It’s rare that we go to the movies anymore. The last time I went, the young lady at the ticket booth offered me a senior citizen discount ticket.  Being frugal, I chose to accept her offer rather than strangle her.  After watching the movie, I felt that I had overpaid.  It was awful.  Movies in the theater cost too much, and, at least in my opinion, aren’t very good anymore.  It seems that movie studios largely agree, which is why they keep trying to remake old movies rather than produce anything new.

Yet movie theaters have become the new battleground for Americans with disabilities.  Via Overlawyered,

The Ninth Circuit greenlights a potentially significant ADA suit, reversing a trial court that “found that the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act do not require movie theaters to provide captions and descriptions.”

It made some sense to me that hearing impaired movie watchers could benefit from closed captioning, though it wasn’t entirely clear how the captions would be closed for them and not for everyone else in the theater.  Some people find the writing on the screen to be very distracting.  Then again, foreign movies with subtitles had writing on the screen, so it’s not as if the concept was unheard of. 

What I was unable to figure out was how the visually impaired would be accommodated.  A movie, by definition, is a visual medium.  It struck me as music for the deaf, a problem any way you twist it. It’s not that I don’t care or wish there was a way in which people whose senses aren’t working as they should could enjoy all that life offers.  I just have some difficulty figuring out how to accomplish it, and how to accomplish it without sacrificing something else in the process. 

From the Yuma Sun came the part of the 9th Circuit’s decision that explained what would be required.

None of the Harkins theaters offers “descriptive narration,” where someone describes the action occurring on the screen to those who are blind or have limited vision.

Two years ago, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver acknowledged that without those devices there are people who will not have access to many of the popular movies. And the judge said the anti-discrimination laws are generally designed to ensure that people are not excluded from places of public accommodation.

This was new to me, which comes as no surprise since I’m not on the cutting edge of devices for the visually impaired.  Judge Proctor Hug, Jr., who authored the opinion, explained his position through a comparison:

“For example, a courthouse that was accessible only by steps could not avoid ADA liability by arguing that everyone — including the wheelchair bound — has equal access to the steps,”

It’s very unclear why this would serve as an example of proper accommodation for including descriptive narrative in a movie theater, given the number of obvious distinctions between the two.  In fact, if this is the best example the court could find, it suggests that the decision far overreaches.  Consider what would be required of a public dancehall to accommodate wheelchair bound patrons.  Where does the line get drawn?  Does a line get drawn?

As for descriptive narrative, however, it doesn’t seem to be such an unduly burdensome accommodation once you think about it.  Courtrooms are often equipped with funky looking earphones for non-English speaking defendants to listen to translations of proceedings.  While they don’t always work very well, they are available and, once working, generally satisfactory for their intended purpose.  It’s unclear to me whether it would left to movie producers or theater owners to create the descriptive narrative, the former being the only rational choice since it makes little sense to leave it to a theater owner to decide what’s worthy of description and what’s not. 

Whether this will enable the visually impaired to enjoy the experience of “watching” a movie in a theater is a question to be answered by others.  It may be fine.  It may be the least troubling alternative. I dunno.

But the price of a movie ticket today is outrageous.  There may be technology that will allow the sight and hearing impaired to go to a theater and enjoy a movie, but it’s not going to help them pay the cost of the ticket.