|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 15, 2016 23:12:46 GMT
I've noticed that generally when people complain about distracting/bad behaviour, they'll move/upgrade the complainer and do nothing about the bad behaviour.
They're the first to jump if someone looks like they're recording a show, but during the interval, it seems they'd rather have no actual interaction with anyone who's not behaving well.
Maybe I'm just unlucky (See The Toilet Jinx), but it really annoys me that when I've seen and heard people complaining, it's they who have to move and not the ones doing the distracting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 5:45:29 GMT
I think it's that nobody wants the hassle of dealing with misbehavers: an "I'm not paid enough to do this" approach. It's self-defeating in the long run because nobody will change their behaviour if there's no penalty for being an inconsiderate oaf, but staff are thinking of the end of their shift rather than the evolution of audience conduct.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 16, 2016 6:04:23 GMT
It's really difficult. I have shushed and glared recently because maybe now I'm more aware.
The first example I remember was a couple who did not unlock lips until the interval, and the only ones to benefit from this were the ones who actually complained about it rather than everyone who was distracted by the visual and the noise. The usher was completely aware that they were right in front of us (as I heard the whole conversation) but did nothing.
Said usher, just didn't really seem to care as we moved ourselves in front of the tonsil twins, but if we'd said anything during the interval we'd have been upgraded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 6:47:33 GMT
Probably the only solution is for everybody who's been offended/affected by said bad behaviour to complain. If enough people do it, FOH will have to tackle the offender(s). After all, unless the auditorium is half empty, they can't move everyone! ;-)
|
|
204 posts
|
Post by Sue on Apr 16, 2016 7:44:56 GMT
At a show in Bristol, I had to complain in the interval about a woman that brought her very, very young babe in arms with her. The 1st act was spent listening to the baby gurgling, crying and generally making enough noise to distract those around it. I spent the interval in search of the Duty Manager, as most of the staff were tasked with selling this, that and the other but I eventually found the Deputy Manager and told him. He acknowledged that they should never have been allowed in. At the end of the interval I saw him talking to the woman and I didn't see them take their mid-row stalls seats for the 2nd act so assumed they'd been ejected from the theatre and I settled down to hear and enjoy the 2nd act.
So imagine my dismay when I soon heard a baby crying out and looked up to see the same woman and baby sitting IN THE BOX CLOSEST TO STAGE and slightly overhanging side stalls! So not only did the baby continue to disturb those of us in stalls but it also appeared at times to distract the professionals on stage. I mean, really???
I complained again by email when I got home and to its credit, the theatre's General Manager sent an apologetic and explanatory letter, which went some way to rectifying the matter but to conclude the matter, he also provided me with a generous ticket reduction too. It's just a shame that General Manager wasn't on duty at the time, as I strongly suspect he would have dealt with things very differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Apr 16, 2016 8:56:03 GMT
At a show in Bristol, I had to complain in the interval about a woman that brought her very, very young babe in arms with her. The 1st act was spent listening to the baby gurgling, crying and generally making enough noise to distract those around it. I spent the interval in search of the Duty Manager, as most of the staff were tasked with selling this, that and the other but I eventually found the Deputy Manager and told him. He acknowledged that they should never have been allowed in. At the end of the interval I saw him talking to the woman and I didn't see them take their mid-row stalls seats for the 2nd act so assumed they'd been ejected from the theatre and I settled down to hear and enjoy the 2nd act. So imagine my dismay when I soon heard a baby crying out and looked up to see the same woman and baby sitting IN THE BOX CLOSEST TO STAGE and slightly overhanging side stalls! So not only did the baby continue to disturb those of us in stalls but it also appeared at times to distract the professionals on stage. I mean, really??? I complained again by email when I got home and to its credit, the theatre's General Manager sent an apologetic and explanatory letter, which went some way to rectifying the matter but to conclude the matter, he also provided me with a generous ticket reduction too. It's just a shame that General Manager wasn't on duty at the time, as I strongly suspect he would have dealt with things very differently. Problem for the theatre is that if this got in the papers it would be as 'Woman with adorable, peaceful baby ejected from theatre after small-minded complaint". I know that's not what happened but if she was actually kicked out, that might well be the spin put on it. Just as bad behaviour by elderly people is often tolerated because nobody wants a headline about 'Former Spitfire pilot harassed by petty minded theatre manager'. It's not that easy for the theatre staff to know what to do for the best |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 9:28:37 GMT
Yes, it is difficult for staff, I appreciate. I always feel sorry for those poor souls who wind up in the Mail accused of throwing out parents whose kids are having tantrums, or telling breastfeeding mums to be more discreet. Nobody's interested in the other side of the story. And brands are so scared of bad press these days.
