Hannah Robbins
A Brief History of the Cinema in the Basement of 186 Spadina Avenue and the Way its Audiences Changed With Each of its Incarnations
Hong Kong’s Golden Harvest production company expanded into Canada following a trend of emigration from Hong Kong to Canada’s West Coast and Ontario (White; Thompson 140-49). According to Thompson, the distinguishing property of this wave of emigration was its inclusion of a new class of Chinese elite for Toronto: young, metropolitan, and wealthy entrepreneurs (306). It is within this context that Golden Harvest started a production studio and later a theatre in Vancouver, soon expanding into Toronto. In 1977 Golden Harvest took over what had been the Victory Burlesque at Spadina and Dundas (Williams; Veillette).
October of 1985 saw Golden Harvest open a second cinema in Toronto. The company hired engineers from Nicholas Rusz and Assoc. Ltd. to design a theatre in the basement of a new condominium building at 188 (now 186) Spadina Avenue (White; Appendix B). This is the space which this study will document. It originally had 706 seats and played films on 35mm (Semley, “Rise Up”; Parker). Despite the significant Hong Kong and Chinese diaspora in the area, a rumour exists that Golden Harvest’s exhibition sites satisfied an ulterior motive for the company – the theatres allegedly served as tax sheltersfor the west coast production house (White).
Whether or not this rumour is valid, the theatre served the local community every day: it was open Monday to Friday from 6pm to 12am, and Saturday, Sunday, and holidays from 1:30pm to 12am. Tickets cost $5 for adults and $3 for children (Appendix E). Programming included films from genres popular in Hong Kong and China: kung fu, comedy, romance, etc.
Programming was advertised in Sing Dao, a Chinese language newspaper. According to Colin Geddes, who served as theatre manager from 1994, the Golden Harvest Theatre never advertised to Anglophone cinemagoers, even if the occasional print came with English subtitles. Chinese-language advertisements for local businesses were printed on glass plates and projected before film screenings, supporting the claim that the theatre catered exclusively to the Hong Kong and mainland Chinese diasporas of Chinatown and functioned as an ethnic, neighbourhood theatre (Williams).
Golden Harvest, as a vertically integrated international business, was probably able to play films from its own catalogue at its Toronto theatre without paying as many international fees as the theatre would face under different management. However, this did not lower costs enough to make the theatre sustainable, since in 1991 the Golden Harvest theatre at 186 Spadina Avenue closed.This closure coincides roughly with the rise of home video, so it is possible that the theatre’s audience started to watch bootleg and imported videos at home rather than going to the theatre. Furthermore, the theatre faced competition from other Chinese cinemas across the downtown, including the Golden Princess Theatre (608 College St.), the Far East Theatre (270 Spadina Ave.), and the Sun Wah Theatre in Broadview Avenue’s growing and comparatively residential Chinatown neighbourhood (Appendix D; Thompson 1989).
From 1991 until 1995 the theatre was dark. However, in December 1994 Golden Harvest, who still owned the unused theatre, hired Colin Geddes to take over as house manager, granting him comprehensive control over the theatre’s operation and programming (Geddes). He re-named it Golden Classics Theatre, choosing Rumble in The Bronx (1995, Hong Kong) with Jackie Chan for its opening night (Geddes 1995, vol. 1, no. 1). During the theatre’s nine month runas Golden Classics, the programming expanded to include repertory films from various Asian countries. The theatre made use of specialty distributors such as Gordon’s in Vancouver, or dealt directly with Hong Kong distributors with the help of Athena Tsui, their Golden Harvest coordinator and programmer (Geddes). Because the theatre had been dark for so long, the surrounding Asian community had “forgotten about the theatre,” and management instead started to cater specifically to Anglophone cinephiles from across Toronto (Geddes). Although die hard anglophone fans had patronized the theatre’s subtitle-free screenings throughout the 1980s, this marks a shift in the theatre’s approach from serving a neighbourhood audience to acting as a destination for niche audiences.
Golden Classic’s screenings were all shown with Efinglish subtitles, and advertising, which mainly took the form of a newspaper-format theatre programme, was also in English. In addition to the theatre’s schedule, the bi-monthly programme published articles on directors and stars who were featured in “retrospectives,” as well as brief reviews of the films and advertisements for companies targeting both cinephiles and those interested in aspects of Asian culture. The addresses listed for these businesses are scattered across the GTA, supporting the claim that Golden Harvest was a special destination for niche entertainment – its supporters were willing to travel for their interests (Geddes 1995, all).The tone of the programme avoids fanboy-ism and is instead journalistic and informally academic; accordingly, the theatre’s devout audience is best thought of as a “niche” rather than “cult.”
