If you look close, I'm in the comments section of the blog post this went up in, trying to figure out whether their "no talking" policy applies to people trying to describe the movie to visually impaired patrons; my wife is blind, and though we don't go to movies often, it does happen. The answer, as it turns out, is that they're aware of the issues, but actual enforcement would depend on the kindness of strangers. Given the loud calls for this policy to be spread farther, I'm not sure I'm entirely in favor of it.
I tend to go to Baby Day showings at the Alamo, by choice (not with a baby). The lights are brighter, the sound is quieter, and the audience is more laid back. Explicitly these are "noisier" showings. Unfortunately, if your wife works, this would be during a work day. However, I think it is strange to extrapolate out from someone texting, multiple times, after being asked not to, to someone quietly whispering into a blind woman's ear. I understand that not everybody is reasonable, but you would hope that the average audience member would be able to differentiate between the two as well. And for what it's worth, I'm very sensitive to on-screen violence and have had my spouse narrate what is occurring on screen to me in the past and nobody's noticed or cared.
The policy is "no talking, no texting" and they're very proud of the "no talking" part as well. From the comments I got when I posted my question, I can tell you that their average commenter -- if not average theatergoer -- doesn't have a clue what's involved. Interesting that the theater owner didn't mention the Baby Day showings in her response.
For what it's worth, we've never gotten anything worse than the occasional look in theaters, but we've never been to one with such an explicit and popular policy.
And we don't live anywhere near these theaters, but given the national kudos they're getting, and the amen chorus directed at their 'no talking' policy, I thought it might be worth asking how they'd handle it.
Ok, I will play the "bad guy" in this comment string. While I am sure that JD whispers in his wife's ear and tries to be as quiet as possible to not disturb the other theater-goers, why do other theater-goers have to put up with that? People go to movies to watch a movie-without disruptions. If someone has special "needs" that distract from the normal expectations of the experience, shouldn't that person be the one to make the accommodations? I paid the same ticket price as the visually impaired and violence-sensitive. Beyond normal comments, laughter, etc. I expect to go to a theater and not have to listen to someone give a running commentary of what is on the screen, see the glow of texting screens, or the usually inane comments and chatter of people not really "into" the movie. When did I lose my rights to accommodate you? Why are you more important than me so my experience is being diminished because of you?
MOST people that need those kinds of accommodations will select going to the theater on days/nights when it is not crowded or on "Baby Days". That is awesome and I thoroughly appreciate it because they know their behavior (albeit necessary for them) isn't acceptable for others to have to "put up" with in those situations.
This is almost akin to the "loud children" vs. adult debates. Why do I have to have my dinner ruined because your child is screaming and you don't want to cut your dining experience short?
Yes, I am sure I am going to get flamed for my unpopular perspective and I can pretty much guarantee some posters are going to go to EXTREMES and call me racist, discriminatory, cold-hearted, etc. by saying I want BAN people from doing things...yadda yadda yadda...whatever. Oh, and yeah, go ahead and point out every grammatical, punctuation, and spelling error because that seems to be the argument of choice for some to "cut down" the posters. And, just as I know this will happen, I know there will be some silent people who will agree with me, but not comment because they don't want to express an unpopular opinion.
I would make one of my top-gear-full-gapist-absolut-KGB-Soviet-brute-force-is-the-best-brute-force rants, but it's the Summer, so fuck it.
The Alamo was entirely within it's rights, though they should have given the woman her money back just to avoid answering machine messages like that one.
Your opinion isn't unpopular. It's self-centered, anti-social and impractical. But judging by the viral nature of this video, and the rah-rah chorus in at the Drafthouse, you're not alone. The "speaking the unpopular truth, which happens to benefit me and afflict the socially weak" pose is a cute move, though: very Fox News.
