Op-Ed
Daum: You pays your money …
We live in a world where everything's refundable, fast-forwardable or otherwise disposable. But it means shopping isn't what it once was: having to choose.
So is your money, of course. Should you get it back?
Lately there's has been some disagreement on that score, particularly when it comes to "The Tree of Life," directed by the legendary (and legendarily esoteric) Terrence Malick. Though advertisements suggest it's a story about a family in 1950s Texas, "The Tree of Life" spends much of its 138 minutes in flashbacks so deep they go all the way to the Big Bang.
Malick paints the screen with images of planets forming, volcanoes erupting and oceans emerging in a sort of psychedelic haze that deliberately reduces the lives of the Texans to mere blips in time.
"The Tree of Life" won the big prize at Cannes, and it's touted as a masterpiece. Much of the praise, however, has been drowned out by reports of audience dissatisfaction (they booed even at Cannes). People have been walking out of theaters in higher numbers than usual and, yes, demanding their money back. A Connecticut movie house posted a sign on its front window reminding patrons of its no-refund policy and encouraging them to "read up on the film before choosing to see it."
Keep in mind that this is a two-screen independent cinema; it's not as if patrons were being forced to see "The Tree of Life" because "Transformers" was sold out.
What about that great American principle of the customer always being right? Just how far should movie theaters, or merchants and service providers in general, bend to "guarantee" customer satisfaction?
These days, thanks to competition generated by a global, online marketplace, it seems like everything is returnable. Retailers, online and off, are dying for your business. They're willing to money-back-guarantee your happiness.
Want a book that's not yet in the library? Most bookstores offer a full refund, no questions asked, so why not buy the book, take it home, read it and then return it? The store doesn't mind, mostly because you may never get around to bringing it back.
The same ethos goes for a lot of clothing and accessories, appliances, electronics and furniture. Some retailers, such as the sporting and camping gear outfitter REI, are so famous for their liberal return policies that you can find Internet comment threads brimming with one-upmanship: A commenter on a backpacking blog observed that you could feed an item to a bear and REI would still take it back.
With Fourth of July sales still going on, it seems downright un-American to suggest that the customer may, sometimes, be wrong. After all, a generous return policy is a paean to free markets, a sign of a healthy economy and, in many ways, a good thing. But in a marketplace that demands very little in the way of commitment, a crucial aspect of shopping has fallen by the wayside: the element of choosing.
Once upon a time, buying one thing had something to do with deciding not to buy another thing. It meant thinking hard about what we wanted — be it a movie, a kayak, a new suit — and knowing a do-over would be difficult if not impossible. Today, that's almost quaint. We blithely load our online shopping carts with items we might not like or need or fit into, and we don't feel the least bit anxious — because we can always return them. Meanwhile, our DVRs are recording every show we might ever want to watch, and the titles on our Netflix queues are numbering into the hundreds, many of them destined to be never watched.
Is it any wonder, then, that "Read up on the film before you choose to see it" is proving to be an elusive concept? In a world where everything's refundable, fast-forwardable or otherwise disposable, it's easy to forget that buying a movie ticket has never been a risk-free proposition. That's part of the thrill. Then again, there's the even greater thrill of walking out. That, for sure, is worth the price of admission.
mdaum@latimescolumnists.com
Comments (2)
Add / View comments | Discussion FAQWhen I first saw the trailer for "Tree of Life", my reaction was "what is this $%$%? It was obvious that this movie would go to places not conducive to a family (or an adult couple) looking for some cheap thrills on a Saturday night. Caveat Emptor.
On the other hand, some movie hype verges on false advertising. I have never walked out of a movie due to it's lack of quality, but I did come close after watching Redford's "The Conspirator". One would expect a dramatic account of a dramatic historical incident, the assassination of Lincoln. Instead , it was a mishmash of revisionist history, cliche characters and plot devices, and poor lighting. For this experiences, should have gotten my money back, and punitive damages as well.
I don't want to do too much reading up on a movie before I go see it as I like to be surprised by what happens. Ususally it is near impossible to not know at least something before seeing a movie but the less I know, the better and some of the best movie experiences I have had are those where I either go on a recommendation of someone or one where I just randomly choose a theater and go see the movie that is starting closest to the time I randomly arrive at the theater.
I expect a movie to be well done. That's all I ask and even if I don't like it I will leave with no regrets about the money spent. If the movie is a piece of garbage, I will know this fairly early in the movie and I will immediately leave and go ask for compensation. This has only happened twice in my five decades and both times the theater staff have given me vouchers for a future movie. This was a very fair resolution in both instances. It should have happened a third time for David Lynch's junker Lost Highway but I did sit through the whole thing (why? I don't know) so I felt that I wasn't entitled to a refund/voucher. I am getting my compensation for this by trashing it here, teehee.
If I was to make this determination in the future about a movie and the theater staff were unwilling to accomodate me, I would be very disappointed and likely never patronize the extablishment again.




Letters »