Somerville Theatre bans (young) kids from entering after 6 pm. Let's discuss it here

[ron_newman]

This week's Somerville News has an article about the Somerville Theatre's policy of banning children under 12 8* from entering the theatre after 6 pm, even if they are accompanied by adults.

Is the theatre's policy a service to its customers who want a peaceful movie experience, or is it unfair discrimination against families with young children?

I'm posting this because we can have a more civilized discussion here than on the Somerville News blog comments. Ian Judge, the theatre's manager, reads this community, so we may be able to provide useful feedback to him here.

* Edited 11:55 am to add: I have a serious factual issue with this article. It says the policy applies to children under 12, but the theatre's website and exterior signs say it's for children under 8. That's a significant difference -- maybe significant enough to change people's opinions.

Second edit, 3 pm: Ian Judge has clarified that the theatre's policy is to exclude children under 8, not 12, from entering after 6 pm. He had made an erroneous statement to the News reporter which very unfortunately made it into the published article. Also, here is Ian's response to the specific incident detailed in the News article.

Comments

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

I kind of like the idea, to be honest. I've seen far too many young children talking through R-rated movies late at night

But then I don't have any kids.

[ron_newman]

One factual problem I have with the article: if the theatre's policy is to ban children under 12, why were Renee's 13- and 14-year-old kids sent home? This is not explained anywhere.

[infinitemorning.livejournal.com]

Well -- I have to admit, I'm not terribly against the idea of reserving some showings for adults only, and it's true that a lot of the evening shows are rated such that they're not really appropriate for kids anyway. That said, 6 pm seems a little extreme to me, and if it's true that the cops have been kicking kids out of parks before the posted curfews, that all speaks to a fairly troubling trend.

So I don't know. I'm all for a nice, peaceful movie experience, but -- 6 pm? Really? Couldn't 8 pm work about as well? Most kids under 12 will be expected home by then anyway, I'd expect. We should be letting them have some fun after school, damn it.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

Based on having looked for a couple night showings of 'kid's' movies there recently, there's honestly not a lot of under-12 fare there after 6pm.

[ellf.livejournal.com]

This is not something I think works. As a patron, I'm significantly less inclined to give my money to the theater based on this policy - it sounds like there may be a few issues (kids seeing R-rated movies without parental supervision, and possibly some disruptive kids from itme to time) that would be better solved in other ways.

One idea might be to ask an usher pop into the R-rated movies for 5 minutes, and see if anyone is being inappropriately loud. If so, said usher can ask them to leave. As a movie-goer, if a theater actually demonstrated concern for my experience in that way, I would tell all my friends about how great that theater is.

Please don't turn the Somerville theater into this weirdly authoritarian establishment where uniformed police throw kids into the street.

[ruthling.livejournal.com]

I love it. I go to the Somerville Theater a lot more often than any other. Between the location, the beer and ice cream, and the prices, it would probably be my theater of choice anyway, but the fact that there are no kids for evening shows is a real bonus. I think it's great that there are still some places that are adult only and I hope they don't change it.

[yakshaver.livejournal.com]

The Somerville News article describes the policy as "children under 12 are not permitted to enter the theatre past 6 p.m." This is not the same thing as your summary, "banning children under 12 after 6 pm." They're not forcing kids out of the theater at 6; they're prohibiting them from entering shows that start after 6 — so effectively it's a ban on under-12s being in the theater after 7:30 or 8, which does not strike me as unreasonable at all.

[exsplusohs.livejournal.com]

I actually think this is a good policy. Little ones usually get pretty tired/cranky around 7:00/7:30, and having them at the movies isn't always the best choice. If I'm paying to see a grown-up movie, I don't want to hear fussing and crying and whining from a child.

[etana.livejournal.com]

I'm all for it but then again I don't like kids.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I don't have kids, but I was one of those rare, well-behaved kids once upon a time (my parents took me to shows that were definitely rated for people older than I was), so this seems a bit extreme to me. Esp. if they're banned even when they're there with a parent/other adult. Ban on under 6s or even under 8s after 6? Or a ban later in the evening (8pm)? Either of those would make more sense. So would monitoring the shows to quiet/kick out -anyone- being disruptive, regardless of age.

I know teenagers and younger children can be obnoxious in theaters, but not all of them are. And there've been plenty of shows I've been to where it's adults talking or otherwise being disruptive.

It does seem strange that the example in this article is of two teenagers - not under 12 - being kicked out, even though they were with an adult. I'm guessing there's more to this particular story than "perceived too young, thus booted."

[fluffpot.livejournal.com]

I think it's great. I've seen far too many 8-year-olds dragged into seeing R-rated movies in other places.

