Charlie and the Broken Social Contract

walking out of the theater and getting someone who works there would work just the same. its stupid behavior on both parts in my opinion.

"Social Contract"? An Interesting way of putting it.

Nothing against little kids, but That guy should have simply taken the child outside. Parents are responsible for their kids and if the child interferes with the other moviegoers, the parents should set an example and just leave with the kid.

My question is: Where were the ushers?

This happened to me at the Fast & the Furious a couple of years back.

I went to the Loews E-walk to see it. Got a seat in the middle, and the movie had just started up. A woman comes down the aisle from outside and starts yelling "Tanisha! Where are you? Taniiiiisha!!!" People shush her but she kept on yelling. Somehow she found where the lights to the theater were over by the entrance and TURNED ON the lights in the theater to find her damn friend Tanisha. Everyone started yelling at her and she turned them back off.

Same movie, 30 minutes later. A guy gets a call on his cell, and answers it. He's talking loudly on the cell and describing what's happening to whoever was on the other end. Meanwhile his girlfriends spends the next five minutes telling him loudly to hang up, and other people start yelling too.

Guess that's what I got for seeing something as lame as "Fast and the Furious" in the theater!

Your story is exactly why movie theatre receipts are down and DVD sales/rentals are up. In my mind, it is well worth my investment in a nice TV screen and a Netflix subscription in order to see a movie when I want, avoid the lengthy (and loud) commercials, pause to go to the bathroom, and not have to listen to anyone talk through the movie.

DVD's are being released sooner than ever precisely because of this, and any studio will tell you that most movies rely on DVD sales as much, if not more, than box office profit.

It's only a matter of time before someone is innovative enough to create smaller, more intimate theatres where the floors aren't sticky, you don't have to pay extra to reserve a seat in the middle, and the movie times are every 20 minutes. Until then, it'll take a special movie to get me off the couch.

Until people start demanding their money back from theaters that allow obnoxious behavior to persist during screenings, there is no incentive for venues to police the behavior of selfish a**hole patrons. I guarantee that if people start asking for their money back following a movie because other moviegoers were disruptive, theaters will quickly institute zero-tolerance policies and eject unruly customers or their screeching children. Unfortunately, implicit social rules of decent conduct and respect for fellow moviegoers is no longer enough to deter people from behaving like total uncivilized boors. It's now going to require the potential loss of profits by theaters for us to see any improvement. Ironically, this will save theaters money in the long run when attendance rebounds after people realize their moviegoing experience will not be ruined by morons. Everone repeat after me: "I want my money back."

My favorite talky movie story: boyfriend and I went to see child-friendly movie in small theater. Only about a dozen people total in the theater due to the fact that we are lame and see movies well past their initial release date. Man four rows in front of us has small cute boy with him. Man proceeds to pull out a fucking ciggie and smoke in the theater (who the hell thinks he can smoke in a movie theater these days??). Man then pulls out cell phone and starts barking orders to whoever is on the other end of the call. I mean he's so loud he's blocking out key cartoon dialogue from the movie. I feel terrible for small boy who is trying to enjoy movie next to evil (possibly coked out) man, who may sadly be his father. Being the bitch that I am, I go get the manager of the theater and tell him there's someone smoking/shouting during the movie, and return to my seat. Manager comes into theater and tells terrible patron that he cannot smoke and he cannot use his cell phone during the movie. Man obeys manager.

The kicker is that the manager sweeps the small theater with his flashlight, spots me, and proceeds to come over to me and thank me in a loud voice, instructing me to let him know if the man bothers us again. My cover blown, I shrink down a little lower in my seat, hoping talking/smoking man doesn't wang me in the head with his cell phone. I make it out of cartoon movie injury-free, but wary of calling management on someone's talky ass next time.

How can I be held liable for a "social contract" if I never signed it?

Well, say the social-contractarians, your consent is implied.
(More on implied consent below.)

But, say I, a contract has specified responsibilities for both parties, and breach of contract by either party is understood to release the other party from all contractual obligations.

Well, er, um, it's not that sort of contract ...

Then why do we let them get away with calling it a contract at all?

OK, finally: implied consent. I'm fine with the idea of implied consent in civil society. If the host says, "I'm ordering pizza -- is everyone OK with anchovies?" I don't have to explicitly say "Yes" outloud to give my consent. My consent to anchovies is implied by the absence of my dissent.

