Cinema Code of Conduct
November 19, 2010 10:01 AM   Subscribe

Cinema Code of Conduct as collated by Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode, as read out on the radio this afternoon.
posted by feelinglistless (37 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite
 
Cinema Code of Conduct for white people.
posted by incessant at 10:15 AM on November 19, 2010


In other news, airplane food is substandard, and black people dance like this, while white people dance like this. If you are still going to your local multiplex expecting a premium cinema experience, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:16 AM on November 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


I love this podcast but they really haven't been as punchy since the show went to the longer format. I often just skip to the reviews now. Still the best film review podcast of the one or two I've found, though.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:18 AM on November 19, 2010


Most of the rules are good, some are silly. While I dislike talking and joking, I can stand a little rustling or crunching. I mean, it sounds like he wants to outlaw popcorn. Also, arriving late is the problem of the person who arrives late, not people who are already there. As for shoe removal...well, if you're brave enough to take off your shoes in a theater, more power to you. You'd have to have some powerful foot odor for me to detect it over all the other smells that typically attend a modern day multiplex.
posted by Edgewise at 10:18 AM on November 19, 2010


They're preaching to the choir here, aren't they? The people that read this are most likely the same people that already know the "ten commandments for cinemagoers". Just because one asshat makes a high res printable list doesn't mean the other asshats aren't still going talk, kick your seats, check their phone, and generally disrupt your precious experience.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 10:19 AM on November 19, 2010


Hello to Jason Isaacs
posted by IanMorr at 12:40 PM on November 19, 2010 [8 favorites]


Cinema Code of Conduct for white people.
posted by incessant at 6:15 PM on November 19


What?
posted by Decani at 12:58 PM on November 19, 2010


Just because one asshat makes a high res printable list...

Well, the clip art is ugly and unnecessary. I wouldn't call the poster printable unless it was used by 3 years or puppies.

But shouldn't you be teaching both about good design?
posted by nomadicink at 1:12 PM on November 19, 2010


What?

Incessant is telling us that white people watch movies like this, while black people watch movies like this, amirite?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:13 PM on November 19, 2010 [2 favorites]


They could have put the first three into one (food & bev).
posted by Webbster at 1:42 PM on November 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


Oh and hello to Jason Isaacs.
posted by Webbster at 1:44 PM on November 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


expecting a premium cinema experience

A couple months ago I watched Inception here. Completely worth it IMO. I still love going to regular theaters though. (Solo, even!)
posted by bayani at 1:57 PM on November 19, 2010




A lot of these are ok, but how does knitting harm someone else's experience of the film? Unless they are sitting right next to you it is pretty quiet and low key.
posted by MrBobaFett at 2:10 PM on November 19, 2010 [1 favorite]


MrBobaFett:

Click, click, click, click, click, click, click. Oh I've run out of wool. Unzip. Rummage. Rummage. Zip. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click. For two hours. I've been there.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:19 PM on November 19, 2010 [4 favorites]


Maybe this can be combined with the complaint choir.
posted by Obscure Reference at 3:43 PM on November 19, 2010


They're preaching to the choir here, aren't they?

Preaching to the choir? Nope. We have people in here who think that foot odour, interruptions by late arrivals, hobbyists, and waiters serving meals! are acceptable theater experiences. This attitude is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Dolby Digital receivers, and LCD projectors.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:54 PM on November 19, 2010


What?

Incessant is telling us that white people watch movies like this, while black people watch movies like this, amirite?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:13 PM on November 19


And apparently not doing it in a snarky enough way for anyone to realize I was joking?
posted by incessant at 1:48 AM on November 20, 2010


And apparently not doing it in a snarky enough way for anyone to realize I was joking?
posted by incessant at 9:48 AM on November 20


So is the joke that you're saying that white people watch movies like this, while black people watch movies like this, only not really? If so, I still don't see where the joke is.
posted by Decani at 5:25 AM on November 20, 2010


I often just skip to the reviews now.