Unfortunately, Golden Classics lasted only nine months. According to Geddes, the main problem was that “marketing and ad decisions were made by the ownership,” who relied on the same strategies used by Hong Kong theatres in their attempts to attract mainstream Hong Kong audiences; these strategies were less useful in Toronto for catering to a niche audience (Geddes). In addition, the idea of the theatre, an Asian rep cinema, was “ahead of its time” (Geddes). Furthermore, Golden Harvest and other Asian producers and distributors had sold their prints, and the rights to play their films, to various North American companies – a hefty load of detective work was needed to secure programming (Geddes). We can also assume that the bootleg and imported film industry impeded the theatre’s success. Finally, considering the financial strain faced by most Toronto theatres which catered to special interest groups, it becomes clear that running Golden Classics must have been extremely difficult.
In 2008the theatre came under its current ownership when Sedwick Hill purchased the space, allegedly with money gained from an investment fraud scheme he was later shown to be involved with (Kupferman). For a while, Hill ran the space as an under-the-table, afterhours speak-easy and music venue (Parker). Together with JoshTzventarnyHill, the new owner attempted to legitimize the space as The Acacia Centre for the Performing Arts in spring of 2010 (Tzventarny). The space operated as the Acacia Centre from September 2009 to spring 2010 and in addition to live performances hosted small film festivals and private functions (Mernard; Tzventarny). It was at this time that Hill bought new projectors and sound equipment in addition to the space’s original equipment (Mernard). According to Kupferman, Hill’s financial problems mounted and in May 2009 he stopped paying fees to the condo board that was in charge of the building as a whole. Unaware of these troubles, three young men who had come together through cinephilia and by working at the Bloor Cinema approached Hill about restarting the space as a cinema in February of 2010 (Lawton, interview). Thus Charlie Lawton, Alex Woodside and Nigel Agnew became the new managers of the space, re-branding it as the Toronto Underground Cinema (TUC).
The TUC’s extremely successful “soft open” gala was on May 14th 2010 and featured a double-bill of Clue (1985, USA) and Big Trouble in Little China (1986, USA) as a throwback to the theatre’s history of featuring Asian films (Semley, “Big Turnout”; Kuplowsky). Starting on May 26th of that year, the theatre ran almost daily programming using films from major distributors, especially Alliance. At $8 a seat, TUC tickets were competitively priced. However, during the two weeks in between the soft open and the start of regular programming, during which theatre managers constructed the theatre’s schedule, the energy and momentum that the theatre had built up through reviews and word-of-mouth was lost, and early screenings (mostly second run fare) were poorly attended (Kuplowsky). Towards the end of summer 2010, the TUC hosted two high profile guests: Adam West, as a tie in to the Fan Expo convention, and Edgar Wright, a week before the premiere of his new film Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. These one-off events, geared towards existent cult audiences, were much more successful than the TUC’s regular programming. Since the managers had argued for such events at the Bloor Cinema and had experience with shadow-casting as well, they decided to start scheduling more events and cult films rather than second run programming (Kuplowsky; Lawton, interview; Parker). A further reason for this shift was the theatre’s geographical situation in a zone which includes many downtown first run cinemas (not to mention the TIFF Bell Lightbox which launched soon after TUC); the TUC could not screen a film until a certain period after it had played at the first run theatres and the window of time in which the TUC could screen a film before its DVD launch was extremely limited (Geddes; Kuplowsky). Kuplowsky, who acted as an unofficial fourth employee to the TUC in its first year, describes this shift as “organic,” alluding to the previous experience of the theatre’s managers.
In December of 2010, the theatre’s three managers began to realize that Hill was unreliable and in trouble financially – the full extent of this trouble, however, remained unknown to them. Attendance was starting to dwindle, especially for film screenings. The TUC’s Best of Canadian Film series, which had been much hyped (and even garnered an entertainment section front page nod from The Globe and Mail), had some of the worst attendance figures yet, though Margaret Atwood and Atom Egoyan did attend (Parker). Around this time Hill also stopped funding the theatre’s operations and payment for the rights and rental of one week’s films often depended on the previous week’s box office success (Parker). However, the theatre continued to run with the help of consistent, cult audience targeted events and programming.
