Spencer-Beckwith-Headshot-small2-square.jpg

I'm sure glad I'm not responsible for answering this question for anyone, but it's fun to think about. It's an intersection of the demands of art and the practical business of running a theatre. But it's like trying to answer how long a novel or a movie should be. I think the really obvious answer is "as long as it needs to be" to tell the complete story, and that that's up to the author.

I think most modern writers are very cognizant of this, and they make sure that their works are of reasonable size (except for novels, because you can always write and publish more). For a play, I used to think that in general each page tends to be a minute in length, and this isn't necessarily wrong, it's just so wildly inaccurate that I think it isn't useful except as an extremely vague guess. It doesn't take into account the type of work being measured, and so many variables can go into how long a play winds up being at the end of the day beyond what is on the page. The point is that the author will use as many words as they need to in order to tell their story completely, except this can run into problems too. Things like "we have a 15 minute block for each short" or "we need/can't have an intermission" can affect it practically, but feedback for an author can impact it too - things like "I wish we got to see more of whatever" or "this scene/character/etc. doesn't advance the action" put the author in an unfortunate situation. All writing feedback should be taken considering the stake that the feedback-giver has in the work, and if that 20 page cut is the difference between seeing the work produced or not, that's up to the author. At the end of the day they're in charge of their writing, after all, and they can totally choose to judiciously ignore feedback even though the act of asking for feedback isn't the powerful position. Maybe those 20 pages are absolutely crucial to the experience they want to share, and they'll have to wait until later to get it produced. This is also coming from the perspective that the purpose of writing is to get it produced, while that is an unhealthy mindset I think for any author. They should write because they love it first and foremost.

Sure, yeah, art's important and the author's process is important, but I feel like they probably also have to advocate the most for their scripts, and the reasons theatres might want a play of a certain length are valid. A theatre company's job is to get an audience, and an audience never wants to sit through four hours of something. But at the same time, as ticket prices get more and more expensive, I'd feel a little annoyed as an audience member to pay $100 to see a 60-minute play. Ticket prices opens another whole conversation here, though. How do theatres break even and keep operating? How do they get enough money to pay their business and creative staff adequately? There's a sort of stereotype that lots of theatre-goers are old retirees (especially around Arizona, where we get all the snowbirds) and for them, money isn't particularly a problem. The same probably goes for tourist-based theatres too. It's super hard to get regular everyday "normies" to come see shows already, but higher prices for tickets don't help. But lowering prices probably wouldn't help either! I'm thankful this isn't my problem, and I have a lot of respect for the people who have to decide these sorts of things.

One reason that can justify long plays or plays with pricey tickets is if the play in question is *good*. I feel like most of the plays I've seen are actually pretty fairly priced according to what you get... but I don't know if I can say that about every play I've been in myself. I would be frustrated to see a good but short show if I paid a lot of money, just as I'd be frustrated to see a long but bad show for cheap. It's all about that balance. But also, everyone in your audience is gonna have different expectations and demands, so I guess the business's job is to please as many of those people as they possibly can so that they keep coming back.

I think living in the information age too plays an impact on how entertainment works, especially for younger audiences. Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter, and we see social media producing content that's very short but just long enough to give that dopamine hit. Life moves fast and patience is running thin across the board, so it's hard to sit down and enjoy _anything_ for a long time. But then again, what do I know about this? It might not be as widespread as I think... think about how many people adore the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions. As far as I know, there isn't any empirical data about play lengths historically, though there probably is for movies. Either way, to attribute a tendency to doing short shows to societal psychology is well outside my wheelhouse, so I'll leave that there.

All that said, I can definitely say I've observed a very strong favoring for short plays in the last few years. Maybe that's what audiences want... but then again, how do theatre-makers _know_ what audiences want? I've never heard of theatres asking for feedback directly from their audience, and maybe that would be a waste of time anyway. It appears to me (and maybe I'm wrong) that it's the people in charge of a production who work it in the way they think is good, and an audience may or may not agree whether or not they know anything about production. Nonetheless, I think it's undeniable that shorter shows are _easier_ to produce. There's fewer lines to memorize, probably fewer characters/props/costumes/locations on stage, and best of all less rehearsal time to get through the whole play. And for community-level theatres I think those benefits are too good to pass up in favor of longer works, depending on the company-wide experience level of course. I'm sure length is a crucial component during any season selection.