@JD-I am not "Fox News" (why are you even making this political?) or "self-centered". Judgmental much? This did not address the fact that when does your movie going experience supersede my rights to the "norm" of a movie-going experience? I am not asking for anything out of the norm. I am not asking for anything "special". I am simply stating that your accommodations should not infringe upon my experience. If I choose to go to Baby Day, then I know what to expect-more noise and higher lights. If I go choose to go to regular showing, then I should expect normal behavior from the other patrons. Isn't it "self-centered" to EXPECT and feel ENTITLED that EVERYONE needs to bow down your "specialness" or needs? The social norms dictate the behavior, so inherently, this is not "anti-social" to expect patrons to adhere to the norms and mores laid out by society and the management for appropriate movie-going behavior.
I have my own issues and I deal with them. I don't expect anyone to cater to me, alter their behavior, or have me adversely affect their normal experience for something.
My basic point is your "specialness" (whatever it is) does not supersede my "specialness". We are all equally "special".
And why is your wife entitled to the movie-going experience more than I am? Your wife can go to the movie at times where she can be louder. I go to movies at times where it's more quiet. Life is about choices.
You have choices. We don't. You're fine with that. I get it. We get it all the time. Nothing new under the sun. You're entitled, we're limited. Yup. Just another day in paradise.
I must be missing something. Why does your wife's enjoyment of the film come before mine, or anyone else in the theater?
Is there no other way to see the film for her? What is the special benefit for her going to a theater versus having the movie played at home. (Couldn't you do a better job of explaining things somewhere other than a public place?)
"What is the special benefit for her going to a theater versus having the movie played at home."
What exactly is the special benefit of going to a movie theater for anybody?
No seriously, what's with theaters? I've seen all of maybe two movies in a theater since childhood. Just go to the library and check out some DVDs for your mindless entertainment.
Kimmie: There are often other options. But on those rare occasions when there's actually a movie playing that we want to see, that our family wants to see, etc., sometimes actually going to a theater is fun!
Prissy Prof: On what grounds are you turning this into a personal attack? If you think this one discussion defines me, what conclusions should I reach about you based on your participation so far?
Dresner didn't answer the question. Why should your wife's enjoyment of the movie trump that of everyone else who will be annoyed by your running commentary?
And as for your role as victim, I just Googled your name and can see where the Pissy Prof got his point of view.
Not everybody is against you, hoss. Most people don't give a shit about you.
I'm with Bitchy Prof, I'm afraid to say. Go see movies with your wife at off times. Accommodations for people with disabilities do not, as a rule, subject other people to discomfort -- a wheelchair ramp, closed-captioning on TV, and braille in the elevator do not take anything away from other people.
Do teachers give visually-impaired students the chance to have someone read aloud the exam to them while others are taking it? No, we do not, as it would disturb those exam-takers. We provide a separate room for that, if that's what's necessary. Do conductors allow people to scream obscenities on the train if they have Tourette's? No, they do not, because it disturbs other riders' peace. They expect Tourette's sufferers to control their behavior well enough to meet the terms of the social contract, or to travel by other means.
Baby Day, off-hour showing times, and DVD rentals are the equivalent. If you must blab your way through a movie, use those. I hardly ever go out to theaters because audience behavior sucks so badly. That would be me limiting my choices because of you, for the moment.
I'm a long-time lurker finally coming in on this one. I think that rather than act aggrieved and rely on ugly and false rhetorical strategies (who's Fox News now?) JD would be better served by finding the community of the visually impaired and speaking to cinemas about having services (headphones, special screenings) with DVS (narration services). Or, to provide separate rooms (I remember Portland having "crying rooms" for people with babies) to better serve this public. There are options beyond suffering silently (or loudly, as the case may be.) These, however, can involve more community oriented work but the pay off is greater than any accomplished by self-righteously disrupting cinema experiences for an audience. Perhaps JD will consider embracing a different role now that he is aware of these possibilities?
It was a tactical error to engage with CM under my own name. But, following the rules, once I'd commented here, I felt obligated to continue. I see now why you use pseudonyms: to protect yourselves from each other as much as from wider publics and employers. Since the rules preclude commenting under multiple 'nyms, I will not be returning.
I do not have the time or inclination to educate this community on disability issues, nor continue in a discussion which is patronizing me and devaluing my wife as a person.
