news
A Regal Return for the Royal Cinema
Yes, a few weeks after our initial confusion over the Toronto International Latin Film Festival at the Royal Cinema, it’s confirmed: The Royal Cinema (at 608 College St.) is re-opening its doors officially on December 15th, with the exclusive Toronto engagement of Monkey Warfare. Now, although we didn’t like Monkey Warfare much (if at all), this is only good news. The aim of the new Royal cinema is in line with the other Theatre D Digital cinemas; as a post-production facility, but also for use for exhibitions, film festivals and special events.
Theatre D Digital have turned the Royal into a fully digital cinema, with a Christie Digital Cinema projector and a Dolby Digital sound system, though there’s no word on what else they’ve changed internally (do we hope they changed the seats or not? Torontoist rather liked the classic theatre seats in the old Royal.)
Photo by rubbergorilla from the Torontoist + Flickr Group.
Does this mean they’ll no longer have a 35mm projector?
No, they’ve still got one of those. They’ve just added a digital projector too.
I hope they still have the classic seats too.
I hope they keep the seats (and the name!). The Royal’s seats were the next best thing to the seating walls you find in the new ‘plexs, even if the floor is shallow enough to put heads in your way.
Hey Matthew! You should really stop burying your reputation by dumping on my movie. I’m glad for the mention about the Royal, so more people can come come see Monkey Warfare and learn that your opinion is obviously in the minority.
Hey Reg!
Sorry that I didn’t like your movie. I think it had many nice things about it; including the performances of Don McKellar and Tracy Wright. Perhaps I will like your next one more.
Anyway, people who want to see it should probably go and see it at the Royal, because the Royal is a lovely thing.
Hello Mathew!
No apology necessary. I don’t mind if someone doesn’t like my film. I appreciate thoughtful criticism, but I didn’t get that from you.
The crux of your review was “I don’t like this movie, because the young character isn’t as cool as I am.”
As well, what is with all this “we” crap?
Reg… I want to see your movie. I missed it at the TIFF. Also, the “we” is a quirky Torontoist style.
Reg, you should learn (just like Mandy Moore did) how to deal. Even if your movie was a masterpiece (I haven’t seen it), people might not like it. Take Mathew’s criticism – why would you even need to worry about it if it’s in the “minority,” as you say? – and move on.
As for the “we,” if you don’t like it, I suggest using Singularist. All the sites run by Gothamist use the editorial “we.” But I’m sure that calling that editorial choice “crap” is your own version of “thoughtful criticism.”
Cheers.
Thank you David for straightening me out! I can see now that the opinions of this site are truly a collective “we” as you fly to the rescue of your co-blogger (I’m not sure why you took my choice of the word “crap” as pejorative – how do you respond when someone tells you “it’s da’ shit” – perhaps I should of said “we stuff”?).
I’m not sure you completely understood my post. I don’t care if someone likes my movie or not and I certainly don’t think it is a masterpiece.
My issue is with someone who puts up a post about a theatre opening and uses it as an opportunity to slam my movie again. At that point, it’s time to call them to task. Especially when their review doesn’t offer anything useful in their criticism (“You won’t like this movie if you’re as cool as I am”).
Can’t take your reviews being reviewed? Maybe you guys should learn “how to deal” (cute link, by the way). I mean, if some other “we” from your blog goes to see the movie and likes it (or doesn’t) are you going to put up their opinion or has everyone there rallied around Mathew’s pronouncement as the collective judgement?
How about a review from someone else for the theatrical release?
Ouch. Reg, No disrespect to Ron or David but I didn’t ask them to rally round me, and neither would I have thought that their comments would have led to this, um, spinning out the way it has.
Honestly, all I said was “the cinema is opening, yay! I don’t like the film they’re opening with, but it’s good news anyway, yay!”
At the same time, I don’t think that I really have to explain the actual jist of my review to you, do I? It’s… A strange thing to have to do. As far as I can tell (re-reading my review) my issue is that the film shows lots of promise in the first, like, 3 minutes and then it’s boring and the story goes nowhere, neither interesting as a slice of life or social commentary (as I’m saying this “to your face” I have a desperate urge to keep saying “In my opinion” but we’re all adults here.) You seem pretty obsessed with this throwaway comment I made about the MC5; a joke I made to describe how I felt the character set-up and development wasn’t particularly great in a more interesting way than saying “the character set-up and development wasn’t particularly great.”
I’m sorry that you forced me into this but I don’t appreciate being told my reviews are devoid of worthy criticism.
And Reg, if someone else wants to review the film on theatrical release, I’d love that.
Hey Mathew!
I am calling you to task on lazy writing. As a Godardian, I have too much respect for film criticism to let that slide a second time (you’ll notice that I didn’t respond in September).
The throwaway comment that you say I am obsessed with is one of the main portions of your critique. Let’s move on from there then.
Your other main critique is that very little happens. Okay, if you were reviewing Andy Warhol’s Empire or Michael Snow’s Wavelength, this might be a legitmate statement (and perhaps not with Wavelength since a murder takes place). What the hell does that mean in relation to Monkey Warfare?