Now, what about Shakespeare or other very long classical works? There's a running joke that an uncut Hamlet would be something like four hours long. But I've never seen an uncut Hamlet. Well, now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever actually _seen_ a production of Hamlet. It's tons of words, sure, but I wonder if it's done particularly expeditiously if it will still take a very long time. I mean, probably... people who are a lot smarter than me say so and I tend to take their word for it. The Hamlet I was in a few years ago was cut, or if you prefer a juicier word, mangled. We called it "shotgun Hamlet" because it was "to be" 90 minutes and "not to be" four hours. This had a fair justification, it was intended to tour to schools. But how can you possibly take a masterpiece like this and cut out so much stuff and still sleep at night? It was the same deal when we did Love's Labour's Lost - entire characters were gone, speeches were sliced and diced, and worst of all I never got to say "honorificabilitudinatatibus" on stage. It's an interesting actor experience to take a look at the original text again, after you've memorized a cut, and see just how much was lost.

Cutting seems to be the trend across the board, though. Nobody does uncut Shakespeare because it's just way too long, but cutting it you have to decide what to keep and what you don't need anymore. Some say that every word matters, but the more you cut the deeper the gashes go and less material is left behind for actors to work with sensibly, and hopefully you don't have to go so far that things stop making sense. Thankfully I haven't been in that situation though. Thankfully I've never been in charge of cutting a Shakespeare play yet either. So to say it again, I don't really know what that's like. Anyway, just like Lord of the Rings Extended Editions, next time I hear about one of those complete 12-hour nonstop Histories anthology, you can bet I'll be there.

That's pretty much all I had to say about this. I don't know how long a play should be. It depends on your show, the story, where you're doing it, what your audience expects... So I think it's impractical to give a prescriptive answer. The better question to ask is "how long should _this_ play be?" At the end of the day, if the play is good it should be worth the time, and if the play is bad... Get it over with quickly please.

How long should a play be?

What an incredible time. Seriously. Huge shout out to FlagShakes for getting things right! What a massive relief, and what an honor to be part of their season, especially as one of the leads. It was unlike any experience I'd ever had before, in that I traveled out of town for a show _and_ that I rehearsed two shows at the same time, which I haven't done since college. I also hadn't been to Flagstaff since then either, so it was great to be back in town and a nice trip down memory lane. The people involved were excellent too - great people all around, very friendly and welcoming yet still talented and professional. Maybe it was part of staying somewhere else for a while, but I don't think I've ever been in a show where the cast really became a community. I really only have positive things to say about the experience.

First, I really like FlagShakes as a company and I think they're really running things well. From what I've seen they've got a really strong leadership team that knows what to do, which is more than can be said for a lot of other companies. It never felt like they didn't know or were unsure what had to be done when it came to the business side of theatre, nor did they ask more of anyone in the company than what their job entailed (as far as I know). Their marketing was solid, and every night had great crowd sizes. Marketing is crucial and they understand that, and they've got some people working on it that are well-versed and know how to do it. Overall they run things very smoothly and I would be delighted to do more work with them in the future.

It would have been nice, though, if there was an extra person or two backstage to assist the SM and to help with costumes and props, which would be an even greater luxury. It was the "backstage" area that was rough, and that's not really the company's fault - we were out in the sun in the heat of the afternoon. Though I would have appreciated a bit more shade without having to cram as many as people as possible under a small tent. It felt a little neglected back there, though I think if there was a run crew they might have been able to make things a little more organized and comfortable. But we made do anyway, and these sorts of things are inevitable in outdoor theatre, so I get it and no complaints from me.