[jadelennox]

I am a childless by choice adults who likes quiet movies, and I think this policy is appalling, if the article's representation of it is accurate. If children are paying customers into movies they have the right to see -- by which I mean PG and PG-13 movies -- keeping them out based on their age discrimination, pure and simple. Kick them out if they cause problems, simple enough. And banning them even if they have adult supervision? That's nuts.

This policy makes me much less likely to patronize the Somerville Theatre.

[wallacestreet.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't think the theater banning under-12s from later shows is a big problem. It's a private business, and they're not being unreasonable. The article does briefly touch on a bigger problem, though, the relative lack of kids in West Somerville. In our immediate neighborhood, Wallace, Park, and Chandler streets, there are lots and lots of little kids < 5 years old which is great for us, but the number of older kids who might go to a movie, is much much smaller. There are a handful of elementary and middle-school aged kids, and only a few families with teens.

I'm pretty confident that this gap has to do with the Somerville schools. Whether it's a real problem, or one of perception, I see a number parents moving out of the city as their kids reach school age. Our kids' peers aren't quite there yet, but we've already witnessed several departures among them, at least one of which was directly attributable to anxiety over the schools. Again, I'm not sure whether it's a real problem with the schools, or simply a matter of perception, but I think that the Somerville schools play a role in making kids' movies and thus kids' presence at the theater, unprofitable for the Somerville Theater. After all, the article says that the Capitol in Arlington has no problem with G and PG rated movies...

[svilletheatre.livejournal.com]

Thank you Ron for posting this, and to everyone for posting their thoughts.

I think this article is the direct result of me not letting the specific kids mentioned in the article into the movie.

And the reason I didn't let these kids in is because all in the same evening: they REPEATEDLY tried to go to the R-Rated movie on their own in a sneaky manner; after being denied entry for being underage and unaccompanied initially, they came back later and tried to have a cop bring them in, whom they claimed was their dad, but who was not going to watch the movie with them but assured me "he was on duty in the square". This is not parental/guardian supervision. Then, after I denied them entry, they tried to get random dudes to buy them tickets, and when we said that wouldn't fly, they acted like jackasses, screamed "this theater sucks!" and "we're never coming here again" to which I responded, as I am often inclined to do so, "I hope that is a promise if you're going to act like that".

These kids weren't even effected by the policy, since they were over 12. They were however, effected by the ratings guidelines almost ALL movie theaters go by, namely that R-Rated films must have a parent or guardian. Random dudes and parents off-site do not count. This was the 10:15pm Pineapple Express on a Tuesday night. Throw in the fact that they acted deceptively and like jerks, and voila, you don't get in.

I understand that for some people, perhaps they disagree with the policy. That is fine, as these people can go to Revere or Boston Common or Fresh Pond and have all the kids they want in the theater. I personally don't want to see small kids in the movies at night, so that is how I run my theater. The beauty of a competitive marketplace is that the consumer can choose. I think this policy reflects the desires of the majority of our customer base, so it does not hurt the theater, in fact I think it helps us. I have heard overwhelmingly positive things about the policy from our customers.

Obviously, and as I said to the paper (though it was not mentioned) if we have a rare children-oriented movie at night, like when we ran "The WIzard of Oz", we would allow kids in, but this happens so rarely it is truly an exception.

[kpht.livejournal.com]

That's ridiculous. I'm sorry. The only safe, semi-productive thing for us to do in middle school was see an 8PM movie that got out at 10, then our parents picked us up and we went home - or maybe we went and got ice cream if it was a real humdinger of a night. It was a precursor to real life, only under supervision.

And if I wanted to bring my 10 year old to a 7PM showing of a PG13 movie? That's pretty asinine. Let the parents make the choices, and boot them if they're being inappropriate, or at the very least if you're concerned about 3 year olds seeing the dark night, ban kids under 6 from specific movies. It seems like the theatre's just being lazy and would rather go authoritarian than dare stand up to adults and kids who are being rude and disrupting the movies for others.

Great idea.

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

I don't see a problems with it.

[srakkt.livejournal.com]

As a point of order, I'll note that I don't have kids.

It seems as though two things have been conflated, here. First, that two teenagers who went to see an R-rated movie were ejected because they were with an adult not their parent or guardian - a separate policy that's always been the letter of the regulation with R-rated movies - and this new policy of denying admission to children 12 and under at 6 and later.

While it's true that perhaps the instantiation of the new policy has caused the more stringent application of the old, the two shouldn't be confused with one another.

[pearlythebunny.livejournal.com]

When my (now 7-year-old) daughter was born, I had this little fantasy that we would walk up to the Somerville Theater in the summer to watch a movie, eat some ice cream, and play in a park. But I soon realized that the Somerville Theater rarely shows kids’ features, so we have never attended a movie together at our local theater. (I must have missed Kung Fu Panda, which we saw at Fresh Pond.)

