Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

What is it with Cinema Goers today ?

Excitable Boy's picture

Went to a preview of Jane Campion's "Bright Star" on Tuesday night. The film is great, but the behaviour of the audience was quite unbelievable and really spoilt the experience. It was a small cinema - absolutely full, and a quiet film. For the first hour, it sounded like 80% of people were eating - mainly noisy popcorn and sweets. Five different mobile phones went off during the film, and half way through two girls started whispering to each other before being told to shut up!

Am I naive to find such selfishness utterly unacceptable ? I'm no old fogey, but am increasingly finding this "f**k everbody else" mentality very depressing. Is it just me ?

3

It's not just you...

... I had a similar experience a few weeks back watching The Time Travelers Wife - three young girls making comments all the way through what wasn't a particularly noisy film.
Added to this my local Vue has started charging extra for "VIP" seats, which happen to be in the middle of the cinema, just where I like to sit.

0
moleye151 | 29 October 2009 - 12:34pm

Ironic that as the quality

Ironic that as the quality of projection and sound has improved, the actual experience of watching a film at a mainstream cinema has crashed. Has anyone seen this malaise start to creep into the art-house cinemas?

0
cornishmanc | 29 October 2009 - 12:41pm

Art House

Not yet; well, not at FACT in Liverpool anyway.

0
Red Umpire | 29 October 2009 - 12:49pm

No, mate

It's definitely not just you. Not wanting to sound like an old fogey myself, it's about upbringing, the lack of teaching of manners/etiquette, the general 'couldn't care' mindset which increasingly prevails. It's evident at concerts, on public transport (feet on seats etc.), litter-strewn city centres...(oh boy, you've got me started now!).

It's also about cinemas trying to make the biggest buck by minimising customer service, the removal of the usher/usherette system being perhaps the most significant development. In my local multiplex they even seem to be doing away with the box office; now you have to buy your tickets at the concessions stand, amongst the mountains of popcorn. This is probably a marketing ruse to encourage people to spend their remaining salary on extortionate food, but it also means that they can reduce staff numbers even further.

0
Black Type | 29 October 2009 - 12:41pm

It also means

Longer queues while you wait for some poor unfortunate who hasn't had time to eat all day to get supplied with a nosebag full of cheesy nachos so they can make it through the film.

0
moleye151 | 29 October 2009 - 1:23pm

I know what you mean

It's part of the phenomenon that's been discussed on here before - i.e. people not being 'in the moment'.

I agree that it's highly annoying.

0
DougieJ | 29 October 2009 - 12:42pm

No it's definitely not just you

I frequently ask people to stop talking or switch off their mobiles in the cinema. I'm usually met with icy hostility from the perpetrators but gratefulness from other people around me. I have, however, admitted defeat in trying to stop the rustling of sweet wrappers, pop-corn boxes etc.; though I did ask a group to give us all a break in the theatre recently when their rustling was loud enough for everyone, including the actors, to be disturbed.

A colleague went to see Up on Tuesday and some idiot had taken a baby in with them. She says the baby was under 6 months old. Why should having a baby stop them doing whatever it is they want to do at everyone else's expense!?! When the baby started crying did the parent do the sensible thing and take him/her out of the cinema? Of course not. So one selfish git (the parent, not the baby who was only doing what babies do) spoiled the film for everyone else. My friend had the common sense to ask for - and get - a refund, but I bet very few others did the same.

0
Red Umpire | 29 October 2009 - 12:51pm

I've said it before, but...

...it's a sad fact that the cinema is no longer the best place to see a film.

0
Lucas Hare | 29 October 2009 - 12:46pm

No it's not just you

I've got so tired of knobheads kicking the back of my seat, taking calls, easting at length and at volume that I've given up going to any film unless it looks likely to be half empty.

As a life long pacifist who has only ever been provoked to violence by DIY projects, the turning point for me came some years ago when I found myself in a cinema threatening bodily harm to a gang of spotty yoof - almost an out of body experience really. I was as bored with "Plant Of The Apes" as they were, but they seemed unable or unwilling to to cut out the noise and wrestling that they had decided to fill the void with. No idea how the film ended - all I could hear was the sound of my heart beating at around 180 bpm.

There days I'd rather watch the DVD; my GLW argues that this just robs the whole thing of any sense of event or occasion and she's right. We risk the occasional trip to the Oxford Picturehouse on Sunday afternoons - the munchers and slurpers are still in evidence but not in enough numbers to make it too bad.

0
fortuneight | 29 October 2009 - 12:50pm

I missed...

... Plant of the Apes.

I'm sorry for pointing this out, but it made me - ahem - 'LOL'.

0
Andrew Rowan | 29 October 2009 - 2:55pm

Made me laugh too

oh, hang on, that's my post .... bugger .....

Not the first time I'm afraid. A long history of over reliance on spell checkers. I even delete words like "manger" from spell check dictionaries if I can, having endured, on more than one occasion, mirth and ridicule as "Mangers Monthly Report" has been projected behing me in 48 pitch.

0
fortuneight | 29 October 2009 - 4:38pm

Spellcheck humour

A previous boss of mine once sent out a very terse email to his managment team, of which I was one.

Apparently he was not best pleased with the lackadaiscal attitude that some within our teams had to arriving at work for their scheduled attendance. In fact he was livid. Finger trouble ensued and what what might have been a very effective missive caused a mass outbreak of behind the hand giggling amongst grown men. Help me spot that missing 'f' in the below. Microsoft spellcheck thought it read fine, obviously.

"...you are instructed to ensure all of your direct reports are fully aware of their working hours and report for their shit at the correct time..."

0
Beezer | 30 October 2009 - 11:15am

Many years back, I received a letter on which the address

included the county "Worcestershite" I suppose the 't' key is next to the 'r' key :-)

0
stimpy | 30 October 2009 - 11:43am

"easting at length and at volume"

Is "easting" some new terminology that I haven't picked up on yet? I've only just got my head round "wicked" and "get a life". I never did understand precisely what was meant by "toasting" either unless it involved burning bread slightly.

0
Richard Raftery | 1 November 2009 - 7:15pm

Northing

Every easting needs a northing if you're looking to find a mapped location.

0
Carl Parker | 2 November 2009 - 11:40pm

As a contrarian I'd love to argue that

my cinema experience is fantabulous and you're all a load of cranky old gits... but that would be a lie. (Well, you might be cranky old gits but this thread certainly doesn't prove it.) I do still like to go to the cinema myself, despite there inevitably being at least one socially retarded twerp present: maybe cinemas have some kind of "Care in the community" obligation we're overlooking.

Anyway, Mrs F and I also went to see The Time Travelers Wife recently and saw a world record set when 3 giggling, texting, chatting young girls were thrown out before the starting credits had completed! I suppose we ought to be glad someone had the courage to tackle them, although even as we speak the cinema is probably being tried under human rights legislation for psychologically devasting said girls for life. Or until the compo is in the bank.

0
Mark JF | 29 October 2009 - 12:54pm

That's great!

Where is the cinema? It deserves support

0
Rufus T Firefly | 29 October 2009 - 1:01pm

Hmmmmmmm

Depending on the nature of the credits, that's either to be massivley applauded, or to incredibly unfair. If it's say, Kill Bill, where the pre-credits action is very important, good riddance. But if it's just a list of names on the screen with music it's perfectly possible that they would have sat queitly and enjoyed the movie when the credits finsihed.

The way to counteract this behviour is to attack it when you see it. Not kick people out before the movie has even begun. Unless there's some piece of this story that I'm missing.

1
Jonah | 29 October 2009 - 2:46pm

They'd blathered away through

the ads and trailers (OK, not exactly a major crime) and ignored a warning given them at that point. Full marks to the cinema for taking action at the beginning of the film so the remaining punters didn't feel the screening had been ruined by having the first half of the film disrupted.

0
Mark JF | 29 October 2009 - 3:15pm

sorry

but I think it is perfectly fair to talk during the 15 minutes of adverts that you can see on TV for free. I personally always talk during them as a matter of principal and to avoid going absolutely mad (I don't have TV at home so adverts really bother me.)

As for trailers, I think whispering is acceptable during them, I mean everyone wants to watch them but a bit of "that looks wicked" or "that looks shit" is fair enough amongst groups.

Once the film starts then no talking is acceptable unless its a bad film and you are the only people in the cinema.

But I think that sounds a bit early to chuck the girls out. Not the decision I would have made if I'd been the cinema staff. But then I wasn't there so I can't really properly judge.

2
goosefat101 | 30 October 2009 - 1:49am

Sorry to appear po-faced

but I take offence at your references to 'retarded' and 'Care in the Community' in this context; they are lazy stereotypes of people who are already heavily disadvantaged by the rest of society. In my experience, the anti-social behaviours displayed in cinemas and public places are committed overwhelmingly by people who are considered to be 'normal'(whatever that means).

