
Dante appropriated the third circle of Hell for this dillweed
As an avid moviegoer, I have been increasingly distressed over the last decade over how much louder and more obnoxious moviegoing audiences have become. It seems impossible nowadays to go into a theater without loud teenagers joking through a movie, people nearby chattering to themselves about nothing while a movie happens to be playing in front of them, or people answering calls, sending texts, and playing games on their cellphones while I am trying to be a considerate member of the audience by remaining quiet.
For example, I remember going to see the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre back in 2003 with friends. Behind us was a couple of twenty-something girls who decided they had to talk, gossip, and offer commentary throughout the film. When not discussing boyfriends and work, they were shouting clichés like, "Oh no, don't you go in there, sister," during climactic moments in the narrative (they clearly found these clichés insanely witty and amusing). My friend repeatedly had to turn around and politely ask these two to be quiet. After several such polite requests, my friend got flustered, stood up, and shouted "Shut the fuck up," after which the pair remained silent. When the movie was over, an older woman came up to my friend with a diminutive companion and informed my friend that she was offended that he would use such language in front of her five-year-old grandchild. Remember, we were at a showing of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Clearly, somewhere along the way, priorities have gotten confused.

Yep, it's totally appropriate for little children, as long as nobody in the audience says a naughty word
And the last thing I want to do now, as a new parent, is to confuse my priorities. This is why my wife and I decided, not long before our little Tommy was born, that we would not be the kinds of parents who would drag a screaming baby into a movie theater to satiate our own selfish desire to see a movie. That was just over six months ago, and did not take into account the release of the sixth Harry Potter film.
I definitely had reservations about taking a six-month-old to see a movie, but my wife and I took several measures to offset our annoyance footprint. First, we went to an early afternoon showing on a Saturday, which meant that Tommy would not be the only one in the audience too young to walk out. Second, we agreed to take fifteen-minute shifts should Tommy act out, during which we would be completely outside the theater. Third, we sat in the seats closest to the exit. And fourth, we actually saw the movie the night before without Tommy, so we wouldn't miss anything.
I know what you're thinking. If we were able to see the movie without him the night before, why did we have to go again the next day? But I remind you this is Harry Potter we're talking about. We are, sufficed to say, big fans, and this installment is, in our opinion, better than the last.
I'm happy to report that it went very well. Tommy is an impossibly well-behaved baby, and he only had to be whisked out of the theater twice. During most of the movie, he either slept or watched intently along with everybody else, making narry a sound to be heard by neighboring moviegoers. Indeed, compared to other babies, children, and some adults in the audience, Tommy was a picture of calm silence.

Tommy is a happy, well-behaved baby; you know you love him
So this raises the question: are parents within their rights to take a baby or small child to a movie theater, or were my wife and I being terribly selfish and impolite?
I think the answer has its grey areas. If Tommy were a more ill-behaved and loud baby, perhaps one of us should have stayed home to babysit the kid. If we were unwilling to take the precautions we took--like going to a very early showing--perhaps we shouldn't have gone at all. It all goes back to how considerate you are, as parents, because we all know how irritating inconsiderate parents can be.
I don't want to sound like a nag, a nanny, or a crotchety old man, but it is my strong opinion that our culture has gotten far too obnoxious. Few of us teach good manners anymore, and it shows in day to day life. I'm not talking about stupid rules of etiquette, like which fork you should use for your salad, whether you should put your elbows on the table, or whether it's okay to say bad words in front of old people. No, I'm talking about simple politeness and consideration for those around you.

Please, don't let this be your child
We live in a society that would rather make smoking cigarettes illegal in public, for example, than politely ask people to put their cigarettes out. Of course, with the stunning lack of consideration some of us show, asking politely doesn't always work. Sometimes we have to shout obscenities, and then we risk exposing children to foul language during a gore-soaked R-rated slasher flick.
These are the kinds of issues that have become important to me as a new parent, because I hope to raise my kid to be kind, courteous, and cheerful. I don't want all that to be undone by a society that farts in the face of good behavior, but at the same time, I don't want to be a killjoy. How does one do that?
