Frances Bula header image 2
← →

The strange Rio Theatre story

January 26th, 2012 · 34 Comments

The media duststorm over the Rio Theatre being forced to give up showing movies because it got its liquor licence really has me puzzled.

Why? Because it was reported last October, when Vancouver city council endorsed giving the theatre a liquor licence, that it wouldn’t be able to show movies if it got the licence.

Several media outlets wrote about this. Here’s one story from the Georgia Straight and another from the Sun.

But somehow, when Rio owner Corinne Lea told everyone last week it was a “total surprise” to her that she wouldn’t be able to show movies, everyone went crazy over the story.

Just to be clear — I’d love to be able to have a drink while I’m watching a movie, so I’m not against the concept at all. My blog followers know that I wallowed in the overstuffed chairs of the Living Room Theatre in Portland last fall, swilling alcohol and watching movies I didn’t much care about, just for the pleasure of the experience.

But I don’t get why this story was a “surprise” or why it generated such media attention now, but not back in October. Is it just the fact that Councillor Heather Deal got into the act now, but she didn’t then? Or what?

I’d also love to hear an explanation for why the Rio owners didn’t just keep operating the way they had been. They were able to serve liquor at concerts by getting special-event licences for the nights they needed them. Then they were free to show movies the other nights.

I don’t know how much of a hassle it was to do it that way, but, simply as an interested neighbourhood person, I’d like to know how much of what has happened at the Rio came about because of the owner’s decision to choose a liquor licence over movies.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Dan

    Perhaps rather than just going along with current rules the Rio owner is trying to force the issue. If anything it’s nice to see someone pushing for change here. These archaic laws make BC look like a backwater; they serve to limit business at a time when creativity is sorely needed.

    So regardless of their approach, I congratulate anyone who takes on bureaucratic inertia and lazy political will with regards to prohibition-era liquor laws.

  • sv

    I got the sense from another interview(sorry can’t recall where)that the liquor board frowned upon frequent special event licences.
    Is there perhaps a tipping point where the liquor board starts to consider a venue might need a permanent licence?

  • Bill Lee

    And they make it like it is a venerated theatre for 75 years. But it was a bowling alley for 20 years in the 1960s, and then a Chinese language theatre in the 1970’s (therefore completely unnoticed by local media) and then varuious attempts to get it back.

    I see all this as a feint by Festival Cinemas (leasing the Park, the 5th Avenue Cinemas), the new backers of Corinne Lea, to get booze hall conversions.

    I haven’t been reading the NATO (theatre owners) Boxoffice or Variety, the show business bible, but isn’t August when the distributors will stop sending out films but only digital (and protected) films?
    And that RIO hasn’t and can’t afford the conversion.

    Here in the (West Montreal) Suburban is, (on pages 19 and 27, Flash pages, can be clipped and saved as JPG, some browsers will convert to PDF ) a story of Dollar Cinema in NDG and its fiscal woes in doing a $250,000 conversion where Francophone cinemas get some provincial help.
    http://bit.ly/xuhlOP

  • Bobbie Bees

    Umm. The RIO is digital. That’s how they’ve been able to show the new 3D releases.

  • Bill Lee

    Ah. I hadn’t seen the notices about 3-D etc.
    It’s been all about almost second run movies and specials to me going past on the Number 9.
    But what about the underage youth. Yes they can card check, but how good is that?
    I can see them being ‘picked upon’ by Liquor Control Board inspectors for possible underage drinkers or even just hanging about.

    Still what does Tom Lightburn, of Festival Cinema mean to Vision Vancouver.

  • Silly Season

    Bang on, Frances.

    The owner has made a business decision (and running a club/booze can versus a theatre–even with drinks— is probably the more lucrative of the two) and now appears to want to have her pint, and drink it too.

    Or, perhaps she is putting up a bit of a mock fight, in trying to smooth the transition—after all, underagers who attend movies won’t be attending the new club setting. Bit of an exercise in self-promotion and face saving going on there? The “SAVE THE RIO!’ campaign is as misleading as it is overwrought. She has changed her business model, made application for new status, and is now whinging about it. Incredible.