As for my acting, I really learned a lot in this experience too. I don't actually think I've ever done a play in the round before this, but they gave us some great tactics to help with that - such as imagining an X on the stage, and facing your body on it. Or turning your body one way and your head another, and constantly moving to make sure everybody gets a decent view. Another strategy I learned this summer (which I'm surprised I didn't pick up on yet, considering all the other Shakespeare I've done by now) is to not only address the audience directly, but to also complete each thought with each audience you look at. Water them with your words like they're a plant, because if you just spray the hose all over the garden nothing really gets a good drink of you. Instead of hip-firing the whole house, take each thought to a separate person and look them in the eyes... as difficult as it is.

I actually had a pretty difficult time keeping thoughts fully separate in my brain, but here's some things that helped me. First, drawing massive lines in my script between each thought helped a bit, which also helped me load them into my brain separate. Then putting a tiny breath of air between the separate thoughts helped, but that's the end result, not the tactic itself. The tactic was about actually having the thought - to let it occur to my brain, understand it, and then express it, like we all do every moment of every day. Acting isn't about deciding "I'ma take a pause here cause that helps me" because that's putting the cart before the horse. I also shifted my pitch between thoughts, but the same thing applies. I think my resulting performance was strong that way, though I think I could have gone further with the thoughts so that'll be my next intention for whatever project I wind up working on next.

As a whole, I got some really positive feedback about my work. I was able to get more fully into character than I had in recent shows, and I wasn't constantly afraid of breaking character all the time, a flaw of mine which was totally ruined some of my work in the past. Being focused and comfortable helped a lot with that, as well as staying in the moment. I mean, the audience is _right there_ so it's harder to ignore them like you can in a dark proscenium. But for these types of shows, ignoring the audience is totally not the thing to do! In fact, some of my favorite moments were times I interacted with the audience directly.

One other self-direction that really helped me was to just stop trying so hard. I've done many shows where I've felt the need to _try super super hard_ to be someone else, and it always backfires. It's Acting with a capital A. I'm me, and I can't change that - but I can experience what a character goes through, and mix myself into the equation. It isn't about denying who I am, or the little quirks I might have, because those sorts of things can help breathe some life into a character. The way I was able to help myself this summer was to just remind myself to just be me, and go out there and do the thing. To be a human on that stage, experiencing things as they happen. And it was loads of fun!

And this applies to comedy too. I definitely did some of these scenes a few times in a very forced way - the "look at me, I'm funny right now!" schtick that I wish I'd grown out of and that I rationally know doesn't work. Maybe it's a defensive tactic to avoid being vulnerable? I want to be comfortable and the best way to relax (and know I'm "good") is to make the audience laugh, so let me make them laugh and I'll feel better... Except that always backfires too! This whole thing is kinda counter-intuitive when you think about it. The solution instead is to, again, stop trying so dang hard. Just be yourself, and let things happen. Comedy is supposed to be truthful, otherwise it's cheap and off-putting. So even though the scenario is ridiculous, it _must_ be taken seriously to really land. You can't make things funny through force, especially things that aren't written to be so.

Overall, I'm very proud of my work this summer. I don't think I was perfect, but nobody ever is - and I know precisely what I want to focus on doing for myself for future projects. Best of all this summer has really given me a lot of confidence in myself again. This year and last I've been doing a lot of really mediocre productions, but this shows to me that I can do better. And that my prospects aren't limited to just whatever happens to be going on in Phoenix.  It felt like a major career step, and one that reminded me of my experience and expertise. It's easy to get lost in everyone else when they're smart and talented, but everyone's unique and irreplaceable in their own life experiences and personality.

And for that reason, I'm trying very hard lately to be an active "noticer" of things, especially people. The idea behind it being that the more you notice, the more you think, the more you know, and the more you can funnel back into your craft. There's no shame in letting your brain operate the way it operates. I've definitely done improv before where it feels like the thoughts I'm having aren't "funny" enough - but again this ties into not trying too hard. Just let your thoughts be your thoughts. They're yours, and only yours until you share them. And opposing the way your own brain works is like trying to see with your hands over your eyes, it's counterproductive. There's no such thing as the "right" or the "wrong" thought. So I'm also letting my thoughts be what they are, and I want to be honest with myself and others about the things I notice too. I find it immensely liberating.

