Reminds me of a clip from a Big Brother show years ago when Pete (a housemate with tourettes) and another housemate were discussing a few of the other particularly vile housemates. Pete blurted out ''W*NKERS!'' then promptly added ''Oh, I love it when my tourettes is in context! ''
Tolerance RIP. The OP's assumption that "telling" a patron with a disability to "quiet down" would be effective and/or appropriate, smacks of blistering ignorance.
only matched by the disregard by the patron with a disability (or their helper) for the rest of the house and the players
It's just as patronising to suggest that somebody with a disability wasn't capable of making the decision to go to see a specific show and somebody else just decided to take them. How do you know that the person making the noises also wasn't the person responsible for the decision to go to the theatre? Or are you suggesting that, for want of a better word, they are completely mentally retarded and incapable of deciding what social activities they would like to do?
I'm fairly on the fence about all this as I can see it from both sides and it's a very difficult subject but some of the posts come across as quite offensive and ignorant tbh.
No, it really isn't. Because if a person has such a disorder without some kind of learning difficulties, such as Tourette's Syndrome, then the responsibility is in their own hands to choose not to attend the showing, or to leave if they cannot watch without causing a disruption. Yes, I have assumed in my previous post that the person had a carer, but if they did not then the same thing applies, except that it applies to the person with the disability. It is one thing not to be able to control your vocalisations; quite another to put yourself in a situation where that will cause a significant disruption to other people. In all cases, whoever is responsible should exercise good judgement.
But we all have to draw a line somewhere - we can't be infinitely inclusive. We do not, for example, allow those with visual impairments to live their dream of flying a jumbo jet. I don't think the OP is 'ignorant' (he may be of course, but it is not intrinsic in his annoyance); it is a genuinely difficult issue. I am inclined to say that a disabled child who is prone to drooling has an absolute right to eat at any restaurant, on the grounds that people can always look the other way. But IF the person referred to really was making loud and intrusive noises all the way through a play, don't you think that quite a lot of people might have had some feeling of grievance? I don't know about you, but seeing a west end show would be a very major financial outlay for me. If I was sitting next to someone who groaned and wailed continuously through it, there is no use pretending that I would enjoy it - I wouldn't. I might have every sympathy in the world for the life of someone who can't stop groaning and wailing, but I still wouldn't want to be in the next seat with my hundred pound ticket. Would you, honestly?
A tiny number of London shows are being offered to ASD customers who may not be able to deal with sitting still and quietly. Perhaps this should be extended to all people (it would surely be a very small number) who cannot stop themselves making loud noises.
this has to be a wind-up. noone can be so heartless, surely.
Are people on this thread for real or is this a wind-up? If they are they need to take a damn good look in the mirror. Sickening.
Just asking, but if you paid a huge amount to travel to London to see a particular show, and someone near you groaned and shouted all the way through, you wouldn't mind at all?
Are people on this thread for real or is this a wind-up? If they are they need to take a damn good look in the mirror. Sickening.
Feel free, whenever you like, to actually think about the issue, instead of going to the default reaction of being 'sickened' by those who treat people with disabilities like human beings i.e. having the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else (wherever practical).
this has to be a wind-up. noone can be so heartless, surely.
I can only assume you're responding to the text in bold. In which case, why is it heartless to suggest that it is acceptable for a drooling person to eat in a restaurant?
place was packed, then a few minutes into it there was this loud scream, i turned round expecting the lights to come on and find someone had been murdered judging by the sound.
But, what i saw was a guy in a wheelchair with a crash helmet on his head pointing at the ceiling swinging in all directions, drooling all over the seat in front, while screaching at the top of his lungs.
There is no way this guy had any clue what was going on with thie film, and quite frankly neither did half the audience.
There was a woman with his, as she was fidgeting with his chairs brakes, i gave it 20 minutes and gave up, and drove the 30 miles back home, total waste of time the whole thing probably cost me £40,.
