Facebook, a SoCal revival-theatre employee, and me.

Apologizing in advance for any complaints about perceived "bad manners" of mine.

Saturday night, I attended part of a Montgomery Clift double bill of THE MISFITS/WILD RIVER (have seen both before) at the American Cinematheque's Aero Theatre in Santa Monica.

The young male Cinematheque employee (who will go unnamed here) gave an introduction to the films which began with out-loud musings about how the audience was bigger than expected (from my estimate, about 40% full, surprising for an evening of its Clift mini-fest).  It didn't improve from there, with the employee discussing the upcoming slate of movies in what seemed to me to be an "I-don't-care" fashion.  And, when in the lobby, I happened to notice the employee was sporadically playing chess behind the snack-and-soda counter with another young male employee.

So, I made the impulsive decision to complain about this on Facebook--specifically on the Aero Theatre page.

And I received this response from the introduction-giving employee, which mixed a reasonable reply with a passage (highlighted by me) I took offense to:
I'm sorry you were unhappy with my intro. I've been working at the Aero for five years and I finally decided to try giving the intro - it looks like you mistook my stage fright for apathy.
We are always happy to hear from our customers at the counter and if you feel like you need to speak to a manager you can address complaints directly to [name deleted by me], the theater manager, or [name deleted], the director of the American Cinematheque.
By making your complaint public, you not only embarrass me personally (which I can get over), but you also make the whole institution look bad (which is harder to rectify).
If you think that we should only have employees who are already comfortable on stage give the introductions I encourage you to suggest that to one of our managers, but I would like to ask you personally if you would consider sending your message privately and take down the public comment.
I hope that other than my less-than-stellar introduction, your time at the Aero was enjoyable.

I wrote back to the young man as follows:

I will not take the comment down. If you do further intros, take a moment to get focused and have some knowledge about the films you're promoting. And remember that it makes the institution look bad when you're talking openly to the audience about how many audience members are in attendance.

Since the Aero Theatre Facebook page isn't intended as the comments section of Yelp.com, I knew that my public incorrectness would be removed by him or someone else involved with the page.  And it was.

My final words to the young man were these:
"....if you had only stayed with your clarification and not hectored me about taking down the comments, I would very likely have done so voluntarily. So, in the end, we both have to take responsibility for this matter leaving a bitter aftertaste."

In closing, I like the American Cinematheque overall.  I've attended since the 90s across various venues including the DGA Theatres on Sunset Boulevard and the Melrose Studios screening room, plus the permanent sites of the Egyptian and Aero.  And I'm hoping that examining this molehill (which isn't really one, since it's part of the quality of revival-house presentation) of an incident here won't preclude me (plus my wife and mutual friends of ours) from attending future film programs.

I just hope that the employees--regardless of stage-fright--will express some genuine enthusiasm about the theatre's film choices to audiences, regardless of whether the number of patrons are twenty or 200. 

 

In defense of unruly online comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?hp: Link to a NEW YORK TIMES opinion column which pulls out metaphorical smelling salts over "rude" reader opinions following news stories/columns.
A key passage from the column by Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele:

In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”

We asked 1,183 participants to carefully read a news post on a fictitious blog, explaining the potential risks and benefits of a new technology product called nanosilver. These infinitesimal silver particles, tinier than 100-billionths of a meter in any dimension, have several potential benefits (like antibacterial properties) and risks (like water contamination), the online article reported.

Then we had participants read comments on the post, supposedly from other readers, and respond to questions regarding the content of the article itself.

Half of our sample was exposed to civil reader comments and the other half to rude ones — though the actual content, length and intensity of the comments, which varied from being supportive of the new technology to being wary of the risks, were consistent across both groups. The only difference was that the rude ones contained epithets or curse words, as in: “If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” and “You’re stupid if you’re not thinking of the risks for the fish and other plants and animals in water tainted with silver.”

The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they’d previously thought.

 

Offering a calm, noncensorious alternative to the article is commenter "Danny P":

It'd be a mistake to walk away from this piece thinking its best to avoid "nasty" comments. Throwing in ad hominems and rude attacks is not all that different from curse words; using them doesn't actually mean the user has nothing valuable to say.

Walt Whitman: "many of the slang words among fighting men, gamblers, thieves, prostitutes, are powerful words... Many of these bad words are fine." Neitzsche was not above hurling a few good insults... some... a lot of insults at the people he disagreed with.

Hidden in a paragraph beginning "You idiot," might be some very worthwhile contributions. Avoiding such comments means missing out. It's probably a better strategy as a reader to become someone that doesn't get reactionary and dismissive just because strangers are speaking with hostility or salty language. Dismiss them for the right reason; that their contribution lacked insight or meaningful addition to the subject.