What we need is that chair Graham Norton has on his show. Possibly a whole section of them. Then FOH could move the troublemakers there and, at a suitably loud moment in the second act, activate the lever.
|
|
|
|
Post by profquatermass on Apr 16, 2016 9:49:11 GMT
And who defines bad behaviour? I think it was Ken Stott who got a bunch of kids thrown out for laughing in what he though were the wrong places in an Arthur Miller. But I read an account by someone sitting near them who said they weren't disturbing anyone and there were plenty of opportunities for an usher to have a word with them without the show needing to be stopped. And Stott is on record as saying he hates schools matinees (how luvvie-ish can you get to moan about the wrong sort of people buying tickets? But if behaviour disturbs the actors but not the audience, is that bad?
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Apr 16, 2016 17:16:54 GMT
Right; also when you have a theatre with extremely wide rows and no middle aisle, it's even MORE likely you'll do more harm than good if there isn't a suitable break.
|
|
4,819 posts
|
Post by Mark on Apr 16, 2016 17:25:24 GMT
Behaviour at the theatre in Sunderland is absolutely shocking. It is one of the reasons I've not booked to see Billy Elliot on tour (that and the prices are more than it was in the West End for comparable seats
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 16, 2016 17:26:28 GMT
I don't think anyone would want them to be removed or anything during the show (although I've seen them shine torches at people filming) unless the behaviour was really bad. In the Interval would be an ideal time to have a quiet word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 18:49:50 GMT
I don't think anyone would want them to be removed or anything during the show I would. I think we've mentioned before the possibility of a grab claw thing along the lines of the box of aliens in Toy Story. |
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Apr 16, 2016 18:54:47 GMT
I don't think anyone would want them to be removed or anything during the show I would. I think we've mentioned before the possibility of a grab claw thing along the lines of the box of aliens in Toy Story. Or a trap door? |
|
204 posts
|
Post by Sue on Apr 17, 2016 8:17:58 GMT
Maybe it's me but I really think they dropped the ball at the Bristol Hip during the interval that night.
Their rules are very clear - no children allowed under 4 or 5 years old (I forget now) and the baby was clearly under 4 or 5 years old. It had been causing a disturbance in the 1st act and as babies have no control over the noise they make, it would be completely reasonable to expect that the baby would continue to make noise in the 2nd act and therefore continue to disturb those around it.
So just because mum (selfishly and stupidly) chooses to bring her baby along, she gets to stay for the 2nd act and management at the Hip decides not to implement its own rules? And worse, its decision favours one person at the expense of many???
I'm with jeanhunt and d'James here - evict offenders in a suitably rude fashion! And that includes staff, as well as customers because in my situation, staff on the ground had the time and opportunity to resolve this during the interval but failed to do so.
|
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 17, 2016 8:27:40 GMT
Where there's a clear breach of a stated rule, like using phones or minimum ages then it's reasonable to demand that the theatre takes action. The problem is that a lot of the other stuff that goes on is much more subjective. Can we expect the theatre to ask people not to eat the very products they've sold them? No. Can we expect punters to sit in complete silence and not be allowed to talk to their companions at all? Not really. Is there a law against snogging in public? No (sadly!). So what bothers one person to the point of distraction might not have the same impact on another. That's where FOH are on dodgy ground and probably why they're reluctant to get involved. I suppose the counter-argument to our "bad behaviour" thread would be if you can't handle sitting with a diverse collection of other humans for a couple of hours, don't go to the theatre. Ill get my coat.....  |
|
204 posts
|
Post by Sue on Apr 17, 2016 8:33:43 GMT
Taxi!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 12:06:59 GMT
Like adrianics in another thread about bad behaviour, after the initial excitement of booking for a show, I spend a lot of time worrying if the audience on the night around me will behave themselves... This isn't right, is it?
Are the theatres scared of tackling bad behaviour? Yes, I think. Most of the time the "policing" in the auditorium is left to young ushers who simply don't look built to tackle situations ranging from mildly disruptive behaviour to drunken aggression. We've all tried the glare/polite request to refrain from whatever is causing upset and, no doubt, been on the receiving end of a range or responses. To find the House Manager at an appropriate time on the night is almost impossible. If the offender is reprimanded, you run the risk of getting a fist in your face as you make your way up the crowded aisle to leave, when he realises it was you who dobbed him in...