I went home and downloaded the film, only been back to the cinema a couple of times since, simply not worth the money, or the risk you are stuck there with noisy people.
place was packed, then a few minutes into it there was this loud scream, i turned round expecting the lights to come on and find someone had been murdered judging by the sound.
But, what i saw was a guy in a wheelchair with a crash helmet on his head pointing at the ceiling swinging in all directions, drooling all over the seat in front, while screaching at the top of his lungs.
There is no way this guy had any clue what was going on with thie film, and quite frankly neither did half the audience.
There was a woman with his, as she was fidgeting with his chairs brakes, i gave it 20 minutes and gave up, and drove the 30 miles back home, total waste of time the whole thing probably cost me £40,.
I went home and downloaded the film, only been back to the cinema a couple of times since, simply not worth the money, or the risk you are stuck there with noisy people.
So..... disabled people are destroying the film industry?
No, it really isn't. Because if a person has such a disorder without some kind of learning difficulties, such as Tourette's Syndrome, then the responsibility is in their own hands to choose not to attend the showing, or to leave if they cannot watch without causing a disruption. Yes, I have assumed in my previous post that the person had a carer, but if they did not then the same thing applies, except that it applies to the person with the disability. It is one thing not to be able to control your vocalisations; quite another to put yourself in a situation where that will cause a significant disruption to other people. In all cases, whoever is responsible should exercise good judgement.
Where do you draw the line though? If they cannot control whether or not they make noise should they never go to the theatre? What about the cinema? I went to the see the movie adaptation of Les Mis on the first showing at my local cinema on the day it was released and there was a disabled person making lots of noise. Yes, it was distracting and annoying at points but I realised it was a lunchtime showing on a weekday so they had obviously chosen a quieter time to see it rather than an evening showing where more people would be disrupted. Or should they have just waited until it came out on DVD and watched it at home?
Not everyone else in the audience is going to be incandescent with rage, brimming with intolerance and feel that it completely ruined their experience. Just like in this thread people will be thinking different things. Some might think "God, this is ****ing intolerable, I wish they would shut up or leave", some might think "This is really annoying me, maybe they'll calm down soon", some might think "Well it's a bit annoying but I'll try to ignore it, it's not THAT bad", others may think "Cor, they're really enjoying this, bless them!" and someone else may think "I wonder if they'll start yelling really loud when that really emotional bit comes up, hehe". In fact their fellow audience members could be thinking anywhere in that spectrum. Not every single person in the audience is going to think it completely and utterly ruined their night out, some people make allowances y'know. Also, the times I've had this happen to me the disabled person didn't continually wail and make noise for the entire duration of the show/film, it was erratic and came and went, it wasn't a continuous disruption.
Where do you draw the line though? If they cannot control whether or not they make noise should they never go to the theatre? What about the cinema? I went to the see the movie adaptation of Les Mis on the first showing at my local cinema on the day it was released and there was a disabled person making lots of noise. Yes, it was distracting and annoying at points but I realised it was a lunchtime showing on a weekday so they had obviously chosen a quieter time to see it rather than an evening showing where more people would be disrupted. Or should they have just waited until it came out on DVD and watched it at home?
Not everyone else in the audience is going to be incandescent with rage, brimming with intolerance and feel that it completely ruined their experience. Just like in this thread people will be thinking different things. Some might think "God, this is ****ing intolerable, I wish they would shut up or leave", some might think "This is really annoying me, maybe they'll calm down soon", some might think "Well it's a bit annoying but I'll try to ignore it, it's not THAT bad", others may think "Cor, they're really enjoying this, bless them!" and someone else may think "I wonder if they'll start yelling really loud when that really emotional bit comes up, hehe". In fact their fellow audience members could be thinking anywhere in that spectrum. Not every single person in the audience is going to think it completely and utterly ruined their night out, some people make allowances y'know. Also, the times I've had this happen to me the disabled person didn't continually wail and make noise for the entire duration of the show/film, it was erratic and came and went, it wasn't a continuous disruption.