Yes, I am a social worker, thanks for asking.

3
Black Type | 29 October 2009 - 3:36pm

Well,

I'll apologise for any upset about "Care in the community," although I do think you're being a tad po-faced about it.

However, you're wrong about the use of "retarded" whose definition is "Occurring or developing later than desired or expected..." Thus socially retarded quite clearly refers to people whose ability to consider and interact with others hasn't fully developed. Don't take the word out of context!

1
Mark JF | 29 October 2009 - 5:33pm

And what's wrong with the phrase

'Care In The Community'? Isn't that what the policy was called when it was introduced?

0
stimpy | 29 October 2009 - 5:39pm

Yes,

for people with learning disabilities and those diagnosed with mental health problems. To use it in such a casual and frankly inaccurate way as a pejorative shorthand reinforces stereotypes associated with people in those groups. Still, if it amused you, that's ok...although it would be interesting to see the response if such labelling was directed at people in ethnic minorities, or indeed, with obvious physical disabilities.

7
Black Type | 29 October 2009 - 5:54pm

fair play

i wasn't going to bother saying anything but now i'm glad somebody did, my son has a learning disability and you can discuss the semantics inside out but "retarded" is not helpful in discourse.

1
Kay Lester | 6 November 2009 - 7:13pm

Doesn't it mean

'kick the buggers back on the streets and save money by employing less residential staff'?

Seems to me the phrase deserves all the scorn it can get.

2
Vulpes Vulpes | 29 October 2009 - 6:30pm
stimpy | 29 October 2009 - 7:17pm

Well, not exactly

Indeed it amounted to a money-saving initiative, by virtue of closing down large, expensively-run long stay institutions; but there was also an ideological purpose, of attempting to alleviate the stigma associated with those institutions and their 'residents', and to enable them to have a semblance of a more ordinary lifestyle. Clearly, all it appears to have done is replace one kind of stigma with another; the scorn you attribute to the term 'Care in the Community' is actually being used to label the people you associate it with. It's well known that language is one of the most potent weapons of discrimination and oppression in all its guises. It seems strange that we've recently had reasonably argued debates around similar issues (homophobia, racism)on this blog, but this one doesn't seem to trouble anyone unduly.

I guess I'm gonna stay in a minority on this, so I'll leave it be.

1
Black Type | 29 October 2009 - 7:42pm

I can see your point,

but I took its use here to mean that the cinema, having no social role to play, should not be expected to cater for those who might need help in order to understand how to publicly enjoy themselves in a responsible fashion.

And as an ex-teacher, and before that, a residential House Parent, I know how phrases like 'care in the community' and 're-integration' are used. It's to save money. Full stop.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 29 October 2009 - 8:09pm

Care In The Community

"but there was also an ideological purpose..."

...and that alone makes the phrase worthy of scorn. Removing stigma and discrimination is, of course, a desirable aim but is the best way to do it really by closing down specialist facilities and chucking the patients out onto the street?

I'm sure the affected patients really appreciate being used as a tool for imposing an ideology on the wider populace.

On a lighter note, can I recommend the excellent Radio 4 comedy 'Clare In The Community'?

0
stimpy | 30 October 2009 - 10:26am

Well, here's another terminology problem...

sorry, I did promise that I wouldn't go on any more, but 'patient' is a very loaded term in this context, particularly for people with learning disabilities,. They have got life-long disorders or impairments; they are not 'ill' and it is therefore not appropriate to label them as 'patients', as this again disenfranchises them. The currently preferred term of reference is 'service user'.

I've just noticed the second part of your thread, which, correct me if I'm wrong, implies that such people should not be considered as part of 'the wider populace' , i.e. should remain segregated and kept as outsiders from society,. This is really quite a disturbing point of view. We can perhaps agree that there are insufficient resources to support some people in the community (although it should be said that many do achieve fulfilling lives), but the basic principle (perhaps ideology was the wrong word) of doing away with the institutions was a sound one.

I will definitely leave it there, as this is clearly not the forum for such a serious debate.

1
Black Type | 30 October 2009 - 11:52pm

But maybe they *should* be kept segregated

when they need special care and support? Hence the original comment about the cinema providing a 'care in the community' service. If someone can't cope with the real world then maybe they need that care and support.

Renaming people with mental illnesses as 'service users' and dumping them in the community to save a few quid isn't going to stop them needing that care and support that, in many cases, only specialist units and professional staff can provide.

1
stimpy | 31 October 2009 - 12:11am

The specialist units

and professional staff are provided within the community, hence the term 'community mental health teams'. Are you suggesting that these highly-trained people are somehow less professional because they don't happen to work in a hospital? If people are found not to be coping in this context, there are laws and procedures which do confer an appropriate level of 'care and support' which protects them and others; this may well involve a level of secure accommodation. Obviously there have been times when these systems go wrong, but the overwhelming majority of people do find that they can live in the community with a decent level of professional support; they present no harm or danger to the rest of society, merely some behaviours which do not conform to a spurious social norm. I suggest you would find more outlandish and dangerous behaviour in the average city centre on the average weekend.

Secondly, I did make a distinction between learning disability and 'illness' with regard to service users.

Thirdly, 1 in 4 of the UK population will have a mental illness in their lifetime; 12% will have one in any particular year. Would you have them all segregated if they can't 'cope with the real world', however temporarily?

1
Black Type | 31 October 2009 - 12:49am

"They have got life-long disorders or impairments"

Not sure how your "1 in 4 will have a mental illness in their lifetime" fits in with this comment from an earlier post. To suggest that, for example, mild depression, would require segregation and in-patient treatment is, at best, disingenuous.

0
stimpy | 31 October 2009 - 2:21pm

Well, you appear

to be lumping all people under your "Care in the Community" label together; I've tried to make the distinction between people who are not 'ill' (those with learning disabilities) and those with mental illnesses. Some people with learning disabilities do need more specialist support, which is provided in the community with a greater or lesser degree of intensiveness as required; I still maintain that many of the issues they face within the community are to do with how society is constructed in ways which marginalises and devalues them.

Regarding my '1 in 4' comments, I'd suggest the problems are far wider and deeper than your allusion to 'mild depression', and that my alleged 'disingenuity' is matched by your vision of people being 'dumped in the community'.

I'm afraid we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this.

1
Black Type | 31 October 2009 - 3:22pm

"how society is constructed..."

That's just avoiding the problem by blaming the rest of us.

It's no different to producing a crap record and blaming 'the philistine public' for not buying it.

0
stimpy | 31 October 2009 - 6:04pm

I'm been trrying to avoid commenting on this issue but

That last comment is not really fair Stimpy.

For some reason you are assuming that Mikhail is saying that society is constructed by the people, whereas surely one possible way of looking at it is that society is constructed by various social forces but also surely by politicians, the media and big business.

Also it is nothing like making a crap record and blaming the public for not buying it either way. He is talking about a group of people and how we approach the way we treat them within society. Whether you agree with him or not he is clearly coming from a considered and concerned point of view.

Saying that society is constructed in a way that marginalises people in need is NOTHING like making a crap record and blaming the public.

I personally have seen lots of different sides of this debate and believe that answers are complex nuanced and that both the integrationists and the excluders often miss the point. We must stop trying to simplify these complex issues, it is pointless and generally ends up doing more damage to everyone concerned.

Generally I think Mikhail makes some pretty good points, although he is perhaps being a little sensitive to phraseology. And stimpy there is something to say about some care in the community services and even the integration of special needs into "mainstream" schools causing more problems by not properly assessing the needs and best interests of their clients.

But ultimately a society is all its people and we need to make sure it serves all of those people. Many attitudes towards those with special needs and those with mental health problems (both very different issues by the way) are discriminatory and under-informed and I really would advise people doing some research into the issues before passing comment on them, and also considering what they say.

I also think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that the statement 1 in 4 will have a mental illness in their lifetime is suggesting that 1 in 4 people have mild depression. I believe the original statistic quoted actually is that 1 in 4 people will have a serious mental illness in their lifetime.

I happen to know quite a few of those 1 in 4 people. And I have worked in and around public services that look after service users, so please be sensitive to this before brushing off my comments. It isn't simple. It isn't easy. We have to all work together and try and understand where each other are coming from if we want to find any solutions.

2
goosefat101 | 31 October 2009 - 7:23pm

This debate is interesting

I have to say I'm more in agreement with yourself and Mikhail. However, it's beside the point in the context of this thread. The kind of behaviour we're discussing is not exhibited by people with mental health problems, severe or mild depression or learning difficulties. Just annoying, selfish behaviour from everyday, run of the mill twats.

1
DougieJ | 31 October 2009 - 8:04pm

Which was

the point I was originally making in challenging the use of that terminology. :-)

1
Black Type | 31 October 2009 - 8:18pm

"we need to make sure it serves all of those people."