    This story infuriates me on several other levels. For instance, why the media has glommed onto this at all, giving it a prominence out of all proportion to the “problem.” Are there no other independent single screen cinemas showing art films (or more showings of “Rocky Horror Picture Show”?). Why, yes, there are.

    Are there no other pressing problems that face the youth in this city—say, housing affordability amongst them? Why, yes, there are.

    As per @Bill Lee’s observation #3:

    ‘ I see all this as a feint by Festival Cinemas (leasing the Park, the 5th Avenue Cinemas), the new backers of Corinne Lea, to get booze hall conversions’.

    The tweets that have been flying amongst certain of the City of Vancouver ruling class and friends have been rather vomit making, imo. I ask you: where is the Rosa Parks of the Rio, when you need her?!

    (Note to self: Hmm. Leonard Schein, owner of Festival Cinemas is a VV backer, yes?).

    Pile on the province for “archaic” liquor laws? Why? (other than another shot at the down and out Liberals). Just because some young people want to drink during the movies? As though they don’t have plenty of opportunities to do so at other publicans and establsihments in this city?

    And what about those of us who already have to deal with the bad manners of some theatre-goers? I may not want to hear or deal with the kind of louche behaviour usually on display at the hockey game, after patrons have had more than one. Nothing like sitting in the complete darkto totally loosen one’s inhibitions, eh? We already have to put up with continual talkers and cell phone usrse in theatres now—why open the door for more abuse of the common space? You wanna talk back to the screen during ‘The Big Lebowski’, White Russian in hnad. Great! Just do it in the privacy of your own home. Leave the “silent majority’ of film lovers in blissful peace and quiet during our collective movie experience.

    And finally, no bitch of mine here could top the tweets of the true believers at #therio :

    ‘I am so completely sick and tired of being ashamed of BC’s archaic liquor laws’

    ‘Where Can You Go for a Real Movie Experience Anymore? ‘

    ‘Independent film is YOUR VOICE. @RioTheatre provides this service, and it’s one of the few left. Throw in your support & some $ ‘

    First World problems, indeed.

  • Erin Green

    Let them serve alcohol. Just like a restaurant. Seriously, whats the difference? It’s good for business.

    The RIO needs something to attract more people other than their cult-classic double bills and random cash making blockbusters. Aside from the fact that you don’t get bombarded with car ads, and get to support a business that actually believes in interesting cinema, theres no other reason for most people to go.

    Cinephiles, artists, hipsters that frequent this establishment on a regular basis don’t typically have a lot of cash on their own to support a theatre like the RIO, if you know what I mean.

  • rmac

    The latest craze in the U.S. is cinemas that allow drinking during the movies. Austin, Texas is apparently the leader in this trend and people seem to love it. I think that the Rio might just be trying to tap into the latest hipster fad. People know what’s going on when they attend said theatre and accept it, warts and all.

  • shane simpson

    I am supportive of the position of the RIO. My take from talking to the ownership is that while they certainly would like to serve drinks during movies they know that is a longer term policy discussion. One that will surely occur considering the lobby efforts of Cineplex and other major players to have those changes made.
    The queston with the RIO is why are they not allowed to show movies when they are not serving alcohol? The RIO has been pretty clear to me that they understand their liquor license would be limited to live events with no underage attendees. When there are under 19s or for movies they will need to lock the bar service up.
    That seems like a common sense position to me. I do not see the safety or underage drinking issues if the bar is not open during events when patrons who are under 19yrs are in attendance.

  • SD

    Actually the owner has been quite clear that the plan was NOT to serve alcohol during movies at all, even after getting the license. It was to serve booze on live event nights (ie, concerts etc, which is common practice), but not at all on movie nights (because serving alcohol during movies is not allowed).

    What I have heard the owner say is that she thought this plan would fly, based on the ongoing discussions she was having with the liquor control people. But then right after the license was awarded the liquor control folks said no you can’t be one thing one night, then another thing another night. That is what she says came as a surprise – that she thought they’d arrived at a compromise, but then it turned out no. How surprising that was or ought to have been…who knows.