You can’t say, because all you do is rain down judgement without backing it up. The film “withers”, “the story is boring and goes nowhere”, “it is neither interesting as a slice of life or social commentary”, in another review you write “everything else is worse than mediocre”.
In the comment above, you write that making the MC5 joke was more interesting than saying “the character set-up and development wasn’t particularly great.” Unfortunately Mathew, “Don’t go see this movie, because it isn’t particularly great” is all that you are saying no matter how witty and interesting you think you are making it. Not once are you making any tangible statement as to WHY you feel that way.
That is WHY I am telling you your review is devoid of worthy criticism. Imagine the grade WE would get in English class if we handed in a book report that said “We like this book, because it is great,” or “We hate this book, because it is worse than mediocre.”
I invite YOU to do another review of Monkey Warfare for the theatrical release that actually contains some substance to your criticism. If you don’t, I am going to write it for you and post it here.
Oh dear.
As this is far far off the topic of the Royal (and was to begin with) I’ve been rather at remiss to let this continue on in this comments thread as long as I have. Therefore, I’m going to try and continue this correspondence via e-mail; we’ll see where that goes (hopefully everyone happy and satisfied.)
Way to go on the cinephile’s version of the K-OS vrs. NOW magazine fight. But seriously, can’t we all just be friends?
Torontoists: I, Nadia Litz, have heard of the MC5. I had not heard of Torontoist.com, however, until my director brought it to my attention that I was trashed a little on the website…In all fairness to Reg’s position- to be unimpressed with my ‘performance’ because my CHARACTER “doesn’t know who the MC5 are” (more on that later) does in fact seem like a disgruntled hipster wanting to boast about their own knowlege.
However, as an often self loathing performer I too am sometimes “unimpressed” with my performances. So, I can take a good beating and am certainly open to your opinion.
May I point out one thing though….In fact, some attentive viewers (your hero Don McKellar one of them) picked up on the fact that my charater ‘Susan’ is in fact “presenting” herself as petulant to ‘Dan’. Rewatch the scene (maybe with a cup of coffee- on us- to get through the boring parts). I think you might see an ironic twinkle in Susan’s eyes when she claims to not know who the MC5 the Black Panthers are.
The movie is in fact full of Brechtian/ Godardian irony and distanciation. I think what my director is arguing to you about is that point. Godard films are boring (sorry Reg) but there is something else to them. The lack of narrative is made up for in an uncompromising look at the way a film in contructed, and therefore the way certain dominant ideologies and iconographies are constructed. For me to play Susan as a truly seriously hip, knowing and tough badass would have been a ‘realists’ approach to the film and it would have been a diservice to the kind of movie Reg was making.
Haing said that- you gotta wanna watch Monkey Warfare with eager eyes to catch that shit. So fair enough. If you are looking for a straight forward, sincere, film with a spoon fed narrative and realist performances- don’t go see Monkey Warfare. Reg makes you work for your 10 bucks, for sure. Intelligent filmmakers often do.
Nevertheless, I totally get that you (and many others) might find it boring. And that you (and many others) might think I suck. I also think you are entitled to your opinion without the director (or some petulant little actress) taking you to task. I apologize. Write away! Maybe even feel flattered, perhaps, that Reg cares enough about your website to care about your review. He is a passionate guy.
Reg: Stop taking this poor reviewer to task! People love you and your film. This one guy does not. Yeah, to bring up his distain in a mention about the glorious re-opening of the Royal was maybe not so fair. And yeah, maybe his review was a little off. But DUDE- buy this guy a drink, make him watch “Deux ou Trois Choses Que Je Sais D’elle” and call it a night.
Sincerely,
Nadia Litz
Thanks Nadia,
I rather like your comments, because you don’t seem so bothered by the whole thing. Nice to hear from you. In response:
I didn’t care for your performance but I didn’t hate it either; but I’ll concede that if I say “well, I didn’t see her ‘playing’ petulant ignorance; that’s what I saw her being” you can respond that it was dead subtle, don’t have to spoonfeed, etc. It’s the same way one man’s lack of narrative is another man’s artistic construct. We could argue about these things forever. I do, though, rather resist when people say “oh you just didn’t see…” because if you didn’t, who is really at fault? Some films make you work so hard to “see” but you care to try; if anything my review of Monkey Warfare said “I did not care to try.” That doesn’t mean I’m either lazy or stupid (you say “eager eyes” which is appreciated, but then rather negate it by supposing what kind of films I might want to see.)
As far as I’m concerned it worked as a piece of subjective journalism (The only kind; let’s be honest). As I’ve tried to explain to Reg across an e-mail, is that it is entirely my wont to spend time decoding or writing about films that I have enjoyed; films I didn’t, well, why bother?
I am quite willing to let this lie, now. I’ve never said “Reg Harkema will never make a good film; Nadia Litz will be annoying forever” I would say quite the opposite.