*We* don't need to do anything of the sort. You feel free to do whatever you want with your life but please don't assume that I share the same hopes, aspirations and overall weltanshauung.

I have no interest in building a brave new world; I've spent a lifetime working hard to provide for my family and ensuring we're not a drain on anyone else's resources. I appreciate that's not what everyone wants to do but, as has been said here often, we're all different - neither right nor wrong.

The younger, more idealistic amongst the massive may feel this is a little harsh and cynical but I'm afraid the real world is like that.

0
stimpy | 31 October 2009 - 8:18pm

whats your alternative

and what do you do if yourself or someone in your family goes through the kind of thing we're discussing?

The real world is indeed harsh and cynical. Doesn't mean we can't make it a little less or more harsh. We have some effect on the world around us. Even if we refuse to see ourselves as part of any form of we.

I find it very unlikely that you and your family do not drain the resources of the collective world since you live in one of the leading countries for that. And I speak as someone who pays taxes and doesn't consume very ethically and don't drain anyone in the way you refer. Using the Internet is using up some valuable resources.

Incidentally I heard Dr Chris Smith of Cambridge university say today on his podcast that if everyone stopped eating Beef and we got rid of the cows we breed to feed us, then we would half the Co2 emissions of the world.

And again I am not accusing anyone particularly. I ate two beefburgers yesterday.

All I was saying is the issue is more complex than you were suggesting, that you were being unfair to Mikhail in misrepresenting what he was saying (probably by accident). I am not expecting to change your mind, just hoping to encourage you to be a little less harsh in your attack.

I certainly never suggested that I thought you share my aspirations and hopes etc... I would imagine that neither you or Mikhail share my own believes and attitudes, certainly neither of you agree with me on the area we are discussing at the moment! Though I clearly have a much more common cause with Mikhail... partly because I think he is actually being the more realistic of the two of you. Despite your admonishment to us to live in the real world,

0
goosefat101 | 31 October 2009 - 8:42pm

Well, ask any disempowered section of society

- be it connected with ethnicity, age, sexuality, even female gender or any other which isn't the white, male, heterosexual dominant group - whether the institutional and cultural structures existing in this country are in their favour. If you don't wish to acknowledge the way society operates, you end up addressing a 'problem' by blaming the victim.

2
Black Type | 31 October 2009 - 8:37pm

Shhhhhhh

can't you go and talk somewhere else? We're trying to discuss cinema here.

4
Captain Underpants | 1 November 2009 - 12:15pm

I agree

that it is overwhelmingly everyday 'normal' folk (mainly yoof and oldies in my experience) who exhibit this kind of behaviour.

It's just a function of the vastly reduced attention span people have these days.

I included 'oldies' in the above, as I was quite taken aback during a family visit to the Mamma Mia movie to notice that my Mum seemed to find it perfectly acceptable to conduct a running commentary during the film, while my two toddlers stayed relatively silent. Luckily, another song came along soon enough - even old Pierce's warbling was a relief!

I guess that blows the 'youth of today' theory out of the water. Seems only the middle-aged know how to behave appropriately ;-)

0
DougieJ | 29 October 2009 - 10:12pm

I stick to arthouses

mainly in Central London, and I know I'm lucky to have that choice. Going to movies in most multiplexes elsewhere is sheer misery. It doesn't seem to matter what kind of movie, or what kind of audience. And the yoof aren't the only offenders. People - and it's usually the old folks - who discuss the plot and characters in stage whispers are a particular nuisance. I saw "March of the Penguins" at the Chelsea Cinema (which used to be an arthouse, but is now mainstream) and was astonished to hear them discussing the plot in voices just loud enough to be annoying. There is a clue in the title.

0
Rufus T Firefly | 29 October 2009 - 12:59pm

Seconded

Blokes in polonecks and media specs - a respectful audience.

0
sleepytigercub | 29 October 2009 - 1:51pm

Yes, its the oldies

Mrs S and I went to see There Will Be Blood at an arthouse cinema and there was one guy behind us who was explaining in great detail to his 2 friends about drilling for oil in the early 20th Century.

Watch the bloody film, I think the film does a pretty good job at doing that.

The guy was no spotty yob, but a guy in his 60's

I asked him to be quiet and he looked at me as if I had just insulted his mother. Thankfully he stopped, I wonder if his friends enjoyed the film without listening to the prat rambling on.

I love going to the cinema but its losing its appeal.

0
David Sutherland | 29 October 2009 - 4:33pm

It's not really a new thing.

During the holidays I got through quite a few audiobooks. I can't remember exactly which one but it was either "Teacher Man" by Frank McCourt or "Me Talk Pretty One Day" by David Sedaris in which the author tells us about his visit to the cinema in New York(and I'm assuming this was some time in the '80s)where there was a bloke in the audience listening to a football game on a portable radio(no headphones either). The author complained to someone in authority who asked the bloke to turn the radio off. The bloke replied something like "I want to watch the movie and listen to the game at the same time. It's a free country. Show me the law where it says I can't do both things at once".

I'll just wait for the DVD to come out and enjoy it at home with a bottle of plonk.

0
bigsteviecook | 29 October 2009 - 1:12pm

give the rude fockers

another year of no jobs and no hope of a job and you might see some change. or not. little bit of politics there. My name's Elton Ben. Good night.

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 1:17pm

It's not just kids or multiplexes

At the Renoir recently a refreshed group of fiftysomethings talked loudly from the start of the film to some time in, before they were told to shut up. People think they're at home.

0
Five-Centres | 29 October 2009 - 1:20pm

yes but it's a miracle virginia and leonard woolf

are still speaking at all wouldn't you say?

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 1:28pm

no it's alright, please yourselves

i've got time i'm not going anywhere.

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 5:31pm

I stick to a tiny arthouse

I stick to a tiny arthouse cinema in my home town (Hastings), where the only likely annoyance is the sheer poshness of most of the patrons.

Luckily, most mainstream films ceased to interest me a long time ago - the last film I saw in a multiplex was "In The Loop" in a small annexe screen, with only about twenty people in the audience, so no disruption.

In future, how about dressing as Edward Hyde, carrying a swordstick, and using it to soundly chastise anyone who offends you, while bellowing Edwardian imprecations at them... works for me (8-)

0
man.of.soup | 29 October 2009 - 1:22pm

In The Loop

Great example of how a modern multiplex sometimes pulls off a blinder.

People were genuinely screaming with laughter, qbeing queit again so you could hear the next joke, then screaming again. Great experience.

0
Jonah | 29 October 2009 - 2:49pm

I'm another in agreement

We've found that early shows on Sunday afternoons tend to be about the best time to avoid the munchers / talkers / mishavers. I just found it too stressful going to the cinema and being the only one who would ask people to quieten down, but thsi time is generally free of those who don't understand the meaning of good manners.
Trying to argue when someone says "I bought a ticket, I've got a right..." that they also have responsibilities is futile.
The worst I've heard about was from a friend who had to leave because there was a guy on his mobile loudly telling the other person what was happening on screen.

0
Carl Parker | 29 October 2009 - 1:24pm

I haven't been to the cinema in YEARS but

surely, a warning displayed on screen before the presentation started to the effect of "Turn your mobiles off; eat quietly and stop talking or you're out" would at least set the ground rules.

0
stimpy | 29 October 2009 - 5:42pm

Mobile warning

There is one. You get a stereo soundtrack of phones going off then you are politely asked to switch them off.
Which is ignored by at least one person in the audience whose phone will go off half way through the film.

0
Carl Parker | 29 October 2009 - 5:56pm

Maybe it's just me

But I very rarely talk through a film at home. Once I'm watching it I'm watching it and the part of my brain that governs speech seems to switch off. But so do my ears to anything but the film. So I can actually get through a film and ignore background noise.

One of my best friends however, who is female, 5 foot 2 and slight cannot stand people talking on the phone and has risked violence by grabbing peoples' phones and throwing them across the cinema. A bit worrying when you're with her watching a film...

0
SimonL | 29 October 2009 - 1:27pm

Can you put me in contact?

I think she and I would get along well. Although she would have to put up with Mrs P getting annoyed at the embarrasmsent caused.
Actually throwing a phone across the cinema, though? Respec'! ;)

0
Carl Parker | 29 October 2009 - 1:42pm

She is a class act

We were in a pub in West London down by the river when some very drunk rugby players got a little too lairy. She gave them an earful and ended up with the lot of them buying us drinks for the rest of the night.

She works as a soprano in various choirs, but I think she was a drill sergeant in another life.

0
SimonL | 29 October 2009 - 2:31pm

Is she single?

Straight?

She sounds bloody great...

0
Patrick Crowther | 29 October 2009 - 5:04pm

5'2" you say?

flat head for the pint glass?

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 5:32pm

Or in my case...

the double espresso cup.