Yeah, I really wish they still split the podcast into two parts, the reviews and the interviews, because I can't imagine the interviews are of interest to anyone outside of the UK. Well, they aren't to me, anyway, and I spend a good five minutes each week trying to fond the point on the podcast when they end.

I had sort of a revelation about The Good Doctor a while back: I respect him as a critic but no longer trust him as a reviewer. I'm not sure what the turning point was--his love of the High School Musical franchise? his passionate embrace of the Twilight phenomenon? his oft-remarked-upon inability to appreciate comedy?--but I no longer give his dissenting opinions any weight at all. If he happens to agree with the general critical consensus about a film, I'll add his voice to my mental chorus of see it / skip it, but if his opinion is in any way the outlier, then I'm much more likely these days to discount it as simply "Kermode being Kermode."
posted by Ian A.T. at 6:00 AM on November 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also:

waiters serving meals!

That's one thing I've never understood about all the love for the Alamo Drafthouse. It's clear that the cinema is run by True Believers who cherish film, but it sounds like a miserable film-going experience. Servers circulating during the movie, taking drink orders, bringing bottles and glasses back? An audience of people spending two hours getting pleasantly and increasingly soused on beer? I know not everyone has the same cinema expectations that I do, but to me that sounds like Hell.
posted by Ian A.T. at 6:18 AM on November 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I have been knitting at movies for four or so years now and have had a grand total of one (1) person call me out about it.

Revival screening of The Hurt Locker, the weekend after it was nominated for umpty-bazillion Oscars. My friends and I had been sitting about three rows back to the left of the screen, and I was talking with them as I was working on my project.

Some wag sitting behind us started in on a running commentary about my project:

"Oh, look at this one. She's knitting. I bet she's making a sweater for her boyfriend. (Etc.) Kathryn Bigelow would be insulted to see a little lady knitting during her movie, I think."

I turned to him and said: "I think Kathryn Bigelow is comfortable enough in her identity to not care if I'm knitting." And turned right back to my friends.

Dude shut right up after that.

Also, knitting is not THAT noisy.

On the other appendage, if you remove your flip-flops and put your feet on my armrest, you should hope that it's not one of those that will fold up. Some idiot did this to me, and came to wish she hadn't.
posted by pxe2000 at 7:24 AM on November 20, 2010 [1 favorite]


I am sad because, in my mind, going to the movies is a lovely, romantic thing. But a few months ago, I quit. I may never go again. At least, right now I can't see what would tempt me back. This is partly other-people's fault but mostly mine (I'm not sure "fault" is the right word, but I'll go with it).

A lot of people are noisy and inconsiderate at movies. But some people -- people like me who prefer quiet -- are better able to deal with it than others. I'm HYPER sensitive to it. (Which is the "my fault" part.) One whispered "What did he say?" can ruin the next ten minutes of the movie for me. One blinking light from a cellphone can do similar damage. And if I start suspecting that these little distractions will come often, I can't enjoy any of the movie, because all I think about is that as soon as I relax, someone is going to "what did he say?" again.

Another problem is that I take movies really, really seriously. I'm the child of two film historians and I grew up in a house were movies were almost sacred. Maybe that's silly, but it's how I feel. Munching popcorn during "Full Metal Jacket" is, to me, like a dead fly stuck to the canvas of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" might be for an art lover. So when a movie IS ruined for me, it's not a minor annoyance -- it can cast a pall over my whole day.

As I read back that last sentence, I feel like an absurd child. "It's just a movie!" That's ANOTHER problem I have: when I get annoyed that someone is talking in a movie, I get meta-annoyed that I'm annoyed about it. ("There are starving children in the world, and I've got my panties in a wad because someone is texting during 'Toy Story III'?")

