Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Theater Tells ‘Tree of Life’ Audience to Have an “Open Mind,” Refuses Refunds

This is topic Theater Tells ‘Tree of Life’ Audience to Have an “Open Mind,” Refuses Refunds in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007255

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 06-24-2011, 06:56 PM:

Theater Tells ‘Tree of Life’ Audience to Have an “Open Mind,” Refuses Refunds

Source: filmschoolrejects.com

quote:
The Tree of Life isn’t a film for everyone. You have to meet it halfway, it tests your patience at times, and it doesn’t fit normal storytelling conventions. If a viewer isn’t at all into experimental filmmaking and doesn’t know what “non-linear” means, then it’s most likely not a film for them. Because of this, some filmgoers should probably do their homework before going to Terrence Malick’s epic.

“Brad Pitt? Sean Penn? Dinosaurs? And the creation of earth!?! Awesome!” Some patrons must’ve gotten that impression, and the art house Avon Theater in Stamford, CT is responding to those theatergoers who would prefer a refund, rather than enduring a two and a half hour poem.

Here’s the “no refund” warning the theater put out:

Now, does this read at all as condescending? Even as someone who adores the film, there’s something inherently snobbish about this warning. I could easily see someone knowing what they’re paying for, but not ending up enjoying the experience. Not everyone dislikes The Tree of Life just because they “didn’t get it.” If a theater patron knew that they were getting an unconventional film but ended up being aggravated by its possible repetition and self-importance, why would they want to lose over 2 hours of their (possibly important) time and ten bucks over an unenjoyable experience?

Should a theater’s response to a dissatisfied filmgoer really be ‘you just didn’t get it’?

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-24-2011, 09:55 PM:

Wow...that really is dumb. No matter how bad I wanted to see a movie, I wouldn't go to a theatre that would put something like that up and pretty much call me dumb if I don't like the movie.

[thumbsdown]

to The Avon

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-24-2011, 10:01 PM:

Personally, I think it's bullshit. But that's just me.

This sort of thing -- whether in the form of a letter or verbally from someone who liked the film -- always puts me "on notice" that I'm not going to like it.

Movies should not come with a warning.

"No Refund" policy = Theatre is in denial that they have problem(s).

"No Refund" policy PLUS a note singling out a particular movie = Theatre is in denial that the movie has problem(s).

Policies like this don't come out of thin air -- there's always a history behind them.

Buyer beware!

Personally, I think Terrence Malick is over-rated.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-24-2011, 11:10 PM:

IMHO, absolutely no theater anywhere should ever be held responsible for the quality of dramatic content in a movie. Theaters should not be required to give out refunds to customers for a movie being bad.

The only aspects where movie theaters should ever be required to provide refunds is on the technical presentation of the movie (projection/sound quality) and quality of customer service.

If the customer was stupid enough to buy tickets for a piece of shit movie then the fault is 100% all on the head of the customer. No one else.

This is one of the reasons why we have movie critics. They help the buyer beware. Customers should visit the Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic web sites. They should do a little homework about the film they're about to see and the body of work from that given filmmaker. If a customer is walking in blind to a Terrence Malick movie and hasn't seen any of his previous films then the customer has only himself to blame for not liking the product. This is NOT the theater's fault at all.

This is yet another symptom of what's wrong with the United States and its current state of culture. Lack of personal responsibility and ZERO sense of consequence.

Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 06-25-2011, 01:04 AM:

I have gotten my money back on a bad movie before, but then again, I walked out in the first seven or eight minutes. Not after I've stayed for long for any reason whatsoever, or even more ridiculous, the whole thing. That's just preposterous.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-25-2011, 02:40 AM:

I could read up on a film all freaking day and watch every trailer out there for it. Does not mean that once I see it I'm going to like it, I've seen plenty of films that I read up on and watched previews for and just hated once I started watching them. I've only walked out of one movie though. I make myself sit through something, no matter how bad it is.