As parsley points out in another thread, theatres are struggling to get the numbers through the door (for whatever reason) so they are hardly going to discourage whoever they can tempt in by telling them off. Theatres never used to sell packets of sweets and allow drinks into the auditorium; now it is commonplace, presumably because more dosh can be made for the producers?/theatre owners? Theatre-going used to be considered "highbrow"; now it's equated with watching a bit of Saturday teatime TV. No doubt it seemed a very good idea a while back to encourage people who really shouldn't leave the comfort of their sofas to go to the featah for a good night out. Unfortunately for those of us who are up to speed with theatre etiquette, all sorts now are encouraged through the doors. Sorts who have no idea how to behave anywhere, let alone within the confines of a theatre auditorium. So really we have to put up or shut up, letting this new generation of "theatre-goers" dictate the standard of behaviour which is "acceptable".
Rant over.
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Apr 17, 2016 15:09:56 GMT
There's a balance that I think theatremakers (however you want to define that) are having between being welcoming and being an enforcer.
No one wants to be the person who sours someone on the theatregoing experience forever (potentially telling their friends that the theatre world is too uptight and/or not for them), but at the same time, no one wants to let one person ruin the experience for other people around them, either.
|
|
5,120 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 17, 2016 15:50:43 GMT
Bad theatre behaviour isn't just exclusively for the touristy shows such as Mamma Mia or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory etc, nor is it governed by age, I have seen equally bad behaviour at somewhere like the National, which some might say maybe 'your older highbrow more considered' audience, who still think it is acceptable to talk ant put their dirty feet on seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Apr 17, 2016 16:17:18 GMT
Home media’s become so good that I think the great outdoors has to make a much stronger case to tempt people away. If at home you can watch or binge on Breaking Bad and have all the food/drink/talking/texting/other unseemly actions people do at home, why can’t I go to the cinema and have all the food/drink/talking/texting/other unseemly actions I have at home? Thus I’ve been to the cinema where people eat a three course meal or text throughout or shag (and sadly I wish I was exaggerating), and the theatre where it's basically that bad. I also think thickos think that because Netflix allows you to enjoy finely honed art by great creatives entirely on your basis entirely on whatever cruddy device you fancy, all art is like that – so because I can watch 12 Years a Slave on my phone on the tube and play Angry Birds during the bits I don’t fancy focusing on, so too at the cinema and the theatre can I play on my phone and ignore the movie in front of me.
I like to think that's the thick minority, but because it's the noisy minority people confuse it for the majority, and are over-catering for the wrong audience. People who text, over-eat, dance etc SHOULD be kicked out - not only would those of us on here be happier, but so would an entire auditorium. One bad expensive experience will put paying punters off for life. But people behind cinemas and theatres are getting it wrong and catering for the wrong people, assuming that what people enjoy at home (i.e. doing what you like and the art coming second) is what you want at the theatre. This affects the wrong people. I read on Twitter that someone walked out of Dr Faustus not because it's sh*t (it is, angry hate-filled write-up in progress) but because thick people nearby were making too many Game of Thrones jokes throughout. These are the people I would have shot banned - it's a shame one well behaved, well intentioned person missed the show (it's a shame they saw any of this bollocks in the first place) because other poorly behaved, poorly intentioned people were idiots. THey should have been reprimanded, and possibly kicked out. We should have stricter bans on people who behave like this, not half-arsed peace offerings. That cinema chain in America is allowing phones. Big mistake. Letting inmates run asylum, that is. Ban them instead. Ban them to hell.
One of my least favourite moments of theatre of last year was when Roger Allam had that speech about why it’s worthwhile paying extortionate fees for great art in Sir David Hare's The Moderate Soprano, but I begrudgingly admit there’s a point to that champagne socialist's plea for more champagne. Whoever it was at the ROH made the point a few years ago that casual evenings at the opera aren’t what people want, and one thing people do like about opera is the ‘event’ of it – the dressing up, the fanciness and foppery, the glamour of it all. You look at something like Secret Cinema – I went to one and found it overpriced hipster noodling to the worst degree, but there was something mildly liberating about knowing that everyone was giving away their phones, taking on a persona and throwing every bit of themselves into, in the end, seeing a movie.
