NY Times Article on Ups & Downs of Taking Children to B'way Shows- Page 2

[Anakela]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 10:50pm

Did anyone else know that you can get a theatre 'lap child' ticket? I only heard of that for the first time while reading this article- I always thought the rule was one butt per seat?

It's annoying enough as it is when you're stuck seated behind one of those 'snuggly' couples who spend the whole show with their heads together so that you can't see in the space between them, can you imagine sitting behind a row of lap children at the theatre?

eta: so I just read about 'lap tickets' on the The Grinch website- anyone under three years of age can buy a lap seat. So that means that you could in theory be stuck behind a row of parents, each one with a 2 yr 11 month old child on his/her lap? Does this even work, for seeing a show? Not that I have plans to see The Grinch or anything, but I've never heard of this lap child ticketing, I am fascinated!
Updated On: 12/7/06 at 10:50 PM

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 10:55pm

I would assume that a child needing a lap seat would be small enough that their head should fall well below their parent's shoulders when seated... no?

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 10:55pm

Not that I would do this, but...

I am a single mother of a 3 year old and I enjoy going to the theater and would not hesitate to bring my son along, only because I know he would be well-behaved and enjoy himself (at the right show of course).

I would not do this however, because I am a very BROKE single mother and would not pay 110 dollars, or even a discounted amount, for my son to basically get the same pleasure he gets from watching a DVD...now in 3 or 4 years, it may be different. But at 3...not worth it.

[aspiringactress]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 11:00pm

As one of those people for whom Broadway is local theatre and always has been, I started going at around 4, and loved it, and I can remember a lot. My parents did dtart me on TheatreWorks however when I was around 3. I was well behaved then too, but it allowed for some form of 'training'.

[Horton]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 11:33pm

I was seeing "real theater" before the age of 15 if you want to call it that. I was in awe of all of this, now mind you I like to think that I really appreciated it, but dont think kids can appreciate this.

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:30am

margo: you are a god(dess), and a godsend to this site, so i post with some trepidation here, but for the first time in my surfing of bww.com i have to disagree with you utterly. vehemently, even.

like you, my parents started me young as a theater-goer. however, (and i bet also like you), my parents made sure that i understood what was expected of me in the situation, and acted swiftly if i even verged on becoming an annoyance to the people around me.

in my experience, parents today are CLUELESS compared to a generation ago. (im still young, and a pretty progressive thinker, so i promise this is not a grandpa simson back-in-my-day tirade) forget not knowing how to discipline their children, parents are so innured to their offspring's bad behavior that they're not even aware of it when it's occurring. sadly, this is the exception and not the rule.

theaters, movies, restaurants ... they all want to be their kids' buddies, not their parents.

i think your faith in modern parenting skills is woefully misplaced, and theater management has an obligation to the *adults* who've forked out 110 bucks a seat to set and enforce some groundrules.

honestly, im sick of having my theater experiences comrpomised by rude PARENTS (because, really, it's not a little tyke's fault if no one's ever taught them better).

[Rotel1026]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:30am

I don't understand why parents would be willing to risk paying $110 just to find out their child isn't interested in sitting for 2+ hours. Even if you manage a discount ticket, $60 bucks is still too much to pay to find out the show it too long and that your kid isn't interested in sitting thru it.

As for those that were young and were taken by their parents, great for you, but I don't have the type of money to take a kid to a show at that age when a $10 movie ticket would work just as well for him/her. I definitely agree with starting your kid off with a smaller production (not to mention cheaper). Personally, I don't think I'd want to take a kid to a Broadway show unless he was older than 8-10 years old. Under that I think is too young to truly appreciate it.

[whatever2]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:32am

parents spend the money because they have it and they need to keep up with the joneses.

[Julian2]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:39am

I think it is incredibly important that children are introduced to theatre at a young age. It helps them to be well rounded, it shows them how great theatre can be, and they start learning etiquette. That said, the parents need to learn some theatre etiquette and know when it is appropriate for their children to go to a Broadway show. Its a little different for community theatre, and very different for HS theatre, and these are some places where the children can be tested. Or at the movies, at home in front of a DVD, or god forbid at childrens theatre. It all really depends on the child. Its the parent's responsibility, not the theatre owners. A big part of the problem is that Disney is targeting a family audience that knows nothing about theatre etiquette, and in some ways their shows are basically children's theatre on steroids, that desparetly wants to be serious theatre.