See you at the movies! And plays! And concerts! And art galleries!
a discussion which is patronizing me and devaluing my wife as a person.
That's complete bullshit, and spurious to boot. What has been asked makes sense to me? Why does your wife's enjoyment of a movie theater come before the enjoyment of ANYONE else in the theater who attends such events expecting some quiet from the rest of the patrons?
Whenever someone accuses someone of being "FOX news" without a lot of evidence (and I mean direct quotes from the show the accusee is apparently referring to), you know the person has no case.
It's just another ad hominem to distract from a weak argument.
I vote "professional victim." Oh, poor is he!
It's the same lax argument smokers make with regard to their "right" to smoke being infringed upon by laws restricting them where to smoke in public. You want to smoke, fine...just don't smoke by me.
As with smoking in public venues, so with speaking in a theater: if I can't hear you, talk all you want. If you're in front of me, then STFU.
the "Prissy Prof" above is NOT the same person as an earlier CM community member. I don't have any evidence that the person commenting was attempting to use someone else's identity, so I'll simply ask whoever posted today under that name please switch your display name.
Hi. Sorry about using someone else's handle. I don't read the blog a lot, but I have posted recently. I'll just change my user name. Is there a place where I can see all the names that are taken?
To me, she smelled of snowflake. definitely under 30, possibly under 20. Not drunk...except on her own specialness. Her behavior reminded me of every self-esteem-inflated snowflake whop ever pitched a fit when told to leave the classroom after causing a disruption.
This was hilarious. The MAGnited States of America! Woo-hoo! I've got a god-given right to text where I want! Woo-hoo! Texas! Fuckin' A!
(My apologies to the good folks of Texas who are not like this--and I know there are many. I just enjoy watching someone walk into a stereotype trap.)
The theater has a clear policy. She broke the policy. She's out the door. I'm glad they didn't refund her money and not just because she forfeited it by violating the theater's clear code of conduct. Had they refunded, we would have missed out on this glorious, fuckin-A, magnited magnificent rant!
I guess I didn't think the video was THAT funny. A person gets kicked out of a theatre and whines on the phone. It brings me schadenfreude to watch, but not much laughter.
Also, frankly, I have the nagging suspicion that much of the enjoyment some people are deriving from the video stems from love of rules for their own sake, and enjoyment at seeing some arrogant fool get "taken down" for having the audacity to challenge the rules. Sort of like why even people who think the police are corrupt might still enjoy COPS. If you like the video, please reassure me that you actually agree with the theater's rules on rational grounds.
And I don't even disagree with the "rules" in this case. It's their theater, they can make the rules they want; but if someone breaks those rules, it's not like they're much more menacing to society than millions of creepier people all around us.
Frankly I can't quite see the need even to invoke language of "rights" or even "entitlement" in the debate above regarding blind people in theaters. How about...each theater makes its own rules, and people, both blind and sighted, make the decision on whether to go to the theater based on knowledge of those standing rules? Why is this even a matter of public concern?
@Jonathan: I don't know if you're still reading, but just in case, maybe you and the misses should look into visiting a land down under, where disability rights are something the government, if not the average snarky academic, cares about.
I was just coming to send this to you! This is awesome. I wish I had the balls to do this.
ReplyDeleteIf I ever find myself in Austin, I'm totally catching a show at the Alamo Drafthouse!
ReplyDeleteIf you look close, I'm in the comments section of the blog post this went up in, trying to figure out whether their "no talking" policy applies to people trying to describe the movie to visually impaired patrons; my wife is blind, and though we don't go to movies often, it does happen. The answer, as it turns out, is that they're aware of the issues, but actual enforcement would depend on the kindness of strangers. Given the loud calls for this policy to be spread farther, I'm not sure I'm entirely in favor of it.
ReplyDeleteI tend to go to Baby Day showings at the Alamo, by choice (not with a baby). The lights are brighter, the sound is quieter, and the audience is more laid back. Explicitly these are "noisier" showings. Unfortunately, if your wife works, this would be during a work day. However, I think it is strange to extrapolate out from someone texting, multiple times, after being asked not to, to someone quietly whispering into a blind woman's ear. I understand that not everybody is reasonable, but you would hope that the average audience member would be able to differentiate between the two as well. And for what it's worth, I'm very sensitive to on-screen violence and have had my spouse narrate what is occurring on screen to me in the past and nobody's noticed or cared.