0
Patrick Crowther | 29 October 2009 - 5:37pm

Careful

You'll be burnt at the stake by the hand-wringing po-faced brigade. They patrol here regularly, you know.

0
Five-Centres | 29 October 2009 - 6:11pm

Respect

.

0
Dr.Pill | 29 October 2009 - 5:44pm

it's a free speech issue really innit

We should upbraid others in public if their behaviour offends us and we think it inappropriate. They in turn have the right to do likewise to us. It will cause communication and awareness of others. This is a good thing. It may not however be advisable in the Holloway Odeon when surrounded by a posse of yoot with no meaning in their lives. In which case call the cops.

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 1:31pm

It's not just you.

There seems to have been a slow depletion in the teaching of manners, consideration for others and general good behaviour.

As has been noted elsewhere there is an element of risk in confronting this, but in my experience if you do so in company others will rally behind you.

I have fumed for ages in the flicks before bursting out with, "If you don't want to watch the film, fine, go somewhere else. Can you just keep quiet please as the rest of us would like to pay attention". I got a smattering of applause, was not attacked with knives, and the culprits went mostly quiet and had in fact left by the close of play. The British way is to tut but not to intervene. We need more moral fibre and some good old fashioned grumpy bastard backbone.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 29 October 2009 - 2:09pm

No Remote

That's not the only problem in watching a film at the cinema. Even when I text the projection room they don't pause it so that I can get another cold drink!

0
JohnW | 29 October 2009 - 1:57pm

Thankfully...

.. the QFT in Belfast flashes up Please Do Not Talk During The Film on screen just before the film starts, which seems to be mostly successful.

0
James Elliott | 29 October 2009 - 1:57pm

Perhaps instead of having bouncers

spying on the audience with infra-red night vision watching for illegal screen-filmers, we should have bouncers watching and listening for annoying selfish morons and unceremoniously throwing them out when detected.

It might even be one of the secrets to reversing the decline of cinema audiences. Who'd have thought it; make the cinema a great experience for families and film enthusiasts and they will actually pay money to watch films there. Who'd have guessed they'd be less inclined to pay for crappy knock-off DVDs if the cinema was the choice place to watch a movie without having to put up with other people behaving like single celled organisms.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 29 October 2009 - 2:07pm

I love movies...

but I've only been to a cinema twice in the last 15 years. I won't repeat what others have said before me, but all I will add is that I would much rather watch a DVD than suffer the idiocy of many cinema goers.

0
Patrick Crowther | 29 October 2009 - 2:26pm

the whole mobile phone/ned/noisy thing aside......

... i gave up after there seemed to be more accusations that you were a copyright thief prior to the film AND DON'T YOU DARE BECAUSE WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND WE'LL MAKE YOU SUFFER rather than any hint that movies might be quite stimulating, entertaining or fun ...

frankly if i *pay* to be there, then i'm not going to tolerate a series of accusations that i'm some kind of criminal - fuck' em i say

1
Glenbervie | 30 October 2009 - 9:43pm

The main reason why I haven't

been to the cinema since Casino Royale was out. On that occasion there were several noisy youths behind, who after being told to be quiet several times, just responded by giggling to themselves. Add onto that the noise of eating and mobiles made it a truly soul destroying place to be. I have never felt the need to visit the Cinema since.

A few months before this experience, we visited Toulouse, where we went to a local cinema a few times. The difference in attitude within the audience was very noticeable. The people there seemed capable of sitting for two hours watching a film without getting up every 30mins, texing/phoning someone, screaming/talking, making daft noises, eating something noisy or generally being an imbecile.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just pay for new release films via some pay for view, and watch them in the comfort of our homes...ah to dream

0
Mint | 29 October 2009 - 3:42pm

The smell of popcorn

makes me feel nauseous. I think it's ridiculously affected when people buy huge pots of it. I can quite happily watch things on TV without eating at the same time.

0
Mr Fade | 29 October 2009 - 3:51pm

in the States

they sell lard-heavy tv dinner type trays of food that reek like a bad kfc. imagine being sat near that during the feature presentation. yuk-ko.

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 5:37pm

It's not even cheap

It amazes me that someone will fork out 5-6 quid and then ignore the film while they witter on into their mobile. That is assuming they paid of course, I remember most screenings at Cine City in Manchester were presaged by the sound of a dozen local scallies dashing into the cinema via the fire exits. They usually stayed for about 10 minutes then ambled off to again.

0
cornishmanc | 29 October 2009 - 4:30pm

It's Thatcher's fault

It's not just cinema is it? A lack of respect for others is everywhere. I'm sure that in most cases, the 'offenders' believe they are acting normally and do not intend to upset people around them. Remember that Thatcher during her reign encouraged greed and the I'm alright Jack attitude and everything wrong with our society today stems from Thatcher's incompetence. This woman has ruined the country I love and no longer recognise. Luckily for her, she will die soon (hopefully)leaving the rest of us to live in the mess she has created.
At least Hitler left the German people a reliable car.

0
Axekeith | 29 October 2009 - 5:26pm

erm that's a myth

Hitler didn't leave it did he? The Allies passed on the chance to buy it up.

0
Ill Bevans | 29 October 2009 - 5:38pm

My, what a nice thing to wish upon another human being.

...and just after you said "A lack of respect for others is everywhere" as well. I think you've just proved your own point.

0
stimpy | 29 October 2009 - 5:54pm

Spot on, Stimpy

That's a horrible thing to say about anyone. And she was more of a symptom than a cause, anyway. She was elected, after all.

0
David Cooper | 30 October 2009 - 12:30am

"She was elected, after all."

No she wasn't.

We don't elect Prime Ministers.

1
Lenny Law | 31 October 2009 - 1:18am

Oh come on

Ok so the government she led was elected. And anyway, she was elected - to be leader of her party.

0
David Cooper | 1 November 2009 - 10:27am

Everyone knows the Tory party doesn't do internal elections.

They have a cabal for that sort of thing. Or maybe its a Sabbat. Goat sacrifices, dancing virgins, Masonic temples at midnight, that sort of thing. It's far too important a decision to leave to the hoi-poloi Party drones and the blue rinse battalions.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 1 November 2009 - 11:57am

She wasn't incompetent.

She knew exactly what she was doing.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 29 October 2009 - 6:36pm

Things were great

in the late 70s, weren't they?

Health Warning: the above sentence was not typed using sarcasm. However, we cannot guarantee that the sentence is completely sarcasm free.

0
DougieJ | 29 October 2009 - 10:18pm

Mmm

I'm guessing the legacy left by Blair,Brown etc will be far more damaging than that left by Thatcher and I speak as one who voted for Blair.
Also to wish for somebody's death is not appropriate for this site.

2
Pinmonkey | 30 October 2009 - 12:08am

See 'Tramp the dirt down' by E Costello

As i bumble through middle age my ire for La Thatch abates and I can't really wish death upon her even. Leave her in her peaceful dotage, fair enough. She's a very old lady ...
However, i sometimes do wonder if she was just channelling some economic inevitability or if there was some choice back in the late '70s and early '80s, given that the results have been a large structurally disadvantaged underclass now in its second or third generation that seems to have come home to roost in terms of behaviour, cost, stress and misery ... (also a petit bourgeoisie whose notion of class is fake bake and sky movies - yes, go on, condemn me as a snob)
however many people get pissed off in cinemas of course, it's minor compared to the fate of some poor little sucker in a buggy being pushed along the road by Vicky Pollard (or Vicky McPollard or Vicky O'Pollard) and i think La Thatch bears an enormous share of the blame for this - and if this is what it took to secure 'wealth for Britain' then it doesn't seem worth the tradeoff ...

0
Glenbervie | 30 October 2009 - 9:54pm

"I speak as one who voted for Blair."

Pinmonkey.. you live, I assume, in Sedgefield and voted for Tony Blair as your constituency MP?

You don't?

You didn't, therefore, vote for Blair.

If you do, and you did, I will stand corrected.

We in the UK do not vote for a Prime Minister, no matter how much the system might want to make us think that.

A person's vote is their own thing. For what it's worth, at the next election, I will vote Lib Dem because Mike Hancock, our representative, is a great MP. I hope, however, that Labour will be returned with a majority. My reasons why are mine and mine alone.

0
Lenny Law | 31 October 2009 - 1:30am

Point taken.

But it was the NuLabour vision that people voted for - more democracy, transparency and an end to sleaze. All governments who have been in power too long lose the plot . Unfortunately we now have a huge government "credit card" to pay off (I'm not sure we'll be able to without a brave statesman making radical cuts) and I imagine there are huge "hidden" debts in the form of PFIs and public sector pensions.
As usual if you are at the top or the bottom in you'll be ok - it's the poor bastards in the middle who'll get screwed.

If Labour want any chance of being re-elected they have to get rid of the man at the top. If their MPs and members can't see that then they don't deserve being re-elected!

