The individual cinema listings are not where some of the discussions that do invariably occur, should take place. In fact, by definition, they’re not intended for ‘discussion’, they’re ‘listings’ intended to record pertinent information about cinema treasures.
We need a place for unfettered exchanges. I’m not talking about ‘gloves off imbroglios’, but healthy discussion not restricted by conservative guidelines. (I"ve read some of the stuff that prompted the latest actions and though amusing, is entirely out of place.) Surely a site prompted by passion should have a place where it can move about freely?
I feel like I’m watching something being broadcast from ‘The Surreal Network’. If Moviemanforever isn’t either a) a plant or b) taking the mickey out of everyone, then I’d say someone had one bowl too many of CrankyFlakes this morning. (With too many special sprinkles, to boot.)
Here’s to civility and propriety.
So when are we getting our proper discussion forums…?
Yes, those were the days. The world seemed much smaller back then. Now we have myspace, we have internet sites devoted to trailers, a kajillion online blogs about the movie industry, we have Godknowshowmany tv shows that deal strictly with celebrities and their upcoming projects, we live in a much faster, much ‘smaller’, much more accessible world…
More than anything else, these days people want a) variety and b) easy access to that variety. Oh, and people don’t want to ‘wait’. For anything. Back ‘then’, a movie poster was about anticipation. Now it’s a record of something soon to be in the past, and more often prompts the comment ‘I hear her/his next film is a turkey…’
I grew up less than a mile from it, just around the corner on Mountain Avenue North. I went to Saltfleet High School, which was right next door. It backed onto Collegiate Avenue School, an elementary school. You could watch movies from the playground, or hop the fence and sit at the back; there were always unused speakers abounding. It was, as far as I can tell, the only ‘urban’ drive-in, anywhere. That is, there was housing abutting the property, so if you lived in one of these homes, you could probably see the screen quite well. Free films, indeed.
A few years ago I wrote a screenplay inspired by the Skyway. Entitled ‘Someone Else’s Dream’, its story is predicated on the idea that a ten year old’s family moves to this very neighbourhood and at the end of a very tear-filled moving day, the kid looks out his bedroom window…to find that he’s staring out at this enormous drive-in screen, lit up brilliantly against a deepening dusk sky. The Skyway had a huge effect on me growing up (obviously!); I have many great memories of the place, it’s no wonder they ended up prompting a need to turn them into a story. (The gist of the screenplay is the request in her will of his British grandmother to build the drive-in her husband had long dreamed of constructing in Cornwall; there’s never been a drive-in in England…)
As far as the ‘closing’ date, yes, RalphB is correct. It sure wasn’t 1970. Closer to ‘77, '78. I’m trying to nail this one down and will post when I’ve had some success.
Oh, by the way, a piece of trivia: the first film to be shown here, back in ‘46? 'Casanova Brown’, with Gary Cooper.
It’s always nice to know that a southern cousin is able to recognize -and respect- the erudition, the perspicacity, the general ‘je ne sais quois’ of us Canucks.
Much appreciated; back at you in the spirit intended. You have a nice day now, eh?
As you prefaced a previous post with the comment of who I remind you of, I have to confess that you remind me of the 55 year old man who’s still living with his mom… I’m staggered by how much of this information is actually out there…but you seem attached to a mindset that’s at the very least, luddite-ish.
stares some more at your last comment
I’m staggered. Congrats; that doesn’t happen very often.
The following is a response to the Mark Cuban blog concerning how to ‘turn around the cinema-going business’ as noted elsewhere on Cinema Treasures. I don’t align myself with some of the writer’s conclusions about the future of cinemas…but I’m offering this up because what he suggests is the ‘change’ I’m talking about: simultaneous releases. When the percentage of the current movie-going public that’s disgruntled with the cost and overall negatives associated with going to the cinema (whatever this percentage is, 10, 15, 25%…) starts getting its new release viewing away from the cinemas, this will be the sea change I referred to. Once this ‘thin edge of the wedge’ has been applied, nothing will ever be the same again. (No, I’m not saying cinemas are doomed. I’m saying that the reference paradigm for peoples’ viewing will inexorably and forever be changed. Cinemas will continue to exist. But more and more of the industry’s revenues will come from non-theatrical distribution, and if you can’t see how THAT will change things… Then I really don’t know how to explain it to you.)
“The theatre experience will never beat sitting in your own living room. Why do you think we spend so much on home theatre systems with pimped-out surround sound and big screen HDTV’s? The future of the movie industry is in the home and traditional movie theatres are dinosaurs facing extinction. We need iTunes for movies, and Mark, you have the money to pull it off.

Give us opening-day, brand new releases in our home, at a reasonable price, and you’ll see boom times again in the movie biz. (Not 8 weeks after it was released in the theatres, opening day.) I’ll spend $19.99 on a new release that I can download to my DVR, watch, and later burn off to DVD for safe keeping. (Twenty bucks may sound steep to some, but actually I’m saving big time compared to the $50 I usually drop in a traditional theatre.) The cost savings for film companies would be huge: no packaging costs on DVDs, no splitting profits with theatres, etc.
Of course, this would officially mark the death of theatres as the distribution channel for movies, but their demise is already evident and unavoidable. The film companies should embrace and ride the waves of change instead of swimming against them.â€
Actually, the next ‘major change’ for theatres will be simultaneous release. Which, for the initiated, is not a textbook ‘technological’ change as we’ve had in the past, it’s what they call a ‘sea change’; it’ll be the first time ever that a ticket-buyer will have a choice other than at the cinema (not including pirated copies) of how they can view a new release, either by download rental/purchase or DVD rental/purchase.
But of course, you probably don’t recognize this as being a factor on the horizon, do you…?
You know, you’re right. If all you’re really looking at is current box office numbers, then yes, everything is fine. One could certainly go to bed at night feeling comfy about the status quo.
To the same extent that taking a person’s pulse provides a comprehensive bead on their health. “Heart-rate is good…steady…strong… Looks fine to me.”
Of course, when you pull back on this person and take a look at the ‘bigger picture’–
No. I know you don’t want to hear this analogy.
Let me get this straight: in order to comment intelligently about White House politics, you’re suggesting I have to have worked there?
That in order to comment with any degree of alacrity about Major League Baseball, the National Football League, or the NBA, I have to have worked in those places?
Lovely, piercing logic ya got there.
You know, the idea that transformative change is approaching in the film distribution business is not something I’ve drummed up all on my lonesome. But then your ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ comebacks don’t actually address the facts I’ve presented on this site of late.
Interesting how having the numbers laid out in front of you tends to shatter those rose-coloured glasses, huh? Not so mysterious now why so many ‘fringe players’ are folding.
It would be so nice if this site had message/discussion boards; I’d love to see a conversation regarding keeping small, indie cinemas alive…or resurrecting them. Balancing the ‘I wish’ with the ‘I can’t believe it’.
The idea of calling a two-screen cinema a ‘multiplex’ is a bit much to me. A twin certainly isn’t what we’d refer to as a ‘multiplex’ today.