The "Sign" just comes off as pretentious and arrogant. Makes the theater look like a bunch of ass holes. I quote "The Avon stands behind the ambitious work of art and other challenging films, which define us as TRUE ART HOUSE CINEMA, AND WE HOPE YOU WILL EXPAND YOUR HORIZONS WITH US." Well fuck you and your "true art house cinema". /Rant

I'm fine not giving a refund, if a guest comes up after 30 minutes from a movie. We don't give them a refund. If someone comes up and says, "Man you know we just couldn't get into this movie, its really not our thing." I'm not going to give them there money back but I'm sure as hell going to take care of them. I don't have a note posted in the window saying, Don't like the movie? Tough, NO-REFUND.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-25-2011, 02:56 AM:

Homework?

Good Lord.

That money does not belong to the theatre -- especially on opening weekend -- the studio should not benefit from making a lousy movie. Theatres that don't want to give refunds on account of lousy movies should not show lousy movies.

As a patron or a theatre employee, I've never seen a refund situation extend all the way to the snacks. Just the ticket gets refunded. The theatre keeps the snack money and the studio loses the ticket sale -- as it should be.

Sure, the theatre loses a portion of the ticket sale. But how many times have we defended the "no outside food" policy on the grounds that "theatres don't make their money from ticket sales" ?

So, we're switching that story now???

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-25-2011, 10:10 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The only aspects where movie theaters should ever be required to provide refunds is on the technical presentation of the movie (projection/sound quality) and quality of customer service.

Exactly. I would never give anyone a refund because they disliked the movie.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 06-28-2011, 07:16 PM:

I dont see why a theater should issue a refund. Maybe free entry to another movie.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 06-28-2011, 07:24 PM:

If refunds were given every time a patron disliked the movie, there would be no industry.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-29-2011, 04:03 PM:

I've worked at a few theatres that gave refunds or exchanges (for another movie) if the patron came out early enough. No specific policies but, generally, within the first 20-30 minutes. None of those theatres went broke doing this.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-29-2011, 05:20 PM:

Yes, any theatre could op to give a refund if someone were to come out after a reasonable time, as you say, 20 - 30 min. and was really disappointed, but that refund would only be as a good will gesture, and certainly not because the theatre has any obligation to do so.

As for the notice, I think the theatre is just basically reiterating their no refund policy and saying, "Enter at your own risk." I don't see any problem with them warning people that a particular movie is controvertial and that people have not liked it. Condescending, perhaps, but remember it is an art house which by its nature runs films that are out of the Hollywood mainstream and not to everyones taste. They happen to think this particular film is worthy of being run. If no exhibitor ever took a risk and presented only what was safe and appealed just to the mask market (I am picturing an audience booing and rioting at the primiere, hating Stravinski's ground-breaking, incredible Rite of Spring), how BORED would we all be!

I see nothing wrong with the warning; they are just reiterating their No Refund policy. I would bet the tone, while yes, it is a bit pompous, more than likely comes from quite a bit of abuse that they must have taken from boorish patrons who thought the theatre should only show films that the patron personally finds pleasing and give refunds for the ones they don't.

And what patron goes into a film totally blind and without knowing ANYTHING about it? Who DOES that? Would I go into a movie titled THE TREE OF LIFE and have not a clue whatsoever what it is about....not read a review, just pick it because I think the title is interesting, and then expect a refund because I didn't like it? That's nonsense. Certainly there has been enough written about this movie and Terrence Malick that a moviegoer with just a modicum of curiosity, especially one who goes to an art house, would know something of the controversy about the film and take that into consideration when buying the ticket. And just in case there is a clueless person, the theatre is being kind enough to warn him of the controversy beforehand. They make it clear they are on the positive side of the love/hate debate and they think the film will broaden ones horizons. How is this so terrible?

The alternative to posting a warining would be not to post anything and just ask whoever comes out saying they want a refund, if they know how to whistle Dixie.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-29-2011, 05:46 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
And what patron goes into a film totally blind and without knowing ANYTHING about it? Who DOES that?

