Sincerely, Good Luck

Of course I believe in free will.  I have no choice.
Isaac Bashevis Singer

 

Imagine that I am essentially cynical and selfish. Imagine that what a friend of mine who works at one of Seattle Big Houses once told me is true: that the only reason I write this blog is because I’m mad that they won’t produce my plays.  Imagine that my outrage has always been, and will always be, essentially self-serving.  Come on.  Imagine.  Like the man says, it’s easy if you try.

It would explain a lot actually, like why nearly a year ago I felt safe saying in a post titled “On Institutional Arrogance”:

Allow me to honor the clarity of Intiman’s ultimatum with some clarity of my own: I hope they die.   I hope they do it soon and with a minimum of suffering.  And most of all I hope they do it without siphoning precious funds from the rest of us who make theatre in the Pacific Northwest.

It didn’t take a psychic to know that , despite then Artistic Director, Kate Whoriskey’s guilt-trippy pandering plea, they were highly unlikely to raise the half a million dollars they were asking for in what I called their “shoot-the-puppy” campaign.  So I bet the safe money and called for them to close their doors.  Cynical.  Self-serving.  And ultimately dead accurate.

Similarly but conversely, when the Intiman announced last August that they would keeping Andrew Russell on as “consulting artistic director” and that his goal for 2012 would be “….to establish a loose collective of playwrights, directors, actors, designers and others to devise projects for Intiman to produce, in a short "micro-season" mounted next summer…” I kept my mouth shut.  Here was a situation not so easy for a self-serving cynic to prognosticate. 

Then in November Russell made his plans plainer.  This from The Stranger’s Slog:

At a press conference earlier today, Intiman announced it was going to make a go of it after all, with a four-play summer festival, a repertory company of 12 actors, and artistic direction from Andrew Russell. The four-play season is a "split focus," as Russell put it, between Intiman regulars and a potential new crowd that wants to see newer, weirder, more local work.

Reading further down I learned that Russell had recruited for his bold new strategy some of Seattle’s most exciting (and mostly young) talents like Marya Sea Kaminski, Michael Place, and Jennifer Zeyl; topping it off by somehow snagging the venerable Dan Savage to provide the original work for Russell’s four play plan.  This was no longer a “shoot-the-puppy” campaign.  This was a “Honey-look-at–this-adorable-puppy-I-brought–home-for-Christmas!” campaign.  And a very sexy puppy at that.  When you’ve been as cynical and self-serving as I have, for as long as I have, you learn not to bet against this kind of talent.  I kept my mouth shut again and waited to see if the “phoenix Intiman” could raise the million they were now asking for.  I suspected they would.

And late last night we found out they did.

I have met Andrew Russell.  He was gracious enough to come hear an early reading of my new play Ballard House Duet.  Along with a handful of other trusted colleagues, he gave some truly insightful feedback.  It’s clear to me that Andrew is extraordinarily talented at motivating people and, more importantly, money.  In the world of 21st Century regional theatre, you really cannot ask for more of an artistic director.  And Andrew has a few other things going for him.  He’s young.  He’s ambitious, and unlike his predecessor Kate Whoriskey, he owes his position not to sinecure but his own pluck and determination.  In short, he earned it.  What’s more, he’s making deep connections with the amazing talent native to Seattle.  All this bodes well for the success of his career, if not necessarily for the sustained success of Intiman.  But then again, I think I have been clear in the past how much I care whether the institution we formerly knew as the Intiman lives or dies.  Instead I say, long live the talent represented in the team Andrew has assembled, and long live his own talent for recognizing and organizing it.

And if, as I cynically suspect, Andrew ultimately winds up on the same path as a few promising rookie Mariners, eventually proving himself worthy of a trade to the Yankees in a few years, well then, I may grumble and bitch, but I will still watch in quiet admiration when he belts one over the bleachers in New York.

 

Comments

[Jim Jewell]

If Intiman is using the $1 million to produce this summer festival and not to reduce debt, but, as reported, using all revenues from the summer festival to reduce debt, is this a 1 year plan? What funds will go to produce subsequent seasons?

[Paul Mullin]

Thanks, Jim. Great question. You know so much more than most of us theatre artists about the back office and always know the most insightful questions to ask.

So I appeal to anyone reading here who might have some answers to these questions.

Yes, we are very excited that Intiman will persevere, but given its pretty lousy track record of transparency, it's sort of incumbent upon Andrew and the board to clear up some of these concerns. You asked the community to bail you out, your burden to communicate with us is higher than most arts organizations.

[shane]

Tickets will obviously be $1,000 each.

[Paul Mullin]

Thanks, Shane.

This confirms my long-standing but heretofore vague suspicion that attending an Intiman performance has a lot in common with going to a Mitt Romney fund-raising dinner.

But seriously? Folks? Anyone? How 'bout the artists whom I so admire that are jumping on to this ship? Do you have any strong feelings about what's happening down in the engine room?

[Paul Mullin]

Bueller?

[Amy]

I think a lot of folks are wondering the same thing. What about future sustainability? Shane's comment highlights what I've been thinking - how far can they really go with the revenues from this mini season, when they are still so deeply in debt?

[Paul Mullin]

Reposting with Marcie's permission from a comment on my Face Book link to here:

Marcie Sillman: Paul, Andrew Russell told me this vote on Monday was a go-ahead beyond this summer festival. He's already putting together plans for next year. That said, my understanding is they won't produce anything without funds to pay the entire costs up front. that's true for what happens beyond this year. Board President Terry Jones said pretty much the same thing. They are, perhaps, naive about what will happen financially, but I believe they were sincere that this was their plan.
17 hours ago

[Scot Augustson]

Hmm. I think the pay-as-you-go model is a fantastic way for small lean 'n' mean arts groups to work. If you don't have the cash on hand, the project waits until you've raised it. (And if you do it right the fund raising becomes part of the PR and the old community building thing.)
But, can it work on a bigger scale? When you've got utility bills to pay every month and a staff and union commitments?
If nothing else, it's a fascinating experiment.

[Jim Jewell]

Scott, I agree about a pay-as-you-go model in principal. But, what I want to hear is whether we are going to go through the same thing next year - Intiman asks for a million, uses it to pay for production, and then uses revenues to pay down debt.

Can this be a long-term solution if ticket revenue isn't contributing to future productions? If this summer produces less than $1 million in ticket revenue, is there any chance they could raise $1 million again? Should they even try?

I just want some transparency. They've played at and pretended to transparency, but it has actually been a fairly insular and opaque process.

But, really, given how little traction this question has gained in the last two days as I have asked it repeatedly, I don't really expect an answer. At least not from anyone on the inside of the process.

[Scot Augustson]

Jim, I've certainly never encountered a pay-as-you-go model where the org had a space. Also, sitting on debt is the opposite of this.
Have they dispatched past debt? Or is that still hanging around their neck? How much responsibility do they have on the building? Is it still a union house as far as tech goes?
Oh, see? We're back to those questions you're not getting an answer to!

[Jim Jewell]

Yep. I have gotten a few. They are still under union contracts. They are going forward responsible for 25% of the building in terms of days leased. The debt has not been dispatched at all - I don't think anyone outside of Intiman knows how much it is, and they may not even have the full answer internally. I have heard Seattle Center plans to forgive some or all back debt,

So, they are using public money and being forgiven public debt, but they aren't being fully transparent with the public. I really wish artists and arts org could hold themselves to a higher standard than this.