0
Pinmonkey | 31 October 2009 - 1:39pm

Everywhere I go

on the internet people are talking about how happy they will be when Thatcher dies.

She's not even dead yet and I'm already sick of hearing about it.

0
Albert Edward | 30 October 2009 - 11:34am

I think it was Sartre

who said that "Hell is other people." I suspect this was said after an evening attempting to watch a film at the Odeon in Salisbury. Pointless. You may as well pay a couple of strangers twelve quid to stand either side of you and blather in your ear about Tony & Jane's new baby/work appraisals/the new loft conversion/last week's x factor etc. It's pretty much the same effect.

Fortunately, the time lapsed between a film leaving the cinemas and hitting DVD has now been reduced to a number of weeks in many cases, unlike in the 80s and 90s when you might have to wait a year or more for a film to make it out on VHS.

These are loathsome people, who are simply so thick skinned and unable to empathise with anyone. It's not the fact that people talk/text/phone during films that annoys me, it's the fact that they are utterly oblivious to the distress they are causing others. In my cinema going days, I would regularly ask people to keep the noise down, only to receive a look of such shock and outrage, you'd think I'd just informed them that I'd had sex with their mother.

It's not just restricted to cinema, either. It also happens in the theatre. I took Mrs Futurenoir to see David Tennant in Hamlet at the beginning of this year. Behind me was a man who coughed throughout the whole three hour play. Not just a tickle mind, a huge hacking cough. At one point, I actually felt his spittle hit the back of my neck. I turned and suggested to him that he might want to leave the auditorium for a while and maybe have a glass of water. He told me to fuck off and mind my own business. Well, at forty quid a ticket, it was my business.

Still it was great fun to see the look on the faces of the modern parent types, who had brought along young tarquin and Philomena to see Dr Who in real life when Tennant used the C-word halfway through the second act. The gasps were hilarious. I even saw a couple of yummy mummies complain to the theatre staff afterwards that the play wasn't suitable for children. It's fecking Hamlet you stupid, thick idiots. A play about a man driven slowly mad by innapropriate feelings for his mother and the knowledge that his father was bumped off by the bloke who is now rogering her who just happens to be his uncle. What do they want? Cut it down from three hours to one? Have Hamlet arrive onstage in the Tardis and revive Yorick with his sonic screwdriver? Utter idiots.

Give me my ipod touch and my decent pair of sound islolating headphones any day. It may not have the same effect and excitement as watching a film at the cinema, but it's a hell of a lot less stressful.

2
Futurenoir | 29 October 2009 - 6:57pm

Rather than speak to

the appalling coughing man, I think I would have been tempted to have gone straight to the theatre staff, complained about him and asked for his removal.

Has anyone actually tried that, and if so, how did the theatre react?

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 30 October 2009 - 11:57am

Just a thought

This is squarely in Grumpy Old (Wo)Men territory isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, just an observation ;-)

0
DougieJ | 29 October 2009 - 10:20pm

bargepole

rarely visits the cinema these days for all of the above reasons. The theatre's not as bad yet but it's getting there slowly but surely. All part of the 'I'll do what I like' society we live in - or as Thatcher once said 'there's no such thing as society.'

0
bargepole | 29 October 2009 - 10:35pm

Lighten up and ride your pony

I think there is a need to lighten up a bit. My sister in law was recently taken to task for bringing her 7 year old daughter to see a cinematic version of Swan Lake. The little girl loves ballet (she was even be-tutud for the film) and was shushed/tutted at by two senior patrons when she expressed occasional child-like yelps of delight. She was even confronted by them in the foyer afterwards, which made her mother cry. Happily, she was comforted by others who had witnessed this treatment.

For my part, I abhor rudeness and bad manners but there seem to be people that take things too far and have unrealistic expectations. Allow for the fact that there might not be absolute, respectful silence (because there are other people in the room) and the experience will be more relaxing. And one day your phone will go off during the film because you forgot to turn it off. It happens. So, like, chill.

0
Austin | 29 October 2009 - 11:24pm

But, with respect,

I don't think people are talking/grumbling about isolated moments of childish excitement or accidental forgetfulness, they're focusing on the deliberate displays of bad manners and obnoxious behaviour which seem to be de rigeur at any public gathering place in these times.

0
Black Type | 30 October 2009 - 1:01am

Seconded

It's one of those 'know it when you see/hear it' things, isn't it? And I am in no doubt that the 'excited little girl at the ballet' scenario is not what we've been discussing.

0
DougieJ | 30 October 2009 - 1:19am

"And one day your phone will

"And one day your phone will go off during the film because you forgot to turn it off."

Even after an on-screen request to turn it off? See, THAT'S what happens when you talk through the adverts and trailers :-)

0
stimpy | 30 October 2009 - 10:30am

Too right.

Bucket of cold salty water, that's what's required. Your phone goes off, it goes in the bucket. No arguments. You get it back after the film ends, credits and all, and not a second before, and you wait for it to end in the foyer.

If there's the slightest reason for you to expect a call, and it's too important to miss, you shouldn't be at the cinema. Don't like that? Too strict? Tough. Act your age.

/oooh, that's better.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 30 October 2009 - 12:03pm

Pardon me all-over-the-place

I was suggesting a certain amount of tolerance. Some people simply aren't very well organised.

To articulate my stance in cartoon form, I refer you to the Spongebob Squarepants episode "Squidville". This is where the permanently het-up character Squidward finds a town called "Tentacle Acres". Everyone is civilised, no-one annoys him and everyone is interested in the same things as him (the clarinet, contemporary dance). He ends up yearning to be back among the annoying proles and the frustrations that come with it.

0
Austin | 30 October 2009 - 8:11pm

"Some people simply aren't very well organised."

Reader, I know. I married one. Sigh.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 30 October 2009 - 8:28pm

i realy enjoyed seeing

Up with a cinema full of families. It was nice to see the 3D and the film in general with the context of the children who enjoyed it. That was a lovely crowd experience.

I hated seeing The Simpsons Movie with a crowd as I laughed at all the jokes that the main audience didn't laugh at and they laughed at the stuff I didn't laugh at and I just felt very isolated and out of touch.

Seeing antichrist with an audience was ridiculous as some people made stupid disgusted noises and were very dramatic about how much it upset them, talking loudly about how disgusted they were etc... whilst on the other side the pretentious brigade bridled at this attitude and ridiculously clapped at the end of the film. Since the film was mediocre it didn't in my opinion deserve either respect or loud interjections.

Generally I find theatre audiences good when the film needs a communal response and you are in sync with it. And its rubbish when you want to respond privately to the film or you have a very different view of it to the rest of the audience.

I think to draw any kind of consistent theory about audiences is to ignore the unpredictable alchemy of audiences... that's what makes being a member of one so exciting and also often disappointing. It's the risk that we take and sometimes it pays off.

0
goosefat101 | 30 October 2009 - 1:59am

Your Antichrist clappers

Remind me of another cinema pose I curl my lip at: people who make a point of sitting through the end credits.

0
Albert Edward | 30 October 2009 - 12:10pm

Curl away

that's a surprising comment for a music-oriented and largely film-literate site. How else can you find out about the music, the minor cast members / future stars, locations and so on? Try not to step on my toes as you leave.

2
Rufus T Firefly | 30 October 2009 - 12:26pm

Sitting through the credits

I used to do this all the time, but hadn't done it for years until last weekend. The film was Fantastic Mr Fox, and it was only because I wanted to know what the song at the end was (Let Her Dance, by the Bobby Fuller Four). My son was very impatient. Only in hindsight did I realise that there was no need to do this any more. We have the internet.

0
Lucas Hare | 30 October 2009 - 12:29pm

Yeah, but

you want to know right then don't you? I'm a frequent credit watcher for exactly those sorts of reasons, and proud of it.

Why anyone would curl their lip at someone wanting to know a few details, and having the patience to wait, ooh, three minutes or so to find them out I have no idea. Well, I do actually, but I'll refrain.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 30 October 2009 - 12:55pm

It's not always a pose, I'm sure.

And I have indeed sat through credits to find out the names of songs and so on.

But there is often -- and especially in a certain type of cinema -- something a bit 'check me out' about the whole thing. Like, "I'm so serious about 'film' that I sit through the credits."

0
Albert Edward | 30 October 2009 - 1:53pm

Serious

If only cinema audiences were comprised entirely of such posers. We might be able to watch films in peace.

2
Fraser Lewry | 30 October 2009 - 1:56pm

Nah

You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think for all the 'knowing chuckles'.

