CBC News49%

Time to clutch your pearls: Theatre etiquette is changing 31%

By Helen Surgenor0%

6/27/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Indoctrination, and False Dilemma, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 28.9% saturation with 230 hits. Analysis detected 2,146 faulty-reasoning hits from 796 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.6% and a BS Rank of 31% (15,102 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.00% of the article peer group.

On opening night of the Paranormal Activity stage show in Toronto this June, someone booed the lead actor in the middle of his performance. 
The jeerer didn't seem dissatisfied with acting, just the choices of the character on stage. 
Other members of the audience immediately started shushing, and many later went online to voice their outrage and lament the death of theatre etiquette. 
"Whoever booed after such an incredible monologue needs to be shadow-banned  for real. 
Like, this isn't a panto," said one Reddit user, referring to slapstick pantomime comedies known for their boisterous audiences. 
Others complained about different audience behaviour at the Mirvish production, including the nervous chatter and laughter that followed each jump scare in the show, which is based on the horror-movie franchise. 
Ready to roll with a raucous crowd 
Patrick Heusinger, who has been starring in Paranormal Activity since the stage show premiered in 2025, isn't getting hung up on audience behaviour. 
"We do attract an audience that hasn't been to the theatre before. 
With that, we get folks who don't know what ... the etiquette is and they often feel like they're in their living room," he told CBC News. 
"We're used to it at this point, you know, people just munching away on popcorn, ripping open candy in very tense moments." 
This particular booing event didn't really bother him, he said, because good art is all about eliciting some kind of reaction. 
"Get into it," said Heusinger. 
"If something is making you want to talk to us, we're not afraid of it. 
We've got it under control up here." 
Introducing the 'chilled performance' 
There could be more of these types of interruptions, now that Mirvish is offering its first "chilled performance" of & Juliet, the jukebox musical that offers a different, happier ending to a Shakespearean classic. 
The songs are well-known pop hits, but at a regular performance, singing along can get you in trouble. 
"What we hear from people is, 'I've come to hear professionals perform, not fellow audience members,'" said John Karastamatis, director of communications and programming for Mirvish Productions. 
After all, these shows are put on by people who have dedicated their lives to honing their craft. 
At a "chilled performance," the content of the show is the same, but: 
* The house lights are turned up half way. 
* Patrons may come and go as they please. 
* It's OK to make noise. 
These relaxed expectations can allow a range of people  from dementia patients who love music but can't sit quietly to people who experience involuntary vocal tics  to enjoy the theatre. 
That's the goal behind these performances, said Karastamatis: theatre for everyone, including those who consider themselves neurodivergent, and anyone else who just wants a more relaxed environment. 
Change comes to the cinema 
Cineplex still plays reminders for people to turn off their cellphones before the movie and keep their inner monologue within, but chief marketing officer Sara Moore admits audiences are evolving, and cellphones aren't going away. 
"We do understand people do pull them out. 
We have parents getting notes from babysitters," she said. 
"For the most part, people are really good about it." 
The approach now, she said, is to give audiences the experiences they want, and sometimes that involves noise and cellphones. 
"We've had really loud and raucous sing-alongs to things like Wicked and Taylor Swift," she said. 
"We've shown cricket in our theatres. 
We've shown Raptors basketball. 
But we do set that up with our moviegoers in advance so they know what they're getting." 
'Classist, elitist' unwritten rules 
A few hundred years ago, people in the cheap seats at Shakespeare's Globe theatre would stand close enough to lean on the stage, make noise, even throw vegetables if they didn't like what they saw. 
"Theatre etiquette as we understand it today was largely invented in the mid-to-late 19th century," said Toronto theatre critic Ryan Borochovitz. 
More recent unspoken rules  no talking, no cellphones, no rustling food wrappers  whether intentional or not, have had an effect: "to keep poor people out of the theatre, or to make poor people  feel unwelcome if they don't know the rules," he said. 
He points out theatres could make changes to help everyone enjoy the experience, including dimming the house lights instead of completely turning them off, so bright screens become less of a distraction whenever someone checks their phone. 
For Borochovitz, it's about setting clear expectations. 
Don't market Mamma Mia! 
as a show that will have folks dancing in the aisles if you don't literally want them to dance. 
Don't get mad at someone for looking at their cellphone  unless they have been explicitly told to turn it off. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.6%Helen Surgenor: 4.6%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Helen Surgenor: 3.8%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 2.4%Helen Surgenor: 0.6%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Helen Surgenor: 1.3%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 5.0%Helen Surgenor: 6.9%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect5.0%This article: 2.6%Helen Surgenor: 0.7%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion2.6%This article: 4.4%Helen Surgenor: 1.1%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.1%Helen Surgenor: 4.1%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias15.1%This article: 1.8%Helen Surgenor: 0.4%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias1.8%This article: 21.0%Helen Surgenor: 7.0%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias21.0%This article: 5.2%Helen Surgenor: 1.3%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 7.4%Helen Surgenor: 2.7%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.4%This article: 2.9%Helen Surgenor: 0.7%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.8%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Helen Surgenor: 2.0%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Helen Surgenor: 0.8%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.4%Helen Surgenor: 3.7%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority10.4%This article: 16.8%Helen Surgenor: 4.8%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma16.8%This article: 8.9%Helen Surgenor: 2.2%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope8.9%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.6%Helen Surgenor: 6.3%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization10.6%This article: 0.5%Helen Surgenor: 0.1%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.5%This article: 3.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.8%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon3.0%This article: 14.6%Helen Surgenor: 4.1%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion14.6%This article: 3.1%Helen Surgenor: 1.4%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 5.8%Helen Surgenor: 1.4%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.6%Helen Surgenor: 1.2%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division4.6%This article: 28.9%Helen Surgenor: 7.5%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal28.9%This article: 3.4%Helen Surgenor: 0.8%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.4%This article: 9.8%Helen Surgenor: 2.4%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.8%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Helen Surgenor: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.9%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.6%Helen Surgenor: 0.7%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading2.6%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Helen Surgenor: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 6.9%Helen Surgenor: 2.6%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.9%This article: 2.5%Helen Surgenor: 0.9%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice2.5%This article: 18.0%Helen Surgenor: 4.5%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination18.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 1.4%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Helen Surgenor: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Helen Surgenor: 2.7%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.8%

796 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers52%attributed speech381writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 23 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 12 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 27 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 21 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 5 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 15 words • 100.0% coveragePatrick Heusinger • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Karastamatis • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Karastamatis • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 35 words • 100.0% coverageSara Moore • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 20 words • 100.0% coverageSara Moore • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 6 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSara Moore • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Borochovitz • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Borochovitz • 46 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Borochovitz • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Karastamatis

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words13% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+42.7 ptsWriter: 7.3%John Karastamatis: 50.0%50.0%Indoctrination+30.1 ptsWriter: 19.9%John Karastamatis: 50.0%50.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%John Karastamatis: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%John Karastamatis: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%John Karastamatis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.