ReplyDeleteI realize, by the way, that this is not the same as a policy that prohibits discrimination, which would be better.
ReplyDeleteThe policy is "no talking, no texting" and they're very proud of the "no talking" part as well. From the comments I got when I posted my question, I can tell you that their average commenter -- if not average theatergoer -- doesn't have a clue what's involved. Interesting that the theater owner didn't mention the Baby Day showings in her response.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, we've never gotten anything worse than the occasional look in theaters, but we've never been to one with such an explicit and popular policy.
And we don't live anywhere near these theaters, but given the national kudos they're getting, and the amen chorus directed at their 'no talking' policy, I thought it might be worth asking how they'd handle it.
Ok, I will play the "bad guy" in this comment string. While I am sure that JD whispers in his wife's ear and tries to be as quiet as possible to not disturb the other theater-goers, why do other theater-goers have to put up with that? People go to movies to watch a movie-without disruptions. If someone has special "needs" that distract from the normal expectations of the experience, shouldn't that person be the one to make the accommodations? I paid the same ticket price as the visually impaired and violence-sensitive. Beyond normal comments, laughter, etc. I expect to go to a theater and not have to listen to someone give a running commentary of what is on the screen, see the glow of texting screens, or the usually inane comments and chatter of people not really "into" the movie. When did I lose my rights to accommodate you? Why are you more important than me so my experience is being diminished because of you?
ReplyDeleteMOST people that need those kinds of accommodations will select going to the theater on days/nights when it is not crowded or on "Baby Days". That is awesome and I thoroughly appreciate it because they know their behavior (albeit necessary for them) isn't acceptable for others to have to "put up" with in those situations.
This is almost akin to the "loud children" vs. adult debates. Why do I have to have my dinner ruined because your child is screaming and you don't want to cut your dining experience short?
Yes, I am sure I am going to get flamed for my unpopular perspective and I can pretty much guarantee some posters are going to go to EXTREMES and call me racist, discriminatory, cold-hearted, etc. by saying I want BAN people from doing things...yadda yadda yadda...whatever. Oh, and yeah, go ahead and point out every grammatical, punctuation, and spelling error because that seems to be the argument of choice for some to "cut down" the posters. And, just as I know this will happen, I know there will be some silent people who will agree with me, but not comment because they don't want to express an unpopular opinion.
I would make one of my top-gear-full-gapist-absolut-KGB-Soviet-brute-force-is-the-best-brute-force rants, but it's the Summer, so fuck it.
ReplyDeleteThe Alamo was entirely within it's rights, though they should have given the woman her money back just to avoid answering machine messages like that one.
BP, I've gotten comments pretty much identical to yours in the original discussion.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion isn't unpopular. It's self-centered, anti-social and impractical. But judging by the viral nature of this video, and the rah-rah chorus in at the Drafthouse, you're not alone. The "speaking the unpopular truth, which happens to benefit me and afflict the socially weak" pose is a cute move, though: very Fox News.
JD - two thumbs up for spotting the Fox News reasoning; that's it in a nutshell, isn't it.
ReplyDelete@JD-I am not "Fox News" (why are you even making this political?) or "self-centered". Judgmental much? This did not address the fact that when does your movie going experience supersede my rights to the "norm" of a movie-going experience? I am not asking for anything out of the norm. I am not asking for anything "special". I am simply stating that your accommodations should not infringe upon my experience. If I choose to go to Baby Day, then I know what to expect-more noise and higher lights. If I go choose to go to regular showing, then I should expect normal behavior from the other patrons. Isn't it "self-centered" to EXPECT and feel ENTITLED that EVERYONE needs to bow down your "specialness" or needs? The social norms dictate the behavior, so inherently, this is not "anti-social" to expect patrons to adhere to the norms and mores laid out by society and the management for appropriate movie-going behavior.