1
Albert Edward | 30 October 2009 - 2:01pm

the pride is the problem

I watch end credits often. This annoys the cinema staff who are desperate to start their cleaning turn around, and I can understand why that would annoy them. I can't understand why me watching the credits would annoy anyone...

apart from when people say things like "'m a frequent credit watcher for exactly those sorts of reasons, and proud of it." That is a reaction to the curl up lip comment, and I can understand why it is expressed in this way. But it is the worthiness than many people seem to imply in actions such as staying to the end which provokes lip curling, just as the lip curling provokes self righteousness.

Everyone defining themselves in opposition. Watch the end credits or don't. Both are equally sensible choices with a variety of pros and cons.

In fact it is this sort of binary opposition of film watchers that prompted my original Antichrist example. In that situation I was very much not in either camp and found them both absolutely annoying (just as, as an agnostic, I was on the religion thread ;-)

Just to make it clear, I do not think that the people clapping at the end of the film was a problem on its own, when people are moved on mass to clap spontaneously at something that is wonderful, it is only when these things become too formulaic (like 10 standing ovations at every west end musical) that they become oppressive. Perhaps there was an element of trendy art-house cool to it and that's annoying but it doesn't hurt anyone.

Mostly, in that case it was very much almost a reaction against the stupid behaviour of the other people in the theatre, and I think that the people who clapped came to the incorrect conclusion that Antichrist was a great work of art and was full of profoundness and that these idiots couldn't see these wonders partly because of that. But also the people who reacted nosily and hysterically were also partly doing so because they felt awkward knowing that half the audience found the film worthy when in there eyes it was awful.

The truth is it is MEDIOCRE. People who didn't like it can leave (unfortunately they didn't and instead semi-heckled) and people who love it can clap if they must, but that will not change the fact that the film is not a good one but is also not a shocking and evil society destroying nastiness.

0
goosefat101 | 30 October 2009 - 2:24pm

What's the point

of applauding a film? None of the creators are there (unless it's the premiere); it's not the theatre. It's like applauding after the final track of a CD has played.

0
Black Type | 31 October 2009 - 12:02am

No point

And how wonderful if an audience can erupt into spontaneous applause even though no one relevant to the film will hear them. For a moment, they've forgotten themselves. That's entertainment.

1
Lucas Hare | 31 October 2009 - 10:44am

No, Luke, no!

Applauding a film is up there with making a point of watching the end credits for cinema wankery. It's so utterly contrived.

(Plus, you could argue it devalues the act of applauding for those -- such as stage actors -- who genuinely deserve it.)

0
Albert Edward | 31 October 2009 - 11:24am

3 things

1. Applauding a film and watching the end credits are completely different things surely. It isn't contrived to watch and see who did what, what music was played, how much CGI was used etc... The people listed put work in the same as actors on a stage and they deserve to be seen and recognised for it, assuming anyone deserves recognition (credits for building bridges etc... don't seem to happen). Clapping is making a sound and an action and doing something that stands out and isn't accepted within standard cinema watching conventions. Watching credits is a part of watching a film and involves staying where you are for a little bit longer

2. I reject this strange notion that seems to be pushed here that people watching credits are making a point at all. When I do it I don't expect or desire anyone to notice me doing it. To be frank I prefer to watch films in pretty empty cinemas in general anyway. Sometimes people watch end credits self importantly/righteously, but generally they don't. No one is forcing anyone to watch or not to watch them and I don't understand why people are so bothered about what other people choose to do.

3. Applause is much more devalued in live performance since it is expected and people give it regardless of quality. How many rubbish actors have been applauded, how many crap bands. It is the spontaneous aspect to applause etc... a clap where one isn't socially enforced, a whoop, an unexpected standing ovation, a moment where people call for encore after encore. I say that as someone who has performed on stage many times, both as an actor and in bands/solo. But I also say that as an audience member who is often the one person not clapping appallingly bad work. Spontaneous applause at a film (and I have never seen it) would indeed be amazing. The clapping in antichrist was definitely making a point, but it was less contrived than it was an attempt to rebuke the hecklers. The clapping at premiers etc... is surely the same as the automatic claps expected in live performance.

0
goosefat101 | 31 October 2009 - 11:40am

Applauding a film

It isn't necessarily contrived.
I remember watching One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest when it was first released. It was at the Odeon, New Street in Birmingham. Not an arty audience at all.
At the end of the basket ball match scene a load of people started applauding and I think pretty much everyone in the packed cinema joined in. It was totally spontaneous.
I don't recall applause as the credits rolled.

1
Carl Parker | 31 October 2009 - 11:57am

Albert, old boy...

...my point only applies when it's spontaneous, ie not contrived. And anyone that applauds in a cinema would surely do it in a theatre too, no? Although there are theatre audience members who obviously have no idea that their reaction can be ascertained by those on stage.

Hope to see you at the next Massive get together?

0
Lucas Hare | 31 October 2009 - 2:08pm

It wasn't you...

...next to me at Chariots of Fire, was it?

Not sure about the get-together. You know my views on anonymity.

0
Albert Edward | 31 October 2009 - 2:27pm

L, O, and indeed

L.

0
Lucas Hare | 31 October 2009 - 2:37pm

It's about the music

It's unusual for me to go the cinema but if I do I often stay until the end of the credits for the simple reason that the information about music played is always at the end of the credits. If they put the credits for music first I would be out of the door well before the key grip gets the credit he may deserve. I assume that you consider listening to a DJ to find out what record he just played is similarly contrived.

0
JohnW | 31 October 2009 - 5:11pm

To be fair,

what Albert labelled 'contrived' was "making a point of" watching the credits, not watching the credits per se.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 31 October 2009 - 6:19pm

How does one specifically make a point of watching the credits

as opposed to just sitting there watching them?

0
stimpy | 31 October 2009 - 6:22pm

Presumably he means one does it every bloody time,

and not just when one wants to find some specific piece of information, and it's that which he classifies as poseur territory.

Christ, I'm only pointing out the actual phrase used in the post, I don't even fully agree with him.

'scuse me while I walk on by.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 1 November 2009 - 11:50am

That's not what...

I'm talking about here. Not those who have a genuine query -- there's always a line of guys at the back with their coats on wanting to know who was on the soundtrack. I'm talking about the guy who sits watching acres of key grip, and assistant to Mr De Niro, unmoving, chin in hand, a study in film appreciation.

Stimpy, maybe you only know it when you see it.

0
Albert Edward | 31 October 2009 - 6:33pm

Gosh - they must be film lovers I guess

Some people - and I'm sure there are a few amongst us - know everything there is to know about certain music performers and their work. You name an album and they can name the recording studio, the session musicians, the backing singers, the sound engineer, the assistant sound engineer, his mate, his mate's dog's name etc. That's because they are afficianados, they love music - and similarly - there are people who are obsessive about film and details like key grip, best boy, who made the tea and what tea the second policeman in the penultimate scene prefers - matter to them. So, they sit and watch the credits.

If you don't like the fact that they wear black polo necks and rimless specs - then don't go to watch Lars Von Trier movies at the Screen on the Green

1
Sheev | 31 October 2009 - 11:09pm

Quite

"Posing" in the dark is surely in the eye of the beholder. Get over yourself Alfred.

0
Rufus T Firefly | 1 November 2009 - 12:00am

Just replying to this, Sheev...

...so you can't come back and edit it when you're sober.

0
Albert Edward | 1 November 2009 - 12:02am

Stone cold sober, old bean

Depressed by the Spurs result - but trying to face that without the aid of strong drink

What on earth makes you think drink had been taken before drawing a parallel between music obsessives and film ones?

There are even people who are obsessed by The Fall. Imagine that.

0
Sheev | 1 November 2009 - 12:09am

I assumed drink had been taken...

because: "There are people who are obsessive about details like key grip, best boy, who made the tea and what tea the second policeman in the penultimate scene prefers."

No there aren't, you doughnut.

0
Albert Edward | 1 November 2009 - 12:16am

It was

obviously an attempt at humour to emphasise a point.

You doughnut?

Grow up

3
Sheev | 1 November 2009 - 12:24am

[sticks out tongue]

.

0
Albert Edward | 1 November 2009 - 9:13am

Grow up?

Lighten up, you waffle, you eclair, you teacake you.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 1 November 2009 - 11:51am

And Rufus, get over what?

Maybe you you didn't read my original post, but there's nothing to get over; I have no 'issues' at all. I really didn't mean to touch the nerve that I have.

0
Albert Edward | 1 November 2009 - 12:08am

Of course I did

and it struck me as an odd thing to comment on and to view as a pose. I do want to know who did what / which minor part was played by a new actor / where the thing was shot / who was second unit director and so on. As others have pointed out, it's analagous to knowing details of an album. And I'll look out for those people in future.

There's also a logical inconsistency in what you are unhappy with, simply because if you remain in the cinema long enough to notice people like me, doesn't that make you a fellow poseur? If I wasn't genuinely interested in who did what in a film I'd be trying to get last orders in!

Anyway, if I do feel like posing, I have my blue convertible, my exotic girlfriend and my large collection of polo necks.