In the end, all I'll say is this: if we must pass laws to regulate good behavior, we should consider making it a capital offense to be loud and obnoxious in a movie theater. I'd even be in favor of the death penalty for repeat offenders. That's why it's good to start training my son early, like all parents should, so he knows how to shut the fuck up during a movie.


Salon.com
Comments
But in answer to your question, my opinion is that 6 months is too young. I'd say about 2 is minimum but that's just this old fart's opinion. And my opinion and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee at any Denny's.
Rated
Once when I to an early showing (like 5 o'clock) on the opening night of a Disney movie (I think it was Beauty and the Beast). There were TONS of little kids there. And so, i wasn't surprised when some of them (we're talking 3,4,5 year olds) talked and cried during the movie. What was strange though was that many people in the crowd were clearly getting bent out of shape by it.
I thought those people were a bit out of line expecting a 5 o'clock showing of a rated G movie to be completely devoid of kid sounds. Finally a couple who had one of the offending toddlers got tired of being hassled and so they got up in the middle of the movie and walked out with their kid - but as they were leaving the man shouted something like "Fine, but I'm gonna come back here with a gun and blow y'all away!"
Needless to say, this cast a bit of a pall on the rest of the movie and I found it hard to enjoy the movie while simultaneously imagining the possible headlines in the next mornings' paper.
With those booths long gone, I'd have to say it's a bad idea to take a kid under three or four to most movies. You just can't count on them remaining quiet that long.
Phaedo- Interesting. In many respects, I can understand that attitude.
bluesurly- Yeah, I agree. Parents who let their kid scream without rushing them out are as annoying as the cellphones, but parents who are quick to remove the offending child are easily forgiven. Those cellphone people, though, need to go away. They've gotta have the technology to jam them or shut them off or something.
james poyner- Man, I really wish those crying rooms were still around. But for the most part, I agree that taking a kid to the movie theater is not a good idea. Still, audiences shouldn't expect a baby-free early showing. And for G-rated movies, well, there are going to be screaming kids no matter what.
Of course, far more irritating are the insufferable parents who think that sweet little Emily will JUST LOVE the ART MUSEUM at three, while she runs around and is obviously bored and acting out. Or the couple who bring little Avery to the expensive, grown-up restaurant and proceed to let him act like a wild animal.
Please. Keep them at home. They're not civilized yet. And it's too much to ask of them at that age - when they're older, more reasonable, and interested in things beyond the narrow range of toddler interests, then they can handle it. Maybe!
I can recall few fonder memories from my childhood than the Drive In Movies with Mom&Dad....
My big argument is with the US rating system that says younger people can be in certain movies at all. Why the hell have the primary "grown-up" category of movie rating accessible to any 14 year old with parents inconsiderate enough to bring them to the theater? I'm not counting NC-17 movies since they are rarely produced. 14 to 15 year old kids are far more intrusive than the occasional tiny kid. They should not be in the theater where I am trying to enjoy some adult fare such as a serious drama.
And while I am ranting, may I reserve a circle of Hell for movie companies and producers who dumb down and edit movies to ensure a PG-13 rating, so the audience will be bigger. I think it started with "Jaws" and continued through movies like "Jurassic Park". If either of those (especially the latter) had stuck to the book, the movie would have been far more horrific, and I wouldn't have had to struggle to hear it over the horde of 8 year olds in the surrounding seats.
I don't know. I wouldn't be thrilled to see a baby come in the theater if I had just paid for a ticket and a babysitter for my child at home. But, if you really did take him out when he fussed, I guess that's better. I'm more concerned about your baby's hearing and how loud movies are now. Did you protect his ears for the really loud parts?
The worst was the guy, silent up to that point, who sat up a little straighter in his seat as Heath Ledger grabbed Jake Gyllenhaal in the tent, and blurted "Oh, here we go!" No-one could watch the scene for giggling.
And I have to say that I am always a bit annoyed when people bring their infants with them to the movies or a restaurant that isn't a "family" restaurant. I'm a curmudgeon that way.
wakingupslowly- Yes, I did cover his ears during the loud parts. That was a concern of mine going into it, but luckily our theater wasn't as loud as some others I've been to in recent memory.
iamsurly- I actually agree. I appreciate that there are places where kids shouldn't go, and parents who try to drag their kids to these places are inconsiderate pieces of crap. If the theater were 21 or up, there's no way I'd ever take my kid there, and I also never take my kid to any restaurant that isn't specifically labelled a family one. Just because I have a child doesn't make me forget how annoying other people's kids can be.