    I do know that I really enjoyed seeing movies at the RIO. It’s close to home, it’s comfortable, they play fewer ads, and you could show up wearing your pyjamas and no one would look at your twice. I know that the movie theatre biz is pretty marginal for an indy theatre. And I know that not selling booze during movies, even if you sell it on other nights when other things are happening, ought to be sufficient to avoid breaking the no-booze-at-movies rule.

    I personally don’t need to drink at movies. I don’t really care if I can drink at other kinds of shows either. But the standards being imposed here are just dumb. And a great local independent business is having a hard time making a go of it in the absence of some kind of reasonable compromise. I mean seriously, I got offered a ceasar with my breakfast at the restaurant last weekend. You can watch sports games and drink your face off, whether it’s 11am or 11pm or 2am. Even the folk festival has a damn beer garden. Surely the sky will not fall if a theatre serves alcohol at live shows some nights, and then shutters the bar during movie nights. What do they think is going to happen, the vodka is going to leap out and force itself on someone?

  • MrCup

    Ms. Lea has been choosing her words very carefully throughout this, the main bit of semantics seems to be over who ‘advised’ her she could still show movies. It was not the LCB, but indeed her own adviser who thought they had a loophole. she was told what the law was originally, but thought they found a work-around in the language. She made this public, so the LCB added language to her license to re-enforce what the definition is, not what her interpretation was. She essentially got caught trying to go around a rule she already knew about, but cried foul and is trying to shift blame anywhere but to herself.

  • Silly Season

    So, which is it?

    The owner would like to serve booze during movies—or not? Shane and SD have two very different takes on the matter.

  • spartikus

    Video: Hitler Reacts To Rio Theatre Not Showing Movies

  • Silly Season

    @spartikus.

    Somewhat clever. But not especially funny, which then undermines the point. Also, really hard to make Hitler funny.

    You should have chosen a more likeable totalitarian.

    I’ll let you handle any blowback.

  • DSB

    As someone said on Twitter: the theatre you never go to is now the venue with a liquor license you’ll never go to. The RIO was nice, but not terribly well-attended—even by supposed East Van hipsters.

    The owner (and the media) have done a great job of making this small theatre look quite integral to the cultural life of the city in the middle of this issue, although many would argue it really isn’t. I find it hard to believe that too many people are broken up over this announcement.

  • spartikus

    Know your memes, Silly Season.

  • Everyman

    @Silly Season 6
    Amen to that! If I have to pay $14 bucks at a theatre for the privilege of some idiot compulsively checking their phone with the attendant blinding flash of light one more time, I’ll scream. Letting Vancouver’s notoriously immature drinkers into movie theatres would be the last straw.

  • JamieLee

    Thanks Frances for raising this issue. I have been harping on it a bit too. I think the Rio has a business license as a neighbourhood theatre with the City but I could be wrong. With an application for a provincial liquor primary license all of the venue then becomes licensed premises. Never have I’ve known Neighbourhood theatres previously to be liquor licensed and this charts us along a new course which has serious ramifications. It was my understanding that provincial liquor license regulations do not typically allow neighbourhood theatres or movie theatres to sell alcohol since minors are allowed into neighbourhood theatres and movie houses. Also liquor regulations state that no minors are allowed on premises which hold a liquor primary license and this seems to be where the problem lies as the Rio now has been approved with a liquor primary license . I am really quite shocked that Shane Simpson who s a provincial MLA would not know liquor regulations. He says he supports the Rio so what he is essentially saying is he supports alcohol being sold in neighbourhood theatres and movie houses throughout BC. Shocking because with this he is pushing as is Councillor Deal for minors to be now allowed in liquor primary venues and I think this needs way more discussion.

  • Silly Season

    @Jamie Lee #18. Right on.

    @spartikus #16. Yeah, know the original. And still don’t think this particular parody, funny. Or clever.

    Unless that’s what you are trying to point out? 🙂

  • Silly Season

    Agreed, @Mr. Cup #11 and @DSB #15. This whole thing thing smells fishy. Much ado, etc.