My final problem is that I have NO interest in meta-movie issues: in other worlds, I am not interested in how the rest of the audience is enjoying the movie. I am just interested in the movie. And really I'm not even interested in THAT: I'm interested in the STORY -- the plot and the characters, and my goal is to forget it's a movie and believe that Ripley really is being chased by an alien. When the lady next to me unwraps her crinkly candy wrapper, I become aware of her, aware that I'm sitting in a movie theatre, aware that I'm watching a movie, aware that it's "all made up," aware that Ripley is really the actress Sigourney Weaver and that the Alien is a special effect -- and I'm no longer scared.

In brief: I am someone to whom child-like belief is all important and ALSO someone who is easily distracted out of that belief. Sucks to be me.

Yet knowing that this sort of thing was bound to happen to me didn't keep me from the cinema for years. I was so enthralled with the big screen, the ritual, the chance to see a movie when it's first out... that I went into denial about what was likely to happen. And since I'm embarrassed about my over-the-top reaction to disappointments, I was in denial about that, too. ("I need to just get over it!")

But a few months ago, I quit. I'd gone to see five movies in a row -- mostly good movies -- and had hated the experience each time. Then I went to see "Inception," because it was supposed to be "amazing on a big screen," and I had a horrible time: people whispering, chewing gum, munching popcorn, texting... and I just said, "Why am I paying for something I don't enjoy? Why am I paying over and over for something I don't enjoy? Why have I been doing it for years?"

So I bought a big HD TV, and I only watch movies at home now. My screen is big, but it's not THAT big. Which sucks. And I have to wait until movies are available to rent or download before I can watch them. Which also sucks (a little, but not much). But I actually enjoy watching them when I DO watch them.

PS. I am an extreme case, but there are LOTS of people who don't like noise and distractions at movies. I've heard them complain all my life. Why don't movie theatres capitalize on this market? Why not special "quiet screenings." If there was a special screening of say, "Vertigo," with ushers who would enforce quiet, I would GLADLY pay double the ticket price, and I'm sure other people would, too. At least I'd like to see a theatre experiment with this.

Or why not a tech solution? Headphones you can wear to the theatre that pipe the soundtrack right into your ears and block other sounds? That wouldn't solve the cellphone-light issue, but it would obliterate the "what did he say" stuff.
posted by grumblebee at 8:56 AM on November 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I have been knitting at movies for four or so years now and have had a grand total of one (1) person call me out about it.

"Oh, look at this one. She's knitting. I bet she's making a sweater for her boyfriend. (Etc.) Kathryn Bigelow would be insulted to see a little lady knitting during her movie, I think."


Well, that person was an asshole. But your knitting would bother me. I'm not saying you don't have a right to do it, and I don't care about what Kathryn Bigelow's opinion of your actions are. (What a weird thing for that person to say!) It's just that the motion of the needles would make it impossible for me to concentrate on the movie. I would move to a different seat if one was available.

Once I was sitting next to a couple. The girl was next to me and her boyfriend (on the other side of her) had his arm around her, so his hand (on her shoulder) was right next to my ear and within my peripheral vision. He kept rubbing her shoulder, up-and-down, up-and-down through the whole movie. His fingers were like two inches from my eyes, so I couldn't help seeing the constant up-and-down motion. And the fabric of her sleeves made a little rustling sound each time he moved his hand.

The theatre was packed. There were no empty seats I could move to. Why didn't I leave? Instead, I sat their for 90 minutes, getting super pissed off at myself that I couldn't get over it, getting pissed off at the couple (who weren't doing anything wrong, I know), gritting my teeth, incapable of following the movie.
posted by grumblebee at 9:06 AM on November 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I have been knitting at movies for four or so years now

What grumblebee said. If you were knitting in a cinema within my field of vision, the repetitive movement of your hands would distract my eye from the screen and spoil my experience of the film. When I pay for a cinema ticket, I want to be able to focus all my attention on the screen. If I wanted to do something else at the same time—and sometimes I do—I'd watch it on DVD at home.

and have had a grand total of one (1) person call me out about it.

