Poll: bringing young children to theater

I would suspect that the "breed" you are insulting here could very well be quite beyond your own socioeconomic status. Your insinuation otherwise is more indicative of your own failings.

 

Almost certainly true - but if they REALLY had a problem with it, they could just institute a 12 and up policy after 10pm or whatever. They clearly don't mind it that much - and would rather have the extra revenues than create the better experience.

 

socioeconomic status isn't an excuse to not understand right from wrong, and to not give a damn about anybody besides yourself. replace "breed" with "special brand of jerk" or any other word you see fit.

 

I'm sure most parents are used to that. It happens to them on a regular basis, at restaurants, airports, and all sorts of other places.

I don't see why that's the parents' problem. TDKR is not going to frighten a baby or toddler because they aren't going to be paying attention or comprehend what's going on and likely will be asleep or crying for other reasons anyway.

That's silly. $20 for 2 tickets is very different than adding $30+ for a babysitter. Not everyone has resources to spend on babysitters - it might be a big treat for some couples to go to a movie. Who are you or I to tell people that they have to spend two or three times as much money on that?

Absolutely - but trying to save money is a legitimate concern for a parent (or anyone).

If they are inconsiderate, sure. Many parents aren't and know how and when to deal with babies or little children. As Rashmon said, there have probably been numerous instances of little kids and babies in theaters that you never noticed because they didn't cause any problems.

 

once again, this aspect of the debate isn't my main point of argument, but, have you ever heard of the movie "March of the Wooden Soldiers"? it's a 1930's Laurel and Hardy children's musical, with a cast made up of characters from Fairy Tales. anyway, i have a nephew who watched it with his grandfather when he was 3 years old. there are scenes in there with "bad guys" named bogeymen which freaked him the hell out. almost 2 years later, whenever somebody is about to put a DVD in the player, he makes sure that it isn't March of the Wooden Soldiers.

you simply have no idea what you are talking about to make a claim that The Dark Knight Returns isn't going to frighten any baby or toddler.

 

it does - which is why you strive to minimize it.

I think people are missing the "4 months" part of the equation. Anything can set a kid at that age off especially when you start messing with their sleep routine to the point where a blow up becomes basically inevitable, and what's the poitn of seeing a movie if you're spendiing 25% of it in the lobby?

 

Just wanted to thank you on behalf of the rest of us.

I went to see a late night showing of Apocalypto many years ago and some guy brought his two very young children into the theater. The movie is brutally violent and both kids were crying loudly during this gruesome suicide scene. A fight nearly broke out as people started yelling at the guy. It was horrible.

 

The theater we went to for TDKR has a curfew policy now. Didn't read it too closely, though I think it was aimed at teenagers.

I think most theaters just don't have it happen enough for it to be worth instituting a policy.

 

Major:

In reply to your last, basically well-argued response to me I have only a few observations and counterpoints to share.

1. Your sharp mind serves you as a debater even when you are on the wrong side. I find that unsettling.

2. I don't cringe or get upset when there's a baby at a restaurant or in an airport or on a plane. Many might but I don't. I understand that babies have to be transported from one town to another so I understand that they are on planes. It's an inconvenience to me to listen to screaming for several hours on end but I don't become angry or even particularly irritated by it. I will get to the distinction in a bit.

3. When I go out to eat I am seeking a pleasant experience, it's true. And a crying baby can mar that experience somewhat but I am indeed sensitive both to the relative means of a couple (especially with the high costs of childcare generally) and I am sensitive to the need to get out of the house and try to have a nice time. I accept the minor inconvenience, just as I accept a smell that I regard to be foul as a vegan, the stench of a fresh plate of fajitas. I'd rather it weren't but as it is I accept it. I know many people put up with the unpleasant smell of my cigarette smoke wafting by on an outdoor patio and now that I'm an ex-smoker I am on the other side of that. These are nuisances. The situation we are discussing is different in kind. And here is my real point:

4. Some forms of entertainment are intended for children, even very small ones; let's leave those out for now.

I run a live theatre and I am in the business of attempting to transport people from their workaday lives to another place. Film does this too as does music as do all of the arts, including film. The sounds in my plays are carefully chosen as notes are carefully composed by writers of music. When a watch beeps or a bottle is knocked over or a phone rings or someone gets up to pee due to poor planning or whatever, at a play I've directed or one at which I am an audience member, I am irritated. It takes me out of the moment entirely. But I forgive those things because they are honest mistakes.

Bringing a baby into a place of art is a premeditated intrusion. I have no sympathy for the budgets of the parents that wish to see live theatre (or movies) but cannot afford to do so without spoiling the experience of all else involved. If you can't afford a sitter, you can't afford the movie or play. I say that as the leader of the only theatre in Houston that offers all tickets to all performances at a pay-what-you-can scale. That was a policy I instituted at a risk to my organization's bottom line. So I am obviously sensitive to class diversity and diversity of means. People are free and encouraged to see our plays for free if they are broke. But they are never allowed to bring along their random crying and/or screaming machines. To do so is, to me, as to randomly begin playing music, and loudly, in the middle of a movie or play. Or to have a loud conversation having nothing to do with the experience the rest of the group has taken pains to see and experience.

You're good at arguing. In this case, I believe your own biases have led to the wrong side of the argument.

 

A final point:

You mentioned before that babies or small children would be unaffected by adult situations or violence in movies because they were too young to understand what was happening, but you leave out entirely the abstract response a child has to violence and loud noises.

I frigging love the Rockets but when my father first brought me to a game at 2 or 3 years old you are correct that I didn't understand what was going on around me but one of my very few clear memories from childhood was how frightened I was by the (to my mind at the time) inexplicable and very loud noises.

I do think it's irresponsible parenting to take a small child to an event at which there will be random intervals of sudden, loud incidents of violence. Those noises, especially when they are not understood, are upsetting to infants and toddlers and they frequently result in an equally loud response from a child that doesn't know better who has been thrust into a situation in which the parents absolutely should have known better.

There's just no excuse for it.

 

I voted not cool, but really I don't think there is any rule. I would only bring my kid to theater weekend afternoons and maybe a nice dinner or icecream afterwards. It all depends on the kid and that's the parents' choice, nobody else's business. However, I did pause a little bit and thought to myself "why the hell brought a newborn and 4 year old midnight to the theater" after I saw the couple interviewed on CNN. 12 pm is the time for a kid to sleep, not watch a movie.

 

I didn't vote in the poll because the choices were too rigid where real life is much more nuanced.

Depending upon the age of the child, I would never consider bringing a young child to a midnight movie. They should be in bed. My 12 year old? Sure.

By the same token, at 6 months old, my boy slept through a matinee of Lord of the Rings. No one was bothered and 99% of the people were unaware of his presence.

Would I have brought him at age 2-4? Probably not, because he would be less ikely to stay asleep and more likely to be disruptive.

Things are never as clearly black and white as folks in this forum tend to make them.