Where do you draw the line though? If they cannot control whether or not they make noise should they never go to the theatre? What about the cinema? I went to the see the movie adaptation of Les Mis on the first showing at my local cinema on the day it was released and there was a disabled person making lots of noise. Yes, it was distracting and annoying at points but I realised it was a lunchtime showing on a weekday so they had obviously chosen a quieter time to see it rather than an evening showing where more people would be disrupted. Or should they have just waited until it came out on DVD and watched it at home?
Not everyone else in the audience is going to be incandescent with rage, brimming with intolerance and feel that it completely ruined their experience. Just like in this thread people will be thinking different things. Some might think "God, this is ****ing intolerable, I wish they would shut up or leave", some might think "This is really annoying me, maybe they'll calm down soon", some might think "Well it's a bit annoying but I'll try to ignore it, it's not THAT bad", others may think "Cor, they're really enjoying this, bless them!" and someone else may think "I wonder if they'll start yelling really loud when that really emotional bit comes up, hehe". In fact their fellow audience members could be thinking anywhere in that spectrum. Not every single person in the audience is going to think it completely and utterly ruined their night out, some people make allowances y'know. Also, the times I've had this happen to me the disabled person didn't continually wail and make noise for the entire duration of the show/film, it was erratic and came and went, it wasn't a continuous disruption.
I think most people think this way - I have when it happened to me, it was a Panto, so it didn't really matter, although it was a bit odd at some points, but no real problem, and they loved it.
So it would depend on the type of show, the time of day, and the noise level and how long it went on for, whether it was 'fair' or not.
In a classical concert, it would be totally inadmissable, for example.
Where do you draw the line though? If they cannot control whether or not they make noise should they never go to the theatre? What about the cinema? I went to the see the movie adaptation of Les Mis on the first showing at my local cinema on the day it was released and there was a disabled person making lots of noise. Yes, it was distracting and annoying at points but I realised it was a lunchtime showing on a weekday so they had obviously chosen a quieter time to see it rather than an evening showing where more people would be disrupted. Or should they have just waited until it came out on DVD and watched it at home?
Not everyone else in the audience is going to be incandescent with rage, brimming with intolerance and feel that it completely ruined their experience. Just like in this thread people will be thinking different things. Some might think "God, this is ****ing intolerable, I wish they would shut up or leave", some might think "This is really annoying me, maybe they'll calm down soon", some might think "Well it's a bit annoying but I'll try to ignore it, it's not THAT bad", others may think "Cor, they're really enjoying this, bless them!" and someone else may think "I wonder if they'll start yelling really loud when that really emotional bit comes up, hehe". In fact their fellow audience members could be thinking anywhere in that spectrum. Not every single person in the audience is going to think it completely and utterly ruined their night out, some people make allowances y'know. Also, the times I've had this happen to me the disabled person didn't continually wail and make noise for the entire duration of the show/film, it was erratic and came and went, it wasn't a continuous disruption.
As I said previously, it is a judgement for the person to make or whoever else may be responsible for their care. If it is an occasional behaviour, then they may wish to purchase a ticket and see how it is on the day, and feel free to exit the theatre temporarily in case it resolves. If it's an everyday thing, then it wouldn't be appropriate to attend a regular showing, but perhaps there would be a more suitable performance. If not, then they should make sure the theatre knows that there is a demand for such a showing.
I will take your word for it that interruptions are usually intermittent, but it's also possible that it could be persistent. Certainly it has been for me in the past, at the cinema when a baby will not stop crying for around 30 mins until being asked to leave by staff. I'm struggling to comprehend what the distinction is between being interrupted by children (who most people would accept should not be there if they can't behave appropriately) and by a disabled person engaging in similar disruptive behaviour. To me, the source of the disruption is not important - in the same way that I would expect a film showing not to have a faulty display or sound system that caused me to miss some portion of the movie, I expect not to be disturbed by another person's behaviour. Intent isn't important here: a cinema could have technical problems beyond their control, but customers would still expect to see the film they paid for or receive a refund. A ticket is like a contract between the customer and the venue - if they fail to deliver what was paid for, then I would want a refund.
I think most people think this way - I have when it happened to me, it was a Panto, so it didn't really matter, although it was a bit odd at some points, but no real problem, and they loved it.
So it would depend on the type of show, the time of day, and the noise level and how long it went on for, whether it was 'fair' or not.
In a classical concert, it would be totally inadmissable, for example.
Yes, I do agree that context definitely plays a part. The OP went to see Jersey Boys, a fun, jukeboxy musical, it wasn't as though it was The Nutcracker at the Royal Opera House lol. If they'd had a discreet word with the manager after the show then they may have been reimbursed.
Certainly it has been for me in the past, at the cinema when a baby will not stop crying for around 30 mins until being asked to leave by staff. I'm struggling to comprehend what the distinction is between being interrupted by children (who most people would accept should not be there if they can't behave appropriately) and by a disabled person engaging in similar disruptive behaviour.
I can't speak for anyone else but for me the difference between a screaming baby and a disabled adult is that the adult is probably enjoying the show, the songs and is entertained by the plot and a bawling toddler couldn't give a crap whether Christine chooses the Phantom or Raoul or whether Javert catches Jean Valjean and would probably be much happier at Wacky Warehouse or playing pat-a-cake at home with Grandma while Mum & Dad enjoy a night out at the cinema/theatre.
Fortunately most cinemas now are participating in the autism/disability friendly viewing scheme and showing regular presentations of the top films for an audience with adapted/special needs on a regular basis.
Broadway is slowly embracing autism-friendly performances, with adaptations being made regarding noise levels, lighting, etc., and this Sunday The Lion King will be performing the West End's first autism-friendly (although obviously other disabilities are included) show; several pantos intend to trial this next Christmas. It is a slow process, but hopefully the opportunities for disabled audiences to attend shows in a more relaxed and adapted setting will increase over time.
I personally wouldn't take my daughter into a situation such as the OP has described because I am aware - although she is not - of the disruption that certain behaviour can cause, and that others will have paid a fair amount of their hard-earned money to enjoy their evening's entertainment. We would never want to be responsible for disrupting anybody's enjoyment of an expensive evening out, as it is as much their right to enjoy what they have paid for as it is ours.
We are fortunate here in Bath to have a theatre that does hold special showings geared towards those with special needs, and we can only hope that over time more and more theatres nationally find it beneficial, and rewarding, to consider doing so themselves.
I agree with those who said disabled people don't want more rights, just equal ones; however the theatre situation is a difficult one, and each situation needs to be looked at individually dependant upon the amount of disruption being caused at the time I would say and even, as others said, what kind of show you're attending probably makes a difference too. It's true that not everybody would be looking at a particularly noisy disabled person in the same way, some are less tolerant of certain kinds of disruptions, others more so, some more understanding, some less so. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, we just all see things differently. However, everybody has the right to be able to enjoy the evening they have paid for, disabled or not.
I didn't know babies were allowed into the cinema these days, that's a new one on me! Who takes a baby to the cinema?
The funniest and most annoying occasion of interruption I had was when I went to see Bram Stoker's Dracula and the woman behind me was translating the whole film into Spanish for her companion. I got about half way through but finally my annoyance got the better of me and luckily I used to speak Spanish, so I asked her politely to keep it down .... in Spanish. Not a peep was heard for the rest of the show!
I can't speak for anyone else but for me the difference between a screaming baby and a disabled adult is that the adult is probably enjoying the show, the songs and is entertained by the plot and a bawling toddler couldn't give a crap whether Christine chooses the Phantom or Raoul or whether Javert catches Jean Valjean and would probably be much happier at Wacky Warehouse or playing pat-a-cake at home with Grandma while Mum & Dad enjoy a night out at the cinema/theatre.
I suspect you are right on that point, but I said children not just babies. Young children can engage in all the same behaviours as the disabled person in question, from appreciating the show to not being able to behave in an appropriate fashion for the context. Your argument implies that so long as a child enjoys the show, disruptions should be tolerated, because it puts the child in the same situation as the disabled person. I reckon many people would find it much easier to say that parents shouldn't bring disruptive children to shows that don't specifically cater to that audience. I wonder why it's harder to draw the same conclusion about a disabled person.
Comments
Reminds me of a clip from a Big Brother show years ago when Pete (a housemate with tourettes) and another housemate were discussing a few of the other particularly vile housemates. Pete blurted out ''W*NKERS!'' then promptly added ''Oh, I love it when my tourettes is in context!
only matched by the disregard by the patron with a disability (or their helper) for the rest of the house and the players
No, it really isn't. Because if a person has such a disorder without some kind of learning difficulties, such as Tourette's Syndrome, then the responsibility is in their own hands to choose not to attend the showing, or to leave if they cannot watch without causing a disruption. Yes, I have assumed in my previous post that the person had a carer, but if they did not then the same thing applies, except that it applies to the person with the disability. It is one thing not to be able to control your vocalisations; quite another to put yourself in a situation where that will cause a significant disruption to other people. In all cases, whoever is responsible should exercise good judgement.
There's no such thing as a "casual email" to someone you don't know.
The erratic punctuation makes you come across as a child.
So does the fact that he/she is an utter bell-end
this has to be a wind-up. noone can be so heartless, surely.
Just asking, but if you paid a huge amount to travel to London to see a particular show, and someone near you groaned and shouted all the way through, you wouldn't mind at all?
Feel free, whenever you like, to actually think about the issue, instead of going to the default reaction of being 'sickened' by those who treat people with disabilities like human beings i.e. having the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else (wherever practical).
I can only assume you're responding to the text in bold. In which case, why is it heartless to suggest that it is acceptable for a drooling person to eat in a restaurant?
place was packed, then a few minutes into it there was this loud scream, i turned round expecting the lights to come on and find someone had been murdered judging by the sound.
But, what i saw was a guy in a wheelchair with a crash helmet on his head pointing at the ceiling swinging in all directions, drooling all over the seat in front, while screaching at the top of his lungs.
There is no way this guy had any clue what was going on with thie film, and quite frankly neither did half the audience.
There was a woman with his, as she was fidgeting with his chairs brakes, i gave it 20 minutes and gave up, and drove the 30 miles back home, total waste of time the whole thing probably cost me £40,.
I went home and downloaded the film, only been back to the cinema a couple of times since, simply not worth the money, or the risk you are stuck there with noisy people.
So..... disabled people are destroying the film industry?
Not everyone else in the audience is going to be incandescent with rage, brimming with intolerance and feel that it completely ruined their experience. Just like in this thread people will be thinking different things. Some might think "God, this is ****ing intolerable, I wish they would shut up or leave", some might think "This is really annoying me, maybe they'll calm down soon", some might think "Well it's a bit annoying but I'll try to ignore it, it's not THAT bad", others may think "Cor, they're really enjoying this, bless them!" and someone else may think "I wonder if they'll start yelling really loud when that really emotional bit comes up, hehe". In fact their fellow audience members could be thinking anywhere in that spectrum. Not every single person in the audience is going to think it completely and utterly ruined their night out, some people make allowances y'know. Also, the times I've had this happen to me the disabled person didn't continually wail and make noise for the entire duration of the show/film, it was erratic and came and went, it wasn't a continuous disruption.
what a lovely post:)
Who has said that (apart from you)? I think the poster was annoyed at a very noisy member of the audience (happened to be disabled as well).
I think most people think this way - I have when it happened to me, it was a Panto, so it didn't really matter, although it was a bit odd at some points, but no real problem, and they loved it.
So it would depend on the type of show, the time of day, and the noise level and how long it went on for, whether it was 'fair' or not.
In a classical concert, it would be totally inadmissable, for example.
:DI love DS.
Sorry, but no. The people caring for this disabled person should have taken the other members of the audience into consideration.
As I said previously, it is a judgement for the person to make or whoever else may be responsible for their care. If it is an occasional behaviour, then they may wish to purchase a ticket and see how it is on the day, and feel free to exit the theatre temporarily in case it resolves. If it's an everyday thing, then it wouldn't be appropriate to attend a regular showing, but perhaps there would be a more suitable performance. If not, then they should make sure the theatre knows that there is a demand for such a showing.
I will take your word for it that interruptions are usually intermittent, but it's also possible that it could be persistent. Certainly it has been for me in the past, at the cinema when a baby will not stop crying for around 30 mins until being asked to leave by staff. I'm struggling to comprehend what the distinction is between being interrupted by children (who most people would accept should not be there if they can't behave appropriately) and by a disabled person engaging in similar disruptive behaviour. To me, the source of the disruption is not important - in the same way that I would expect a film showing not to have a faulty display or sound system that caused me to miss some portion of the movie, I expect not to be disturbed by another person's behaviour. Intent isn't important here: a cinema could have technical problems beyond their control, but customers would still expect to see the film they paid for or receive a refund. A ticket is like a contract between the customer and the venue - if they fail to deliver what was paid for, then I would want a refund.
Broadway is slowly embracing autism-friendly performances, with adaptations being made regarding noise levels, lighting, etc., and this Sunday The Lion King will be performing the West End's first autism-friendly (although obviously other disabilities are included) show; several pantos intend to trial this next Christmas. It is a slow process, but hopefully the opportunities for disabled audiences to attend shows in a more relaxed and adapted setting will increase over time.
I personally wouldn't take my daughter into a situation such as the OP has described because I am aware - although she is not - of the disruption that certain behaviour can cause, and that others will have paid a fair amount of their hard-earned money to enjoy their evening's entertainment. We would never want to be responsible for disrupting anybody's enjoyment of an expensive evening out, as it is as much their right to enjoy what they have paid for as it is ours.
We are fortunate here in Bath to have a theatre that does hold special showings geared towards those with special needs, and we can only hope that over time more and more theatres nationally find it beneficial, and rewarding, to consider doing so themselves.
I agree with those who said disabled people don't want more rights, just equal ones; however the theatre situation is a difficult one, and each situation needs to be looked at individually dependant upon the amount of disruption being caused at the time I would say and even, as others said, what kind of show you're attending probably makes a difference too. It's true that not everybody would be looking at a particularly noisy disabled person in the same way, some are less tolerant of certain kinds of disruptions, others more so, some more understanding, some less so. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, we just all see things differently. However, everybody has the right to be able to enjoy the evening they have paid for, disabled or not.
I didn't know babies were allowed into the cinema these days, that's a new one on me! Who takes a baby to the cinema?
The funniest and most annoying occasion of interruption I had was when I went to see Bram Stoker's Dracula and the woman behind me was translating the whole film into Spanish for her companion. I got about half way through but finally my annoyance got the better of me and luckily I used to speak Spanish, so I asked her politely to keep it down .... in Spanish. Not a peep was heard for the rest of the show!
I suspect you are right on that point, but I said children not just babies. Young children can engage in all the same behaviours as the disabled person in question, from appreciating the show to not being able to behave in an appropriate fashion for the context. Your argument implies that so long as a child enjoys the show, disruptions should be tolerated, because it puts the child in the same situation as the disabled person. I reckon many people would find it much easier to say that parents shouldn't bring disruptive children to shows that don't specifically cater to that audience. I wonder why it's harder to draw the same conclusion about a disabled person.