    And Mr. Simson and Ms Deal MUST t have bigger ‘issues’ to “champion”, musn’t they?

    Well, musn’t they?

  • Silly Season

    MUSTN’T…:-)

  • Bobbie Bees

    I say tomato, you say asdfghjjkl;

  • Maude

    I believe this is not really an issue of being able to drink beer or wine in a movie theatre. (I would be pleasantly surprised if that were the outcome in this case however).

    This issue has resonated because it is about an expensive, archaic provincial bureaucracy with a rigid prohibition-era mentality. They have used senseless laws over and over again and skunked arts organizers and events.

    There are many examples. Just look at the Whistler Jazz Festival recently:

    http://www.whistlerquestion.com/article/20110820/WHISTLER01/110819973/-1/whistler/liquor-board-rejects-license-for-jazz-on-the-mountain

    Quite similar with pride week:

    http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/whistler/pride-week-organizers-soul-searching-at-20-year-mark/Content?oid=2276597

    In my opinion this sort of thing is quite embarrassing…and from an international perspective even more so.

    {I suppose I should have started by saying I am among those who believe that wine and bread and cheese should be available at the same place. I also don’t believe that at a music-type Festival (geared to adults) I should have to stand in line for 25 minutes for a glass of wine and then be caged-off like a zoo animal in order to enjoy it…as is usually the case in B.C.}

    I do not believe this is some deucedly clever plan by the Rio owner. In my understanding, the owner was under the impression that it may have been possible to circumvent this ‘no film’ stipulation (it was impliedly so) until the last day when it was written in black and white. Why did they not tell her to cease promotion of upcoming film screenings?

    The Province continues to use this veil of ‘public safety’ for so many events. But the logic does not make sense: all theatres are dark places; an underage person who wanted to drink in a theatre could also do so at a Cineplex. That combined with the fact that UFC events and hockey games seem to have no problem selling alcohol to thousands.

    The Rio is simply asking to be able to show movies even when not serving alcohol. Now..not only are film events cancelled, in addition to a number of upcoming film festivals and ‘movies for mommies’ but my dance group, which sometimes uses projection and video in our choreographies, would be precluded from doing so, should we be interested in performing at the Rio.

    While the Rio may have been a bowling alley or Chinese language theatre prior (as noted earlier); I do not think that diminishes its importance as a cultural landmark; I think it only points to the fact that we do not have enough.

  • ThinkOutsideABox

    I seem to recall beer and wine in the lobby bar of the Vancity Theatre. While the beverage wouldn’t be brought into the theatre, the fact Vancity has a license doesn’t preclude their ability to show movies or much less project images. Sorry hipsters, more to this than what you’ve been lead to feel ironic about.

  • Everyman

    @TOAB 24
    Possibly something to do with having to buy a membership to see a film at the Vancity?

  • Bill McCreery

    @ Jamie 18.

    Both here and at City Caucus you raise some very important considerations in this discussion, especially about the ‘neighbourhood’ and ‘family’ focus of theatres such as the Rio. Another side of what’s happening here, and perhaps the major motivator, is that these large capacity seating neighbourhood theatres are struggling financially, witness the recent closing of the Hollywood. The owners see selling booze as the answer to them staying around.

    So ‘we’ (in this case the Province) must decide whether we want these theatres to continue to serve the public and in what formate. If ‘we’ do, perhaps it is possible for some shows to be ‘adult’ and some ‘family’. Why not?

    I was working with Bill Vince on another nearby heritage project just before he passed away from pancreatic cancer in 2008. He had bought 3 properties on Main north of Hastings. One was what be made into the District 319 Theatre, a state of the art private event and multimedia facility. I was not privy to all the goings on, but I know he went through a considerable number of hoops and a lot of frustration both with the City and the Province. He was persevering and largely succeeded. Unfortunately he was not able to fully complete his dream, at least to the extent he wanted. However, he intended this theatre to be a jacket and tie special events type venue showing experimental and previews of new movies, etc.