There are a few people who come to the show occasionally and buy a ticket and then say, "By the way, what's playing?" I also have some people who come to the show every week, regardless of what's playing.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-30-2011, 02:38 AM:

Granted, but I am assuming your theatre is a regular multiplex that plays the current Hollywood line-up; these patrons are going to an arthouse that plays very esoteric, avante garde titles, many of which could have very limited appeal.

Even if a patron DID go in blind to an arthouse and weren't involved enough to find out what they were planning to see, they certainly can't come out after the fact and demand they get refunds just because it wasn't to their liking.

No, I think the theatre did just the right thing. It looked out for its patrons; it posted a warning about a film that it found an unusual number of previous audences didn't care for. And it used the opportunity to also make its refund policy very clear. The comment about "expanding" the patrons' horizons is exactly the mission of an arthouse, and exactly why people go.

If you guys take a management statement like that to be offensive, then I think you're way too sensitive.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-30-2011, 11:13 AM:

You have to remember, though, that many people go to avante garde movies because they want to feel like they are better than the rest of us idiots. And the more limited the appeal, the more they feel like they are better but even then some of them can't put up with a movie being complete shit. [Wink]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-30-2011, 11:46 AM:

Granted, but given that, they STILL don't get a refund, and that blowhard type ESPECIALLY shouldn't be opening their mouths about not liking the movie since they went for all the wrong reasons in the first place. And not for nuthin, TTOL certainly isn't shit by any means. I haven't seen it so I won't say one way or another, but I checked out the trailer and at least visually, it looks stunning. THE TREE OF LIFE

We are not talking about some lousy B movie here that the theatre is trying to pass off as haute-cinema or a director who hasn't already proven himself, or a film that hasn't already won critical positives.

It's like EYES WIDE SHUT -- I thought it was nowhere near where Kubrick was at his zenith and I didn't like it at all, but it was no crap movie.

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 06-30-2011, 12:05 PM:

It's interesting that nobody had issues with theatres putting up similar "No Refunds" signs for Bruno.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-14-2011, 03:16 AM:

quote: Eric Hooper
It's interesting that nobody had issues with theatres putting up similar "No Refunds" signs for Bruno.

Yah... and I don't have a problem with the way this theatre posted its policy. At least they tried... and they were probably aiming towards the very snobs that are described herein... who understood exactly what the theatre was getting at.

I wouldn't give anyone 20-30 minutes... more like 10, and even then I'd be looking for them to be throwing up or having some kind of family emergency or something. The customer really needs to do some research on what they come out to watch... not make us responsible when they don't.

Anyone remember when Lucas put his new Star Wars trailer at the head of some film (I don't remember which), and people would come in and stay long enough to see it? One Regal cinema here went through at least the first few days, refunding money to people who left after the trailer played.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-12-2011, 01:48 PM:

We showed "Tree of Life" last weekend, so now I've actually seen the damned thing.

Yeah, it's a little incoherent at times, but no more so than "2001: A Space Odyssey." My opinion is that it was flawed but there was still a lot to like about it.

Having said that...

I didn't pay to see this movie. Had I been so reckless as to shell out "big city" ticket prices ($10-$14) to see it, I would have been less forgiving. I don't think I would have *personally* gone so far as to request a refund but, as a theatre operator, I would have understood a request for a refund if the patron bailed out early enough.

I can understand if an unusually high amount of refunds causes a theatre operator to display some kind of "no refund" sign at the box office. However, the wording of any such signage should not imply that the fault lies with the viewer. In particular, I take issue with the notion that "Tree of Life" expands anyone's horizons. If anything, it only serves to confirm my faith in the tried-and-true "traditional, linear narrative approach to storytelling."

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 08-12-2011, 04:32 PM:

Just finished showing a week run of Tree of Life and the attendance was inexplicably good, like 3rd best for the year (though it has been a crappy year). Pretty much had walkouts for every show, but no one asked for a refund. I suspect coming to the local art theatre which is showing an art film with a capital A they know they are taking their chances. That said, many of the people thought it was just wonderful.