But then, I’m biased: I used to frequent the original Eaton Centre Cineplex. Now that was a multiplex.
Yours in dirty-doubles…
P.S. AlAlvarez: I would have loved to have had the chance to have been a patron of Thomas Lamb’s Toronto ‘twin’, the Elgin/Winter Garden, the latter one of the few surviving atmospherics.
When a cinema has been sold, the possible outcomes are narrowed susbstantially.
“(Vogue) Owners Bill and Esther Upham sold the property for $1.55 million after struggling to break even for several years as a single-screen venue.”
Which begs the question ‘Why would a new owner have any desire to try a failed enterprise (showing films) after forking out $1.55 mill?’ (Unless he’s a Cinema Treasures lottery winner…) Methinks conversion is the outcome.
This comment from the closing of the Revue in Toronto:
“Flanagan began talking with neighbours and other community members. Soon a committee of about 50 people was racing against time to save the theatre. They persuaded Councillor Sylvia Watson to join, and won a small victory when they got it named a heritage site.
Their goal is to operate the theatre as a community-run, not-for-profit business, but the group faces the near-hopeless task of finding at least $40,000 a month (CDN) to meet operating costs."
As property values in upscale neighbourhoods increase, the viability of a cinema such as this is practically zero.
Now, I understand that in Chicago, one of the reasons that some smaller cinemas have closed has to do with draconian and arbitrary entertainment charges and taxes. (Sorry if I’m not absolutely conversant with the specifics.) Here is an area where I think ‘government’ should allow concessions. That heritage should be maintained, that our cinema past is worth preserving. But this is before the fact, not after. And it has to be shown that the entity (the cinema) plays a vital role in the community. That is, the market has to be there. In some communities, it is. (Witness The Naro and the Commodore in Virginia, the Duke of York’s in Brighton, UK.) But if you’ve got a cinema where, despite almost giving away the tickets, people are ‘staying away in droves’, as seems to be the case with the Vogue, you really need to find a cause more worthy to your passion. These buildings aren’t people. They’re churches of film, they contain a billion cinematic memories, but in the end… Well, in the end, there’s an end. Sad, but the truth.
I’m sure you’ll cracked open a hornets' nest with your comments, but because I’ve been yammering on about the same issues for some time now, I wanted to sound a tiny bell of support.
When I first joined this site it was really just to have a resource for looking up old and disappeared cinemas. Back then, my reaction to a closing theatre, or one that had been renovated or one that had been demolished was a twinge of heartache. Now, I’m not a ‘purist’ like some people here; I grieve every time I walk past the the facade of the University on Bloor Street in Toronto, now a Pottery Barn location, I grieve every time I take a look at the Century and Tivoli in Hamilton, both such sad sights now, and I feel sad when I’m in the Locke Street neighbourhood and see what the Regent’s become, a health spa, a hair salon, a yoga studio and apartments. But I also sigh when I’m at the Eaton Centre in Toronto and realize the original Cinelplex multiplex is gone. Now, most people here wouldn’t waste a thought on a multiplex vanishing to ‘progress’. But to me, that place was ‘historical’. It had meaning to me, even though one of its screens was no bigger than a matchbox. (OK, I exaggerate. A little.)
Lately, as I’ve become more and more aware of how things are changing in the world of film, become more cognizant of the misinformation regarding the place movie-going has in the overall revenue pie, I think my attitude has changed. Old cinemas still tug at my heartstrings. I still want to do road trips of cinemas across the continent. But I guess I’ve allowed a little perspective to come in. And I think it was your final comment that illuminated things for me. Because I sense I’ve been thinking along these lines as well.
It’s easy to forget that this site is a ‘special interest’ site. Fact is that we’re in the minority. Most people don’t see cinemas, or cinema-going in the same way we do. Most people don’t react the way we do when the closing of a cinema is announced. They simply don’t see these building in the same way we do. But what’s the more, because of this difference, they don’t want to see their tax dollars being used to ‘save’ a building. And why should they? Tax dollars are stretched everywhere. (Never mind that they’re misused everywhere…) Why should the average person want a million dollars put into purchasing an old cinema that hasn’t been viable for years when that money could go towards an endless number of more human-based projects? They (by-and-large) shouldn’t and don’t.
In my ‘Old Cinemas Fantasy, Local Version’, I’d see the two Hamilton fixtures I mentioned, restored as historical gems. I’d see the two Thomas Lamb cinemas brought back to life. I’d see the Avon on Ottawa Street restored, the Towne on Barton Street…and I’d like to bring back my childhood faves in Stoney Creek, the Fox, a Canadian Legion for over thirty years now, and the SkyWay Drive-in, the first one in Canada. So in this fantasy, they’re all magically restored… And then what? They sit as museums? The market changed, they died. The business landscape changed, they died. The world changed, they died.
While I’ll grant that it is a government’s responsibility to maintain a community’s history and heritage, it’s not their responsibility to provide feel-good for a select group of its citizens. A balance must be struck. Here’s three examples of former Toronto cinema palaces that are no longer showing movies, yet are still there to walk past and reminisce over, or to take enjoy enjoyment from in other ways:
So movie lover, you’re right, I agree with your observations, your sentiments. I’ll still grieve as much as anyone else here when the next closing is announced, but surely some degree of reason has to surface when yet another cinema treasure lover starts yelling ‘Help me save this gem!’
I truly wonder what the outcry was like when movies killed vaudeville…
Well, I’m not from your neck of the woods. So I can’t comment on the viability of the Vogue. However…
I think there’s two aspects to this issue. One is the emotional one, which has to do with our mutual attachment to ‘cinema treasures’. The other is the financial realities of the movie-showing world. And it’s so easy to weight the discussion with the former. I know, because I’ve played ‘What if?’ with the situation in my neighbourhood. (I could cite some solid examples from my backyard, but I won’t unless asked. Don’t want to use up too much e-ink…)
There is a shifting landscape in the world of film-watching. And as a result of this, as much as real estate values going through the roof and cities not being amenable to tax concessions for ‘heritage buildings’ of this sort, these places are disappearing. OK, so I’ll spend some ink here: my hometown no longer has a single-screener downtown. It no longer has an art-house or rep cinema. (Even though there’s a university and a college here) Why? Economic glaciering. The market’s changed and the result is that a nearly-100 year old cinema has had its entrace razed and another from 1912 is awaiting conversion to condos. In Toronto, the continent’s third largest market in terms of per-capita attendance, there is now no downtown cinema. And the multiplex that was planned for arguably the busiest intersection (Yonge and Dundas) will most likely never happen…because of land costs and that the return on investment just isnt' there…especially when you factor in the tumultuous changes that we’re going to see when ‘simultaneous release dates’ arrives.
What’s the answer? Well, each situation is different, requiring a uique approach. But as much as I would love to see each and every one of the cinemas I grew up going to resurrected, refurbished and re-opened, some of these sites are going to go away no matter what steps are taken. “Wishing it doesn’t make it so.” This is why I asked the question about what you think could have been done.