One of the Scary Movie series opened and Jada Pinkett Smith is the first one killed.
Immediately following her screen demise, the people took to the streets. Hundreds of them.
They looted the Supermarket in protest. They threw everything in the mini-mart across the street from my store out into the parking lot.
I locked the doors to my store and called the police.
I would not subject my 6 month old to this, nor would I subject us to a theater full infants. Of course the answer to your question about selfishness is self-evident. Not being mean, just giving my answer to your question.
Many people find their offspring to be perfect. This is not the case. Just as adults feel their behavior is beyond reproach.
Rudeness begets rudeness. When someone or their children are disturbing the majority, the person that asks them to be quiet or control their children becomes the focus of their "how dare you tell me I don't know how to behave" bullshit.
When the evidence clearly shows many people do not know how to behave or raise children.
One of the biggest surprises of my movie going experience life was the time that the Ladies and I went out to a late night showing early in the run of one of the HP movies. I think it was the second one.
We walked into the theater thirty minutes before the show was to start and the theater was almost completely full of eight to fourteen year-olds. For every adult there were at least three youngsters.
We almost walked out, but the desire to see the movie made us chance it.
That audience turned out to be one of the quietest and most respectful since I went to see The Ring Cycle at the Met. Not only were there no cell phones, no talking, no disruption; there was no rattling of popcorn or slurping of sodas.
The audience did laugh and cheer and cry out in mob reaction to the scenes, but this is part of the experience.
When the lights came up, we thanked every young person and adult around us for a great experience. It was simply amazing. Thank you for bringing that moment back to my mind.
icemilkcoffee- I took him because I couldn't find a babysitter. If he were old enough to be scared by the movie, I wouldn't take him. And the "shut the fuck up" incident happened during the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, a movie no kid has any business in (and which contains several instances of shouted obscenities). If somebody shouted such things during a more kid-friendly flick, I would be offended.
When Zara was an infant, there were places we could/would take her and there were places we could/would not. It doesn't matter what an angel she was/is. The what ifs and the potential disruptions to other patrons were/are too great for us to gamble like that. As someone else mentioned, sure, your getting up twice might not seem like much of a disturbance to you, but to an adult hoping to see a movie without any disturbances (I know, there is always hope for such a miracle in a public theater) your 2 disruptions were two too many.
I know that many parents feel that their child is different, the exception, the one that social rules should be broken for, but I disagree. As I have said here on OS before, just because I think sunshine spills out of my kid's ass doesn't mean that everyone else in the world does too. As such, I did not chance ruining events like movies, dinners in tony restaurants, and other such activities for other paying patrons by deciding to bring along my infant. Sure it may be cool for me, but the universe doesn't end at the tip of my nose.
My kidlet is 2 years 2 months old. My husband and I have seen exactly two movies in the theater since she was born. That's just life in the fast lane. Both of us have been aching to see Star Trek, but until we find a babysitter, it just isn't going to happen, because I'm not going to be *that parent* with *that kid* who ruins the showing for everyone else.
So my opinion is: find a babysitter or get real comfortable with Netflix. But considering how little most moviegoers today even consider the feelings of others, I probably sound like a complete dinosaur. Ah well.
Since you had already watched the film with your wife, I can only guess that you thought you were somehow doing something beneficial or "fun" for your infant son. However, I would argue that televison, much less the far more overwhelming amount of visual and auditory stimulation an infant would be exposed to in a movie theater is not at all good for them.
Simply put, our brains, and especially infant brains are not well wired for this stimulation--if your son hadn't already watched television, I would say congratulations, you have now established the one neural pathway designed to take in all sensory stimulation to be derived from movies & television, the one he will use for the rest of his life.
Mind you, I'm not opposed to children watching television, movies, playing with computers, etc. but I think the timing is everything. At 6 months baby's time can better be spent in other sensory foundation activities which will create the literal backbone for all learning to come.
Rolling over, crawling, scooting, cruising, being held in arms, watching family members, all these things build the neural pathways in the brain that later translate into the ease with which our children learn things like math, languages, etc.
