|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: The historical case for why it’s okay to text at the movies
|
Frank Cox
Film God
![](/ubbmembers/6258a.jpg)
Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 01-09-2017 02:12 PM
‘Was moviegoing ever really sacrosanct?’: The historical case for why it’s okay to text at the movies
quote: A reporter on the tech-industry beat, who one presumes privy to such scoops, heralded in a tweet this week that Apple is poised to introduce a sort of “Cinema Mode” in its forthcoming iPhone firmware update, which will make it more convenient to text or email or indeed send speculative tech industry tweets in a theatre’s pitch dark atmosphere. Nobody yet knows what such a function would entail precisely; in fact, Apple has not even confirmed the rumour, which may prove unfounded after all.
Nevertheless, a firestorm of indignation has erupted forth from the commentariat, as it always does when the sanctity of the cinema seems vaguely threatened, and presently the opinion pages abound with entreaties to extinguish this promised sacrilege and glorify the theatre as inviolable forevermore –unsubstantiated conjecture be damned.
To reiterate the obvious: the blazing gleam of a smartphone in the movie theatre’s scene-setting ambient dark is intrusive and irritating. The point of the dark is to better fix your attention on the screen, to minimize your peripheral vision, and catching one of those radiant little rectangles in the corner of your eye rather disrupts the effect. In short, using your phone at the movies is a vexing breach of etiquette — and should Apple endorse that breach by simplifying, facilitating or otherwise encouraging it, moviegoers who care about etiquette should expect to spend a lot more time duly vexed.
On the other hand, it seems equally obvious, if you’ve done much mainstream moviegoing, that the number of people who care about etiquette is relatively few. Habitual cinema texters do not need help from Apple to go about their luminescent business in the dark, and will doubtless continue on their merry way whether the latest iOS streamlines the process or not. These same texters will continue in ignorance, too: pleas to put away the phone are invariably met with bewilderment, as if it had simply never occurred to the guilty party that their behaviour were out of the ordinary at all.
If you think of a movie as nothing more than a diversion, why should you mind if your attention is diverted for a moment somewhere else?
It pays to remember that moviegoing is a social activity for vastly more people than it is a kind of religious experience, and that the respect you and I may feel ought to be accorded to the art on screen is by no means the same for most. If you think of a movie as nothing more than a diversion, why should you mind if your attention is diverted for a moment somewhere else?
Nor are breaches of moviegoing etiquette confined to the use of one’s phone. In Toronto, the multiplexes tend to draw audiences in groups by age. The Cineplex at Yonge and Dundas is routinely flogged with teens, and whenever I happen upon a blockbuster or horror film there I’m reminded all over again of how little people under the age of 20 care about things like indoor voices, public decorum or shame. So rampant are the in-cinema parties, arguments and make-out sessions that I’ve long ago abandoned hope of seeing anything there in peace.
But far, far worse, as moviegoing in Toronto is concerned, is the Cineplex Varsity in Yorkville, whose elderly constituency seems in my experience fundamentally incapable of watching movies in silence. Questions of the “who is that” and “what is going on” variety shoot up at hearing-aid-conquering volumes every minute and a half like clockwork, and the overall aural effect is like bingo night at the retirement home. Point being, one does not need an iPhone at the movies to vex.
Anti-texting sentiment has of course a nostalgic character, one that yearns for a return to the halcyon days of pious moviegoing and laments the present day’s deteriorating standards of protocol and form. But was moviegoing ever really sacrosanct? Cinema history suggests otherwise.
Well do I recall seeing David Lean’s Brief Encounter for the first time and being shocked when the Trevor Howard character, dropping into a movie midway through, simply asks Celia Johnson what it’s about and what’s happened so far, as though seeing a movie from beginning to end in the proper order was a novel idea. The movie, you see, begins again once it’s over, and the couple leave when they find their way back to where they started — this prevailing practice being the origin of the phrase “this is where we came in.” In fact, so common was the custom of waltzing in and out of movies at whatever point one pleased that advertisements for Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho explicitly recommended seeing it from the beginning in order not to spoil the mystery.