If I read correctly, this cinema sold, didn’t it? For $3.5 million? Was that right? (Can’t find the link…) Do you really think that the new owners are going to try to make another go of it, keeping it as a cinema? After it’s been closed for what amounts to lack of business?
I wish people still gave cinema-going the same cachet they used to. But they don’t. And as more and more people change their default to home viewing, more and more of these situations are going to become more and more common. I’m not saying it’s right, or that it doesn’t make me sad. But at the end of the day, even if you had the money to open it yourself, you probably couldn’t keep it open if the market has changed that much. What’s that term for doing something for the sheer fun of it, not for viability? ‘Hobby farming’.
This comment isn’t specific to this situation, but what do cinema lovers like David expect cities to do? Is it a question of cutting some slack with taxes? Because in the end, this is a business situation, and this cinema seems to have done all it could to survive, given its choices.
Let me put it this way, using the Vogue as an example: what would you have liked to have seen done by all parties concerned to prevent its closing?
This is what they call ‘smoke and mirrors’. In fact, I’d be willing to bet a kajillion dollars that in the end, AMPAS will step aside in this matter…or the whole pay-per-view aspect won’t be part of the initial ‘simultaneous release’ push, leaving the options to a) a download, b) DVD (sales or rental) and c) theatrical release. Once the paradigm’s been in place a while, it’ll be expanded to include pay-per-view.
What rules Hollywood, what rules AMPAS, what rules the entire entertainment industry is the almighty dollar…as an expression of what the public wants. If anyone believes that an awards organization (yes, I know I’m oversimplifying here) is going to call the shots where the generation of money is concerned, we should talk; I’ve got some intriguing real estate you might be interested in…
First off, I’d like to see the results when it’s not the biggest blockbuster of the year (so far) they’re using as the poll’s reference film. What I’ve been reading of late regarding how ‘movie consumers’ will spend their discretionary film entertainment dollars indicates that though many home theatre owners will continue to go to cinemas to see films when simultaneous download/rental/DVD purchase happens, the films they’ll limit themselves to are the blockbuster type…such as ‘Pirates’. So if the film was ‘Clerks II’ or ‘Renaissance’ or ‘Peaceful Warrior’, would the result be the same? (Uh, no.)
Secondly, as much as I want to think this is generally a good sign, this kind of news, in fact, is of the ‘too little, too late’ variety. When you take a look at figures like these or these or articles like this.
Rose-coloured glasses on head-firmly-buried-in-the-sand viewpoints aside, the landscape is changing. And contrary to what some people here want to believe, this is not merely a question of a new technology attacking, as VCRs and then DVDs did in the past. The quantum shift here is the film industry going with simultaneous releases, allowing the market to determine business practices, not heart-warmed nostalgia or tradition. And as Hollywood et al do not care where the revenue comes from, the trend towards more and more home-viewing will continue until equilibrium has been reached…to be followed by a pendulum-swing back towards the big-screen experience…when all of us are in our retirement years.
I went to see ‘Pirates 2’ the other night. While I was in line for tickets, a family was purchasing theirs. Two adults, three kids = $38 CDN. Later, as I was munching on my popcorn, I saw them heading for their seats. They’d purchased two ‘jumbo combos’. So the grand total for the evening, not including parking (this was at a downtown multiplex) was about $60 CDN. I think when I did the math I actually stopped eating.
This was my third of four movies this week. So I don’t need to be convinced of the ‘cachet’ of cinema-going. But I had to ask myself if I’d do the same thing. Take my family to movies like this. I mean, as much as I’m anti home theatre, I tried to put myself in their place, in any family’s place and imagine a different mindset. Where seeing the film in a cinema wasn’t the benchmark. And it was interesting, looking at things from a different perspective.
Afterwards, as everyone was filing out, I approached the family and asked the parents how often they took their kids to a movie, splashed out the fifty or sixty bucks. The answer was ‘Not often. Just for the really big films. The special ones. Maybe three, four times a year. The rest of the time, we rent."
A few of my friends are in film production. And I certainly spend enough time reading newsletters and blogs concerning various elements of the biz. One consistent theme is the changing landscape of production. The gradual reduction of time given a shoot. It’s not uncommon to hear of mainstream releases shot in under three weeks. There’s an enormous compression going on. Why? Because of the changing landscape of entertainment. For example, last night I downloaded from iTunes the season premiere of ‘Psych’, the USA network show. It was free. Given the ever-expanding menu of shows available for online download, even though I don’t get the USA channel, I could still watch it regularly at $1.99 a pop. There’s a ton of product available online either for free, or for a subscriber’s fee or a once-off purchase. My point here is that there’s a wealth of ‘filmmakers’ out there, who can bring something to the public for very little money. No, these films are not the Hollywood blockbusters. And maybe this leads to a possible further truth: that in the future, what will be distributed theatrically will be the ‘Superman Returns’. The ‘Pirates 2’. The ‘Cars’. The next ‘James Bond’ flick. And the rest of the menu will ‘primarily’ be offered in another way. I can think of dozens of films over the past few years that didn’t receive general release, that deserve to be watched, but in a world where Hollywood (and the cinemas) need films that pack ‘em in, end up being seen as rentals, if at all. To me, the future of film is as healthy as it’s ever been. But I do suspect that the context of viewing and the default choice will be changing as rapidly as our options change.
This may seem heretical talk on a ‘cinema treasures’ site, but it doesn’t take away from the love all of us feel for the myriad filmic cathedrals featured here…and none of us can stop the inevitable changes from occuring, anyway: inexorably, the ‘default’ for movie viewing is shifting from going to the cinema (as was really the only choice when I was growing up), to home-viewing, either on your wide-screen tv or on your iMac or on your iPod. After all, if you had a family, which would you generally choose: one movie at a cinema, or 12-20 rentals? Hmm…? At the risk of repeating myself, in the end, Hollywood isn’t going to give a toss how it generates its revenue, either from theatrical distribution or online/in-store purchasing and rentals. Money is money is money. The only ones left sniffing will be the cinema owners, the die-hard movie-goers…and members of sites such as this.
Well, we all have reasons for going to see movies. All of us are a little different. That’s what makes diversity so special. Freedom of choice is great for this. What you get out of a ‘classic cinema’ might not be what someone else is even interested in. (Not that it has to be, or that you should have to ‘defend’ your choice.) I’m just saying that whereas you get something out of the setting, someone else might prefer something modern, might prefer a more convenient location, might prefer the opportunity to have a bigger selection of films to see, the might not care one whit about history and tradition or setting… ‘Whatever floats yer boat.’
Me? I love classic theatres. And I love single-screen behemoths. I love tiny, character-filled nabes. I love multiplexes. I love megalithic movie centres with 32 screens. I’ve seen films in cinemas from Pembroke, Ontario to Charlottesville, Virginia, and they’ve all been different, and they all brought me pleasure. I would personally like to see films in all kinds of theatres. All sizes, all shapes, all kinds of history, no kind of history, everything, all of them, period.