0
Rufus T Firefly | 1 November 2009 - 12:39am

Most of that stuff

you're talking about scrolls up in the first 30 seconds of the credits, during the main end theme. Sure, I watch that bit. Or if I'm in a hurry I can see it as I'm getting my coat and walking out. A couple of people have mentioned they like to see locations, but in fact you don't get any useful location information. It'd be nice if you did. Otherwise it's just five minutes of the stuff Sheev was talking about. Key grips and the name of Brad Pitt's stylist -- that NOBODY is interested in. One of the Superman films had something like nine minutes of this stuff*. What on earth prompts somebody to sit still in front of that? Well, you know my answer to that.

(*Not that anybody would be caught dead sitting through the credits of Superman, of course.)

0
Albert Edward | 1 November 2009 - 9:46am

but the music credits

come on well late and surely people on the word website are interested in music?

Plus seriously, if you want to see the way that cinema is working then lots of the later credits are very interesting, such as was CGI used, how many different companies were involved etc... I think it is really obnoxious in a way for people who are anoraks about music and who surely care how things they listen to are produced, to object to other people having a similar attitude to films.

Oppose anoraks all together and at least you wouldn't being hypocritical.

Sure we've all met people who act superior due to their knowledge of these things, and yeah that can annoy the hell out of you, but being interested and engaged, being analytical and observational, what the heck is wrong with these qualities. Especially because the people watching the credits are not really bothering anyone.

The history of the development of cinema can be seen in the credits. I find it really fascinating to talk to my father who has had 85 years to see this development, and because he worked as a documentary director and producer during the 70's he has an inside understanding of the mechanisms of film. For him the credits tell the story of a change in the way films are constructed, in the sheer size of the operations, the number of people involved in film production for your average film is massive, compare them to films in the 70's, in the 30's... look I don't want to come across all pretentious and boring, I don't expect anyone else to be interested in this stuff, and I don't think anyone is less than me for not being interested in it. Enjoy your film and go. Fair enough.

But can we please stop all this NOBODY is interested in the credits stuff. Surely at the very least the best grip and his family are. A good friend of mine works in CGI and the first time me and when my girlfriend saw his name in the credits of Sweeney Todd we got a kick out of it.

For goodness sake. All this is just snobbery verses snobbery. Noisy people, mobile phones, expensive tickets, bad projection, there are lots of things to moan about that effect your lives. Why not just relax about how other people decide to consume the films, if they are not bothering you at all.

0
goosefat101 | 1 November 2009 - 12:43pm

Good call, Goosefat

Something else that gets on my wick, though, while I'm thinking about it: people who laugh too loudly at in-jokes or references. I'm a horror buff so I get this a lot at festivals, like, whenever there's a character called Cronenberg or something, there will always be a load of blokes who guffaw as though it's the greatest joke ever made. The point being, of course, to let us all know that they've spotted the reference. I expect this sort of thing happens at screenings of Quentin Tarantino films, too.

1
Albert Edward | 1 November 2009 - 1:12pm

A Big Cheer for Goosefat

Film credits tell the story of how the film was made (and also the story of how much it was made for). Don't you want to know which North African country allows Ridley to go in and blow it up? How much CGI was actually used in a too-good-looking film that doesn't appear to have any effects? How many assistants does Russell Crowe have now (4) or Mickey Rourke (none). And the music credits.

There's also the music itself. When I saw THE DARK KNIGHT, about half the audience stayed until the end of the credit roll (about 10 minutes long) - Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard's rolling, surging score kept us all pinned to our seats.

Obviously going to the pictures causes great stress among the massive. I have found that a polite early intervention in a loud voice tends to take care of it. If not, get the manager: this will take about ten minutes, since there's no staff around (the principle reason why distruption has become endemic) - but insist of watching the rest of the film AND getting your money back.

2
ChuckTurner | 1 November 2009 - 2:11pm

Goosefat nailed it there.

A film's DNA is in its credits. One little surprise I always enjoy is when you see cast members who are obviously relatives of the director.

0
Albert Edward | 20 November 2009 - 6:34pm

.

.

1
goosefat101 | 30 October 2009 - 2:27pm

No contest any more

Huge TV at home, some A/V thing underneath it pushing sound through all sorts of speakers, bluray player, microwave popcorn, nice bottle of red, toilet breaks without missing the film, no phone calls of any sort. No-brainer. Broke with tradition and went to see Up at the weekend, but there was some half-term pressure involved.

0
Chris | 30 October 2009 - 12:23pm

I've been lucky so far.

Since our little one came along a few years ago my wife and I haven't really had the chance to head out to the pictures of an evening and see a newly released film on the big screen, so I've rarely endured such bad behaviour in cinemas.

Though I have been aware of it creeping in. We went to see 'The Aviator' on its release some time ago. It had Leonardo DiCaprio in it. Which as far as I could tell was the only reason a gaggle of mid-teen harpies were in attendance in seats in the middle of the auditorium. They were relatively fine until about an hour in when they mutually agreed it 'was borin' innit' and that their adored Leonardo was not going to strip off or sport a trendy gelled haircut.

With that, seats were laid across horizontally and much texting, giggling and shreiking ensued. I'd like to say I marched down and told them to get the hell out but of course I didn't. Even though he was young, spotty and evidently mightily embarrased the cinema 'manager' (or the oldest lad working there) eventually did his duty and evicted them but only just before the credits rolled. They were seen milling about in the foyer as the audience left shortly after where one furious woman marched over to them and gave them a tremendous bollocking. They had the wit to look suitably chastised.

0
Beezer | 30 October 2009 - 12:26pm

People don't know how to behave at gigs anymore either

Talking throughout, obscuring your view with their arm/mobilephone/camera, shoving, plopping their mate/girlfriend/wife on their shoulders so you get a faceful of bum....

Very individualistic, none of the same sense of 'community' in audiences that there used to be.

1
lisbon | 30 October 2009 - 2:13pm

Avoid the Odeon in Camden...

...if you want a hassle-free movie experience. I've heard loads of horror stories about this place due to the gangs of local chavs that frequent the cinema, regardless of the film. A few years ago at a showing of Supersize Me, a row of teen chav girls were being a general nusiance by nattering, texting and easting noisily. When a burly rugby-player type bloke went over to complain, one of the little darlings broke his jaw. You don't really expect this at a screening of a documentary about the effects of Fast Food and Globalization.

Mind you, the middle classes can be as annoying. I had my only experience at an Imax cinema watching the documentary Shackleton ruined by a family sat behind me containing some noisy little bastard called Laurence. The kid was too small to see the screen properly in his special Imax seat, so kept asking "WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW, DADDY?" every 5 minutes. It was pretty dumb bringing such a young kid to a doc about an early 20th century polar explorer and expect him to be transfixed. The worst thing was the parents made no attempt to shoosh the little sod up to stop him ruining everyone else's cinemagoing experience , and eventually the dad let the kid sit on his lap so he could see the movie better. This allowed the soon-bored kid to repeatedly kick the back of my seat throughout the film, until I couldn't take anymore. I stood up and turned around to the blank-faced dad, and said "THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR RUINING THE MOVIE FOR ME", and walked off to another seat. To my delight, the other people sat in my row who'd had enough of the family all got up and left too, one middle-aged woman chiding the selfish idiotic dad with " THIS WAS NO MOVIE TO BRING A 6 YEAR OLD TO!"

Wonderful stuff.

0
Ricardo | 30 October 2009 - 9:22pm

Took my youngest 2 kids

to the cinema on Wednesday. For the youngest (coming 3) it was his first time and initial portents were not good with the afore-mentioned queue for the extravagantly priced popcorn buckets. Family before us were more or less re-mortgaging their house to buy everything on offer and (as is always their wont) continually changing their order before being, as usual, totally underprepared to pay.

However, despite being stressed to the eyeballs by the time we entered the "theatre" our experience was salvaged by the film - "Up" - being so good, that everybody watched in old-fashioned silence.
Maybe we were just lucky that there weren't any anti-social phone abusers and that the quality of the movie persuaded the audience to be quiet but on the whole it was still a rewarding experience.

0
Salty | 31 October 2009 - 12:25am

End credits

The end credits are often part of the film.

I saw Up last night. The end credits are a photo album of the subsequent lives of the main characters. And what's happening in each photograph is a witty comment on the job of the person whose name is credited.

Well worth sitting through.

0
Inky Fingers | 31 October 2009 - 9:36am

i didn't notice the witty comment bit

I was too busy concentrating on how wonderful and moving the subsequent lives were and trying to disguise my tears beneath my 3D glasses.

But I'll look out for it the next time I see that film.

For my money it is the best animated film yet, as good, if not better than the first Shrek (a film, like the matrix, almost ruined by the awfulness of its sequels) and the Toy Story Films and The Incredibles. Actually thinking about it it is definitely better than all of those.

