Back when, when Caryl Churchill's "Far Away" was in 2:00, out 2:50, it was seen as very unusual. And when the Pinter play "Ashes to Ashes" was 50 minutes, Rounabout felt obliged to have a discussion at every performance, and I remember a headline like "New Pinter Play $1 A Minute." Getting back and forth to the theater on 23rd Street (from midtown) really took longer than the event, but no complaints because I was well aware of that in advance. "Falsettoland" by itself was short, but there was so much going on in the show that it incredibly didn't;t feel short at all.
But very recently, there seem to be lots of plays now 75 minutes or less, this show 45 minutes - and no one is bothered at all, or feeling shortchanged by the running time. Are creative teams just more adept at getting their full work out in short form while still feeling like a satisfying theater event (without another one-act) and not hurting their plots or characters? Or is this something audiences want now and theaters are responding - have an evening out, but not be away from home (or our screens) too long? (Cabaret acts have always been under an hour and no one's ever complained, I guess.)
Just further (of anyone's still checking here) on shows being short and is it for the modern audience's needs - This is a hilarious Harvey Fierstein take, though maybe some parts today in 2019 NSFW (not suitable for Woke). I happened again on this Theater Talk, Mr. Fierstein on the 90-minute "Hairspray" in Vegas, around 1:32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D_vvsiJUxw
that it's a 90-minute show, in Vegas you need two yard-long drinks to get through it, at least a gallon and a half of alcohol.
(With the success of Vegas on the Hudson at the Lunt Fontanne this summer, people willing to pay over $400 for one person, which now seems like the logical inevitable follow-up to the 2000s pricing, maybe Vegas has to get adjusted to. It's what Broadway is.)