That aside--the other thing I find suprising is the choice of film. I work in the software industry, and as a regular consumer of and participant in geek culture, one thing most of us agree in this: the Harry Potter movies are not for children. They are far better suited for young teens.
Two loud ass disruptions don't make a right. It is great that you took so many precautions, but a kid starting to have a crying fit in a theater and being whisked away is still a disruption to other viewers. In fact under your death penalty rule for repeat offenders, your kid might be facing the electric chair soon. And, the poor behavior of other patrons does not make an excuse for you to create your own.
Considerations like this are ones that my husband and I have undertaken in our choice not to have children. I feel like I hear parental fit these days, people on soapboxes saying - just because I have a child does not mean my life should end. True, but it does mean some serious adjustments and sacrifices for a number of years, such as getting a babysitter, trading childcare with friends, or waiting till a flick comes out on dvd. These kinds of choices might even instill in your kid the reality that the world comes with compromises and sacrifices.
As for the smoking thing. I'm a cancer patient. To me it is not a matter of politeness, it is about not being able to breathe because of my tattered immune system. I live in Chicago where we were slow to pass a smoking ban. Before we were smoke free I remember many times asking people nicely to please not smoke and getting a horrible mouthful of complaints. Once when I retorted that I had cancer, someone called me a bitch and told me to fuck off. Yeah, we need ms. manners badly these days.
In the long run, hope you enjoyed the movie.
They're probably not talking and texting for the cultural experience though--they just want to impose themselves on everybody else =P
1. The two times we had to wisk Tommy out of the theater were not disruptions! He had to have a diaper change and he had to be fed. In neither case did he scream out and annoy the audience.
2. Yes, Harry Potter is not for kids. I'm not crazy enough to think my 6-month-old can comprehend what's going on on the screen.
3. I do think teaching a child how to behave is something that needs to start as early as possible, just like swimming. Yes, I am read up on developmental psychology and I know what they say about brain development in infants. No, that doesn't change my mind.
4. You don't know my kid. I know parents tend to exaggerate their children's positive qualities, but seriously, Tommy is an incredibly quiet and well-behaved baby. Few people in the theater even knew he was there.
To everybody else, thank you for your kind words and thoughts.
It's amazing that, after posts about politics, science, race relations, and IQ, this is the post that illicits the most angry comments.
http://www.cineplex.com/Theatres/StarsAndStrollers.aspx
http://www.moviesformommies.com/MFM_en/Home.html
Whisking a kid out of a movie theater twice is a disruption to the people sitting around you. Just because other people are disruptive as well doesn't mean that you didn't also cause a disruption.
I'll be staying home with Netflix because it's just too damn aggravating to go to a movie theater.
Regardless of where you sit in the theater, I would be upset seeing you bring a young baby into the theater. With the largest speaker being right behind the screen I would find it disheartening to see that you sat so close to it, with infant ears propped on your lap.
He may be a good baby and you may not agree with me on this, but I feel you and your wife were completely selfish. I hope in you writing this story you think twice of your actions with your baby before putting your own wants first.
Unfortunately, this is where a lot of these discussions end up.
Look, you posted this story. I don't think anyone has said that the existence of your child causes them problems, and no one has suggested that you lock him in a cage for 21 years. (This is what is known as hyperbole on your part.)
You want to know where to draw the line? I think one place to start is not taking an infant to a movie theater.
Sir, you asked these people if you were being selfish for bringing your baby to the movie, yet you obviously cannot handle the overwhelming deduction that YES, you were being selfish. Many valid points have been brought up. You say you won't pretend to say your baby is perfect and quiet at all times, yet when someone challenges your baby to sit still and queit for the duration of a film not intended for his ears and mind, you become defensive and irate. So which is it?
You asked a question and are getting honest, truthful answers. You were being selfish and now you are trying to justify that selfishness. Unfortunately it won't work here.
I believe the reason this post is garnering so much attention over political posts and important worldly posts is because it is smacked on the front page, asking the very question that is inciting so much hostility. Not the peoples' fault for answering.
You took a six month old to Harry Potter on opening weekend a day after having already seen the movie?
Sigh.
