penny it made at the bar during the interval.

Anyone who has seen Macbeth or Julius Caesar played straight through will know how much the performances benefit from the momentum. Many contemporary plays last a mere 90 minutes or less, and it would be silly and unnecessary to insert a half-time break. I always rather enjoy durational productions where audiences can come and go as they want. I once went for a sleep during a Forced Entertainment all-nighter and returned refreshed and ready for more.

But as an increasing number of productions are played without pause – even if they come in at two hours or more – maybe the interval is becoming a thing of the past. The question is: will you miss it?