ReplyDeleteI have my own issues and I deal with them. I don't expect anyone to cater to me, alter their behavior, or have me adversely affect their normal experience for something.
My basic point is your "specialness" (whatever it is) does not supersede my "specialness". We are all equally "special".
And yet, my wife doesn't get to enjoy the whole movie. Funny.
ReplyDeleteAnd why is your wife entitled to the movie-going experience more than I am? Your wife can go to the movie at times where she can be louder. I go to movies at times where it's more quiet. Life is about choices.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, premature posting.
ReplyDeleteYou have choices. We don't. You're fine with that. I get it. We get it all the time. Nothing new under the sun. You're entitled, we're limited. Yup. Just another day in paradise.
@JD
ReplyDeleteI must be missing something. Why does your wife's enjoyment of the film come before mine, or anyone else in the theater?
Is there no other way to see the film for her? What is the special benefit for her going to a theater versus having the movie played at home. (Couldn't you do a better job of explaining things somewhere other than a public place?)
"What is the special benefit for her going to a theater versus having the movie played at home."
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is the special benefit of going to a movie theater for anybody?
No seriously, what's with theaters? I've seen all of maybe two movies in a theater since childhood. Just go to the library and check out some DVDs for your mindless entertainment.
Dresner is a professional victim. He's always incredibly put-upon by the world who doesn't understand him.
ReplyDeleteIs there no other way to see the film for her?
ReplyDeleteKimmie: There are often other options. But on those rare occasions when there's actually a movie playing that we want to see, that our family wants to see, etc., sometimes actually going to a theater is fun!
Prissy Prof: On what grounds are you turning this into a personal attack? If you think this one discussion defines me, what conclusions should I reach about you based on your participation so far?
Dresner didn't answer the question. Why should your wife's enjoyment of the movie trump that of everyone else who will be annoyed by your running commentary?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for your role as victim, I just Googled your name and can see where the Pissy Prof got his point of view.
Not everybody is against you, hoss. Most people don't give a shit about you.
I'm with Bitchy Prof, I'm afraid to say. Go see movies with your wife at off times. Accommodations for people with disabilities do not, as a rule, subject other people to discomfort -- a wheelchair ramp, closed-captioning on TV, and braille in the elevator do not take anything away from other people.
ReplyDeleteDo teachers give visually-impaired students the chance to have someone read aloud the exam to them while others are taking it? No, we do not, as it would disturb those exam-takers. We provide a separate room for that, if that's what's necessary. Do conductors allow people to scream obscenities on the train if they have Tourette's? No, they do not, because it disturbs other riders' peace. They expect Tourette's sufferers to control their behavior well enough to meet the terms of the social contract, or to travel by other means.
Baby Day, off-hour showing times, and DVD rentals are the equivalent. If you must blab your way through a movie, use those. I hardly ever go out to theaters because audience behavior sucks so badly. That would be me limiting my choices because of you, for the moment.
I'm a long-time lurker finally coming in on this one. I think that rather than act aggrieved and rely on ugly and false rhetorical strategies (who's Fox News now?) JD would be better served by finding the community of the visually impaired and speaking to cinemas about having services (headphones, special screenings) with DVS (narration services). Or, to provide separate rooms (I remember Portland having "crying rooms" for people with babies) to better serve this public.
ReplyDeleteThere are options beyond suffering silently (or loudly, as the case may be.) These, however, can involve more community oriented work but the pay off is greater than any accomplished by self-righteously disrupting cinema experiences for an audience. Perhaps JD will consider embracing a different role now that he is aware of these possibilities?
Perhaps JD will consider embracing a different role now that he is aware of these possibilities?
ReplyDeleteDifferent role? No. Elsewhere, sure.
It was a tactical error to engage with CM under my own name. But, following the rules, once I'd commented here, I felt obligated to continue. I see now why you use pseudonyms: to protect yourselves from each other as much as from wider publics and employers. Since the rules preclude commenting under multiple 'nyms, I will not be returning.
