“Save the Revue” online petition.
There is now an online peitition to save the Revue Cinema as a theatre. Add your support to the fight. Here is the text of the petition:
To: Sylvia Watson
On June 30th, The Revue Cinema (along with fellow Festival Cinemas Royal, Kingsway, Paradise and Fox) is being shutdown. Having never ceased operations as a theatre since it was built in 1911, (making it the oldest continually run theatre in Ontario) this news is especially distressing. The architectural and historical heritage The Revue represents is important to the Roncesvalles landscape and must be protected!
In its current use, the Revue Cinema acts as a community gathering point that celebrates film, culture, and the arts. Further, the Revue Cinema is a business anchor that is critical to the economic vitality of the community.
We, the undersigned, insist that no structural changes be made to the building at this historical site.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
NOTE: To access the petition, click on the red “Save the Revue Online Petition” banner in the upper right corner of this page.
Save the revue.
Comment by Michael McCullough — May 31, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
To lose these sites would be a great loss for the entire city.
Comment by Jessica Thorp — May 31, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
It will be a sad day when we are forced to leave behind all our times of joy.
I’ve been going to the Festival Theaters and Bloor Cinema for years.
They bring movies, world wide, that have more to offer.
Comment by Cecilia Jabbaz — June 1, 2006 @ 11:55 am
These theatres are living landmarks that are an integral part of the cultural experience in Toronto. I’m sure many place these in a ‘top 10′ reasons to live in Toronto, and are far more than simply a place to see a film.
Comment by Adrian Ellis — June 1, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
These buildings should be designated as historic sites and preserved.
Comment by Patricia Silver — June 1, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
I’m all for saving the Revue, but online petitions simply don’t work. Why not start a real, paper and pens petition. Stand outside the Revue and ask the patrons to sign it.
Comment by cynic — June 1, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Hi Cynic,
There is also a paper petition avavilable at a numerous shops along Roncesvalles Avenue, including Alternative Grounds and The Herbal Clinic & Dispensary. The online petition is just one tool in the box.
Regards,
NorthRonces
Comment by northronces — June 1, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
Please keep these buildings intact, this happened in Port Hope and years later the town was able to restore them, and now the local theater is one of the towns crown jewels. Toronto just had open doors, and people flocked to places of history, there is a need to keep the places. If not for movies then turn them into restaurants or clubs and allow the building to be able to be restored at a later date. Thank you! Colin Ramsay.
Comment by Colin Ramsay — June 2, 2006 @ 9:23 am
For a full listing of where paper petitions are available in the neighbourhood or to request one to circulate on your own, please email me at amanda.filipe@utoronto.ca
Thanks for all the support!
Amanda Filipe
Roncesvalles community member
Long time popcorn engineer
Comment by Amanda — June 2, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Hello All:
I spent some time last night reading the comments posted to this blog and scrolling through the signatures on the petition. It is heartwarming to see that there are so many who have expressed their concern for the future of the Revue – and for neighborhood cinema in general. I want to let everyone know that the Revue is not for sale.
As Midori has pointed out in her entry on this blog, my sister, brother and I inherited responsibility for the operations of the Kingsway, Royal and Revue when our mother died in 2005. We have literally grown up with the chain of cinemas – business meetings often took place in our home, dad used to draft the next program on big sheets of paper and we’d discuss (around the dinner table) movie parings, the right double bills and whether a movie would “have legs” as we’d say – beacuse we were always trying to guess months in advance if a film would be of interest when its ‘big night’ came along. I’d like to think that Midori’s comment that we were somewhat ill-equipped to take over is a bit misplaced. All three of us do have our own careers – not in the cinema business – but that is no different than our father who had a full career as a CA while Tom and Jerry ran the day-to-day operations. The chain has always been ‘about’ nighbourhood cinema and to a lesser extent about exhibiting ‘art’ film. Even in the best years, it was mostly a labour of love – love of the ‘nabes’, love of the film business, love of the ‘experience’ of going to a cinema.
Over the three decades that Festival Cinemas has been in business the entire film industry has undergone a fundamental evolution from (arguably) the most relevant medium to a far less significant one. You can see this in the changes in the business models of the major exhibitors – they have completely abandoned their former urban locations, setting-up multiplexes on the major highways bounding the city. Films are now released as widely as possible, bled as quickly as possible, so that when the DVD follows shortly afterward the theatrical market has been tapped. Our business has been subject to the same pressures – the past ten years has seen a big downward trend in attendance – and with it our ability to maintain our buildings, upgrade equipment (screens, seats, sound) and pay for our limited marketing and administration.
When the three of us took over in ‘05, the managers [...] suggested a number of intelligent operational improvements – nearly all of which were implemented. The year-over-year declines seem to have been halted – we are up about 5-7% this year versus last – but we remain in a deficit position and the many years of poor performance have yielded a significant debt. The debt is at a level where we can no-longer continue as a going concern. This debt has been accrued in the pursuit of what all of the petition-signators seek – a safe, clean, economical community-oriented cinema. All we have in-hand to pay for this debt are two properties. We have decided to sell one, the Royal, to allow us to settle these significant obligations and pay severance to our great employees.
Over this past week, Darryl (the webmaster at NorthRonces) and I have had a bit of an off-line debate around the proposed pursuit of heritage designation for these properties – and in a larger sense – how to best promote community cinema at the Revue. I can entirely understand why the idea of Heritage Designation appears, on the surface, to be so appealing. On a quick pass, it seems to grant the neighborhood the institution it seeks in perpetuity. The real effect will be the exact opposite.
If you really want to do what is good for community cinema – and to help save the building itself – there needs to be a healthy business living inside to pay its taxes, to maintain its aging walls and to continue with enthusiasm, creativity and continuity as a member of the Roncesvalles community. Any person considering the operation of the cinema takes a considerable financial risk – they have to provide real dollars to, for example, replace equipment, repair the building etc… this investment is ‘lost’ money unless the owner can recover these funds through profitable operations or through an increase in the value of an asset (the property). Under the best circumstances, the Revue could be expected to pay for itself and some modest overhead – it will not return the hundreds of thousands it takes to properly maintain the building and the cinema equipment or to do the periodic major improvements that are necessary. Therefore, the ‘white knight’ will look to the property holding to make some sense of the investment.
If the property is granted a Heritage designation its value will decline significantly. Have a look at The Globe and Mail – real estate section – Friday’s paper (June 2nd); there is a article on page 1 about a home in Forest Hill that won’t sell because it is Designated – the price has been droped by $400K and still nothing (you don’t have to take my word for it). Without the security of the property holding an operator will be very reluctant to invest money in the building and business – and based on diminshed value, you won’t get much action from banks either. Why does this matter? Because the Revue is an old building with ageing equipment – it will need more than love of film and sentimentality to keep it in it place as the pride of Roncey. You need a owner-operator who wants to be there, who can make sense of and be willing to continue to invest in the building and business. You will NOT GET THIS from a private citizen(s) if all economic logic is chased from the enterprise.
I’ve been deliberately avoiding the selfish arguments because I am operating on the basis that they don’t matter. As the saying goes, we are where we are, so I am trying to illustrate that on a go-forward basis Roncesvalles’ best bet for a healthy Revue lies not in Heritage protection, but in assisting and supporting it as a private business and as an unencumbered property holding. Nevertheless, I’ll come clean. I don’t want to see a Heritage designation because it will erase, in a second, hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have invested over the many years that we have operated the Revue. I also don’t want to see this building designated because I sincerely believe that it would be the worst outcome for the community. No-one will buy the property – including other cinema operators – it makes no sense to do so.
Our plan for the Revue is to continue to own the property and to either re-open or seek another operator for the cinema business.
I end with a request and a rhetorical question.
Please do not move forward with designation, it would do great harm to us and for the reasons I outlined above I don’t think it gets you to where you want to be either.
Our family has invested our time and energy into community and rep. cinema in Toronto for three decades. We have invested more than a million dollars of our own money to support these businesses through many lean years (no, we’re not rich, just stupid), we’ve gone to the effort to have our realtor (at the Royal) – XL Realty – market the building as a cinema (look at their web site) and we have actively pursued options to find a cinema-operator buyer… after all this, can we not be trusted to do the right thing?
Thanks for your time and understanding.
Chris
PS: month-over-month revenues since we have announced the closures have not really changed much!! – lets see some protest/ support with your wallets – make the tears flow ; )
Comment by Chris McQuillan, Revue Owner — June 3, 2006 @ 1:24 am
Anyone have a link for the web site of XL Realty, which Chris McQuillan mentions in his letter? Chrs
Comment by Carla Tonelli — June 5, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Hi Carla,
Here is the link for the Royal Theatre real estate listing:
XL Retail
Helpfully,
NorthRonces
Comment by NorthRonces — June 5, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
I would like to make a couple of points.
1. If the owner’s plan for the Revue is to “continue to own the property and to either re-open or seek another operator for the cinema business” it seems pretty confusing to me why they would go public announcing the closure and then gradually share ’selected’ background information as to what is going on. I find it hard to really understand the true intentions of the owner reading his comments.
2. There is a lot of opportunity here and leaders are those who make trends rather than just follow them. Although I agree that running a repetoire/second run cinema is a tough business, it comes down to having the right new business plan, the right people, money, and a strong passion for movies to turn things around over, say, a 2-3 year period.
3. Smarter scheduling and selection of titles, linked to a sharp marketing & feedback program, and then linked to top level customer service would make these cinemas become noticed by more people. If one spends more time and money to really understand the full potential customer base, one can then use this information to provide a better selection of programming and services, which in turn feeds word of mouth, positive branding, customer loyalty, and more people in the seats.
4. I believe that stronger marketing for these cinemas within the GTA and for tourists to Toronto is needed once these theatres are refurbished under a new business plan. If the theatre was given a little more of a facelift it could really help it become a “destination location” to watch films. I think tourists would love to come and visit the neighbourhood too. Part of the issue is that not enough people are even aware the theatres exists or why it is a great place to watch a movie. Perception is reality to a customer. If these cinemas become perceived as a really cool, unique, and customer friendly place to watch a movie with great movies and services… then you have a destination location.
5. Why not hire someone to come up with a new business plan for these theatres? There are consultants who have the experience, business knowledge, and tools to really design a plan to not only identify a new busines strategy, but how to implement it correctly?
6. My last comment is that I think that it is really time for new management with fresh ideas, lots of energy and leadership, the freedom to make changes, and the right background/skills/experience, using the learnings from the current owners to make these cinemas reach their full potential.
Comment by Julian — June 7, 2006 @ 12:01 am
Here Here, Julian, I concur with all the points you expressed. It is indeed time that a viable management team step aboard and manage the Revue Cinema the way it should be.
There are many, many people I have spoken to who feel the McQuillan’s have displayed apathy and a lack of vision re Festival Cinemas. If one ‘reviews’ the programming schedule for the past few years at any Festival cinema, one would see far, far too many ‘Hollywood Blockbusters’.The McQuillan’s state the rush of these films from first screen runs to DVD has eroded their business, so WHY is their schedules filled with said films?
That, and the fact that these (and other films) would not only be screened at any given Festival cinema 9-12 times per MONTH, the same film would be screening at another Festival cinema on the exact same days? COME ON!
Many people I spoke with also feel the McQuillan’s were totally off the mark re admission prices and the cost of Festival memberships. While many, obviously, would not complain outright at the absurdly low prices charged, one still has to wonder how the McQuillan’s could implement such low margins and expect to sustain even a semblance of fiscal health?
Too many Hollywood blockbusters, TOO many times, too low admission prices, no imagination/initiative re programming…
gee…..surprise surprise surprise.
What a waste. What a damn waste.
a).
Comment by John Carlianni — June 19, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
I agree. The McQuillan team really dropped the ball, a long time ago, with the Festival Cinemas chain. Funny, a bunch of us, just the other day were talking about the poor programming and lack of imagination at the Revue, Royal, and other festival theatres that have been in place for a long time now. I agree with the poster above that in any given month, the same damn crap Hollywood film would be shown countless times – and the McQuillans wonder where the patrons went?
One minute the Revue had ‘Classics’ nights (with shitty ‘classic’ choices); the next, the whole concept simply vanishes!? Again, and these people WONDER why the whole damn thing went down the toilet?
Their father had great ideas re programming. The Festival cinemas back then (80’s) were an eclectic dream for film lovers. The audience for these films is still around in droves; too bad his kids (the present owners) failed to see the forest for the trees. Their business model, if one can call it that, had all the signs of a crash landing, which indeed, it has.
Also, exceedingly poor marketing. These people did not have a clue as how to effectively market their product, as shitty as it is, and soon to be ‘was’. I also hear you on the ridiculously low admission prices and the low cost for memberships. It’s as if the McQuillan’s were screaming out the fact they considered their product to be second or third rate.
The sad thing is, there is/was nothing second class about the IDEA/IDEAL of rep cinemas – nothing at all.
I don’t buy any of the McQillan’s statements. I and many other people feel, like the poster above expressed, that these people, for some time, had no interest or passion for the business, and the movie schedules more than reflected that.
Here’s hoping a great management team can hopefully steer a rep cinema industry in T.O. in the direction it SHOULD be headed in.
Comment by John Bradley-O'Neill — June 19, 2006 @ 3:59 pm