If I lend you my lawnmower and then complain when you use it to mow your lawn ("I never said you could use it -- I only said you could borrow it!") I'd be taken for crazy. In a culture where borrowing implies using, consent to borrow implies consent to use. And if you ask to borrow my mower and I say that I'd like it back hosed off and refueled, you don't have to explicitly agree to that condition to be responsible for it. Borrowing the mower when you know my conditions implies your consent to those conditions.

But notice that in all of these cases, there's a way to withdraw consent. In fact, the very existence of consent depends on the possibility of its absence!

I could speak up about anchovies and you could decline to borrow the mower if you don't feel like hosing it off or putting gas in it when you're done.

Where's the withdrawal-of-consent option in the case of statutory law?

To give an example, my buying a gun in New York does not imply my consent to New York State's authority concerning gun laws.

Well, says the statist, you have the option not to buy the gun.
Yes, but that too would be implying consent to the State's authority.

But, he says, you don't have to live in New York -- you could always move to some place that doesn't require gun registration.
But leaving New York for that reason still implies consent to the State's authority -- or else why would I be moving somewhere else in the first place?

My question is this: how do I withdraw my consent to the State's authority? If I can't do so, then you can't call it consent.

In fact the only possible way for me to explicitly challenge the State's authority on the issue is not to leave quietly, but to stay put and explicitly oppose its edicts in word or deed. The conclusion is the exact opposite of the one implied by the advocates of implied-consent theory.

Does this mean I can do whatever I want, anywhere I want, so long as I've never implied consent to behave otherwise?

No, of course not. It only means that whatever restrictions there are on my behavior will have to be accounted for by means other than an appeal to implied consent. I believe in natural rights to person and property. We can argue about those things some other time.

What social contracts, implied consent, legal positivism (and probably most other statist positions) are masking is the statists' real core belief: eminent domain -- the State owns everything.

When Samuelson asserts that economic regulations are like traffic regulations, he wants us to assume that the State owns the economy in the same way that most people accept state ownership of "public" roads. (But even if you believe that the State can legitimately own a specific strip of territory, how can you compare such territorial ownership to an abstraction like the economy? The economy is nothing more than the name we give to the aggregate phenomena of individual exchanges. When two people want to exchange something, the something can be owned, but the exchange itself cannot be.)

In essence, all these supposed arguments for the State's legitimacy are based on the presupposition of the State's legitimacy. Assuming your conclusion is about as fallacious as it gets.

The state's legitimacy is exactly what's in contention. I argue against. If you want to argue for, then you'll have to appeal to something other than the very thing we're disagreeing over.

Social contracts and implied consent don't cut it.

If I ever signed the social contract then the State broke its side of the deal repeatedly, and I am therefore no longer bound by it. But no, of course I never signed it. I never gave explicit consent. I never implied consent. And if I was ever taken to have done any of those things, I hereby officially withdraw my consent.

Dave H.- I agree as long as you are also advocating that people tell management there's a problem (see the post by "Me"). Otherwise, it sounds like those people who eat an entire sandwich and then say, "I want a refund; I said no mayo." That subgroup is also made up of a$$holes.

I've only ever had this problem once, when I went to a theater uptown near my apartment. I think a lot of it have to do with *what* theaters you go to. My friends are convinced that that Clearview on 23rd & 8th is a "problem theater." Hence, we never go there.

That's why you download movies.

I don't think screenings of willy wonka are equivalent to the state either. I think tealdaam should keep the noise down during the screening.

This one of the reasons why I hate going to the movies. People have no common sense when it comes to how to behave.

My most irritating experience was seeing lost in translation. I am sitting watching the scene where something is being translated to Bill Murray and we know what is being said because of the subtitles and this Japanese woman is whispering rather loudly to her gaijin boyfriend who is whispering back to him. It s like she is translating to him. I mean for f**k's sake people there are subtitles. I am getting really irriated by this geisha and I turn and whisper loudly could you please be quiet? They shut up and were embarassed but then a couple of minutes later they started up again.

To all of you people with kids. Do not take them to the movies. Splurge on a babysitter or stay home. You gave up yor rights to live like single people when you got married and had kids and it is time to adapt. I am not unsympathetic to your plight but that is your responsibility not mine.

Word, propertygrunt. I developed that philosophy after I saw a woman bring a crying baby (year old, maybe) to Kill Bill 2. If you can't afford a babysitter, you wait for the DVD. If you resent having your life restricted, well, why did you have a kid?

