To be annoyed at disruption in a theatre show?

[shouldwejust]

I appreciate that this is a nuanced topic, and that there possibly isn’t a right answer.

Recently I went to watch a show in the theatre that I had been looking forward to for months. The tickets were my birthday present and something I can’t usually afford, so definitely a one off treat.

Throughout the whole show, a man who had severe disabilities was shouting out and yelling. He didn’t stop at all and continuously made very loud and disruptive noises.

It completely took me out of the show, meant I struggled to concentrate and was just annoyed!

I fully appreciate that everyone in society has a right to enjoy things, and perhaps this man was looking forward to the show just as much as me! But, I don’t think that it’s fair that he disrupted the show for the entire rest of the audience who had also paid a lot to be there.

I don’t know what the solution is to be perfectly honest. That his carer removed him when he was being disruptive? That he attended one of the “autism friendly” screenings that are expected to have more disruption?

When I said this to my partner he was shocked and said that basically we should just accept that our show was ruined for his enjoyment, as that is being inclusive. I don’t feel that inclusivity should come at the cost of everyone else?

I appreciate that I may be told I am being unreasonable here but I’d like to hear other people’s opinions here

Almost everybody wants a quiet showing, whether they have disabilities or not. I think the reason the suggestion of quiet showings has been ignored is because what you would end up with is most performances being labelled as 'quiet' and banning those with disabilities that could be noisy. Which is discriminatory. Any shows that guaranteed a quiet audience would be in extremely high demand. It does seem unfair that people whose disability means they require a quiet showing don't have the opportunity to have those needs met and therefore can find themselves excluded as the poster who raised this has said. I think situations with conflicting needs are really complicated (like a service dog user vs someone with serious allergies - both people have the right to be there, but they cannot manage in the same space due to reasons beyond their control).

I really feel for the OP's disappointment. In my experience, I've never been disrupted by anyone with disabilities and it's the able-bodied phone users and chatterers who ruin most performances! They are the reason I'd want to book a quiet performance rather than the off chance of someone with loud tics being present which is much rarer.

This is part of the issue. If the demand was there, theatres would put on more relaxed performances.

When I ran one smaller venue seating 250, we used to have a pantomime that ran for three weeks with around 24 performances. I introduced a relaxed performance and chose a Saturday afternoon as hopefully being the best time to accommodate potential patrons. We marketed it heavily, contacted lots of local support organisations and managed to get an audience of 44, half of whom were carers and carers always got free tickets at our venue for any performance. Those who came had a wonderful time and we repeated it every year but never got more than a third of the house. But every relaxed performance ran at a thumping loss and we got no grants from anyone to help.

Scale that up to touring regional theatres seating 600 and then West End seating 1200. I do think the big long-running West End shows could do more and they make sufficient profits to offset it. But regional theatres often play a touring show for 6, 7 or 8 performances before it moves to another theatre. If there was a relaxed performance for every show, should it be a chilled one, a relaxed one, a quiet one, one of each? Then there's the signed performances.

The costs would be so prohibitive that we'd lose most of our theatres and then no one gets to go (and many regional theatres go into day centres and other places to give other types of performance).

I agree it's not perfect and it could be better in some areas but it's never going to be perfect unless there really is a magic money tree.

Almost everybody wants a quiet showing, whether they have disabilities or not. I think the reason the suggestion of quiet showings has been ignored is because what you would end up with is most performances being labelled as 'quiet' and banning those with disabilities that could be noisy.

I don’t know. A proper ‘quiet’ showing would be one with phones having to be turned off or on silent, which might mean them being turned off & locked in pouches, with any noisy food / noisy packaging banned, and with a warning at the start that anyone who spoke during the performance would be asked to leave at the interval. I’d like that but a lot of people wouldn’t.

That’s how all showings should be, quiet and politeness for everyone

There's nothing ableust abiut what the OP has posted.

Are people who aren't classed as disabled supposed to not be affected by behaviour in enclised spaces that they have paid money?

I guess maybe they could split based on need. So it may be a 70/30 split between quiet and relaxed, depending on popularity. The people with disabilities that cause them to be noisy (and they can’t control it) would need to go to the relaxed showing. Surely that would count as a reasonable adjustment?
There have been many people on this thread who don’t have disabilities but have said they wouldn’t have an issue if people in the audience were making noise - so they can go to either showing. Everyone else goes to the quiet showing.

I agree though, it’s very difficult to cater for everyone!

In have never been to a cinema or theatre without being requested to mute my phone

I have pretty severe misophonia with crisp and sweet packets and I would be ecstatic if they could be banned!

But a pp here said they sell out really fast.

If, for eg, people at OPs performance had all given feedback about the disruption someone at the theatre might start researching? They are often all about "inclusion" after all

Not all theatres are going to be alike. A West End relaxed showing may sell out fast, but lots of smaller theatres out of London struggle to fill the seats for a standard performance. That's why the runs are so short.

There is nothing "polite" from all the posters saying the disabled should not have the same access to theatres as the non disabled. Bigotry and hatred of the disabled is what it is.

No one has said that.

So why are there laws around accessibility?
Surely you don't actually mean 'the same access' - as in the stairs, the doors they can't open, the seat they can't fit in?
Wanting to enjoy live theatre and believing that people who disrupt the show for everyone should be accommodated in other ways does not make me a bigot.

Your posts do your cause no favours.

The problem is if you did true quiet showings where no one can leave to go to the loo, cough, rustle packets etc then normal showing would become full of people who were chatting and checking their phones and feel empowered to do so because it’s not a ‘quiet’ performance.

It’s far more nuanced than that and you know it full well. I get it comes from a place of disappointment and anger. I’ve felt the same, too, when told a place will not be accessible for me. I’m not going to demand another paying customer or participant carry me through whatever the activity is, though.

Stop talking about only rights and start thinking about responsibilities, too. Failing to do this is giving disabled people a bad name and making life harder for all of us as a result.

No it isn't. It's been an interesting thread with different respectful points of view.

Your black and white attitude isn't helping you to see how nuanced this type of issue is, and you are repeatedly ignoring the posts from people with various disabilities and neurodivergence which is quite disrespectful really.

This was not the thread I needed to read today. I may as well just keep my son and I inside our house permanently, as the list of places where he's deemed acceptable to society is getting smaller by the day. Guess he outgrew cute. I honestly hate this life we've been given, and all the self absorbed people who have absolutely no idea what hell this is.

Sending you so much love. I feel you, as my disabled son teeters away from cute and into unwelcome in so many spaces. Good people do exist, maybe just in smaller numbers than you’d hope.

If it's self absorbed of me to want to enjoy a theatre show then I'll take it on the chin.
You're right, I don't have the first idea what your life is like. The only vaguely similar situation is needing to take FIL, who has dementia, out of musical performances if he is unsettled. We long gave up going to the cinema.

What do you think the answer is? That we learn to accept that musical events, theatre, sporting events, children's show may well be interrupted by disabled people who are unable to prevent vocalising? Or do we need to find a compromise whereby all members of society can gain enjoyment in the way they wish?

Would you take him a library where people are reading/studying in silence because they need to concentrate?

If they are screaming their heads off constantly, why would we want them around us?

Proponents of eugenics on Mumsnet on a Monday night, lovely stuff.

Nothing about eugenics.

Again why would we want a screaming person when we are trying to enjoy either a performance or go to an area built for peace and quiet?

Where on earth has anyone proposed eugenics on this thread?

No one did but some people are far too small minded to consider any viewpoint other than their own small world.