In Summer 2012, the financial situation had become such that even the comparably small fee for the right to play a DVD copy of a film was unaffordable, and the managers were owed large sums of money by Hill for back-logged pay, estimated at over ten grand each (Parker). The managers had been pushing the idea of getting a liquor license to revive the theatre. However, the theatre has not had any major renovations since its construction in the 1983 and was not up to the standards required for a LLBO license, meaning renovations would be required (Lawton, interview; Parker). Business owners in the area, and the building’s condo board, were also against the theatre getting a license because they thought it might “bring in the wrong crowd” (Parker). Regardless, the theatre halted programming from June 30th to September 5th and asked Hill to perform the renovations necessary for them to successfully apply for a liquor license. Hill agreed but was incapable of funding the renovation – at this point he had debts of more than 3.4 million dollars, sothe theatre lay dormant for three months (TUC;OSC Proceedings; Kupferman).
Finally, in September 2012, the managers accepted that continuing to run the theatre under its current ownership was impossible. They announced to the public that their last screening would be that on the 16th of that month. After a few last events and parties to send the theatre off, closing day arrived – for $5, friends and fans of the theatre watched both the The Last Waltz (1978, USA) and Night of the Comet (1984, USA) (Lawton, “Farewell Screening”). Numerous comments and blog posts lamented the theatre’s closure with statements such as “[t]his is truly sad,” “I miss you guys already,” “[t]hanks to Nigel, Charlie, and Alex for spending over 2 years bringing real, honest cinema to the masses,” and “[g]oodnight dear Underground” (comments from Lawton, “Farewell Screening”; Haviland). (I present these comments in order to propose that not only did fans frequent the TUC, but that the TUC gained fans and detractors for its function as a scene of cultists and cinephiles.)
In his piece entitled “Scenes,” Alan Blum introduces a multi-faceted grammar of a “scene” as an urban site where people come together not only regularly but also with a specific “project” in mind, the importance of which the “lovers” of the scene demonstrate through commitment and sometimes sacrifice. Regarding the TUC’s scene, the sacrifice made by its managers for a project which they believed to be more important than themselves is clear. Their project was to spread a certain type of experience. Each of my interview subjects connected to the TUC mention, to a greater or lesser degree, that what made it special was not just watching the films that were played, but watching them together with an audience and on 35mm in a theatre. Blum highlights the scene as a place where one satisfies the desire “to be seen seeing,” which he labels an exhibitionist practice as both parties (the seen seeing and the seer seen) are fully aware of their performative roles (14-16). The ceremony-like activity of cinema-going (rather than viewing a film at home) makes this exhibitionism and theatricality possible. Finally, Blum’s scene not only incorporates committed lovers of the scene, but also “idle onlookers.” These visitors create a tension: they simultaneously function as a threat to the scene and a necessary constituent, seen by insiders as strangers capable of destroying the scene’s authenticity while at the same time contributing to the scene’s survival by providing commercial support and protecting the scene’s reputation “through their very idolatry” (16). The Toronto Underground Cinema capitalized on its idle onlookers not only at screenings, but especially during special events where tensions between the public and private aspects of the scene were at their most pronounced.
The majority of the TUC’s screenings were open to the public though some had a more limited accessibility, including film festival presentations, burlesque shows, and midnight movie screenings. While events such as festivals are limited by the theatres capacity, burlesque shows were limited to “of age” audiences, and midnight movies were limited to those who transgress typical cinema-going behaviour, though more recently this has been in a ironic fashion (Mathijs and Sexton, 15). These events are examples of the TUC’s exclusiveness, a trait which is necessary to any scene but is even more emphatic in those scenes which incorporate aspects of “cult” cinema and its fans. Contributing to this exclusivity is the location of the theatre: according to Joanne Hollows, theatres in the city’s “twilight zones” work “to confirm the figure of the cult fan as a (frequently heterosexual) ‘manly adventurer’” (Jancovich, et. al. 41). While the Toronto Underground Cinema is located barely a block away from the gentrified Queen West shopping district, its entry is either through a deserted Chinatown mall or via the backstreet, and then downstairs to the “underground,” the name of the space giving away the management’s level of reflexivity. Adding to the fact that entry to the cinema required an adventurous (or as Hollows suggests in her argument of cult as overdetermined by class and gender, a masculine) streak, some events such as those hosted by Exploitation Alley or Vagrancy, as well as shadow-cast performances, would begin at 11:50pm or midnight. According to Hollows the midnight screening not only made cult less accessible to women but was also “central to the construction of cult as transgressive, as anti-respectability, and as ‘against the logic of prime time’” (Jancovich, et. al. 42). Indeed, the majority of the TUC’s regular audience (and management) was composed of Caucasian men in their twenties to forties, in keeping with the regular demographic of cult audiences noted by Sconce and other authors (Parker; Williams; Jancovich et. al. 31). The tendency of the cult cinema scene to perform itself as transgressive and exclusive (regardless of its constituents) is one way that cult is able to declare its authenticity, and even authority, as a tastemaker.