As long as annoying behavior is legal, people are going to engage in it because they feel that it is their right to yell on cell phones, use walkie talkies, snap their gum, let their kids run wild, and anything else that bothers you.

It bothers me, all right, but you know what? There are more people who have NO problems with this stuff then there are people who do.

When presented with annoyances, I change LIRR or subway cars. I've learned to go to movies at off hours when the crowds are thinner.

We had better get used to it. We have produced convenient machines that make a lot of noise, and we now have a society that tolerates annoyances more than it used to. It pains me to say it but we'll have to put up with people who have no trifles about how much noise they make or how annoyingly they behave. Either adapt, or stay home.

www.forgotten-ny.com

DO WHAT I DO. Stab the bitch. Run up to the loud talking bitch from behind like a ninja and shank her/him with a 6 inch serrated blade. Works every Time!

Incidents like these seldom occur at the Metro Theater on the Upper West Side. I rarely go to the large theaters; I much prefer watching movies in the comfort of my home.

Am i the only one to see the irony in this movie-goer's anectote; that Dahl's point in this story is to pin children's behavior on the parents? So any parent who takes their kids to this movie and fails to take responsible action deserves to be kicked into the gabage chute, or have their kid atttacked by squirrels. Or be violently confronted by, say, a very pissed-off person.
Just check out the [new yet original] Oompa Loompa lyrics.

We don't just stop there ugly lady. Whenever I watch a movie and someone makes the slightest sound, such as laugh, I flip out and kill everyone in the theater. Then bust out my guitar and wail HARD.

But when you look at the situation, a lot of these parents can't find or afford a person to look after their child when going to the movies. In a way this has the same ring to it as kids on an airplane. But as pissed I may be at the crying baby, the last thing I would do is confront the parent head on. I don’t want to jump to stereotypical conclusions, but bringing the baby to the movies is definitely a Hispanic trait.

Begin the flame wars have…

Here's a compromise for parents who can't afford a babysitter:

Don't buy popcorn, candy and soda or tickets for your kids. Use the $30 or $40 you save to pay for a babysitter for 3 hours.

If you can afford the movies, you can afford a babysitter.

It's one thing for kids to cry and make noise at an afternoon showing of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - it's a kid's story after all - but it's another thing to bring kids to an evening show.

We saw the 11 PM at Court St. For the last 45 minutes of the movie, a mom was on her cell phone trying to figure out if someone could pick up her one-year-old kid because he was getting tired and she didn't want to leave the movie. What time did she think an 11 PM movie would end?

love the movies but have not been to a theater in 1 year minimum. think people have become more obnoxious than ever. manners are a thing of the past. between the screaming kids, the crinkling candy rappers, the seat kicking, the phone ringing, and the loud talking, the movie not longer is watchable. and i pay 10.50 for this treatment. sit me in on the couch in front of the tv thx.

Not in Manhattan, don. I'd be scared to see who'd work for $10/hour in that market.

Even in the Film Forum, of all places, I've heard people talk loudly through movies. One time a woman actually ate an entire stinky meal next to me, a burger and fries. Seeing movies in New York sucks!

Is someone saying something about the Court Street theater? 'Cause if it's bad, I'll shoot you. Or at least force you to look at the ugly facade or maybe even push you down the endless escalators.

This is obviously an issue that affects all and we all feel passioante about. I recommend that this thread is sent to Hollywood. They are befuddled on why the box office is so low this summer. Rude ignorant moviegoers are definitely a factor.

Tanisha! Where are you! Tanishaaaaa!!!!! You in this comment room? Tanishaaa!!!!

Isn't the movie a kid's movie? Maybe people without kids should refrain from going to see movies targeted mainly for kids. Then you won't have to deal with the indignity of crying kids.

the kid was probably crying because s/he was confused and upset by the movie, which was unrelentingly creepy.

also i saw oompaloompas as example of globalization. not just in the chocolate factory, but in the tim burton movie factory. it's pretty cheap to digitally clone one actor.

Also, I went to see The Village at Court St. and there was a large group of city kids sitting up front that made "retard" sounds every time Adrian Brody's character came on the screen and loudly clued in the stupider friends on what was going on every five minutes.

I saw one of the Lord of the Rings at the Court Ass Theater, and this kid in front of me kept screaming, "Where all the black people at?" and giving high 5's/receiving props from his homies. Where they "at", indeed.