ReplyDeleteI do not have the time or inclination to educate this community on disability issues, nor continue in a discussion which is patronizing me and devaluing my wife as a person.
See you at the movies! And plays! And concerts! And art galleries!
@Jonathan
ReplyDeleteIt's not a problem to switch your login name and start fresh.
a discussion which is patronizing me and devaluing my wife as a person.
ReplyDeleteThat's complete bullshit, and spurious to boot. What has been asked makes sense to me? Why does your wife's enjoyment of a movie theater come before the enjoyment of ANYONE else in the theater who attends such events expecting some quiet from the rest of the patrons?
Why is that a hard question to answer?
I googled Dresner's name and I'm not really seeing the "professional victim."
ReplyDeletesource plz?
I have noticed a trend in online debates:
ReplyDeleteWhenever someone accuses someone of being "FOX news" without a lot of evidence (and I mean direct quotes from the show the accusee is apparently referring to), you know the person has no case.
It's just another ad hominem to distract from a weak argument.
I vote "professional victim." Oh, poor is he!
It's the same lax argument smokers make with regard to their "right" to smoke being infringed upon by laws restricting them where to smoke in public. You want to smoke, fine...just don't smoke by me.
As with smoking in public venues, so with speaking in a theater: if I can't hear you, talk all you want. If you're in front of me, then STFU.
Note to all:
ReplyDeletethe "Prissy Prof" above is NOT the same person as an earlier CM community member. I don't have any evidence that the person commenting was attempting to use someone else's identity, so I'll simply ask whoever posted today under that name please switch your display name.
Thank you.
To get back to the original intent of the post, how drunk do think that chick was?
ReplyDeleteHi. Sorry about using someone else's handle. I don't read the blog a lot, but I have posted recently. I'll just change my user name. Is there a place where I can see all the names that are taken?
ReplyDeleteIs anyone with the Prickly Prof?
Please direct me to the nearest "Crying Room."
ReplyDeleteBurntChrome,
ReplyDeleteTo me, she smelled of snowflake. definitely under 30, possibly under 20. Not drunk...except on her own specialness. Her behavior reminded me of every self-esteem-inflated snowflake whop ever pitched a fit when told to leave the classroom after causing a disruption.
This was hilarious. The MAGnited States of America! Woo-hoo! I've got a god-given right to text where I want! Woo-hoo! Texas! Fuckin' A!
ReplyDelete(My apologies to the good folks of Texas who are not like this--and I know there are many. I just enjoy watching someone walk into a stereotype trap.)
The theater has a clear policy. She broke the policy. She's out the door. I'm glad they didn't refund her money and not just because she forfeited it by violating the theater's clear code of conduct. Had they refunded, we would have missed out on this glorious, fuckin-A, magnited magnificent rant!
Fuck yeah!
I guess I didn't think the video was THAT funny. A person gets kicked out of a theatre and whines on the phone. It brings me schadenfreude to watch, but not much laughter.
ReplyDeleteAlso, frankly, I have the nagging suspicion that much of the enjoyment some people are deriving from the video stems from love of rules for their own sake, and enjoyment at seeing some arrogant fool get "taken down" for having the audacity to challenge the rules. Sort of like why even people who think the police are corrupt might still enjoy COPS. If you like the video, please reassure me that you actually agree with the theater's rules on rational grounds.
And I don't even disagree with the "rules" in this case. It's their theater, they can make the rules they want; but if someone breaks those rules, it's not like they're much more menacing to society than millions of creepier people all around us.
Frankly I can't quite see the need even to invoke language of "rights" or even "entitlement" in the debate above regarding blind people in theaters. How about...each theater makes its own rules, and people, both blind and sighted, make the decision on whether to go to the theater based on knowledge of those standing rules? Why is this even a matter of public concern?
OpinionatedRKD...AWAY!!!!
I believe it was inspired by this: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/558516 which I find much funnier.
ReplyDelete@Jonathan: I don't know if you're still reading, but just in case, maybe you and the misses should look into visiting a land down under, where disability rights are something the government, if not the average snarky academic, cares about.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3240274.htm