    The theatre’s location and Bill’s concept were not ‘neighbourhood’ focused, but it is another related facility to watch. If it can continue and be allowed it reach its full potential within the possible pending improvements in our LCB regs, it can play a special part in a Citywide network of what could also allow a more neighbourhood focused entertainment network.

    Speaking of neighbourhood focus, the City must move towards neighbourhoods where residents can walk, ride bikes and take transit to accomplish their daily activities. One of these activities is going to a movie, play, etc. They can play an important role in developing a neigbourhood centre. So neighbourhood theatres need to be encouraged and kept around for that reason as well.

  • JamieLee

    Hi Bill McCreery, thank you for your comments. I understand that independent movie theatres are struggling and I feel for them. I want them to succeed. They have decided that the way to succeed as you mention is the selling of booze. I even support the RIO having a liquor license but don’t believe the consumption of alcohol should be allowed in the actual theatre when movies are shown. From my understanding of Liquor regulations is that the whole of the premises becomes licensed and therefore minors must be excluded during the time the premises are licensed. And if movies are shown during this time I think it unfair that youth be excluded. I don’t though believe that minors should be allowed where alcohol is being consumed. My point here is that movies should be for everyone except of course if they are restricted. The neighbourhood aspect you raise is valid. My fear is that by introducing alcohol into a movie theatre, a neighbourhood theatre that is neighbourhood based you are adding additional social impacts to the community so affected and this needs further discussion. We need to have general policies but the City seems to be all mixed up regarding liquor licensing as they are supporting one venue kinda like spot re-zoning without any general policy in place. Is this fair? You mention the 319 but to me this venue added to the neighbourhood plus it wasn’t classified as a neighbourhood theatre. It would be like the Vancity, Stanley and even the Commodore. Plus it was in a commercial zone. With the Rio it is a whole different ballgame. I would like the co-owner Ms Lea to state if their business license is a neighbourhood theatre as it was previously. As far as I know if this was changed why didn’t they go through a re-development process regarding change of use? And I’m going to raise this issue as it needs raising. The other co-owner is a founder of Vision and it seems to me that no Vision Councillors recused themselves when supporting the liquor license application of this establishment to the Province. Was there a conflict here and is there a conflict now with Councillor Deal’s motion coming forward on Jan 30?

  • Michelle

    It seems that when it comes to booze everyone is up in arms. I for one do not want to mix a cinema experience with that of someone vomiting three rows behind my back, from too much excitement…

  • evilfred

    If people can drink at Canucks games why can’t they drink at a theatre? It’s ridiculous. It should be up to the theatre owners to decide whether or not it’s a business model that will work and how to prevent people from overdoing it.

    Newsflash: teenagers will sneak alcohol in in flasks anyways if they want to, regardless of whether the venue is licensed or not. Selling booze isn’t going to magically make teenagers drink more. Teenagers also eat in restaurants sometimes. Where booze is served to responsible adults. I know, shocking.

  • The Other David

    I wonder what kind of license does the Orpheum operates with? Most shows are live performances, but I *have* seen movies there, the bar was even open iirc. “Wings”, and “Phantom of the Opera”. Maybe the rule only applies to Talkies.

  • The Other David

    (note to self… read post *before* posting)

  • Tessa

    Hello Vancouverites: I thought I would drop in and say a few words from Europe, before I wander down to the local Penny Mart to purchase a 3-euro bottle of wine and go outside to find a police officer to drink in front of in public. Have fun!

  • Tessa

    @JamieLee:

    ” I don’t though believe that minors should be allowed where alcohol is being consumed.”

    Ever heard of restaurants? Okay, what about my uncle’s Christmas parties?

  • maude

    Hello again,

    I’m simply curious as to whether this story is still viewed as ‘strange’ by the contributors here.

    As I predicted, the outcome thus far appears to be yet another ammendment: the Rio may be allowed to show day time movies or matinees without alcohol if they can demonstrate adherence to an impossibly rigid schedule.

    I would like to reassert: the issue is not at all about alcohol in movie theatres, in my view. It is about a hopelessly outdated (…and embarrassing…) prohibition-era bureaucracy that enforces senseless rules working to ensure B.C. remains a cultural backwater.