Anyway, that's all for now. I'm looking forward to whatever comes next!

FlagShakes - Reflection

Nobody asked, but here it is.

Unless otherwise masked, scene changes are horrible and should be avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary. They kill any momentum you've gathered in your play, and they turn your performance from a potentially enjoyable story into a chore for the audience to sit through.

I know what you're thinking - "but I have to have scene changes!" And that's not wrong, they're an integral part of most plays. And if you have a humongous setting shift, for example, going from the Darling Nursery to Neverland... then yeah, you can't *not* do that scene change. There are some situations where it's acceptable or necessary, and as long as it only happens once or twice in your two hour play, and the changes take no more than one or two minutes, you're probably okay. Or if your scene changes happens during a musical number and you can keep things happening, that actually works really well. But audiences have a limited attention span, and any more interruption than that is going to make them check out. And when your audience checks out, that's when you know you've lost. If your audience members are sitting there staring at the ceiling, counting the seconds on their watch, or worse using their phones, that's a surefire sign that for some reason or another, they'd rather go home than sit through the rest of your play. Scene changes aren't the only thing that causes this, but I think it's crucial for all theatre practitioners to be more aware of things they do that cause the audience "check-out". I've seen this happen a lot as an actor too - times where I try to make eye contact while I should be the point of focus, and audience members aren't even looking at me because they don't care about the show. Or maybe I just suck, that's a possibility too.

Anyway, some other things that cause audience disengagement are actors forgetting lines, messing up, otherwise stalling, poor writing, or long costume changes. Scene changes are, in my opinion, one of the easiest things in this list to get right and can give you the biggest improvement for minimal effort. College, high school, and community theatres - especially those on really low budgets - can be very prone to adding lots of scene changes to their scripts, and insisting on doing them. And please, please, _please_ if your set is just a bunch of furniture like chairs or tables, don't even bother moving it around the stage. It doesn't matter. There are many ways to show an audience you're in a different location than the last scene, so get creative and find a way to convey that information without stalling your performance for two minutes while the audience sits there and waits. Too many strikes, and you're out. Besides, using things like chairs and tables to communicate locations _other_ than maybe a dining room is a bit of a stretch anyway so don't even bother. Audiences are smarter than you think and they don't need to be told everything.

So what should we do about scene changes?

1. Authors should be more aware of how many scene changes they're baking into a script when they write it - especially for one-acts or shorts. It's very easy to overlook these details that significantly affect a production while you're just typing it out. Any play less than 15 minutes should _never_ have a physical scene change, and if it must happen, the author should try to provide a way to mask it or make it easier to play off. Shorts and one-acts should very rarely have a complicated set in the first place anyway. Longer plays can get a pass on this as long as they either don't have too many changes, or they are masked using musical numbers or other scenes.

2. Scenic Designers shouldn't be designing unnecessary sets. Let the audience use their imagination. Do your best to work with the director to come up with a vision that can work for as many scenes of the play as possible so you don't burn time on moving stuff that doesn't truly *need* to be moved.

3. Scene changes themselves should be very carefully choreographed and thoroughly practiced when running the show in rehearsal. Please get a stagehand or two for this, because asking actors to do this is often unreliable because they have many other things to remember to do in the first place.

4. The Director should help move things along, and they may need to get creative. After all, it's ultimately up to them to keep the show flowing. A good director should be able to acknowledge when the pacing dies, scene change or not, and they should address the problem with their team. That's kinda their job, isn't it? I don't see anything wrong with a director intervening in a scenic design that calls for too many or too complicated scene changes, or adjusting staging elements to better account for an unthoughtful script.

So yeah, that's it. I despise scene changes, even when they're necessary to tell the story. Just don't do them, and don't do shows that need them, because they will absolutely ruin the rest of an otherwise decent show by creating so much lag and boredom for your audience. I say we bring back the Neoclassical Unities... can we call it Neoneoclassicalism?