I probably wouldn't call you out on it either, as it's been my experience that no matter how kindly or politely or apologetically I convey my request, people who break minor social conventions often turn out to be surprisingly vitriolic when approached. I'm not at all saying that you, yourself, would respond rudely, but that has been my experience in such situations. And in any case, having to get up and talk to someone while I'm trying to watch a film is an interruption to my film-watching experience as well—not to mention disruptive to others—so it's lose-lose, really.

By all means, knit in the cinema if you want—there are no rules preventing you. But please be aware that it's a choice that affects your fellow patrons.
posted by hot soup girl at 11:04 AM on November 20, 2010 [2 favorites]


I probably wouldn't call you out on it

Yeah. It would drive me crazy, but I also wouldn't have called you out on it. I don't think I have a right to tell people not to knit in movie theatres. At the same time, I would never do what you do, because I'm aware that any movements and sounds I make might bother other patrons. So, to me, polite movie-going behavior involves making as few sounds and distracting gestures as possible.

My guess is that you're not being purposefully impolite. It probably wouldn't bother you if someone next to you was knitting, so how are you supposed to know that your knitting might bother other people -- especially if the other people in question are like hot soup girl, the type who choose not to say anything?

Unfortunately in this life, it's usually assholes who do the calling out, and their assholish behavior obscures the content of the call-out. If someone is being rude, the common responses to it are "Stop that, motherfucker" or no response at all (the hot soup girl/grumblebee way). Very few people know how to make a polite call-out or have the type of personality that would consider doing so.

I wonder what would have happened if, instead of making that passive-aggressive comment, the person bothered by your knitting had politely asked you to stop.
posted by grumblebee at 4:47 PM on November 20, 2010


I like to wait a week or two after a movie comes out, then I go to the earliest matinee available, preferably during the week, but Sundays work pretty well also, since some prefer to go to church on Sunday instead of seeing a movie. Fools!

I’m always able to sit center screen, quite often with no one else in the same row. Occasionally, the theater will be at 20 – 30% capacity, but on average, I would say there are usually about twenty to thirty people total. On one rare occasion, we were literally the only ones in the theater.

Plus, the matinee is cheaper.
posted by Krapulous at 2:09 AM on November 21, 2010 [2 favorites]


In terms of my knitting habits at the cinema:

I tend to knit with my elbows on my thighs and my hands in my lap -- I really like having something beneath my hands/arms when I'm knitting. This helps any knitting I would do in cinemas because unless you were sitting directly behind me, you would have no idea what I was doing.

Apart from that, my informal rules are...
  • No knitting at theatres where the seats are very minimally raked (the Harvard Film Archive, for example, or the third auditorium of the Film Forum in New York).
  • No knitting at screenings where the director is present or there's live music.
  • Wooden circular needles ONLY, as they're nearly silent.
  • Dark-colored wool projects only.
  • No lace, cables, etc. -- only very simple patterns.
  • As soon as I exhaust the amount of wool in a skein, the knitting goes back in the bag. No one wants to watch me spit-felt anything.
(And, for the record, most of the time the yarn goes back in the bag after the opening credits -- I can only walk and chew gum for so long. I can tell if I'm at a bad movie if I continue knitting throughout.)
posted by pxe2000 at 6:10 AM on November 21, 2010


Coincidentally, this issue reared its head last night at the theatre. As I said upthread, I don't go to the movies any more, because I can't take the constant distractions from audience members, but this was live theatre, where I've found audiences are generally better. (There used to be a big problem with people unwrapping candies, but, at least in NYC, theatres now make announcements, asking audience members to unwrap their candies BEFORE the show starts. This is great, but it's astounding to me that they have to ask. And, of course, they also ask people to turn off their cellphones. Yay.)

