Last week the Intiman Theatre’s management threw themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion, and announced what most anyone who cared already knew, which is that they were in Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Financial Shape: “Intiman needs $500,000 by the end of March, an additional $250,000 by June and an additional $250,000 by September.”
The disarray at the Intiman–and the board’s late-to-the-party response to it–leaves the bystander a little dumbfounded.
Even now, when Brendan Kiley interviews Intiman board president Kim Anderson, her responses are vague–“significant cost overruns in a few of our shows,” “a couple of items that appeared to be income items appeared to be inflated or were never negotiated”–and she suggests that June, when an audit is finished, is when she can say more. At this point, though, it appears that the irregularities were directed toward staying afloat. (People do embezzle from non-profits, they just don’t usually get rich doing it at mid-size theatres.)
Nonetheless, that puts the Intiman in the nightmare position of needing to raise $750,000 before, apparently, they can fully and accurately detail their financial situation. That’s three-quarters of a million dollars in addition to their regularly scheduled annual campaign. It’s a lot to expect from an Acting Managing Director and an Interim Finance Director, and more skeptical donors remain frozen by the board’s failure of oversight, failure to manage the story, and failure even now to mount a compelling case for Intiman’s future.
But for real Jacobin fervor, let’s turn to local playwright Paul Mullin calls the ask “institutional arrogance,” and adds “I hope they die.” Operating under the assumption that saving the non-viable Intiman would be stealing from the larger Seattle arts pie, Mullin suggests giving your money to others instead. It’s an odd argument, not least because he offers ACT Theatre as a strong, bankable alternative. (You remember that ACT was $1.7 million in debt in 2003, and arrogantly refused to close to allow new theatres to flourish. This is the “already healthy,” per Mullin, ACT that today carries $2.7 million in debt.)
I happen to be a fan of Mullin’s plays, but I sometimes wish upon him a role in management of a larger theatre, so that he could confront some of his more blithe presumptions and prescriptions. The fact is that Seattle has only two mid-sized theatre companies, ACT and Intiman, is in danger of losing both, and has been in that position for the past decade. (Not that larger arts organizations have had the recession much easier; Seattle Symphony and Seattle Art Museum have both struggled financially.)
If the Intiman isn’t viable, then the evidence argues that no mid-size theatre is. That would be a damaging blow to actors; set, lighting and costume designers; stagehands, and a whole host of support staff, and it would lay waste to all of the subsidiary relationships that a mid-size theatre maintains with smaller groups.
I think the Intiman and ACT are viable, though their size and position in the market makes them more susceptible to economic shocks (from within or without). When Mullin self-dramatizingly writes, “But I will also not be a party to keeping the institution on life support past the time of its viability,” I have to wonder if he’s aware of how uninvested he sounds–the audiences of these institutions have responded to the buffetings that arise from recessions and executive transitions for the entire lives of the organizations. (The “Blame Bart!” contingent should remember that one of Sher’s first duties when he arrived was to beg banks for an extended line of credit.)
The Intiman is not Kim Anderson. It’s not Kate Whoriskey. It wasn’t Bart Sher. It wasn’t Brian Colburn, and it wasn’t Laura Penn. The Intiman is the people who care about it, and people care fiercely, from 20-year subscribers to artistic and administrative staff. The Intiman is memories of that space coming alive as the house lights dim. And pace Mullin, it has rarely felt more alive, experimental, and engaged than recently, under Whoriskey.
If you are not a fan of the Intiman, put your wallet away. If you don’t care for their productions, or their artistic ventures, if you can think of better organizations to support, good for you. By the same token, while it may be tempting to divvy up the spoils, they’re not yours. The Intiman’s future belongs to its audience. They are loyal, and close-knit. Anyone invested in theatre should applaud the miracle of their existence. This is not the time for a circular firing squad.
Note with ACT that they had four performance venues, the benefit of a booming economy (in which big pocketed donors were in much greater supply… note Bill Condit dropped half a million bucks in ACT’s lap during that time), and drastically reduced their personnel and operating expenses prior to begging (has Intiman done the same?), plus many of their financial shortfalls could be and were explained (fiscal complications with maintenance of their relatively new home in Kreielsheimer Place while maintaining their season schedule was a prime factor). Intiman is not in the same boat, and most of all has done perilously little to explain where all the money went.
“…drastically reduced their personnel and operating expenses prior to begging (has Intiman done the same?)”
Yes to personnel, I assume so on operating expenses (and based on informal conversations I’ve had, it’s a somewhat safe assumption).
A question of nomenclature: If ACT and Intiman are ‘mid-sized’ then what would you call a big-sized company?
Echoing Jose, what is the Rep? Is that not mid-size? If it is large, it doesn’t seem much larger than either Intiman or ACT. I agree with your closing point that Intiman’s loyal audience will have to be their salvation. They’ll find it very hard to get grants in their current circumstance, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of love in evidence from other people in the community. We’ll just have to wait and see if their audience is good for the money.
Bless you, Michael.
But I am neither firing a rifle nor in the range of one.
I am, as you are, entitled to my opinion. In that we are equal. But if there is any journalistic component to your coverage, I would ask you to ask, “What happens if you raise $750,000? Will you be giving that back if you close your doors?”
No wait. I have a better question. And I mean it, ask this one and pay careful attention to the answer, if any. “Kate Whoriskey says that one good example of the good Intiman does is the ~$85,000 they raised for victims of abuse in the Congo. Has that check been cut? If so, to whom?”