As far as breast-feeding, I agree with orangeskittles. I'm fine with it in public, but in theatre, that's really not appropiate.

Nevertheless, the prospect of a tantrum is real, and a plan must be hatched. The Agnews discussed a one-parent/one-child split at intermission if Harris, the 3-year-old, became restless.

Smart people, not perfect, could have gotten a sitter or something, but very smart.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 1:18am

I don't understand why parents would be willing to risk paying $110 just to find out their child isn't interested in sitting for 2+ hours. Even if you manage a discount ticket, $60 bucks is still too much to pay to find out the show it too long and that your kid isn't interested in sitting thru it.

$110 to you is different than $110 to a family living in Manhattan. Don't assume everyone has the same income.

Updated On: 12/8/06 at 01:18 AM

[Fantabulous428]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 1:25am

I'm sure the reason not all theaters have rules regarding age for entry has to do with the fact that up until recently, no one would even think to bring their two year old to a show. You can't tell me that a parent is trying to introduce a two year to art and theater - to me, that is pure laziness on the parents part. I can fully understand taking a five year old to a show catered to children. As someone who works with pre-school aged kids on a daily basis, I have full confidence that there are many who would be able to handle a show. Have you ever seen the way kids are completely entranced by television? It takes a great deal of work to get them to tear their eyes away.

I'm all for educating children in theater at an early age, however, I just don't see the point in bringing a child younger than five, give or take a year depending on maturity level. There's no way they'd remember it anyway, so as others have said, why not just stay at home and pop in a DVD?

Updated On: 12/8/06 at 01:25 AM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 10:35am

"They can confiscate your camera if you dare take a picture of the curtain,"

They may do that, but legally speaking they can't. It's called theft. The worst case scenario they can do is call the police and have the police confiscate the camera.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 11:48am

Wow, this thread has brought a lot to light. I thought it was odd that the LA Times did a story on this yesterday as well.

The link is below with a picture from the Hansel & Gretel I'm working on at the LA Opera.
Same kind of story

[FrontRowCenter2]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 11:58am

While I agree with Margo that parents ultimately should make the decision based upon their knowledge of their child's behavior - let's not forget that many parents take their kids to the theater (money not being an issue) simply because they can't or won't get a babysitter and they really are not concerned who their child's bad behavior will affect. To these parents - SHAME ON YOU.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 11:58am

If the audience I experienced at the final performance of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" is any indication, I say leave the kids at home. Never have I experienced anything so discouraging in my entire life. And, yes, I've experienced rude and inconsiderate audience behavior by adults as well. It's a very sad commentary about us as a society.

Margo - I see where you're coming from, but it's obvious you were the exception and unfortunately not the rule. I, too, experienced, theatre, opera and ballet at a young age, and remember a lot of those early experiences. I was totally captivated, and couldn't wait for the next one to come along.

[Calvin]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:01pm

The audience was dreadful when I saw Chitty. I despised every person, adult and child, within a 20-foot radius by the end of that show.

That being said, my parents also took me to a lot of stuff when I was a kid, and I'm thankful that they did. They still laugh at bringing me to a Sarah Brightman concert when I was about 10, during which I slept through the entire "Cats" portion of the show. But at least I wasn't disturbing anyone.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:03pm

I was introduced to theater early on in life, but not to Brodayway (I was 9 or 10 I think). At 9 or 10 it really had an impact on me and shaped my love for it. I think that is awesome and I am so thankful for my family/teachers for showing it to me. However, I can't see bring a child under 6 or 7 to a big Broadway show. It's like spending big $$ to take a 1 or 2 y/o to Disneyland. They are amused for the moment, but do not actually remember it. But each parent has the right to make the decision of how to spend their money. If they want to spend it and take their 2 or 3 year old to show, so be it. Just be prepared to make sure they don't interupt someone else's enjoyment.

I can say recently when I saw the Grinch, it was the parents that upset me. The kids I expected to be kids. But the parents were too busy talking to other parents to notice there kids were running around the theater, etc. (This was beforehand not during the show).