This woman next to me started filing her nails during the show! It was totally silent, which, I guess, is why she felt it was okay, but I was aware of this constant back-and-fourth motion. She continued this for ten minutes. Then she made noise putting her nail file into her purse. She was clearly aware that the sound from the zipper might distract people, so she unzipped her purse REALLY REALLY SLOWLY. The act took about thirty seconds, during which time I was aware of every single tiny click of the zipper sliding along its rail. It was barely audible, but it was audible.

This woman just COULDN'T stop fiddling with her stuff. At one point she was elaborately folding a sweater. She was continually opening and closing her program. Once -- for no reason I can fathom -- she dug out her ticket to look at it. To her credit, she did all of this silently (or as close to silently as possible), so I doubt anyone was aware of what she was doing except for the people sitting next to her, one of whom was her friend. The other was me.

JUST. SIT. STILL.
posted by grumblebee at 8:37 AM on November 21, 2010


That only one person has called you out for knitting in a theater merely means that most people are more polite than you are, pxe2000. As others have pointed out, making the socially clueless understand that the world doesn't revolve around them is almost always a waste of time, hence the lack of overt objection. You think it's not distracting; but it is to many movie fans, and not just the hypersensitive. It is precisely this kind of inappropriate and rude public behavior that made us stop going to movies a decade ago. Are we prepared to spend $60 or more after parking and snacks only to have our willing suspension of disbelief ruined by someone who thinks that their inability to immerse themselves in an experience means that no one else want to either? Nope, not gonna happen.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:27 AM on November 21, 2010


PareidoliaticBoy: Herewith I direct you to the mods' request below the text field: "Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand—not at other members of the site. Calling other users impolite, "socially clueless", and "inappropriate and rude" -- not to mention accusing me of "ruin(ing)" "someone who thinks that their inability to immerse themselves in an experience".

Go forth and enjoy some shit like Charlie Bartlett or Twilight or the cinematic oeuvre of Tom Six. That's it for me and this thread.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:43 AM on November 21, 2010


I'm sorry things got ugly, and I'm sorry if I'm partly (or largely) responsible for things getting ugly.

Discussions like this -- about movie-going etiquette (or even about movies in general) -- are often fraught, because movies exist in a weird cultural nexus where connoisseurship and casual interest intersect. Some people enjoy movies as a fun escape but dont take them all that seriously. To others, movies are Art with a capital "A." Both these types are often in the same audience, and they tend to step on each-others' toes. (I am not assuming pxe2000 or anyone else in this thread is in either camp; I'm just noting a conversational dynamic I see at play quite often.)

This plays out in my house, between my wife and me. She is a movie buff, and she often takes movies seriously, but she also enjoys movies as fun bits of nonsense. It depends on the movie and the mood she's in. She grew up in a house where the TV was often on, even if no one was actively watching. It was just something to look at and listen to when you weren't talking or whatever. It was background noise.

That's completely alien to me (or it was 17 years ago, before my wife and I started living together.) In my house, growing up, we only turned on the TV to specifically watch something, and we turned it off when that something was over. We didn't channel surf. We used the TV guide and then tuned to a specific station to watch a specific show or movie.

I pretty much only see movies as serious "objects," (which isn't to say I only like serious movies), and the only way I know how to enjoy a movie is to watch it from beginning to end, in silence and stillness. Luckily, we worked out this conflict years ago and it rarely causes us friction. We take turns.

And we've started hosting movie nights. When I host them, it's ALL about the movie. The social part is before and after the movie -- nor so much during it. We watch the movie in relative quiet. I don't expect my guests to act in any particular way (I don't post rules, and I don't snap at people or give them disapproving looks), but I tend to pick movies that engender quiet. Last time we watched Bergman's "Fanny and Alexander." When my wife hosts a movie night, the movie is a backdrop for socializing. She likes to choose something silly, like a campy horror film, so that we can all laugh at it. (She loves "Mystery Science Theatre." I can't stand it.)