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 08-17-2011, 05:25 PM:

We posted something similar after a manager was assaulted after closing by a group of patrons who didn't like the movie and wanted a refund.
She quit the next day.

Our policy irregardless of the feature is 30 minutes of feature (trailers not included) and you may have a refund if you so desire.

Watch the entire movie, then complain? I'm sorry, we just can't do that.

We screw up the presentation? That's a different story...

But people have been real buttheads about this movie. Not a little bit, but in our neck of the woods, we've had some really obnoxious reactions.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 08-19-2011, 06:52 PM:

CHRIS SLYCORD WROTE
"You have to remember, though, that many people go to avante garde movies because they want to feel like they are better than the rest of us idiots. And the more limited the appeal, the more they feel like they are better but even then some of them can't put up with a movie being complete shit."

MIKE CROARO RESPONDS:

That's complete and utter nonsense. The "art crowd" attends these films because they want to view mature, sophisticated, and compelling stories. They want to be more than just "entertained".

You are obviously not in this catagory. And that's fine. But please don't diss other for their more electic taste.

Mike Croaro

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-20-2011, 09:44 AM:

quote: Mike Croaro
That's complete and utter nonsense. The "art crowd" attends these films because they want to view mature, sophisticated, and compelling stories. They want to be more than just "entertained".

You are obviously not in this catagory. And that's fine. But please don't diss other for their more electic taste.

The fact that you've said this shows you didn't actually comprehend what I wrote.

As a hint/recap:
I said "many" people attend artsy movies to feel like they are more sophisticated than everyone else. I didn't say "all" of them do.

Also, just because I point out that a portion of art movie attendees might not really like these movies doesn't mean that I hate these movies too. I like art movies on occasion. But good job with the unfounded assumption/accusation. [Wink]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-17-2011, 06:24 PM:

Man, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black -- talk about unfounded assumptions!

Even your qualifying that "many" people who go to art films feel like they are more sophistocated than everyone else doesn't give you a free pass on what is one hell of an assumption on your part. By what scientific or even pseudo-scientific method did you arrive at this cliché "fact" about why people go to alternative, non-mainstream films? Did you interview people who go to art house films and question their motives? Did you ask them, "Hey, do you watch art films because you want to feel more sophistocated than everyone else? Or do you actually know your are not, but want everyone to think you are?" Did you take notes and compiled what you determined to be "many" out of all of those who go to art house fare? And what constitutes "many," by the way -- a majority, half, a 1/3rd, a 1/4th of all who go to them? Or is this just a mere assumption of yours intended to demean those who appreciate the kinds of films that you do not?

Oh wait -- let me qualify that as you did; "Or is it just a mere assumption of yours intended to demean those who appreciate the kinds of films that you MOSTLY do not?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-17-2011, 09:09 PM:

It's merely an assumption, based on run-ins with some people, who like the stuff just for the purpose of it being non-mainstream as opposed to someone who likes it for being actual art. And, my feeling is that most are not like that but I'd say that a co-called "significant minority" of them are. But of course, this wasn't arrived at scientifically by any means.

And of course, I could be wrong...

IMO, it's similar to how in the 80s some fans of Metallica called them "sellouts" for signing onto a major label and then later for having a video even to the point of saying that they liked most that no one else had heard of the band. Now, most of the fans at the time didn't voice that kind of opinion, but arguably "many" of them did.

Hopefully, that explains things.

But really, I didn't intend to offend people who honestly like the stuff. And I really wouldn't say I dislike most artsy movies; if anything, I see about as many art movies as I do mainstream (which means few and far between for both) since I'm busy finishing up grad school...

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-17-2011, 11:13 PM:

quote: Mike Croaro
The "art crowd" attends these films because they want to view mature, sophisticated, and compelling stories.

This film is challenging all right, but not in the best sense of the word. To imply that TREE OF LIFE is "mature, sophisticated and compelling" -- or even that it has a story -- is pushing it, IMHO.