In fact, the TUC was not a tastemaker in the usual sense; most of its programming looked towards the past rather than to the present or future. This strategy seemed to work in the theatre’s favour, perhaps in the ironic sense mentioned above which Mathijs and Sexton also refer to as “reflexive nostalgia” (15). It imported a repertory of nostalgic indulgences for children of the eighties and of cult events which already had Toronto audiences but which were lacking a site for their activities (Kuplowsky; Parker). These “social circles” (ephemeral groups based around an activity) and “coterie” (ephemeral groups based around a charismatic leader) gained stability within the theatre that allowed them to grow (Blum; Williams). The TUC echoed cult cinema’s historical genesis by beginning its life as a rep cinema, then incorporating cult films and events more readily as a strategy to maintain economic sustainability (Jancovich 2002, 315). The shift in programming catered to the cult audience who, according to Sconce,is eager to participate in events so as to define itself as active (and thus ‘cool’) in opposition to the passive (and thus ‘uncool’) masses or other cult fans (qtd. in Jancovich 2002). The TUC’s audiences could participate actively in events such as shadow casts of The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975, USA) and Repo: The Genetic Opera (2008, USA); burlesque with video-game, comic, and film/television series themes; events which allowed cult fans to participate in making meaning (such as the “Defending the Indefensible” series); and events which allowed cult fans to determine screen use (online polls influencing programming; video-games contests on the big-screen). In this way the TUC became more than just a place to watch films: it was a scene with a project and a necessary mortality (Blum 11). It catered to ironic, nostalgic, and highly reflexive audiences while relying on idle-onlookers to support the theatre financially and support the activity of exhibitionism through their watching. The paradox of the cinema as an exclusive-seeming, cult-geared scene that relied on outsiders could have been its downfall, but in this case it came to an end due to economic reasons rather than trends. Perhaps this signifies the need for a new venue to host many of the Toronto Underground Cinema’s beloved events and series. Borrowing from Blum, I would note that Toronto is a city in which “scenes are regularly made and unmade and so, a place where birth continues: this city lives!” (26).
Works Cited
Babiak, Paul. “Re: canadian production tax break c.1975 info?” Message to the author. 17 Oct., 2012. Email.
Blum, Alan. “Scenes.” Public. 22/23, 2001. 7-36. Print.
Brown, Jen for the OMDC. “Re: Question to OMDC research.” Message to author. 18 Oct., 2012. Email
Geddes, Colin. Personal interview. 17 October 2012.
Geddes, Colin, ed. Golden Classics Cinema Programme. Vol. 1, No.1. Feb., 1995 Print.
Geddes, Colin, ed. Golden Classics Cinema Programme. Vol. 1, No.2. Apr., 1995. Print.
Geddes, Colin, ed. Golden Classics Cinema Programme. Vol. 1, No.3. Jun., 1995. Print.
Haviland, Kirk. 5 Sep., 2012. “Toronto Underground Cinema- Rep Cinema’s Latest Fallen Warrior.” Entertainment Maven. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
Jancovich, Mark. “Cult Fictions: Cult Movies, Subcultural Capital, and the Production of Cultural Distinctions.” Cultural Studies, 16:2, 2002. 306 – 322. Print.
Jancovich, Mark et. al., eds. Defining Cult Movies: The Cultural Politics of Oppositional Taste. UK: Manchester UP, 2003. Print.
Kupferman, Steve. “Why the Toronto Underground Cinema really closed.” The Grid. Torstar, 18 Sep., 2012. Web. 13 Oct., 2012.
Kuplowsky, Peter. Personal interview. 16 October 2012.
Lawton, Charlie. “Farewell Screening: Night of the Comet and Last Waltz.” facebook. Facebook, 2012. Web. 12 Sep., 2012
Lawton, Charlie. Personal interview. 12 October 2012.
Mathijs, Ernest and Jamie Sexton. Cult Cinema. UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print.
Mernard, Chandra. “The Acacia Centre Quietly Emerges as Toronto’s Newest Independent Cinema.” blogTO. Freshdaily, 5 Jan., 2010. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
“OSC Proceedings: In The Matter of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.S.5 as Amended –and- Carlton Ivanhoe Lewis, Mark Anthony Scott, Sedwick Hill, Leverage Pro Inc., Prosporex Investment Club Inc., Prosporex Investments Inc., Prosporex Ltd., Prosporex Inc., Prosporex Forex SPV Trust, Networth Financial Group Inc., and Networth Marketing Solutions. Sanctions Decision.” Ontario Securities Commission. OSC, Mar., 2012. Web. 13 Oct., 2012.