I forgot the last time I went to Cobble Hill to see Batman or something, and I sat in front of some guy, and he said, "Goddamit! Great - just what I needed! Thanks!" His girlfriend told him it would be okay, but I think this guy's "Social contract" was much stricter than mine. Apparently, sitting anywhere near him was against the rules. Regardless, it went fine, and he seemed okay with it since I tend to slump in my seat at movies.

Good to know that people aren't at all passionate about what irritates them at movies. What is the record for comments at gothamist.com?

All of you justifying the screaming kid with "it's a kid's movie" let me ask you this then--what about all OTHER kids in the theater then, who are also having their movie ruined by the screaming brat?

Whatever happened to not taking kids to movies until they were at least a little older and understood how to behave in the theater?

Umm... you did ask about the movie, right?

"And did you see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? What did you think? "

I was really disappointed. I like Tim Burton, but this was kind of a waste. I was left sitting there going, "Why did they bother?"

Depp was good, but with better writing might have been a lot better. He should have been weirder.

Plus, the whole dad thing was inane. Two lollipops down.

Kids are way more understanding than childless "adults" in these situations. Kids don't think about the 10.50 they're wasting or that their life needs to be hermetically sealed. I've yet to see a kid rant and rave about how another crying kid ruined his/her movie experience. Kids cry, scream, laugh, fart, puke, sneeze w/ gigantic boogers coming out of their noses and make all sorts of noises all the time and at random and that's the way kids are. Visit any playground in NYC and you'll see this. Please, go buy your home movie theater and enjoy the next Pixar movie in the comfort of your own childless home.

"i like the size though, it's hard to pack too many jackasses into a theatre that small." (ref: Cobble Hill)

You'd be surprised. I've seen my fair share of d-bags there. Generally, though, I think you're right. The quality of patron at Cobble Hill is much higher than at the big Atlantic/Court Street theater.

But, any theater you go to is going to have lots of jerks... even at the Cobble Swill theater, I had to listen to a guy explain the differences between the book, movie and radio play of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy to his girlfriend. I felt badly for him (and really badly for her) since he was wearing one of those fat guy Spider-Man shirts, but he was so irritating, and everyone kept shushing...

When I was a kid, I would have been silenced by the awe of being in a movie theatre in the first place. I think I went to four movies by the time I was 11 - no exaggeration. Yelling and running around wasn't an option in any social context with my parents at the helm. Never mind the possibility of popcorn from the concession stand.

fwiw, i thought this incarnation of charlie was quite good, far better than the gene wilder version.

Who goes to see movies Nowadays? the people who can't afford computers to download stuff. The people who can't afford DVD's or the big televison sets to watch on em. That' right. Poor People. and poor people have no class. If you look at the box office all the blockbuster mainstream movies make money but the real moneymakers are crap urban movies like diary of mad black woman, The pacifier, and Are we there Yet?. all these poor people have no manners and that is why people stop going to the movies. Plus you got your horny Young daters who go to the movie just to hookup. People like me will never step foot into a theatre as long as we've got netflix. The moral of my story is that MOVIE THEATERS ARE FOR POOR PEOPLE!

Stampede... Bahh

I really think that many people who go to movies or any public activity and feel compelled to draw attention to themselves are demonstrating their inherent need to perform, albeit in a really fucked up and annoying way. Many people never have an outlet to express themselves and they end up displaying really horrid "look at me" behavior. Often, that translates into "don't pay attention to what's in front of you, let me distract you from that so you focus on me instead."

Just so we're all clear that coerced diversion is not confined to, as some of y'all have suggested, the lower classes or the non-white, I'd like to point out the countless times I've been apoplectic at classical music concerts, too, when people feel compelled to *cough, cough, cough* (usually at the quietest bits) or stage-whisper "wow" or "beautiful!!!" or chair-dance in rhythm, ostensibly to telegraph their enjoyment/acknowledgement/superior knowledge/whatever.

Yeah, I do in some ways prefer buying CDs and DVDs and enjoying at home.

I totally agree with Rich Guy. HELLO! THEATRE MOVIES are for poor people! I have a home theater with a 51 inch plasma television with 5.1 dts surround sound and 2 dead llamaskin chairs. If my daughter makes a sound during the movie I just smack her in the mouth. That's real living, you plebians!