It is certainly amazingly better than Wall-E, a film that was vastly over rated in my opinion.

I see a lot of films because my dad has a cinema veterans card that can get him and a guest in for free and Up is most definitely my recommendation out of everything out there at the moment.

If anyone here is a grandparent, especially a grandad, I really advise you to arrange to go and see it with your grandchildren. I wish I had grandchildren to take myself.

Lovely, sad, funny, wildly inventive with a solid beautiful message about life, death and the space and closeness between generations. And best of all a kids film that is made for kids rather than for their parents, despite having an appeal to all ages. When I left I heard a 7 year old girl say to her mother "that was the best film I have ever seen in my life" and I imagine it must be.

1
goosefat101 | 31 October 2009 - 10:38am

A big up for Up!

I agree. Took my two daughters to see it last weekend. Classic Toy Story template of 'can be enjoyed on many levels'.

Definite 'something in my eye' moments as well!

1
DougieJ | 31 October 2009 - 10:48am

Up was wonderful!

Thought the scenes showing the young couple marrying and their life story until she died was as moving a piece of cinema as I have seen for a long while.

1
Pinmonkey | 31 October 2009 - 7:10pm

Please tell me

that's not a spoiler. I really want to see it.

0
Lucas Hare | 31 October 2009 - 8:05pm

No

it's close to the beginning of the film. Try to see the 3D version if you can I'm sure you will enjoy it.
Returning to the theme of this thread the cinema was very quiet so that must be a good sign of how good the film was.

0
Pinmonkey | 31 October 2009 - 8:15pm

No it's not a spoiler

The dialogue-free montage during the first 10 minutes is quite beautiful.

0
Beezer | 31 October 2009 - 10:18pm

A friend of a friend ...

... went ot see a film in a quiet arthouse cinema, and was surprised to see there were subtitles despite the film being in English.

They were subsequently infuriated with the noise of eating & slurping by the people behind them, and remonstrated with them at the end. Only to be met with blank stares and sign language: it was a special screening for the deaf.

Possibly an urban myth, mind you.

0
Douglas | 1 November 2009 - 12:07pm

What is it with Cinema Goers

What is it with Cinema Goers today? Probably the same the thing that allowed three women to talk all the way through Woody Allen's Alice at the Brighton arthouse cinema Duke of Yorks in 1990, and the same thing that allowed several big mouthed arseholes to spoil Sea of Love at the Portsmouth Odeon in 1989. Not that I hold a grudge about these sort of things of course...

0
Andy Lynes | 1 November 2009 - 12:27pm

Tetchy

This blog is very tetchy in place isn't it?

What happened to the old Word website where we could exchange views and indulge in harmless banter without being needlessly criticised?

0
Red Umpire | 1 November 2009 - 6:10pm

I blame

the arrow(s)

0
Black Type | 1 November 2009 - 6:39pm

Good point

Maybe it's the time of year / clocks going back / who knows? Tetchy is a good word for a peevish kind of rather un-Massive-like intolerance.

0
Rufus T Firefly | 3 November 2009 - 12:04am

I think it can be a rewarding experience if..

.. you confine yourself to foreign language films and go in the afternoons (preferably on a bright summer's day) or when "Engerland" are playing. Avoid blockbusters or family films like the plague. Small, independent cinemas are worth seeking out, even if they incur extra travel. I wish noisy sweets, popcorn etc could be banned though.

0
Richard Raftery | 1 November 2009 - 7:22pm

Lions For Lambs incident

I took my Mum to see Lions For Lambs a while back - was it last year? Year before?

We sat on the second to back row so that we could both see the screen very clearly, in a Tuesday night provincial cinema with approximately seven-and-a-half other people. A couple came in a few minutes before the film started, and looked like they had wandered into the wrong film. Despite the surfeit of seating, they sat right behind Mum and I, and began talking at the normal conversational volume. The girl, sitting directly behind Mum, was kicking her feet against the back of Mum's seat. The pair of them were rattling sweets really loudly,slurping drinks, mobiles jingling and jangling etc - the whole gamut of cinema sins.

Mum and I looked at each other and both did the old "eyes to the ceiling" thing - expecting that she would stop, and that the pair of them would stop talking once the film began. But they didn't stop any of it.

I'm a fairly reserved and patient and controlled kind of a man, and I really don't know where this came from, as I would normally ask politely, but I exploded: "Will you shut the FUCK up, or do you want me to go and get the manager to throw you out? It's not the chimps fucking tea party!".

The guy stood up and - I kid you not - had it not already been dark in there he would have blocked out the entire sun in my hometown. He threatened to put me "through the fucking screen" and his girlfriend began screaming about how rude some people are.

Eventually he sat down, and when they talked and noised it up again I turned round and gave him the stare. He made the knife across the throat gesture. After the film they had a go about how bad some people's behaviour is in cinemas when all folks want to do is go and enjoy a film together.

I find it remarkable that people have absolutely no concept of the correct etiquette. The rise of "home cinema" / DVDs has a lot to answer for here, I feel. The cinema is NOT a living room.

3
Tippy Wooder | 20 November 2009 - 5:55pm

Snipers with silenced rifles

are my preferred solution to people who talk loudly or use their mobile phones in the cinema. More realistically though, couldn't the cinemas could put some kind of block on phone signals?

0
Jimmy_Mack | 23 November 2009 - 11:20pm

Three strikes and...


0
DougieJ | 23 November 2009 - 11:37pm

A right button-pusher

this was always going to be.

It seems to be another signifier of a general shift in behaviour. People are just more selfish in this age. In this mass-consumption, advert-overkill world we have become the centre of our own self-created universe. In the cinema we mostly only care about ourselves and behave accordingly. It's conditioning.

Having said that, there are some occasions where a big, filled cinema creates a special atmosphere of collective enjoyment. It's telling that it's LOUD films that work best. I've had a ball watching Total Recall, Terminator 2 (even the Coen's Intolerable Cruelty) and their ilk in a capacity cinema with surround sound at full blast to mask the munching and conversations. Nothing quite like it.

The introduction of special Baby Sessions at my local cinema (in Melbourne, Cinema City, - do they have them in the UK too?) was a life-saver on my days with my little one. Being special early sessions for parents & babes it told everyone what to expect before investing in a ticket and gave parents an opportunity to enjoy new releases in an appropriate environment. Can you believe Kill Bill was one of the films? It was for the parents anyway and babies are oblivious.

Certain cinemas seem to be multiple offenders where bad behaviour is concerned and it's mostly suburban it would seem. The old Streatham Odeon was a shocker and even Brixton's Ritzy seemed to have an open door policy for the street-drinkers & homeless - I once had to leave when the person in front soiled themselves. Sure, they have as much right to be there if they buy a ticket but we should all have a collective responsibility to behave ourselves too.

And yes, the absolute worst are Art House Cinemas filled with more knowledgeable than thou pontificators. And the social catching up that goes on? Why go to the cinema to have a conversation?

Here in Melbourne there's a lovely pre-feature ad featuring two guys called The Bazura Project -

check out their brilliant parodies: http://www.bazuraproject.com/

and this specific one on appropriate cinema etiquette -

http://www.bazuraproject.com/season-one/104-feature-story

(how do I imbed these damn things?)

who remind us to switch off our mobiles, pagers, laptops, guitars, amps, synths and pacemakers.

Wise words.

1
MikePaterson | 24 November 2009 - 7:17am

I've just stopped going.

Which is a shame, as I used to enjoy the whole experience of going to see a film.
Years ago, my then-girlfriend took me to see 'Festen', in a tiny Copenhagen cinema. I remember how diverse the audience was (especially considering it wasn't a *mainstream* film) - there were families, kids, older folks, couples. (Not sure how tough the Danes are on age classifications). Throughout the film, there was a lovely collective sense of enjoyment and afterwards, everyone mingled in the lobby bar drinking cocoa and eating buns and talking about the film.

That has always stuck in my memory as just about the best possible cinematic experience (the fact that the seats were thoughtfully equipped with generous beer mats and ashtrays only added to the general bonhomie).

But, to agree with many posts, I reckon nowadays, the average multiplex cinema is just about the worst possible place to watch a film. I can't remember it being this bad when I was younger, the Odeons of my childhood were full of kids but we went to watch films. Today, cineplexes the equivalent of a desolate shopping precinct late on a Sunday afternoon, when you've nothing to do and can't be bothered with anything, a place to hang out with your mates, be a berk and annoy everyone else. Throw in stupid ticket prices, overpriced synthetic snacks, bored staff and wall-to-wall weird smells and really, well, forget about it. And its the same all over the place. I remember the cineplexes in Dubai being just as described here, with the added misery of brutally edited films and the weird smell of chicken hot dogs.

0
Slotbadger | 30 January 2010 - 2:40pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd