Seriously?

[EcclesCake]

What do you make of this report?

http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/14/mother-kicked-out-of-cinema-for-seeing-15-rated-film-with-her-baby-4727757/

[ummmm]

Kids are funny.

[jno]

are you assuming that babies are noisy 24/7? It ain't so. I can only say that 99% of the noise I hear in cinemas comes from adults.

[jno]

that question was obviously not directed at ummmm...

[naomi24]

//I can only say that 99% of the noise I hear in cinemas comes from adults.//

That's probably because most people don't take babies to cinemas where films aimed at adults are showing.

[Kromovaracun]

That's because there are significantly more adults than babies. Babies in the cinema are thankfully rare - because most people seem to realise it's not a good environment for them.

As I say, if we could reliably predict which adults were going to be annoying, I would condone not allowing them entry. But we can't, alas.

"are you assuming that babies are noisy 24/7?"

No, I'm assuming there's a high chance of them being noisy in a given two-hour stretch. Now let me ask a question:

How would you feel about someone taking a baby into a theatre? I have never, ever seen this happen because people seem to have some respect for it as an environment. If this would bother you, then how is taking a baby into the cinema different?

[naomi24]

ps. I'm British - well, English to be precise - and I like children.

[Kromovaracun]

I am proud to uphold the stereotype of the child-hating Brit.

[EcclesCake]

Oh my, this went on a bit more than I expected!

I stand by my earlier comments she was wrong to take an under 15 yr old to the screening. It is quite simply against the law.

I do still think that a cinema that I find uncomfortable due to the noise level is not a good environment for a young child. As cinemas do offer Mother and Baby/Toddler screenings where they adjust the volume and lighting that suggests that general screenings are not suited to young children's eyes and ears?

However, as I have already said, as have others, this is a really strange way of catching up with a friend. To my mind she is defending her position with this claim and I have yet to find anyone who catches up with a friend at the flicks.

[jno]

Kromovaracun, the difference between theatre and cinema is... well, the bleedin' obvious. I don't mind respecting performers by not taking in babies, not clapping in the wrong places and trying not to sneeze at all. This is all very 20th-century; 200 years ago actors would have had to take their chances with audiences. But the object viewed in a cinema, as in an art gallery, is non-human and undisturbed by noise, either childish or adult. (Yes, I have nothing against babies in art galleries either.) There is no performance.

[Ellipsis]

So all the reviews that mention the performances given by actors and actresses are misguided - because there is no "performance"? Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes did not give a performance in Schindler's List? That doesn't make sense.

The cinema is an audio-visual experience. It's not the performers you need to be worried about, but the impact on their performance as perceived by the other cinemagoers. A performance only makes sense if there is somebody there to perceive it, i.e. it requires an audience too, and that audience needs to be respected in order for the quality of the performance to be fully appreciated.

If a baby cries or vomits at a particular point in Schindler's List, then you've missed that bit - and the rest of the film could be ruined, as it's a linear experience outside of your personal control. If a baby cries or vomits at a particular point in an art gallery, you can change your route and come back to that point later - you can choose to make it non-linear. That's quite different to the cinema.

Despite all of that, the reason this mother was ejected was not because she took her baby into the cinema, potentially ruining the performance for other patrons, but because she took her baby into a 15 film! If she'd gone to a PG or even a 12A, she would have been OK. But a 15 ... or an 18??? Rightly not OK.

[Gromit]

Jno,
The consideration must be to the fee paying audience not performers, live or taped. Somehow this woman got her baby into a the cinema unnoticed, but was asked to leave sometime during the performance. As the child was in a darkened room, it is fair to assume the the cinema company became aware of the fact either by the child (or parent) making a noise, or members of the public alerting staff. Either way, the enjoyment of the film was being spoiled by one inconsiderate person.

[naomi24]

...'Inconsiderate' being the operative word.

[ludwig]

I fa.rt really loudly in the cinema. I wouldn't do it in a theatre though, it'd be rude.

[emmie]

people are advised about noise from mobiles phones being used in cinemas and theatres, the last time i visited either.

[Kromovaracun]

"But the object viewed in a cinema, as in an art gallery, is non-human and undisturbed by noise, either childish or adult. "

The audience is, however, both of those things....

[ludwig]

Yeah. Bit weird to only consider the thing you're looking at to be of importance (whether it's a film, play, or artwork), and not that there might be other people around you that also matter.