Our friends are all smart and sophisticated people who are into the Arts. But they are VERY divided on this issue. As my wife and I have co-existed for years, even though we're somewhat on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to movies, we rarely get involved in these conflicts. But we have to be VERY careful when we plan these evenings -- careful to not invite both friend A, who likes to chat during movies, and friend B, who doesn't. If we invite them both, at least one will wind up pissed off. Probably both.

I don't see these sorts of conflicts coming up much when it comes to "high art." I'm a Shakespeare geek, and though me and my cohorts tend to argue about things, we don't argue about how to watch Shakespeare or other matters of Shakespeare-watching etiquette. And I rarely hear people argue about how to behave at the Museum of Modern Art or at a fancy dinner party.

But movies are different. Are they a diversion or a passion? Art or entertainment? It depends on who you are, what the movie is and how you feel that day.

pxe2000 wrote "Go forth and enjoy some shit like Charlie Bartlett or Twilight or the cinematic oeuvre of Tom Six." I would never go to any of those movies. When pxe2000 wrote about movies, she (he?) was thinking about stuff like that. Meanwhile, I was imagining someone sitting next to me, messing with knitting needles, during "Citizen Kane." (Of course, what constitutes a movie-you-need-to-keep-quiet-and-still-during is in the eye of the beholder.)

I think the best we can do is try to be gentle and considerate of each other. If I've failed to do that in any way, pxe2000, I apologize.
posted by grumblebee at 6:13 PM on November 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Maybe I'm a little clueless, but it strikes me that when I started going to the movies, thirty years ago, people ate candy and popcorn, drank, smoked (in certain sections of certain theatres), talked, laughed loudly or cried openly at the screen, coughed, sneezed, blew their noses, fidgeted and generally behaved like people watching a movie.

When I go to live theatre, now, people talk, chew gum, weep, laugh, snuggle with their SO, cough, sneeze, blow their noses, cross and uncross their legs, fidget and adjust their clothing (put on sweaters when cold, remove them when hot) and generally behave like people watching a play.

The only real taboos were talking loudly & continuously; bringing a small child; farking around in ways that would deliberately inconvenience others (yelling comments at the screen, playing with a laser pointer); answering a phone. These are still taboos. Not much has changed in norms of audience behavior.

What has changed are expectations: I think the people complaining about knitting, eating, drinking etc, are as much a product of DVDs and big-screen TVs as the people who clip their toenails or play Angry Birds on their cellphones. People have forgotten how to share public space in both directions: you cannot behave as if you are in your living room, and you cannot expect other people to behave as if they are guests in your living room.
posted by jrochest at 7:54 PM on November 21, 2010 [1 favorite]


Excellent point, jrochest. Admittedly, I've been to the movie theatre exactly twice in two years, but I went this Sunday, and I was kinda annoyed by this guy who was talking *really loud* before the movie and during the previews.

Then I checked myself. Waitafuckingminutemrgrimm, the movie hasn't even started yet!

So many people are waiting for somebody to do something to piss them off so that they can validate the anger that they're holding inside.

Let it go. Myself included.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:16 AM on November 23, 2010


Some of us don't have any option but a multiplex. I was one of them, when I went to see The Truman Show aged 16, and at the point where the yacht hits the wall (a scene that can still make me cry now) a group of younger girls, expecting A Jim Carrey Movie, were loudly comparing socks.
posted by mippy at 4:07 AM on November 24, 2010


Hello to Fairport Convention.
posted by mippy at 4:07 AM on November 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


Maybe I'm a little clueless, but it strikes me that when I started going to the movies, thirty years ago, people ate candy and popcorn, drank...

The only real taboos were talking loudly & continuously; bringing a small child; farking around in ways that would deliberately inconvenience others (yelling comments at the screen, playing with a laser pointer); answering a phone


Can I ask where you were seeing movies in 1980 where laser pointers and cell phones were an issue?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 4:00 PM on November 24, 2010


« Older Right to bare arms   |   The Case of the Vanishing Blonde Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments