quote:

---

!@#&^%$!!!!!! (Cellphone halts Mahler’s Ninth mid-movement)
Posted on January 10, 2012 by thousandfoldecho

For those who say that the concert hall needs to loosen up, who want tweet-seats and more technology, be careful what you wish for.

Until today I’ve never been to a concert where a cellphone stopped the orchestra in the middle of a piece, but now I can check that awful milestone off the list. I’ll try to record it as accurately as I can, with my still-jangling nerves.

It was in the fourth movement. (Funny how these disturbances never happen in fortissimo passages.) After the last climax, as the movement begins to wind down, toward that sublime last page of the score where music and silence are almost indistinguishable. In other words, just about the worst possible moment. (After a quick check of my Dover score, I think it was about 13 bars before the last Adagissimo.) [UPDATE: commenters have pointed out that the phone was ringing in louder passages earlier in the movement.]

When we reached that passage, as Alan Gilbert turned to the first violins and the sound grew ever more hushed and veiled, the unmistakable chimes of the iPhone Marimba ringtone resounded loud and clear throughout Avery Fisher Hall. (Checked on my iPhone afterward to confirm which one it was.) And it kept on ringing, and ringing. Gilbert kept on conducting for a few bars, but unbelievably, the sound kept on going. (Doesn’t this guy have voicemail?)

Of all places, the offender was sitting in the very front row, center section, on the aisle (stage right). In other words, right in front of the concertmaster.

Finally, Gilbert dropped his hands and stopped the orchestra, turned to the offender, and looked at him. To everyone’s disbelief, the sound just kept on going, and going. Someone shouted, “Thousand dollar fine.”

Gilbert said something like, “Are you finished?” The guy didn’t move a muscle. Gilbert: “Fine. We’ll wait.” And he turned to the podium and lay down his baton.

As the marimba kept on clanging, someone shouted, “Kick him out!” Another echoed. Some started to clap. But then others shushed the hall down, preventing pandemonium from erupting.

Finally, it stopped. Gilbert: “Did you turn it off?” The guy nodded. Gilbert: “It won’t go off again?” Another nod. Gilbert turned to the audience, and said, “Ordinarily in disturbances like these, it’s better not to stop, since stopping is worse than the disturbance. But this was so egregious, that . . .” (I lost his words here), and the audience burst into boisterous applause.

Gilbert turned to the orchestra, said “Number 118,” and started up again, at the point where the trombones enter fortissimo for the last big climax. I wish I could say you could have heard a pin drop from then on, but there were a few coughers; this is New York, after all. Still, there was a palpable sense of tension from orchestra and audience, as Mahler’s Ninth finally found its way home.

–Michael

---

quote: Frank Cox

---

I wish that cell phone jammers were legal to use

---

quote: Randy Stankey

---

There should be a way to make cell phones ring and not stop until they are turned off.

Then you just install the transmitter at the entrance to the theater and wait for people to walk in. Their phones will start ringing and they'll have to shut them off to get them to stop.

---

If only there was a way to do that. The funny part would be the idiots who leave it on vibrate...so they won't miss that call. Their batteries would die pretty quick.
 

---

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 01-31-2012, 10:00 PM:
 
The problem with the cell phone jammers is that they are basically just wide banded noise generators. Any area with an 800 mhz public safety system usually gets affect also. I just had to do testing because of reception issues in a location because of that. I am in favor of maybe a small cell site that allows only 911.
 

---

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 02-01-2012, 12:28 AM:
 
Cell phone jammers are (unfortunately) illegal in both Canada and the USA. Even what should be an obvious purpose, like jamming cell signals in a prison, is illegal.

So if you're having any problems at all that are caused by a nearby cell phone jammer, you can complain to your federal communications regulator and have the offending jammer seized and shut down (and the operator fined).
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-01-2012, 10:37 AM:
 
I would like to see a one-sheet with the slogan, "We use a cell phone jammer" at the top. Then in the middle, a picture of a big hulking mean sumbitch. Then at the bottom, "If he catches you using your phone he'll jam it down your throat!"
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 03-11-2012, 01:02 PM:
 
A disturbance in the force I sense.

quote:

---

Fist Fight Breaks Out at Symphony

Fist fights need not be restricted to bars and sporting events: today, two concertgoers at the Chicago Symphony began brawling as the second movement of Brahms Symphony No. 2 came to a close. And these men weren't in the nosebleed section — they had purchased box seats.


"We heard a rather loud thump," said Steve Robinson, general manager of Chicago's classical and folk music station 98.7 WFMT, who was at the performance but didn't see the fight. "It wasn't so loud that everyone jumped up and ran for the exits."

Police say one of the men, who was in his 30s, started punching the 67-year-old victim — but they don't say why. The attacker fled the scene before police arrived, while the older gentleman was left with a forehead cut.

Luckily, the fist fight did not ruin the concert for Chicago Symphony patrons: Music Director Riccardo Muti barely skipped a beat.


The concert never stopped, but Muti shot a glance over his left shoulder toward the box where the punches were thrown. One concert-goer described the look as "dagger eyes."

Live entertainment onstage and in the audience — what more could you ask for?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Doesn't pushing ANY button on the iPhone make the ringing stop?

---

quote:

---

I would like to see a one-sheet with the slogan, "We use a cell phone jammer" at the top. Then in the middle, a picture of a big hulking mean sumbitch. Then at the bottom, "If he catches you using your phone he'll jam it down your throat!"

---

Years ago, there was a cartoon in "Spike's Sick and Twisted Cartoon Festival" entitled "Shut the Fuck Up!" If you've seen it or heard about it, I don't need to explain the plot. If you haven't, you can guess it from the title. Anyhow, I'd love to see an update of "STFU!" that covers modern situations like cell phone abusers. That'd be an instant classic!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-12-2012, 09:04 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Doesn't pushing ANY button on the iPhone make the ringing stop?

---

quote:

---

A thirtysomething opera fan got caught sneaking nuts into her mouth during a performance at Toronto’s Four Seasons Centre this week. The usher told her to stop, while an older gentleman sitting beside her said, “If you were my daughter, I’d take away your allowance.” Still, he added wistfully, it was nice to see younger people at the opera.

And at least she wasn’t tweeting. The Fredericton Playhouse now routinely gets complaints about audience members who have their smartphones out either to film a performance – or text somebody. And yet for every two or three of those, there is one from a patron annoyed about the no-electronics policy, reports executive director Tim Yerxa.

There is a growing tension in the performing arts between desperately wanting an audience and bemoaning its behaviour. Symphony orchestras, regional theatres, ballet and opera companies across North America are feeling stiff competition to lure ticket buyers who they believe are increasingly distracted by interactive entertainment and social media. But when those sought-after new audiences do show up, they don’t always behave the way that venerable institutions and veteran audiences expect.

“Someone once said we wouldn’t treat dinner guests the way we treat audiences: What do you mean you are late? You can’t come in. You can’t eat. Well, perhaps you can have a drink, but don’t talk to the person next to you and turn off your cellphone!” says Camilla Holland, general manager of the Royal Manitoba Theatre Centre. “But when you do have these strangers sitting in the dark together, the audience has an experience, and we love that. That is why we do it live. Otherwise we could all be at home downloading.”

Of course, that’s the problem: We could all be home downloading. Our own choice of entertainment. On our own schedule.

“Technology has fostered an assumption of convenience and customization,” says Ben Cameron, the arts program director at New York’s Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. “In the live performing arts – [which] you have to drive, park and show up at a certain time to see – we are hard-pressed to meet those demands.”

Cameron, who points out that video games now outsell movies and music, was jolted by a recent focus group in which a young man said, “Sitting in the dark unable to talk to my friends either in person or virtually is not my idea of a good time.”

So, should he be allowed to tweet his friends instead? Should he be able to quaff wine and munch nuts? Or take photos to post on Facebook? Is it audiences who need to change their boorish behaviour – or should performing arts institutions change their outdated rules and rituals?

Many observers argue that all that is needed is an agreed-upon etiquette – but some also point out that the practice of receiving the high arts in reverential silence is a new one.

“Back in the 19th century, pretty much anything was considered acceptable, people would hoot and holler in the theatre, talk in their boxes at the opera,” says Paul DiMaggio, a Princeton University sociology professor who studies non-profit institutions. “It was not until the late 19th century that the conductors, with help from the patrons who paid for the opera or the orchestra, took it upon themselves to demand certain behaviour from the audience.”

In his research, DiMaggio has argued that late 19th-century American arts patrons earned social cachet through elite institutions they established to replace the populist culture of the palm court orchestra or the cabinet of curiosities with the high art of the symphony and the museum. These were places where decorous behaviour and fancy dress were expected, and unwritten rules – you don’t clap between movements during classical music – were enforced with shaming.

Others trace the development of decorum to the introduction of electrical light to North American cities.

“Our idea of what it means to be an audience only began when they invented electricity,” says Holland. “We could turn down the house lights, turn up the stage lights and tell people how to behave.”

Some of these rituals – such as wearing suits and dresses to high-art performances – have easily given way to more casual behaviour. Others, such as whether one may clap between movements or the value of a no-drinks-in-the-auditorium policy, are still hot topics.

Meanwhile, the idea of letting electronic communications into theatres or concert halls has started a stormy debate. Ringing cellphones have long been a clear evil – at concert earlier this year of the New York Philharmonic, the conductor actually put down his baton and waited until a persistent phone was silenced – but what about quietly grabbing a video clip or tweeting? So-called “tweet seats,” an area in the back row of an auditorium where patrons are permitted to use their smartphones, are the hottest trend among American theatres and orchestras right now, but they’ve also generated controversy in the community and are still being discussed rather than implemented in Canada.

For his part, Yerxa can’t understand why someone would pay $50 to attend a live performance and then watch it on the tiny blue screen of a smartphone because they are so busy capturing it on video.

“Are we losing our capacity to sit uninterrupted for two hours and not communicate with anyone?” he asks. “Are we losing that capacity not to be distracted ... to engage with a single idea or performance for several hours? I hope not.”

He is not alone in his concern: At a cultural industry gathering at the Banff Centre earlier this month, Canadian conductor Julian Kuerti privately expressed frank dismay at the way North American orchestras were jumping on the social-media bandwagon in attempts to draw new, younger audiences.

“As an artist, I care deeply that there is a lot of meaning, a lot of substance in what we do. That is what is attractive about it,” he said in a recent interview. “Instead, we try to bait and switch, to fool people into coming to a concert because it is supposed to be interactive ... If we are not careful, we will wind up with an audience who is not there for the same reasons as the musicians are on the stage.”

Some Canadian artists are responding by using social media as an artistic tool.

“One of the things I have said to detractors is that I don’t think it should be a 100-per-cent policy either way,” says Aislinn Rose, artistic producer of Praxis Theatre, a Toronto group that has experimented with live tweeting during shows when the plays are about a political issue – the Toronto G8 riot in one case, and human rights in another. “How do you make it not just a marketing tool but part of the work and part of the conversation?”

Another approach is to emphasize strongly live performance’s connection with its audience, up close and personal. In her improvised show Blind Date, which is currently playing in Winnipeg, Toronto performer Rebecca Northan scouts out a potential date from willing patrons in the lobby beforehand and brings him onstage for some fun.

“It’s ironic that in the digital age, television shows and movies are trying to make things so interactive: ‘Play this game! Send questions to the characters!’ They are trying so desperately to do what live performance does naturally ... People are hungry to interact.”

And she doesn’t mean via Twitter.

---

quote:

---

The iphone only has one button!

---

quote:

---

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — The digital divide is wider than ever between diners who talk, tweet and snap pictures mid-meal and those who wish they’d just shut up, shut down and be present.

Caught at the center of the discord are restaurant owners and chefs, who must walk the careful line of good customer service for both those who dine under the influence of smart phones, and those who won’t. But as the devices have morphed into an unrelenting appendage for texting, photography and games, more restaurateurs are challenged to keep the peace.

Owners who once relied mostly on “no cell phones, please” signs, increasingly are experimenting with everything from penalties for using phones, discounts for not and outright bans on photography.

“There’s no place to get away from the chatter,” said Julie Liberty of Miami, who started the Facebook page “Ban Cell Phones From Restaurants” earlier this year. “Everything has a soundtrack, including when you go into the ladies room. That’s just not right.”

It’s a touchy issue. Consider the crush of news coverage Eva Restaurant in Los Angeles generated when it began offering patrons a 5 percent discount if they leave their phone at the door. Online comments ranged from cheers of “YES!” to others who said their phones would have to be pried from their cold, dead hands.

The policy is working, though. Eva’s Rom Toulon said about 40 percent of our customers will leave their cell phones at the door.

“After a few cocktails and glasses of wine, it can be challenging to remember that you left the phone behind,” he said.

The burst of headlines for Eva came after a Burlington, Vt., deli took on cyber-folk hero status for posting a sign informing customers that $3 will be added to their bill “if you fail to get off your phone while at the counter. It’s rude.” Disgusted diners are doing their part too with games like “phone stack,” in which everyone places their phones in a stack in the middle of the table. The first person who reaches for their phone pays the bill for all.

These are more creative approaches to the no cell-phone signs now common in restaurants ranging from highbrow to quick-eats. The landmark Boston restaurant Locke-Ober asks diners — in language appropriate for a place with a dress code — to “kindly refrain from using cellular phones.” In Albany, N.Y., the Hamilton Street Cafe has a more direct, hand-drawn “No cell phones at the counter” sign with a phone with a red “X” through it.

Owner Sue Dayton said the sign by the counter helps keep the lunch line moving.

“You get a half-hour for lunch. You walk up here and you have to stand behind someone not paying attention enough to say what kind of bread they want on their BLT because they’re on their cell phone,” Dayton said.

Irritation over distracted dining has broadened with the rise of photo-sharing apps like Instagram. The popular online scrapbook Pinterest is clogged with pictures of everything from pan fried noodles to poutine snapped moments before digestion. Chefs — who, as a rule, put a premium on control — don’t always take kindly to their dining rooms becoming shooting galleries.

Grant Achatz, the famous Chicago-based molecular gastronomist, wrote a much-forwarded post several years ago grousing about diners who snap the meal away and even try to video his staff without asking permission. “I can’t imagine how celebrities feel,” he wrote. “No wonder they punch the paparazzi out when they get the chance.”

Some restaurateurs go with the digital flow. Sarabeth Levine, of New York City-based Sarabeth’s, said she’s perfectly fine with people chatting, playing games or even taking pictures. It’s free advertising, after all.

“I’m happy to have our customers,” Levine said. “They come, they tweet, they Facebook, they bring their children. It’s high energy to begin with. I mean, people are noisy even in the way they speak today.”

Other restaurants go as far as to bar picture taking, like David Chang’s Ko in Manhattan. Others take a middle ground, like the high-end Washington, D.C., restaurant Rogue 24, where hostesses politely tell guests that if they do take pictures, please do so without a distracting flash.

“I mean you can’t fight it,” said owner R. J. Cooper. “Why fight a losing battle?”

Actually, the battle might already be lost.

The use of hand-held devices at the table is implicitly encouraged at the growing number of restaurants that offer Wi-Fi access or accept payment via smartphone. The Manhattan restaurant Comodo even encourages guests to upload pictures of their dishes to Instagram with the hashtag (hash)comodomenu to create a user-generated “Instagram menu.” Sharing trends are likely to accelerate as the generation who has no memory of a world before cell phones comes of age.

Already, about one in five U.S. adults say they share online when eating a meal with others, and more than a third of teens do the same, according to the 2012 State of Mobile Etiquette Survey for Intel Corp.

The same survey found 81 percent of U.S. adults believe mobile manners are getting worse, up 6 percentage points from last year. A Zagat survey this month found most respondents disapproving of texting, tweeting and emailing when eating out, but a majority accepted picture taking.

“I think it’s about having more time under our belt with what the new normal is,” said etiquette expert Anna Post, the great-great-granddaughter of Emily Post.

While the technology is new, the rules of etiquette are old-fashioned common sense. Silence your phone in restaurants and don’t answer unless there’s a very good reason, like a sick kid back home. And if you do answer, excuse yourself from the table. Try to keep your phone off the table, it signals to your companions that you waiting for something better.

As for taking pictures, Post said consider the sort of place you’re in — busy pub or cloistered bistro? — and who you’re with.

“Ask yourself, ‘Just because I want to take a photo of my food, is this the right place? Am I with the right people for this to be OK?’¤” Post said. “The answer can’t always be yes.”

---

quote: Monte L. Fullmer

---

Hitting the time machine: Wonder what would Toscanini, Reiner, HvK, "Kna", Beecham, Bernstein and the other great conductors would do if some clown's cell took off during their performances?

---

quote:

---

This is a sad sign of the times: The exhibition chain has decided it must give customers a special incentive to respect the movies, and each other. It unveiled today CineMode — a component within its iPhone and Android smartphone app — that can determine whether the owner uses the mobile device during a film, and send digital coupons to those who leave them alone. “It is important to develop tools that maximize and preserve the movie-going experience,” says Cinemark’s marketing and communications VP James Meredith. He adds that customers have asked the chain to “design an alternative and creative solution” to keep others from lighting up their phones in the dark theater. Before a film starts, Cinemark will flash a message on the movie screen urging customers to launch CineMode. The app will dim the smartphone’s screen and ask users to turn the volume off so incoming calls only cause the phone to vibrate. Customers must stay in CineMode throughout the film. If they do, then the company says it will automatically send a coupon to be stored in the app’s Rewards section. Exhibition execs are struggling to find a strategy to satisfy the growing number of patrons who won’t leave their phones alone in the theater, as well as those who want to preserve the traditional experience. Some have said they’d consider scheduling separate screenings of a film designating ones where texting would be allowed, and others where it wouldn’t.

---

quote:

---

Texting during movie lands complainant in trouble
CBC News
Posted: May 23, 2013 7:08 PM ET
Last Updated: May 23, 2013 8:08 PM ET

A Toronto woman found herself in trouble with the police after repeatedly asking a man in a cinema to turn off his cellphone.

In spite of constant reminders to turn off you cellphone some people continue to use their phones in the cinema.

Lani Selick was trying to watch a film recently at the Varsity Cinema, while the man sitting next to her was constantly texting.

"I leaned over and I basically said to him, 'Excuse me ... would you mind turning it off."

But he didn't.

So the fourth time he whipped out his phone she put her hand over the man's device, to block the screen light.

The man abruptly left the theatre and returned with an usher who escorted Selick out of the theatre.

"I was shocked, absolutely shocked," Selick said. "The usher informed me the police had been called."

The man alleged he had been assaulted by Selick.

Police questioned both parties but decided not to press charges.

A spokesperson for Cineplex says if you see someone texting in the theatre go and see a manager, rather than dealing with it yourself.

"When it does occur our theatre managers are usually very happy to deal with it," said Mike Langdon of Cineplex Odeon.

---

quote:

---

When you go to the movies nowadays, is it hard to concentrate on what’s onscreen because people are texting or talking all around you, as if they were in their own living rooms? I hear you. I hear them, too.

As I write this, my latest terrible experience is still fresh. It happened Saturday night during the New York premiere of Mother of George at BAM Cinematek’s annual BamCinefest. You’d think the folks at one of the city’s premiere arthouses would pay attention to what’s happening inside their theaters, especially in the middle of their signature festival. You’d think.

It was like this. These two … persons, a man and a woman (God, I’m so angry I wanna just go LN26IRTUV3C55CUXWX11111!!!!!11#$%Y###%$#W
####SDGZ) who happened to be sitting behind me decided to keep up a running conversation during the film — a lyrical, meditative, exquisitely photographed portrait of the Brooklyn-based Nigerian community and what happens when a young wife is unable to conceive a child.

Maybe you can shut out the sound of two idiots yapping at a Roland Emmerich film, but much of Mother of George is wordless — or would have been if the Ugly Couple hadn’t filled the silences.

I decided, for the sake of inner peace, not to say anything, to try to focus on the screen: inhale count four … hold it count five … exhale count eight … but every so often I could hear people behind them say, “Stop talking!” The couple laughed and went right on. A half-hour went by. An hour. Periodic outbursts of “Shhhhh!” “Stop talking!” They were just low enough to keep the whole theater from turning on them, but just loud enough to keep everyone in their vicinity from becoming suitably entranced. It’s that ability to be hypnotized — to be drawn into the action onscreen — that’s destroyed by talking and/or the eye-stabbing flickers of smartphones.

I finally turned and gave the couple the evil eye, which they ignored.

And finally, finally I said, “SHUT UP!” So, for the record, did the guy next to me.

The woman said, “YOU shut up!”

What do you do in that situation? Make a scene? Go running to the manager? There was no manager or usher in or anywhere near the theater (which happened to be full and then some).

Finally, finally, finally I said, “That’s it!!!!!!” and threw a fit — just lost it. And I’m not proud of that. The person who makes a scene inevitably looks in the wrong, even if he or she is in the right. Because fits are never good. And I’m especially ineffectual. When I say, “Do you know who I am?” they generally say, “No — who are you?” and I say, “Uh. No one. Never mind.” Only in this case I found a BAM publicist, who looked appropriately stricken but had no idea what to do. Another publicist actually went over to the couple and asked them to stop, but the woman waved him off. She actually did that gesture with the hand that says, “Enough of you. Leave.” Then she went back to chattering.

The theater manager, when he eventually showed up, refused to do anything. “It’s too late in the film,” he said.

So I walked. Missed the end of this beautiful movie. But then, I’d missed a lot of it already.

As a critic, I’m lucky to see films at studio-hosted screenings, but even those aren’t safe anymore. Last year, I got stuck beside a guy taking notes with a flashlight, which would go on and off whenever he’d scribble something. When I asked him to please shut it off, he was indignant. “How do you expect me to see what I’m writing?” he hissed. Learn to write in the dark like the rest of us, schmuck, so other people aren’t distracted by your light going on and off when they’re trying to pay attention to the movie. Colleagues of mine have gotten in shouting matches with people who wouldn’t stop checking their texts.

I get many e-mails from people who say they don’t go to the cinema anymore. It’s not just the money, although the cost of tickets is crazy. They just can’t take their fellow audience members. They buy 65-inch monitors with 7.1 sound systems and wait for the Blu-ray — or take advantage of the increasing numbers of current movies available on demand.

In the end, shushing won’t do it: We have no choice but to depend on theater managers to police their screenings. But most of the time when you go to them (I’ve only done this three times — all recently — in a lifetime of moviegoing), they look terribly confused. They act as if they’ve never heard of such things. You can almost hear them thinking, “This isn’t my job.”

It should be their job.

The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas, has the right idea. Not only do they throw people out for texting and talking, but in 2011 they made an example of a texter who left them an indignant voice message by playing the whole thing before their movies. ( "… so excuse me for using my phone, in the USA, Magnited States of America, where you are free to text in a theater.") Alamo Drafthouse is coming to Manhattan and I can’t wait. They’re my heroes.

The larger question: Has our culture become so private that no one knows how to behave anymore in public? Is selfishness the rule rather than exception? Are people who say, “Shut up and turn off your phone” today’s version of “You kids get off my lawn”?

I’d love to hear from you readers about this. What do you do? Have you ever seen an audience turn on a talker/texter en masse? And I’d love to hear from theater managers and ushers: Do you think it’s your job to police screenings or is it every man/woman for him/herself?

You can comment below or send me an e-mail at filmcritic@nymag.com and I’ll post the most compelling stories in the next installment of this (I fear eternal) saga.

Just don’t f—ing e-mail me while you’re in a theater watching a movie.

UPDATE — BAM has emailed over a response:

To the editors,

We are sorry about David Edelstein’s experience last Saturday night at a screening of Mother of George during BAMcinemaFest.

BAMcinématek feels strongly about providing its audience members with a positive and enjoyable cinema experience. When it is less than that, audience members are urged to speak to cinema management as soon as possible. Management will enter the cinema and address the problem. If it persists or escalates, disruptive patrons are escorted from the theater. In this case, we were apprised of the situation in the last few minutes of the screening, and although I did speak to the offending movie-goers who agreed to stop talking—it was clearly too late.

We were certainly dismayed by the evening’s disruptions and hope that Mr. Edelstein returns to our cinemas.

---