But I’m not really sure I understand the issue here. If the theater doesn’t show movies that are appropriate for the under-12 crowd, I think, in general, this crowd will stay away even without a policy against them. If teens (or anyone else) are disrupting a show, then I think they should be booted.

The article says that children, who are 5 percent of the theater population, cause 50 percent of the problems, but my guess would be that one or two children cause most of this trouble, and kicking them out might be a fairer approach. (However, kicking rude kids out might be a more confrontational and difficult approach, and a blanket ban might be easier to enforce.)

[purpless77.livejournal.com]

I lost any and all respect for this theater after they started to serve alcohol. So they lost me a while ago but this would've stopped me from going there anyway, even though I have no children. This theater is no longer family friendly and it's a complete shame. It is up to parents on whether or not their children should attend a late movie. I'm usually the one complaining in the theater about a crying baby. But a ten year old Superman fan is not a crying baby. I can see a lot of the yuppies who don't yet have children approving of this and preferring it. Which as stated in the article is the crowd this theater now caters to. Catering to these people isn't going to bring our Somerville back to the good days of family. I myself even as someone who has no children feels that this is going over board. I have friends who once I show them this will no longer attend this theater either.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Kids should be allowed in, but ushers should be both allowed to and encouraged to remove families that can't control their little snowflakes.

[turil.livejournal.com]

I hope the theater owner finds some positive ideas soon for making his business a more inviting place for the community, rather than this unfortunately negative approach that he's taken up to now.

Maybe he could read the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, or some other media that will help him be a more successful businessman...

[grapefruiteater.livejournal.com]

This doesn't solve the problem of rude adults at the movies, which in my experience is far worse than the occasional disruptive kid. The people who were sitting behind me at the AMC in Burlington and talked through the entire movie (like, ongoing conversations at normal volume) on Wednesday night were well over 12. I don't really think kids are the main problem--plenty of people don't know how to behave in public and don't have respect for the people with whom they share public spaces. Banning kids doesn't solve that problem.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

If the underlying problem is that some younger kids tend to be really disruptive toward other patrons during a movie, then I would prefer to see a policy of "patrons who behave disruptively may be required to leave."

I understand that people get frustrated with small kids crying or talking loudly during a movie. But, quite honestly, I see disruptive loud behavior more often from older teenagers or college students. Younger kids at least have an excuse that they are still learning social norms. Older kids and adults shouldn't get a pass on that.

I'm biased, of course -- I have a 10-year-old and a 6-year-old son, and I would like to be able to take my 10-year-old to a movie that ends even as late as 9:00 or 9:30 if I so choose. He's generally well-behaved and considerate in a theater setting, and it would be very frustrating to be turned away because of his age alone. (I would not try to do the same with my younger son, who can get very restless.)

It seems clear that the theater manager is trying to resolve a tricky problem, and I don't envy him this position. For my own sake, I just hope that this is not a trend that continues elsewhere.

(Also note, for the record: this particular policy at the Somerville Theater is unlikely to affect me directly, as we don't live close enough to Somerville for me to bring the kids there for movies in the evening.)

Thanks, Ron and Ian, for bringing the conversation here.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

I'm just going to sum up my feelings on this subject and ancillary issues.

1) This is not a great social outrage. Seriously, anyone treating it as such should be ashamed of themselves for conflating an important issue with a trivial one. Save it for the gross violations of human rights here and overseas.

2) Bad parents can be singularly unpleasant people once you let them in the door. I know many good parents and parents-to-be, and I know many well-behaved, respectful children. But there are parents who somehow think that being handed an enormous responsibility does not change their life in any way, shape, or form. Or even worse, they think that because they've reproduced, they deserve to be treated like gods. These people are incredibly difficult to deal with, especially when they have purchased a ticket. They do not listen to reason, they do not respect their fellow patrons, and they do not go quietly, and I'm speaking as both regular patron of local theaters and a former employee of a movie theater here. It is much easier to say "I'm sorry, due to some issues we've had in the past, we don't admit children to showings after 6pm" and not take their money than it is to throw out a paying customer.

3) Any family who desires to see a film screening at the Somerville has either seen it already or has other options. This is the most important: this isn't the Somerville saying "You can't see this movie." They're saying "You can only see this movie at our establishment in a show that starts before 6pm." If a family wishes to go elsewhere, there are two movie theaters a brief T-ride away: the Harvard Square 5 and the Fresh Pond multiplex at Alewife.

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

Ron, LMK if you fulfilled the civilized discussion objective. :P