There are two types of intermissions. 

The standard kind ends act one on a cliffhanger, presumably to pique the audience’s interest in returning to see its continuation.

The second kind is now on display at La Mama, courtesy of And Then We Were No More: the first act concludes in a way that feels like a possible resolution, as if what we’ve already seen could constitute a standalone play. While there’s suggestions of unresolved mysteries — why does the previously-unflappable “machinist” look so shocked? Was she supposed to disappear in a splattering of blood?? And where did everyone else go??? — many a play have left their audiences with similarly-unanswered questions to consider on their own.  

This new play goes on to employ another intermission-based narrative device: when act two is significantly shorter than act one. Audiences can mull why And Then We Were No More devotes 80 minutes to its first act, and only 25 to its second. 

What are the reasons behind this deliberate imbalance?