La puesta en escena funciona, solo que falta atrezo.

Yes. Puesta en escena is a very common fixed expression in theatre, film, and criticism.

• Literally, it comes from the idea of putting something onto the stage.
• In practice, it means staging, stage direction, or the overall visual/dramatic presentation of a scene or production.

So in this sentence, la puesta en escena is being treated as one single thing: the way the scene has been staged.

Because the subject is singular: la puesta en escena.

Even though that phrase contains several words, it is one singular noun phrase, so the verb must be singular too:

• La puesta en escena funciona.
• not La puesta en escena funcionan.

Here funciona means something like works, is effective, or comes across well.

In this sentence, solo que means something like:

• except that
• only that
• it’s just that

So the structure is:

• La puesta en escena funciona, solo que falta atrezo.
• The staging works; it’s just that it lacks props.

It softens the criticism. The speaker is saying something positive first, then adding a limitation.

A very similar alternative would be:

• La puesta en escena funciona, pero falta atrezo.

But solo que can sound a little more like the only problem is that...

Because modern standard Spanish normally writes it as solo, even when it means only.

Traditionally, some people wrote sólo when it meant only, to distinguish it from solo meaning alone. But current standard usage usually prefers solo without the accent in both cases, unless someone feels an accent is needed to avoid confusion.

So here:

• solo que = only / except that
• and writing solo is normal and correct.

Literally, falta atrezo means props are lacking or there is a lack of props.

The important thing is that faltar often works differently from English to lack. In Spanish, the thing that is missing is usually the grammatical subject.

So:

• Falta atrezo. = Props are missing / What’s missing is props.
• Falta dinero. = Money is lacking.
• Faltan sillas. = Chairs are missing.

So instead of thinking of faltar as exactly to lack, it is often easier to think of it as to be missing.

Because atrezo is being treated here as a singular mass/collective noun.

In this use, atrezo refers to props in a general sense, not to individual countable items. That is why the singular verb is used:

• falta atrezo = there isn’t enough props / prop material / stage dressing

This is similar to:

• falta agua
• falta paciencia
• falta dinero

If you were talking about specific individual objects, you might use a plural noun and then the plural verb:

• faltan algunos objetos de atrezo
• faltan varios accesorios

Because atrezo is being used in a general, non-specific way.

Compare:

• Falta atrezo. = There’s a lack of props / props are missing in general.
• Falta el atrezo. = The props are missing or the prop setup is missing, referring to a specific set of props already known in context.

No article often makes the noun sound more general or abstract. In this sentence, the speaker is not pointing to a particular prop item; they are saying that the production needs more prop material overall.

Yes, in Spain atrezo usually means props, especially in theatre, film, television, photography, or stage production.

It refers to objects used to dress the set or support the scene visually. It does not usually mean:

• costume = vestuario
• makeup = maquillaje
• scenery/set = decorado or part of escenografía

A useful note:

• In Spain, atrezo is the standard adapted spelling.
• You may also see atrezzo, influenced by the Italian original, especially in industry usage, but atrezo is the standard Spanish spelling.

Yes, it sounds natural, especially in a theatrical, cinematic, or critical context.

It has a natural evaluative structure:

1. a positive judgment: La puesta en escena funciona
2. a reservation: solo que falta atrezo

It sounds like something a reviewer, director, teacher, or audience member might say.

Some close alternatives would be:

• La puesta en escena funciona, pero falta atrezo.
• La puesta en escena está bien, pero le falta atrezo.
• La puesta en escena funciona, aunque falta atrezo.

The original sentence is concise and idiomatic.

Yes, absolutely.

• Falta atrezo = Props are missing / There is a lack of props
• Le falta atrezo = It lacks props

With le, you make the affected thing more explicit, even if it is not repeated:

• A la puesta en escena le falta atrezo.

That version feels a bit more directly tied to la puesta en escena.

The original sentence leaves that relationship understood from context:

• La puesta en escena funciona, solo que falta atrezo.

Both are natural. The version with le is just a bit more explicit.

Yes, the comma is natural and helpful.

It marks a pause between:

• the main statement: La puesta en escena funciona
• and the qualification: solo que falta atrezo

In writing, that comma helps show the rhythm and contrast of the sentence. In speech, you would normally hear a small pause there.

You could also sometimes see stronger punctuation, depending on style:

• La puesta en escena funciona; solo que falta atrezo.
• La puesta en escena funciona, solo que le falta atrezo.

But the comma in the original sentence is perfectly normal.