[avab802]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:03pm

That picture of the 21-month-old twins being taken to Mary Poppins just makes me laugh. They aren't even 2 yet! I'd be willing to bet the paycheck I just got that their parents paid $110 each (or more) for them to have a nice long nap. I saw Mary Poppins when it was in previews and noticed a little boy of about 3 doing just that. He was asleep in his father's arms when his family took their seats, and he stayed that way for the entire show. I'm sure a babysitter for the evening would have been cheaper than his ticket.

I think whatever2 hit the nail on the head here: "parents spend the money because they have it and they need to keep up with the joneses."

There are a lot of very wealthy people in NYC to whom a $250 theatre ticket is a drop in the bucket. They spend the money so they can say that their entitled little angels have seen every Disney show on Broadway before the age of 3. And from Disney's side of it, they are making big $ by marketing their shows as "family entertainment." If families are told they can't bring their 2-year-old, they might not come at all, and Disney loses those ticket sales.

I only hope that the diaper set doesn't start encroching on "adult" shows, and parents who feel they must bring the baby to the theater stick to Disney shows.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:06pm

Some children are actually EXTREMELY capable of sitting through a show at age 3. If you know your child, you've taken him/her to several community productions and it's a joy, why not move on and give them the best?

[avab802]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:22pm

Some children are actually EXTREMELY capable of sitting through a show at age 3. If you know your child, you've taken him/her to several community productions and it's a joy, why not move on and give them the best?

Oh I completely agree. It all depends on the individual child, and it is up to the parents to know what their child is capable of. But to FrontRowCenter's point, too often parents just don't realize or care that their child's bad behavior is affecting other people.

Thankfully it's never happened to me at a Broadway show, but several times I've been in movies where a child is allowed to talk or cry throughout the movie until someone in the audience finally yells at the parent to take the kid out. With young children it's often impossible to know how they will react to a situation until they are in it, but if they react badly it's the parents' responsibility to just cut their losses and leave.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:27pm

"Some children are actually EXTREMELY capable of sitting through a show at age 3."

Then why aren't they being taken to the theatre?

[Anakela]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 12:47pm

That picture of the 21-month-old twins being taken to Mary Poppins just makes me laugh. They aren't even 2 yet!

Oh- so those twins were apparently in Look Book in New York Magazine back when they were 9 months old, and this has got to be the best. 'interview'. ever. with their mother- I can't decided which quote is my fav, it's either:

"For example, I’m a vegetarian, but I’ll wear leather because it could be killed for meat. Therefore, I’m being an environmentalist." or

"I constantly see kids dressed casual, and I just feel that if I teach my kids to be casual, then fashion will die. And I’m not going to let that happen on my watch!"

I would have thought I was reading The Onion if I didn't know this was a real publication- totally worth the read.




article- "If I teach my kids to be casual, then fashion will die." Updated On: 12/8/06 at 12:47 PM

[avab802]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 1:16pm

article- "If I teach my kids to be casual, then fashion will die."

Oy. Vey. I really don't know what else to say about that. Children are the latest NYC fashion accessory, and it's kind of sad.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 1:16pm

Anakela, I'm not sure whether to thank you for the laugh or curse you for alerting me to such stupidity in this world.

Even better quote:

"And I love fur, but I buy mine at the flea market and only if it’s 50 years old, because 50 years ago we were not familiar with the way they kill animals."

[once a month]

Posted: 12/8/06 at 3:43pm

Okay...after all, it was Radio City Music Hall this Monday at the matinee, so I expected quite a few kids. Unfortunately, two seats behind me was a woman holding an infant who screamed for at least 60 of the 90 minutes. Thank God for the halls heavy amplification which at least helped to drown out the little...'cherub'. I hate to be the Grinch...but after Radio City, Chitty and Tarzan, there will be no further shows of that genre for me to suffer through and be abstracted by 'outside influences'..

EDIT: I also forgot to mention the scores of people who entered after the show began. And did I mention the teen guy next to me who was late, who was bored, and who text messaged for most of the performance? (grrrrrr!!) Updated On: 12/8/06 at 03:43 PM