So I think theatres ought to really up the live action immersiveness of it all, even though it’s hard to justify sitting in a comfy seat and watching Sophie Melville go through awful(ly written) poverty-related horrors or Wallace Shawn bang on about stuff that’s bothering him in government. I think the Globe is the best place for this, its grubby pit and sh*tty sightlines part of its charm, requiring us as an audience to pretend and invest far more than normal. Simon Evans is doing that with starry uncomfortable stuff at Found111 which really requires full commitment (and also, in such a small pit, means bad behavers can't hide). Dan Radcliffe and James Graham and Josie Rourke on Broadway, as they did at the Donmar, will encourage a new type of behaviour. The right kind of fringe theatre encourages involvement in the risks they’re taking. Actually, for all that people are snobby about celeb casting, I find that people who go for a Cumberbatch or a McAvoy or a Hiddleston are so intent to enjoy themselves they forego any potential distractions and behave themselves far better than the blue rinse brigade ticking off another Shakespeare before they shuffle off the mortal coil themselves. And dare I say, the bad behaviour at jukebox musicals or feel-good pieces or some comedies (and dare I say some eejits at local theatres, where travel and other expenses aren't an issue) comes from people thinking their hard-earned money earns them the right to 'enjoy' it at everyone else's expense, though hopefully that's a minority of idiots.
So I just think theatres ought to have more than ‘turn off your phone’ warnings, but encouragements that this is a place that only works when you do put your outside life outside and give all to the inside – a good prologue, doing up the box offices, actual encouragement. I actually think people would prefer that to just being told off. It shouldn’t be enforcement, it should be encouragement, and I actually think more people would want to go to the theatre for themselves becoming part of the theatrics. You do that and the bad behaviour will go down.
And if it doesn't, a knitting needle to the jugular does the trick. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 16:17:33 GMT
There's a balance that I think theatremakers (however you want to define that) are having between being welcoming and being an enforcer. No one wants to be the person who sours someone on the theatregoing experience forever (potentially telling their friends that the theatre world is too uptight and/or not for them), but at the same time, no one wants to let one person ruin the experience for other people around them, either. Yes, this. Speaking for myself, I'm extremely zen about school groups or children asking their parents questions, because I don't want them to associate theatre with unfriendly gatekeepers. I'm MUCH less sympathetic when elderly people are disruptive though, 'cos they should REALLY know better by their age. |
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Apr 18, 2016 1:04:47 GMT
I was once in front of a little girl at Phantom, and I was wary at first, but her gasps and very occasional vocal outbursts ("Mommy, he's up there!") were so delightful that I didn't have the heart to do anything -- that she wasn't doing it throughout was a plus, but she was having the greatest time at minimal expense of her neighbors, so I didn't say a thing. I bet that show made her night.
I agree about school groups, too -- they at least don't tend to demonstrate the entitlement of what I've seen out of longtime subscribers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2016 8:36:28 GMT
It's a difficult balance to strike. As an usher I was always told to take the action that causes the least disruption-so sometimes moving the person who is unhappy if there's just one or two is easier than getting into a dispute with the disruptive party. However if one person is clearly disrupting a lot of people, then you deal with them.
And if there is a clear rule being broken eg cameras etc then you are told to hop on it. But in an big auditorium it's hard to keep on top of, and if someone doesn't want to listen they don't want to listen.
As ushers as well our 'intervention' is limited without request from the audience, so while someone talking is disruptive it's not really 'official intervention' disruptive. The exception being kid's shows where there was always a bit of an unoffical rule of 'do your best to keep the little monsters in line, particularly if Mummy is more interested in texting than watching her precious offspring'
That said I've always been pretty laid back about kids at the theatre, I'd rather they ask questions/audibly engage than be made to sit on their hands and hate the experience forever! Also let's face it sometimes they're pretty funny too.
|
|
4,164 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 18, 2016 12:48:23 GMT
I've had far more problems with adults at the theatre than kids. At least the latter don't generally get pissed before a show.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Apr 18, 2016 13:59:23 GMT
I've been at a production where there was a far too young child there and the excuse the parents gave was they bought the tickets through travelzoo which didn't mention the minimum age requirement.
I'd love theatres to do more relaxed, parent and baby, phones allowed, noisy eater, nights so we could all avoid them and those that think bad behaviour should be allowed can enjoy themselves.
If the theatres cared they'd go back to selling boxes of chocs and not noisy packets, they'd not sell shake-able tubs of crisps and nuts and not put clanky ice in drinks.
|
|