My Unsolicited Opinion on Scene Changes

In the last few months, I've been on a number of different projects and shows. This is an update post... since it's been a little while since I've written anything.

In April, I played Lord Aster in Peter and the Starcatcher. It was a fun show, though it definitely had some ups and downs. I hope Mesa Encore Theatre survives - I wasn't able to see Heathers unfortunately, but I heard it went well. The theatre was in bad shape, but it'd be a shame to see it go. On the other hand, there are a number of new theatre companies up and coming in the valley, a few that just got founded this year even. I've thought a bit about doing my own theatre... I definitely see the appeal of having complete control. I've been to a lot of places where being the lower rank, just as a measly actor and not a real stakeholder, leaves many things out of my control that I would have done differently.

Here's the catch though - I want to do theatre and acting. That's obvious. I don't particularly want to run a business, especially one in the theatre industry, where getting funding is impossible and stressful, you have to deal with lots of boring organizational stuff and grant writing, and you're going to be constantly critiqued by your workers and patrons alike. I don't really wanna deal with that, and I'm afraid new company founders don't actually understand the sheer amount of work that it takes. Of course I wish them well, and everyone's gotta start somewhere, but I wonder if all these people have really put in the time and energy to comprehend just what a massive undertaking it actually is... especially if they have any ambition to grow to a nonprofit, semi-professional or professional stage. Maybe it's just the cynic in me that thinks some of these new organizations are arising out of artistic discontent working for others and a thirst for a degree of power. Again, I understand the impulse, it just isn't for me right now. I am 100% for creating new opportunities around the valley, I just want the opportunities to be solid, and backed by competent and sustainable companies and practices. Don't found a company if you aren't ready. If you're not sure you're ready, you're not.

Speaking of new companies - one of my other recent projects was in a one-act for Explorers' Theatre Collective. At first I wasn't sure what to think, since I missed the first two (of four) rehearsals. But they were overall really chill. They're relatively new, too, and it looks like they've got a strong core team of students and alums from Scottsdale Community College. Chatting with their director a little bit reveals just how much effort really has to go into this thing - but I have immense admiration for the project we did. This guy understands what it takes, and it hasn't deterred him either. Anyway, the show was a low-stakes staged reading of a handful of one-acts. It was a lot of fun, and I like that they did it just as a means to get to know some more local artists, rather than staking a lot on it. It had an excellent turn-out, too, which was a breath of fresh air after practically nobody came to see Peter and the Starcatcher. Overall it looks to me like ETC is on the right path and they have both a good idea of what to do, and the team to execute.

The next project I worked on the next month was B3's Seventh Festival of Shorts. It was actually very similar to ETC's arrangement - and performed in the same place as well. The only major difference I can think of, in terms of the work I did, was that this one wanted us to be memorized. However, I have mixed feelings about the shorts themselves... the first major glaring problem is that there were nine shorts. Some of which were almost 20 minutes, and a few others that were short and sweet. All nine shorts together made the show almost three hours long, which is WAY too long for a production like this. In fact, there were originally supposed to be ten shorts! On top of that, the order of the shows was far from the best and here's why:

- Act 1 opened with a low-energy short that went on much longer than it needed to,
- Act 1 ended on an incredibly heavy and somber note,
- Act 2 was _longer_ than act 1, and not by an insignificant amount,

Maybe it comes from my experience doing a lot of performances like this in college, but there's a lot of solutions. Here's a few that I wish they'd thought of:

- The strongest show (in my opinion) was second-to-last. It should have either been last, or moved to open or close act 1.
- The last show could have been made the first. It was the one I was in, and it was fun to close the show, but by that time in the night the audience was exhausted and wanted to go home.
- Swap the first two shows, so it opens on a high-energy and audience interactive note.
- Enforce a time limit on each short. I have a high level of faith that they'll do this next time anyway.