And long did such habits endure. The critic Glenn Kenny, in a reminiscence for Premiere magazine, fondly describes the atmosphere at the Plaza Theater in Paterson, New Jersey, circa 1977, thusly: “The Plaza was not regarded by most of its patrons as a place of discovery, a sacred vessel of cinema, or any such thing,” he writes. “More than once I saw guys walk in with blaring boomboxes perched on their shoulders – and they would leave them blaring in the aisle. The talking-back-to-the-screen was largely ubiquitous, and pretty consistently entertaining.”
No doubt one could find a cinema in 1977 in which 3 Women or Annie Hall could be enjoyed among largely taciturn peers – and indeed the theatre where Woody Allen and Diane Keaton catch a second showing of The Sorrow and the Pity in the latter one imagines would have been boombox-free. In any event, then, as in 1945, and as in 2017, the sanctity of the cinema was not a universal ideal. Some patrons of the medium prefer to sit in hushed reverence and others do not.
So what we are seeing now is merely what cinephiles have always seen: an irreconcilable difference between the private communion one aspires to enjoy alone in the dark with a film and the very public nature of the venue where such communion happens. Is it noble to expect moviegoers to defer with humility and awe to the art being beamed down at them on the silver screen? Or, more saliently, is it reasonable? Maybe, maybe not.
But it is foolish to presume that such a war is being lost on a technological front rather than a social or cultural one – which is to say it’s foolish to blame (speculative) changes to iPhone firmware for some phantom decline in cinematic principles.
Some people will text at the movies not because Apple will make it easier or more convenient to do so but because some people do not care all that much about movies or about your pure and unblemished experience with them. IMHO.
So because people haven't behaved properly in the past, it's unreasonable to expect them to behave in the future?
Text in my theatre while the show is on, I tell you to stop. Do it again, I tell you to leave.
Very few people text in my theatre and it's now been a year or two since I had to throw anyone out for it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/534a.jpg)
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-09-2017 04:10 PM
During WWII the SS in Germany and a British social research project called Mass Observation both sent people into movie theaters to stand at the back and make notes as to how the audience reacted to a movie, what they were talking about, etc. etc.
In Germany, Goebbels used the information this gave him to order the studios to go big on certain types of propaganda movie and avoid others (one of the reasons he wrote a blank check for Agfacolor was that audiences went wild at color films, apparently). In Britain the Ministry of Information took note of what Mass Observation were doing, but they were really a bunch of academics doing it for their own amusement. Files survive from both countries, and reveal that theater audiences were typically noisy, badly behaved (throwing cigarette butts at the screen and setting it on fire was a frequent occurrence), and would generally make a texting moviegoer seem well behaved.
As a student I remember once reading a Mass Observation report, typed up, in which the observer noted that an audience member had opined loudly that one of the characters in the film "has to be a lesbian." Someone had underlined this in pencil, and scribbled in the margin, "I have no idea what this is, but it must be objectionable."
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
![](http://www.film-tech.com/ubbmembers/1466.jpg)
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 01-17-2017 05:12 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson The FCC actually has a law on the books preventing theaters from installing any sort of methods to disrupt mobile phone signals inside movie theaters? If so, then that's too bad. A "passive" system that would force everyone to keep their phones out of sight would work far better than the current methods that just don't work.
Mitchel does touch on this, and has it right.
The FCC has no jurisdiction over passive construction, and makes no effort to infer so.
You can put chicken wire, sheeted copper, maybe even lead behind your walls and block out whatever you want... so long as there is no active circuitry involved.
Active devices, which are rather easy to come by, are a big no-no, and the FCC has come down hard on the few people it's caught using them. This is not limited to theatres. Unless you're law enforcement, you can't (legally) use active jammers anywhere.
While they'd never say so, the issue appears to be that the FCC don't believe you can keep a jammer signal within the confines of your building, thereby possibly preventing someone from making an emergency call of one sort or another. Rather than police what may not be possible to fully contain, they just banned active jammers altogether.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|