I don't know which is worse: the fact that you are so obsessed with Harry Potter that you paid twice to see a Potter movie in the theaters, or that when faced with whether to see the movie or hang out at home with your infant, you chose to force a six-month old to sit in a dark room teeming with smelly teens and weird old people who can't come to grips with the fact they aren't wizards.
"That's why it's good to start training my son early, like all parents should, so he knows how to shut the fuck up during a movie."
I can tell you from personal experience that six month olds aren't very good at learning things like that. That said, I am impressed by the straighfaced attempt to rationalize such a silly decision. I certainly couldn't pull it off.
I love babies, but I don't love listening to them cry.
I wanted some movie magic and I didn't get it. I did complain and get a free movie ticket but I would have preferred to have my two hours back.
I'm a Mom, too. I spent a lot of time NOT going to movies because I didn't have or couldn't afford a sitter. Back in the day I didn't even have a VCR and there was no Netflix.
I wish theaters had times when all the babies could go with their parents, then you could all take that risk together. Until then, yeah, it's up to you whether or not you bring your baby to the movies, but as someone who might be sitting near you who also has precious time and spent $9, I prefer you don't. If you're baby cries more than once, don't be surprised to hear me politely ask you to "take the baby outside." But, really, by then it will be too late...I'll be out of the story and mad at you and mad at myself for letting it bother me.
But I don't understand how my child is a distraction no matter what. How is taking him quietly out of the theater (from the seat closest to the exit) any different than the guy next to you having to leave to go to the bathroom?
I can accept that taking Tommy to the movies wasn't the best idea in the world, but I can't accept being hated for making the decision. I tried very hard to be accomodating and polite, but many of you call me selfish. Terribly selfish would be going to a later showing, not sitting near the exit, and letting the kid scream and cry. Maybe I'm not the only selfish poster here.
Yep, that's exactly where these type of discussions end up.
You ask a question. You get answers that disagree with your decision. No one is angry. People are only providing feedback to your query.
Yet you end up defensive, lashing out and going to the extreme in your comments. The moral here is if you don't want to hear all the answers, don't ask the question.
You, like many parents are exceptionalizing your kid. He's different. We're different. This is why it should be OK. Again, I chose not to do that when Zara was an infant. It smack too much of weighing my wants over respect for others.
You asked for feedback, and you received it.
I think you are looking for points for having tried to take steps to avoid bothering others. OK, that was great. You tried. That was better than many people even do. However, as people are expressing, the better thing to do would have been to wait until you could have found a sitter rather than bringing the baby.
Did you realize that many ADD affected people like me get lost when ANYONE gets up? Distractions are distractions. Period. So that's why I try to minimize them for others.
But there's no hate here that I can see.
But the truth is yes, of course it's selfish to take a baby to the movies. But at the same time, I believe I took many steps to be considerate and polite--steps most people don't take.
And I do believe that teaching good manners
in public can start at such a young age. They say in order to best teach your kid to swim, you start acclimating him or her to the water
in the first couple of months. I fail to see how this is any different, from a learning standpoint.
Here's two differences:
(1) Unlike with swimming, I haven't heard or read of a single study that suggests acclimating your child to a movie theater by taking them to adult-themed movies to teach good movie going manners at six months old.
(2) You can acclimate kids to swimming over time. First you dip your toes, then your legs, then mom or dad takes you out for a paddle, and so forth. You can't acclimate a child to a theater. Taking your six month old to a theater to teach him theater manners is akin to teaching your six month old to swim by tossing him into the deep end of the pool. In other words, you can't dip your toes into the theater.
Let's not forget that a six month old isn't accustomed to loud sounds, bright lights, etc. I can't imagine the sensory overload that occurs in the mind of a six month old when the Dolby Surround Sound hits his little eardrums as bright light flashes dramatically across that silver screen.
Geez, he's just a baby.
If your 6 month old had to be taken out twice in less than two hours, his presence detracted from the moviegoing experience of others in the theater. Your kid may be well-behaved *for a 6 month old* but it is unrealistic to think a 6 month old (or a 2 year old or a 5 year old) can go to a full-length film aimed at teens and adults without acting disruptive at some point.
Leave your kid with a sitter, please, unless you are going to a movie that is age-appropriate for him.