Parker, Andrew. Personal interview. 13 October 2012.
Semley, John. “Big Turnout In Little China as Toronto Underground Cinema Opens Its Doors.” Torontoist. Ink Truck Media, 15 May, 2010. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
Semley, John. “The Toronto Underground Cinema Prepares to Rise Up.” Torontoist. Ink Truck Media, 20 Apr., 2010. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
Taylor, Doug. “Discovering two of Toronto’s lost movie theatres.” Historic Toronto: Information on Toronto’s History. WordPress, 29 Sep., 2012. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
Thompson, Richard. Toronto’s Chinatown: The Changing Social Organization of an Ethnic Community. New York, NY: AMS Press, Inc., 1989. Print.
Toronto Underground Cinema. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sep., 2012.
Tzventarny, Josh. “Re: Acacia Centre.” Message to author. 15 Oct., 2012. Email.
Veillette, Eric. “Toronto Theatres Map.” Silent Toronto. WordPress, 2011. Web. 20 Sep., 2012.
White, Morgan. Personal interview. 10 Oct 2012.
Williams, Andrew. Personal interview. 16 October 2012.
Additional sources:
“About Us.” Orange Sky Golden Harvest. OSGH (Holdings) Ltd., 2010. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
“Golden Princess Film Production Ltd. [HK].” IMDb. IMDb Inc., 2012. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
Havis, Allan. Cult Films: Taboo and Transgression. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2008. Print. 1-4.
Hawkins, Joan. “Sleaze Mania, Euro-Trash, and High Art: The Place of European Art Films in American Low Culture.” Film Quarterly, 53:2, 1999. Pdf originating from JSTOR. 14-29.
Jancovich, Mark. “‘A Real Shocker’: authenticity, genre and the struggle for distinction.” Continuum, 14:1, 2000. Pdf originating from informaworld.com. 23 – 35
Perkins, Will. “Toronto Underground Cinema set to Open.” Dork Shelf. Dork Shelf Ltd., 22 Apr., 2010. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
Qiu, Paul. “Changes to Toronto’s Chinatown: Toronto’s First Chinatown and Downtown Chinatown.” Chinese Canadian National Council Toronto Chapter. CCNC, 2009. Web. 3 Oct., 2012.
“Spadina Avenue & Chinatown West.” Points of Interest along Lost Streams. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sep., 2012.
Sunny [username]. “Toronto Underground Cinema: Creating Community with a Theatre.” The Nerd Mafia. N.p., 12 Sep., 2012. Web. 14 Oct., 2012.
W5 Staff. “Community loses $24M in alleged investment scheme.” CTV News. Bell Media, 16 Oct., 2010. Web. 13 Oct., 2012.
*Note: The (non)capitalization of titles as they were posted in web sources has been preserved in all citations.
Appendix and additional images:
A. Golden Harvest’s plans for 186 (then 188) Spadina Ave, first page.
B. Golden Harvest’s plans for 186 (then 188) Spadina Ave, second of two pages.
C. The Toronto Underground Cinema’s business License.
D. Ads for competitors in the 4 Jan., 1988 edition of Sing Dao newspaper, from microfilm.
E. “Clippings” of ads for various Golden Harvest programming at 186 Spadina Ave. in Sing Dao newspaper, from microfilm. I translated the newspaper dates, and Zoe Fei Chen translated the ad content. Some film titles are listed in direct translation, and may differ from the Enlish language release title, if any exist.*
- 4 Jan., 1988
- 15 Jan., 1988
- 2 Mar., 1988: The picture advertises Project A starring Jackie Chan (which was later included in Golden Classics programming). It’s run started on February 26th. Also screening is Detective Chocolate.
- 5 Mar., 1988: The picture advertises the “Golden Horse Award Winning Film” Who Do I Love the Most, whose run starts on March 4th. Also screening is Happy People.
- 9 Mar., 1988: The picture advertises the film Rouge starring Anita Mui (a popular Cantopop singer) which also won Golden Horse Awards for Best Cinematography and Best Art Director (the awards information is listed at the top of the picture). Its screening is advertised for March 9th.
- 5 Jul., 1988
- 15 Jul., 1988
*Note: the newspapers’ dates succeed the dates listed for films playing. I assume the films would play a run of a few days or weeks as in any first-run theatre, and the dates listed in the ad content would be the start date for the film’s run.
F. An example page from Golden Classics Program, vol.1, no.1, featuring it’s opening gala premiere. Also listed are the roles of various employees including UofT allumnus and then Golden Harvest coordinator Athena Tsui. From what I could tell Tsui now works for Golden Harvest in Hong Kong.
Local Film Cultures: Toronto 