Maybe there was something going on that required this order to be the case. I don't know. But nonetheless I'm surprised that these mistakes were made... did nobody push back? Out of all nine directors of the shorts, out of all the board members who were present, out of all the collective years of experience, did nobody think about what the show as a whole would be like? At least the turnout was decent, and the people were fun - although because of how the place was laid out, and how many actors had to be there, and how even the smallest peep would be heard by the audience... it was a little hard to get comfortable. All in all I did enjoy it, and I think I did good work for it. I do like B3, but sometimes it feels like a hit or miss. To be fair, this show was the first one by the new artistic director, so it could've been worse. And it's just community theatre, so who am I to complain? Maybe I should aim higher.

Speaking of B3, my next project is with them as well - They'll Love You For It by Ilana Lydia. We're going into tech week soon, and I'm not sure what to expect yet. On one hand, I think the show is quite powerful and makes some strong statements... on the other hand, I'm concerned about scene changes totally mangling any good momentum we might gather. I think the cast as a whole is strong and there isn't anybody I'm concerned about. The play is written in a similar way to Cannibal Diaries, with a lot of scene changes, ambiguous staging, and a lot of one-time characters. We'll see how it turns out over the events of tech week. So much of it, in my mind, is going to depend on our venue... I just really have my fingers crossed that they're pushing the show hard enough that we'll have a decent turnout, and that the venue will have enough space for the operation.

Anyway, I'm doing well. I've been working on shows _continuously_ since Cannibal Diaries last October - it seems like right at the end of each show, a new opportunity comes around. I've been having great luck on casting too for the most part. I have my next projects lined up now too, so I won't be out of projects until about the end of August... subject to change of course. Now if only all these shows paid me enough to survive!

Recent Projects, Summer 2024

We're done! We did a whole boatload of shows and I'm really happy with the end result. Some of our crowds were super into it, others not as much, but I think overall we had a solid production with a solid cast. It feels great to be proud of my work. It's interesting to see how much we discover and how much things tend to change as we continued with the run. I found a lot of good motivation for Egeus, and I think my ferocity went up every performance. Quince and the mechanicals were a joy and so much fun to play. The audiences' laughter and reactions were priceless.

There's only a few minor things I wish I had done differently. I wish I had prepared better for rehearsals to begin, I wish I had loosened up sooner, and I wish I had a slightly more positive mindset at times. I think my biggest takeaway from this production is that I really need to **breathe, focus, relax, and carry myself with status**. Subconsciously I haven't considered myself high-status in the past, and I think that directly impacts my ability to be confident in myself and my skills. I was trying too hard, and trying in the wrong ways. I have to trust myself, and trust what I know. Once we got the run underway I really felt like I was able to open up, I just wish it came sooner. Similarly, I found that breathing deeply and using that breath to propel myself really went a long way. It helped me stay focused and in the moment, and also helped my voice. I'll be taking these things with me into the future: breathe, use the breath as a ground and as a launchpad to stay focused. Be yourself and have fun! You don't have to pretend, onstage or off. I also noticed that I tend to smile a lot on stage... I notice this a lot in others, particularly those I think are less experienced, which was kind of a wake-up call for me. So I made an effort to be more in control of my face while performing and I think it worked out for me. Overall some very good lessons learned, but I think what will really help me grow the most in the craft is to keep doing it consistently, and to always strive to do good work.

So, what comes next? Well I have a week off before rehearsals for the next show begin, and I'm moving in early March. I'm finally getting End of an Era to a place where I want to share it with others and read it out loud. In the longer term, I'm going to spend some time doing research into intensive programs and grad schools and see if anything catches my eye. I want to be doing theatre all the time, but that's tough to accomplish in Arizona. Though maybe that means I ought to be the change I want to see... I'm not just gonna found another theatre company just 'cause, but there's plenty of ways I can contribute to the theatre scene in Phoenix.

Spencer Beckwith

Hey, I'm Spencer.

Latest Posts

How long should a play be?

FlagShakes - Reflection

My Unsolicited Opinion on Scene Changes

Recent Projects, Summer 2024

Midsummer - Reflection