As a Canadian, I too reserve the benefits of democracy and choice. I guess the difference is that I find enjoyment in more places than you do…or at least have more options for enjoyment. I feel very fortunate to have this particular (and rare, especially on this site) approach to moviegoing, and am glad I grew up in a neighbourhood that had both a nabe and a drive-in within walking distance of where I lived.
Well, as I’ve opined before, this gets back to understanding what your market wants. It could be that simply replicating what the ‘noisy multiplexes’ (Have to admit you’ve got me on this; what are you referring to? The size of the crowds? The fact that these ‘Devil’s handiworks’ are the aesthetic opposite of the local nabe? Please explain) offer at the Revue isn’t financially viable. I heard a number (maybe it was on the savetherevue site) of $40,000 per month being the operating cost of the Revue. Do the math.) Maybe the only way this cinema could survive would be ‘specialty’ progamming. Foreign. Indie. Children’s. How would you feel about its existence then?
Admittedly, I’m a bit torn about the survival of some theatres. While I think every neighbourhood should have its own nabe, I don’t believe that conventional progamming and traditional approaches are going to be what’s required for them to survive in a changing marketplace. I worry about nostaliga and emotion fueling the engine, getting peoples' hope up, when, after all, it’s a business situation.
Adieu to Revue? Not if cinema’s fans can help it
`Lawrence' rides one last time
But theatre awaits its white knight
Dozens of protestors bedecked in bowler hats and black ties marched to the Revue Cinema ticket line last night, in a last-ditch effort to save the historic cinema.
But moviegoers like Rob Pearson, 45, and son Ron, 16, came to say goodbye. “We’re marking the end of an era. My son and I have been coming here for about six years. It’s very sad … I can’t see how they’ll ever bring it back,” Pearson said.
Construction began in 1911, and the Revue theatre opened its doors in the spring of 1912, at 400 Roncesvalles Ave. It was one of the last neighbourhood theatres left in Canada.
Over its 95-year existence, it has changed hands as many as seven times, said former manager Keith Denning, 37. The Revue began showing silent movies two years before Charlie Chaplin became a star. In the 1940s, children used to be able to buy a ticket and a glass of milk â€" a treat during wartime rationing â€" for a nickel.
Since then, it’s been a German-language theatre, art-film hot spot, Hollywood blockbuster theatre, and sanctuary for classic-movie lovers seeking their old favourites on the big screen. Fifteen minutes after tickets began selling for last night’s final showing â€" Lawrence of Arabia â€" the Revue had reached its capacity of 245. The line was still meandering around the corner to Howard Park Ave.
But for Susan Flanagan, the fight to save the Revue is anything but hopeless.
“My daughter saw her first movie here as a toddler. We moved to this area because of this theatre,” she said, while 4-year-old Sophie posed for a photo with three Chaplin look-alikes dressed to pay tribute to the era when the Revue was born. “When I was walking home a month ago and saw the sign that it was closing, I knew I had to do something.”
Flanagan began talking with neighbours and other community members. Soon a committee of about 50 people was racing against time to save the theatre. They persuaded Councillor Sylvia Watson to join, and won a small victory when they got it named a heritage site.
Their goal is to operate the theatre as a community-run, not-for-profit business, but the group faces the near-hopeless task of finding at least $40,000 a month to meet operating costs.
Kate McQuillan, who owns the Revue with her two brothers, had planned to attend the final show, but decided in the end to give the seat up to a fan who came to say goodbye.
“I was raised in the theatre industry. I have real mixed emotions here. It’s such a part of our lives, but on the other hand there have (been financial) problems,” she said.
“This is part of the community. But there isn’t a knight on a white horse that’s going to save it. We need people to know that if they want the Revue to stay open, they’d better start coming to watch movies.”
Here’s some comments from a film industry insider:
“There are two ways that I look at cinema in the future.
One is to look at technology’s effect on people and the other is to look at peoples effect
on technology. I can’t say which effects the other more but i can say that they will have a
huge impact on the way cinema evolves. When I scan across a few generations or demographics
the trends that are evolving become really evident to me. My 13 year old niece seems to have
no issues with downloading a show (legally) onto her phone and watching it that way, and she
does the same with her music, whereas my father still can’t even understand his outdated VCR's
settings. I see a day when my niece and hoards of people like her will find it absurd to actually
have to “go” to a theatre and “wait” for someone else to hit play. It’s this highly wired attention
deficit/hyper active disorder plagued demographic that will really accelerate the changes. I fear
that they will see going to traditional movie theatres as some “slow food” kind of movement for those resistant to current social trends. My greater fear is the effect that this will have on actual content, and i’m already seeing evidence of the changes. The other day at the office I watched a DVD with a series of 6 highly polished beautiful looking movies produced by BMW. They were directed by Hollywood heavyweights and were totally padded with prominent actors. They were very well done and very slick, and very entertaining. The longest was about 13 minutes. They are for download only and will also be installed onto BMW’s new in-car navigational and entertainment system. Short slick and download friendly. Is this the future? Content is defined by society’s gadgets? Movies
and shows packaged in neat little down load friendly offerings perfect for a generation with no attention span and content to watch “Matrix prt20” in handy little bit streams they download wirelessly while blogging in the park.
You and I think it absurd, but tell that to my niece and it’s utopia. One possible benefit is that perhaps some producers will take an online direct marketing approach and sell their movies directly to the enduser and avoid the distribution monopolies altogether. Kind of like what some inde bands are doing now with their music. In this case perhaps one could then buy a licensing fee to show the movie in an independently owned and operated theatre for those who prefer the traditional style viewing. See where I’m going with this… Perhaps the traditional movie house may find a new and better life for itself.
So in a nutshell here is my 15 year prognosis. Megaplexes will continue to dwindle, perhaps to the level that IMAX exists currently. We’ll always have large format movie theatres, but it won’t be the norm. If downloading changes the distribution policies we now have, than there exists the opportunity for inde movie houses to re-emerge. Content will change and continue to evolve. Movies will still be shot, but released in multiple ways. A theatrical version will be created,
a chopped up version will be created for download, and a video game version will be created, all released simultaneously. Pick your poison. The DVD will die because eventually you won’t rent, you’ll plug in and download into your personal Crackberry phone/computer/viewer/GPS/music/media gadget. Potentially. some good things can happen, but I really see the large format theatres evaporating. People will still have a need to interact but the younger demographic will just partake in some kind of a well wired, multimedia type of globally connected rave where music and images and people are connected simultaneously. Of course none of this could happen and i could be completely full of crap, i often am, but I can’t ignore todays youth, they are so damn wired it’s tough to ignore the influence and changes they are going to make."
I agree. I’ve been saying this for some time now.
The individual cinema listings are not where some of the discussions that do invariably occur, should take place. In fact, by definition, they’re not intended for ‘discussion’, they’re ‘listings’ intended to record pertinent information about cinema treasures.
We need a place for unfettered exchanges. I’m not talking about ‘gloves off imbroglios’, but healthy discussion not restricted by conservative guidelines. (I"ve read some of the stuff that prompted the latest actions and though amusing, is entirely out of place.) Surely a site prompted by passion should have a place where it can move about freely?
Wow.
I feel like I’m watching something being broadcast from ‘The Surreal Network’. If Moviemanforever isn’t either a) a plant or b) taking the mickey out of everyone, then I’d say someone had one bowl too many of CrankyFlakes this morning. (With too many special sprinkles, to boot.)
Here’s to civility and propriety.
So when are we getting our proper discussion forums…?
fedoozle:
Yes, those were the days. The world seemed much smaller back then. Now we have myspace, we have internet sites devoted to trailers, a kajillion online blogs about the movie industry, we have Godknowshowmany tv shows that deal strictly with celebrities and their upcoming projects, we live in a much faster, much ‘smaller’, much more accessible world…
More than anything else, these days people want a) variety and b) easy access to that variety. Oh, and people don’t want to ‘wait’. For anything. Back ‘then’, a movie poster was about anticipation. Now it’s a record of something soon to be in the past, and more often prompts the comment ‘I hear her/his next film is a turkey…’
Welcome to the present. (Soon to be the past.)
I grew up less than a mile from it, just around the corner on Mountain Avenue North. I went to Saltfleet High School, which was right next door. It backed onto Collegiate Avenue School, an elementary school. You could watch movies from the playground, or hop the fence and sit at the back; there were always unused speakers abounding. It was, as far as I can tell, the only ‘urban’ drive-in, anywhere. That is, there was housing abutting the property, so if you lived in one of these homes, you could probably see the screen quite well. Free films, indeed.
A few years ago I wrote a screenplay inspired by the Skyway. Entitled ‘Someone Else’s Dream’, its story is predicated on the idea that a ten year old’s family moves to this very neighbourhood and at the end of a very tear-filled moving day, the kid looks out his bedroom window…to find that he’s staring out at this enormous drive-in screen, lit up brilliantly against a deepening dusk sky. The Skyway had a huge effect on me growing up (obviously!); I have many great memories of the place, it’s no wonder they ended up prompting a need to turn them into a story. (The gist of the screenplay is the request in her will of his British grandmother to build the drive-in her husband had long dreamed of constructing in Cornwall; there’s never been a drive-in in England…)
As far as the ‘closing’ date, yes, RalphB is correct. It sure wasn’t 1970. Closer to ‘77, '78. I’m trying to nail this one down and will post when I’ve had some success.
Oh, by the way, a piece of trivia: the first film to be shown here, back in ‘46? 'Casanova Brown’, with Gary Cooper.
Why, thanks for you kind observation!
It’s always nice to know that a southern cousin is able to recognize -and respect- the erudition, the perspicacity, the general ‘je ne sais quois’ of us Canucks.
Much appreciated; back at you in the spirit intended. You have a nice day now, eh?
stares at screen
As you prefaced a previous post with the comment of who I remind you of, I have to confess that you remind me of the 55 year old man who’s still living with his mom… I’m staggered by how much of this information is actually out there…but you seem attached to a mindset that’s at the very least, luddite-ish.
stares some more at your last comment
I’m staggered. Congrats; that doesn’t happen very often.
The following is a response to the Mark Cuban blog concerning how to ‘turn around the cinema-going business’ as noted elsewhere on Cinema Treasures. I don’t align myself with some of the writer’s conclusions about the future of cinemas…but I’m offering this up because what he suggests is the ‘change’ I’m talking about: simultaneous releases. When the percentage of the current movie-going public that’s disgruntled with the cost and overall negatives associated with going to the cinema (whatever this percentage is, 10, 15, 25%…) starts getting its new release viewing away from the cinemas, this will be the sea change I referred to. Once this ‘thin edge of the wedge’ has been applied, nothing will ever be the same again. (No, I’m not saying cinemas are doomed. I’m saying that the reference paradigm for peoples’ viewing will inexorably and forever be changed. Cinemas will continue to exist. But more and more of the industry’s revenues will come from non-theatrical distribution, and if you can’t see how THAT will change things… Then I really don’t know how to explain it to you.)
“The theatre experience will never beat sitting in your own living room. Why do you think we spend so much on home theatre systems with pimped-out surround sound and big screen HDTV’s? The future of the movie industry is in the home and traditional movie theatres are dinosaurs facing extinction. We need iTunes for movies, and Mark, you have the money to pull it off.

Give us opening-day, brand new releases in our home, at a reasonable price, and you’ll see boom times again in the movie biz. (Not 8 weeks after it was released in the theatres, opening day.) I’ll spend $19.99 on a new release that I can download to my DVR, watch, and later burn off to DVD for safe keeping. (Twenty bucks may sound steep to some, but actually I’m saving big time compared to the $50 I usually drop in a traditional theatre.) The cost savings for film companies would be huge: no packaging costs on DVDs, no splitting profits with theatres, etc.
Of course, this would officially mark the death of theatres as the distribution channel for movies, but their demise is already evident and unavoidable. The film companies should embrace and ride the waves of change instead of swimming against them.â€
Actually, the next ‘major change’ for theatres will be simultaneous release. Which, for the initiated, is not a textbook ‘technological’ change as we’ve had in the past, it’s what they call a ‘sea change’; it’ll be the first time ever that a ticket-buyer will have a choice other than at the cinema (not including pirated copies) of how they can view a new release, either by download rental/purchase or DVD rental/purchase.
But of course, you probably don’t recognize this as being a factor on the horizon, do you…?
You know, you’re right. If all you’re really looking at is current box office numbers, then yes, everything is fine. One could certainly go to bed at night feeling comfy about the status quo.
To the same extent that taking a person’s pulse provides a comprehensive bead on their health. “Heart-rate is good…steady…strong… Looks fine to me.”
Of course, when you pull back on this person and take a look at the ‘bigger picture’–
No. I know you don’t want to hear this analogy.
Let me get this straight: in order to comment intelligently about White House politics, you’re suggesting I have to have worked there?
That in order to comment with any degree of alacrity about Major League Baseball, the National Football League, or the NBA, I have to have worked in those places?
Lovely, piercing logic ya got there.
You know, the idea that transformative change is approaching in the film distribution business is not something I’ve drummed up all on my lonesome. But then your ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ comebacks don’t actually address the facts I’ve presented on this site of late.
grabs his sides
Stop it! You’re killin' me here! Enough with the jokes!
Seriously, diggin' your sense of humour, LIM! Always look forward to your comments on this topic.
“So today we’re interviewing the President of the local chapter of the Buggywhip Makers Association, who has some fantastic news…”
Thanks for the chuckle. I needed that!
What on earth would you expect him to say?!? That it’s all gloom and doom?
Once again, I wish this site had an actual discussion forum…
Interesting how having the numbers laid out in front of you tends to shatter those rose-coloured glasses, huh? Not so mysterious now why so many ‘fringe players’ are folding.
It would be so nice if this site had message/discussion boards; I’d love to see a conversation regarding keeping small, indie cinemas alive…or resurrecting them. Balancing the ‘I wish’ with the ‘I can’t believe it’.
Thanks for the levity.
The idea of calling a two-screen cinema a ‘multiplex’ is a bit much to me. A twin certainly isn’t what we’d refer to as a ‘multiplex’ today.
But then, I’m biased: I used to frequent the original Eaton Centre Cineplex. Now that was a multiplex.
Yours in dirty-doubles…
P.S. AlAlvarez: I would have loved to have had the chance to have been a patron of Thomas Lamb’s Toronto ‘twin’, the Elgin/Winter Garden, the latter one of the few surviving atmospherics.
When a cinema has been sold, the possible outcomes are narrowed susbstantially.
“(Vogue) Owners Bill and Esther Upham sold the property for $1.55 million after struggling to break even for several years as a single-screen venue.”
Which begs the question ‘Why would a new owner have any desire to try a failed enterprise (showing films) after forking out $1.55 mill?’ (Unless he’s a Cinema Treasures lottery winner…) Methinks conversion is the outcome.
This comment from the closing of the Revue in Toronto:
“Flanagan began talking with neighbours and other community members. Soon a committee of about 50 people was racing against time to save the theatre. They persuaded Councillor Sylvia Watson to join, and won a small victory when they got it named a heritage site.
Their goal is to operate the theatre as a community-run, not-for-profit business, but the group faces the near-hopeless task of finding at least $40,000 a month (CDN) to meet operating costs."
As property values in upscale neighbourhoods increase, the viability of a cinema such as this is practically zero.
Now, I understand that in Chicago, one of the reasons that some smaller cinemas have closed has to do with draconian and arbitrary entertainment charges and taxes. (Sorry if I’m not absolutely conversant with the specifics.) Here is an area where I think ‘government’ should allow concessions. That heritage should be maintained, that our cinema past is worth preserving. But this is before the fact, not after. And it has to be shown that the entity (the cinema) plays a vital role in the community. That is, the market has to be there. In some communities, it is. (Witness The Naro and the Commodore in Virginia, the Duke of York’s in Brighton, UK.) But if you’ve got a cinema where, despite almost giving away the tickets, people are ‘staying away in droves’, as seems to be the case with the Vogue, you really need to find a cause more worthy to your passion. These buildings aren’t people. They’re churches of film, they contain a billion cinematic memories, but in the end… Well, in the end, there’s an end. Sad, but the truth.
movie lover:
I’m sure you’ll cracked open a hornets' nest with your comments, but because I’ve been yammering on about the same issues for some time now, I wanted to sound a tiny bell of support.
When I first joined this site it was really just to have a resource for looking up old and disappeared cinemas. Back then, my reaction to a closing theatre, or one that had been renovated or one that had been demolished was a twinge of heartache. Now, I’m not a ‘purist’ like some people here; I grieve every time I walk past the the facade of the University on Bloor Street in Toronto, now a Pottery Barn location, I grieve every time I take a look at the Century and Tivoli in Hamilton, both such sad sights now, and I feel sad when I’m in the Locke Street neighbourhood and see what the Regent’s become, a health spa, a hair salon, a yoga studio and apartments. But I also sigh when I’m at the Eaton Centre in Toronto and realize the original Cinelplex multiplex is gone. Now, most people here wouldn’t waste a thought on a multiplex vanishing to ‘progress’. But to me, that place was ‘historical’. It had meaning to me, even though one of its screens was no bigger than a matchbox. (OK, I exaggerate. A little.)
Lately, as I’ve become more and more aware of how things are changing in the world of film, become more cognizant of the misinformation regarding the place movie-going has in the overall revenue pie, I think my attitude has changed. Old cinemas still tug at my heartstrings. I still want to do road trips of cinemas across the continent. But I guess I’ve allowed a little perspective to come in. And I think it was your final comment that illuminated things for me. Because I sense I’ve been thinking along these lines as well.
It’s easy to forget that this site is a ‘special interest’ site. Fact is that we’re in the minority. Most people don’t see cinemas, or cinema-going in the same way we do. Most people don’t react the way we do when the closing of a cinema is announced. They simply don’t see these building in the same way we do. But what’s the more, because of this difference, they don’t want to see their tax dollars being used to ‘save’ a building. And why should they? Tax dollars are stretched everywhere. (Never mind that they’re misused everywhere…) Why should the average person want a million dollars put into purchasing an old cinema that hasn’t been viable for years when that money could go towards an endless number of more human-based projects? They (by-and-large) shouldn’t and don’t.
In my ‘Old Cinemas Fantasy, Local Version’, I’d see the two Hamilton fixtures I mentioned, restored as historical gems. I’d see the two Thomas Lamb cinemas brought back to life. I’d see the Avon on Ottawa Street restored, the Towne on Barton Street…and I’d like to bring back my childhood faves in Stoney Creek, the Fox, a Canadian Legion for over thirty years now, and the SkyWay Drive-in, the first one in Canada. So in this fantasy, they’re all magically restored… And then what? They sit as museums? The market changed, they died. The business landscape changed, they died. The world changed, they died.
While I’ll grant that it is a government’s responsibility to maintain a community’s history and heritage, it’s not their responsibility to provide feel-good for a select group of its citizens. A balance must be struck. Here’s three examples of former Toronto cinema palaces that are no longer showing movies, yet are still there to walk past and reminisce over, or to take enjoy enjoyment from in other ways:
The York Cinema
The Capitol Cinema
The Eglinton
So movie lover, you’re right, I agree with your observations, your sentiments. I’ll still grieve as much as anyone else here when the next closing is announced, but surely some degree of reason has to surface when yet another cinema treasure lover starts yelling ‘Help me save this gem!’
I truly wonder what the outcry was like when movies killed vaudeville…
Well, I’m not from your neck of the woods. So I can’t comment on the viability of the Vogue. However…
I think there’s two aspects to this issue. One is the emotional one, which has to do with our mutual attachment to ‘cinema treasures’. The other is the financial realities of the movie-showing world. And it’s so easy to weight the discussion with the former. I know, because I’ve played ‘What if?’ with the situation in my neighbourhood. (I could cite some solid examples from my backyard, but I won’t unless asked. Don’t want to use up too much e-ink…)
There is a shifting landscape in the world of film-watching. And as a result of this, as much as real estate values going through the roof and cities not being amenable to tax concessions for ‘heritage buildings’ of this sort, these places are disappearing. OK, so I’ll spend some ink here: my hometown no longer has a single-screener downtown. It no longer has an art-house or rep cinema. (Even though there’s a university and a college here) Why? Economic glaciering. The market’s changed and the result is that a nearly-100 year old cinema has had its entrace razed and another from 1912 is awaiting conversion to condos. In Toronto, the continent’s third largest market in terms of per-capita attendance, there is now no downtown cinema. And the multiplex that was planned for arguably the busiest intersection (Yonge and Dundas) will most likely never happen…because of land costs and that the return on investment just isnt' there…especially when you factor in the tumultuous changes that we’re going to see when ‘simultaneous release dates’ arrives.
What’s the answer? Well, each situation is different, requiring a uique approach. But as much as I would love to see each and every one of the cinemas I grew up going to resurrected, refurbished and re-opened, some of these sites are going to go away no matter what steps are taken. “Wishing it doesn’t make it so.” This is why I asked the question about what you think could have been done.
If I read correctly, this cinema sold, didn’t it? For $3.5 million? Was that right? (Can’t find the link…) Do you really think that the new owners are going to try to make another go of it, keeping it as a cinema? After it’s been closed for what amounts to lack of business?
I wish people still gave cinema-going the same cachet they used to. But they don’t. And as more and more people change their default to home viewing, more and more of these situations are going to become more and more common. I’m not saying it’s right, or that it doesn’t make me sad. But at the end of the day, even if you had the money to open it yourself, you probably couldn’t keep it open if the market has changed that much. What’s that term for doing something for the sheer fun of it, not for viability? ‘Hobby farming’.
This comment isn’t specific to this situation, but what do cinema lovers like David expect cities to do? Is it a question of cutting some slack with taxes? Because in the end, this is a business situation, and this cinema seems to have done all it could to survive, given its choices.
Let me put it this way, using the Vogue as an example: what would you have liked to have seen done by all parties concerned to prevent its closing?
This is what they call ‘smoke and mirrors’. In fact, I’d be willing to bet a kajillion dollars that in the end, AMPAS will step aside in this matter…or the whole pay-per-view aspect won’t be part of the initial ‘simultaneous release’ push, leaving the options to a) a download, b) DVD (sales or rental) and c) theatrical release. Once the paradigm’s been in place a while, it’ll be expanded to include pay-per-view.
What rules Hollywood, what rules AMPAS, what rules the entire entertainment industry is the almighty dollar…as an expression of what the public wants. If anyone believes that an awards organization (yes, I know I’m oversimplifying here) is going to call the shots where the generation of money is concerned, we should talk; I’ve got some intriguing real estate you might be interested in…
First off, I’d like to see the results when it’s not the biggest blockbuster of the year (so far) they’re using as the poll’s reference film. What I’ve been reading of late regarding how ‘movie consumers’ will spend their discretionary film entertainment dollars indicates that though many home theatre owners will continue to go to cinemas to see films when simultaneous download/rental/DVD purchase happens, the films they’ll limit themselves to are the blockbuster type…such as ‘Pirates’. So if the film was ‘Clerks II’ or ‘Renaissance’ or ‘Peaceful Warrior’, would the result be the same? (Uh, no.)
Secondly, as much as I want to think this is generally a good sign, this kind of news, in fact, is of the ‘too little, too late’ variety. When you take a look at figures like these or these or articles like this.
Rose-coloured glasses on head-firmly-buried-in-the-sand viewpoints aside, the landscape is changing. And contrary to what some people here want to believe, this is not merely a question of a new technology attacking, as VCRs and then DVDs did in the past. The quantum shift here is the film industry going with simultaneous releases, allowing the market to determine business practices, not heart-warmed nostalgia or tradition. And as Hollywood et al do not care where the revenue comes from, the trend towards more and more home-viewing will continue until equilibrium has been reached…to be followed by a pendulum-swing back towards the big-screen experience…when all of us are in our retirement years.
I went to see ‘Pirates 2’ the other night. While I was in line for tickets, a family was purchasing theirs. Two adults, three kids = $38 CDN. Later, as I was munching on my popcorn, I saw them heading for their seats. They’d purchased two ‘jumbo combos’. So the grand total for the evening, not including parking (this was at a downtown multiplex) was about $60 CDN. I think when I did the math I actually stopped eating.
This was my third of four movies this week. So I don’t need to be convinced of the ‘cachet’ of cinema-going. But I had to ask myself if I’d do the same thing. Take my family to movies like this. I mean, as much as I’m anti home theatre, I tried to put myself in their place, in any family’s place and imagine a different mindset. Where seeing the film in a cinema wasn’t the benchmark. And it was interesting, looking at things from a different perspective.
Afterwards, as everyone was filing out, I approached the family and asked the parents how often they took their kids to a movie, splashed out the fifty or sixty bucks. The answer was ‘Not often. Just for the really big films. The special ones. Maybe three, four times a year. The rest of the time, we rent."
A few of my friends are in film production. And I certainly spend enough time reading newsletters and blogs concerning various elements of the biz. One consistent theme is the changing landscape of production. The gradual reduction of time given a shoot. It’s not uncommon to hear of mainstream releases shot in under three weeks. There’s an enormous compression going on. Why? Because of the changing landscape of entertainment. For example, last night I downloaded from iTunes the season premiere of ‘Psych’, the USA network show. It was free. Given the ever-expanding menu of shows available for online download, even though I don’t get the USA channel, I could still watch it regularly at $1.99 a pop. There’s a ton of product available online either for free, or for a subscriber’s fee or a once-off purchase. My point here is that there’s a wealth of ‘filmmakers’ out there, who can bring something to the public for very little money. No, these films are not the Hollywood blockbusters. And maybe this leads to a possible further truth: that in the future, what will be distributed theatrically will be the ‘Superman Returns’. The ‘Pirates 2’. The ‘Cars’. The next ‘James Bond’ flick. And the rest of the menu will ‘primarily’ be offered in another way. I can think of dozens of films over the past few years that didn’t receive general release, that deserve to be watched, but in a world where Hollywood (and the cinemas) need films that pack ‘em in, end up being seen as rentals, if at all. To me, the future of film is as healthy as it’s ever been. But I do suspect that the context of viewing and the default choice will be changing as rapidly as our options change.
This may seem heretical talk on a ‘cinema treasures’ site, but it doesn’t take away from the love all of us feel for the myriad filmic cathedrals featured here…and none of us can stop the inevitable changes from occuring, anyway: inexorably, the ‘default’ for movie viewing is shifting from going to the cinema (as was really the only choice when I was growing up), to home-viewing, either on your wide-screen tv or on your iMac or on your iPod. After all, if you had a family, which would you generally choose: one movie at a cinema, or 12-20 rentals? Hmm…? At the risk of repeating myself, in the end, Hollywood isn’t going to give a toss how it generates its revenue, either from theatrical distribution or online/in-store purchasing and rentals. Money is money is money. The only ones left sniffing will be the cinema owners, the die-hard movie-goers…and members of sites such as this.
Well, we all have reasons for going to see movies. All of us are a little different. That’s what makes diversity so special. Freedom of choice is great for this. What you get out of a ‘classic cinema’ might not be what someone else is even interested in. (Not that it has to be, or that you should have to ‘defend’ your choice.) I’m just saying that whereas you get something out of the setting, someone else might prefer something modern, might prefer a more convenient location, might prefer the opportunity to have a bigger selection of films to see, the might not care one whit about history and tradition or setting… ‘Whatever floats yer boat.’
Me? I love classic theatres. And I love single-screen behemoths. I love tiny, character-filled nabes. I love multiplexes. I love megalithic movie centres with 32 screens. I’ve seen films in cinemas from Pembroke, Ontario to Charlottesville, Virginia, and they’ve all been different, and they all brought me pleasure. I would personally like to see films in all kinds of theatres. All sizes, all shapes, all kinds of history, no kind of history, everything, all of them, period.
As a Canadian, I too reserve the benefits of democracy and choice. I guess the difference is that I find enjoyment in more places than you do…or at least have more options for enjoyment. I feel very fortunate to have this particular (and rare, especially on this site) approach to moviegoing, and am glad I grew up in a neighbourhood that had both a nabe and a drive-in within walking distance of where I lived.
Make mine a large tub with butter, please!
Well, as I’ve opined before, this gets back to understanding what your market wants. It could be that simply replicating what the ‘noisy multiplexes’ (Have to admit you’ve got me on this; what are you referring to? The size of the crowds? The fact that these ‘Devil’s handiworks’ are the aesthetic opposite of the local nabe? Please explain) offer at the Revue isn’t financially viable. I heard a number (maybe it was on the savetherevue site) of $40,000 per month being the operating cost of the Revue. Do the math.) Maybe the only way this cinema could survive would be ‘specialty’ progamming. Foreign. Indie. Children’s. How would you feel about its existence then?
Admittedly, I’m a bit torn about the survival of some theatres. While I think every neighbourhood should have its own nabe, I don’t believe that conventional progamming and traditional approaches are going to be what’s required for them to survive in a changing marketplace. I worry about nostaliga and emotion fueling the engine, getting peoples' hope up, when, after all, it’s a business situation.
From the Toronto Star, July 1, 2006:
Adieu to Revue? Not if cinema’s fans can help it
`Lawrence' rides one last time
But theatre awaits its white knight
Dozens of protestors bedecked in bowler hats and black ties marched to the Revue Cinema ticket line last night, in a last-ditch effort to save the historic cinema.
But moviegoers like Rob Pearson, 45, and son Ron, 16, came to say goodbye. “We’re marking the end of an era. My son and I have been coming here for about six years. It’s very sad … I can’t see how they’ll ever bring it back,” Pearson said.
Construction began in 1911, and the Revue theatre opened its doors in the spring of 1912, at 400 Roncesvalles Ave. It was one of the last neighbourhood theatres left in Canada.
Over its 95-year existence, it has changed hands as many as seven times, said former manager Keith Denning, 37. The Revue began showing silent movies two years before Charlie Chaplin became a star. In the 1940s, children used to be able to buy a ticket and a glass of milk â€" a treat during wartime rationing â€" for a nickel.
Since then, it’s been a German-language theatre, art-film hot spot, Hollywood blockbuster theatre, and sanctuary for classic-movie lovers seeking their old favourites on the big screen. Fifteen minutes after tickets began selling for last night’s final showing â€" Lawrence of Arabia â€" the Revue had reached its capacity of 245. The line was still meandering around the corner to Howard Park Ave.
But for Susan Flanagan, the fight to save the Revue is anything but hopeless.
“My daughter saw her first movie here as a toddler. We moved to this area because of this theatre,” she said, while 4-year-old Sophie posed for a photo with three Chaplin look-alikes dressed to pay tribute to the era when the Revue was born. “When I was walking home a month ago and saw the sign that it was closing, I knew I had to do something.”
Flanagan began talking with neighbours and other community members. Soon a committee of about 50 people was racing against time to save the theatre. They persuaded Councillor Sylvia Watson to join, and won a small victory when they got it named a heritage site.
Their goal is to operate the theatre as a community-run, not-for-profit business, but the group faces the near-hopeless task of finding at least $40,000 a month to meet operating costs.
Kate McQuillan, who owns the Revue with her two brothers, had planned to attend the final show, but decided in the end to give the seat up to a fan who came to say goodbye.
“I was raised in the theatre industry. I have real mixed emotions here. It’s such a part of our lives, but on the other hand there have (been financial) problems,” she said.
“This is part of the community. But there isn’t a knight on a white horse that’s going to save it. We need people to know that if they want the Revue to stay open, they’d better start coming to watch movies.”
I was at the final show tonight, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’. Sold out. Lots of media coverage.
Here’s the local effort to keep the cinema alive.
Here’s some comments from a film industry insider:
“There are two ways that I look at cinema in the future.
One is to look at technology’s effect on people and the other is to look at peoples effect
on technology. I can’t say which effects the other more but i can say that they will have a
huge impact on the way cinema evolves. When I scan across a few generations or demographics
the trends that are evolving become really evident to me. My 13 year old niece seems to have
no issues with downloading a show (legally) onto her phone and watching it that way, and she
does the same with her music, whereas my father still can’t even understand his outdated VCR's
settings. I see a day when my niece and hoards of people like her will find it absurd to actually
have to “go” to a theatre and “wait” for someone else to hit play. It’s this highly wired attention
deficit/hyper active disorder plagued demographic that will really accelerate the changes. I fear
that they will see going to traditional movie theatres as some “slow food” kind of movement for those resistant to current social trends. My greater fear is the effect that this will have on actual content, and i’m already seeing evidence of the changes. The other day at the office I watched a DVD with a series of 6 highly polished beautiful looking movies produced by BMW. They were directed by Hollywood heavyweights and were totally padded with prominent actors. They were very well done and very slick, and very entertaining. The longest was about 13 minutes. They are for download only and will also be installed onto BMW’s new in-car navigational and entertainment system. Short slick and download friendly. Is this the future? Content is defined by society’s gadgets? Movies
and shows packaged in neat little down load friendly offerings perfect for a generation with no attention span and content to watch “Matrix prt20” in handy little bit streams they download wirelessly while blogging in the park.
You and I think it absurd, but tell that to my niece and it’s utopia. One possible benefit is that perhaps some producers will take an online direct marketing approach and sell their movies directly to the enduser and avoid the distribution monopolies altogether. Kind of like what some inde bands are doing now with their music. In this case perhaps one could then buy a licensing fee to show the movie in an independently owned and operated theatre for those who prefer the traditional style viewing. See where I’m going with this… Perhaps the traditional movie house may find a new and better life for itself.
So in a nutshell here is my 15 year prognosis. Megaplexes will continue to dwindle, perhaps to the level that IMAX exists currently. We’ll always have large format movie theatres, but it won’t be the norm. If downloading changes the distribution policies we now have, than there exists the opportunity for inde movie houses to re-emerge. Content will change and continue to evolve. Movies will still be shot, but released in multiple ways. A theatrical version will be created,
a chopped up version will be created for download, and a video game version will be created, all released simultaneously. Pick your poison. The DVD will die because eventually you won’t rent, you’ll plug in and download into your personal Crackberry phone/computer/viewer/GPS/music/media gadget. Potentially. some good things can happen, but I really see the large format theatres evaporating. People will still have a need to interact but the younger demographic will just partake in some kind of a well wired, multimedia type of globally connected rave where music and images and people are connected simultaneously. Of course none of this could happen and i could be completely full of crap, i often am, but I can’t ignore todays youth, they are so damn wired it’s tough to ignore the influence and changes they are going to make."