Just ask that question, since I’m in no position to. I believe it’s a reasonable one. Don’t you?
Let us all know what response you get.
Some journalism.
Or we can stick with opinions. I can do those as good as anyone.
Sir, Mr. Mullin is not the issue. Why do you lean so heavily upon his version of the Intiman story as though it is the only one? I do not think it is beyond you to investigate facts, since you note the ACT debt when it supports your cause, so to wish anything upon Mr. Mullin turns your argument into something not so much journalism as personal vendetta. This is precisely the last thing anyone needs when discussing a serious matter.
I take exception to you telling me that “we” talk about the same things when “we” talk about the Intiman. Clearly you are in the party of boosters. That is fine. I am not. This, believe it or not, is also fine, whether you think so or not. But what “we” are talking about is not your specious argument about whether or not in the absence of Intiman “evidence argues that no mid-sized theatre is” viable. There is, by the way, no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, certainly no evidence you offer. At any rate, it is not what “we” are talking about. What “we” are talking about is whether or not the Intiman is worth saving for any reason at all.
I have yet to be convinced by any argument saying so. It is charitable to consider your piece an argument, as it’s much more a plea, but I’ll accept that.
Your adversial approach in the last two paragraphs makes you sound arrogant and snotty. The spoils are “not yours,” you say, as if somehow to imply they are–whose? You put this squarely on the shoulders of the Intiman audience, about whom you make vast assumptions. What exactly is that audience? Subscribers for the season? Single-ticket buyers for the past year, or five years, or at any time in history? People who like classic plays? People who have at one time or another come into contact with the edifice during Bumbershoot? I have myself been all of these things, as well as its hardest critic. I am deeply invested in theater in Seattle yet I do not find the existence of any theater’s audience a “miracle.” Do I number among your “audience” still?
And since no one asked me as a member of the monolithic, abstract audience whether the theater is worth saving, I’ll answer in advance. No. No, it is not worth saving. When someone gives me something better than another dull argumentum ad hominem that contains something like respect for my intelligence, I may reconsider. Your article is not it.
Mr. van Baker,
I was going to make a few comments about your attacking Paul Mullin and his opinion in your editorial, but do realize Mr. Wiley did a pretty nice job already so I’ll set it aside.
I’ve gotta tell you, if any nonprofit entity, particularly one that has been obviously horribly mismanaged for quite a while, came to me and said “Look, yes we know we allowed this to happen, and we’re going to figure out why and how and do our best to make certain it never happens again. Buuuut, we need three-quarters of a million dollars from you and your friends before we can actually give you any answers. We assure you that when we eventually find out who dropped the balls and where, we will do our best to make certain it never happens again! Buuuut, we’re going to need another quarter of a million dollars from you and your friends before we can actually implement any of that.” I would laugh heartily as I walked away shaking my head.
I will be very interested to see if their loyal, close-knit and miraculous audience can swallow that one and cough it up.
If you understand what Mr. Willey’s talking about, I’ll take your word for it.
Jeremy, come on now. I think Omar’s Subject line is pretty clear. You guys are trying to make this about me, perhaps because more people hit my site on this subject than yours.
I’m not saying you don’t get to opine with the rest of us. But are you going to ask any tough questions or not? I’m not saying you’re obliged to. I really am just asking.
I’ll take a flat yes or no. And then I’m happy to listen to your opinion.
PM
Just thought I’d throw in my two cents here.
1. I agree with the comments about the theater size. I think Michael is comparing them in a way that most people wouldn’t, to say the Paramount and the 5th (which is a weird case in and of itself). For most people in the arts, we have three regionals which are of comparable size and represent the top tier of professional theater work in town as producing institutions. Budget wise and seat-wise, they’re all comparable and probably should be described as “large” not “mid-sized”. But that is, as Jose notes, a quibble with nomenclature. Not unimportant, per se, but not necessarily the heart of the argument.
2. I actually will disagree with Michael also about his response to Paul Mullin, even accepting that Paul is pretty combative. I respect Paul for that. As MvB knows, no theater is going to go out and make reasonable decisions about whether or not it should continue to exist. NO organization does that. So I think Paul is absolutely correct to try to offer a counternarrative not designed by the Intiman’s damage-control spinning (and poorly at that) marketing department. Furthermore, I think he also made a couple other points. One, Mullin admitted that it sucks. But he still thinks we should let them sink. I agree, actually. Not because I think they’re guilty of particular arrogance (again, it’s marketing people), but because it doesn’t matter. People in the arts are way too susceptible to doomsday scenarios–Paul’s right in that institutions come and go. If there’s a need following Intiman’s demise, another theater will come up. This happens pretty regularly. And if there’s not a need, well, we know.
3. To defend Michael, though, there’s an implicit point he often makes but doesn’t always state in these articles where he seems to play the foil to all the artists who are constantly critiquing the regional theaters. Namely, he’s saying that there are audiences for the work they’re doing. People who very engaged in the artform often blame these places for not doing the work we think is important or cutting edge, but there is certainly the argument to be made that the money they collect and the audiences they have demonstrate that they’re giving people what they want. Everyone from Mullin up to the head of the NEA are complaining that regional theaters have become either a workshop for Broadway bound shows or a profitable source of income for Broadway exports, which is true. But maybe we can all admit that this is what their audiences want. We tend to treat theater as an art, and implicitly say it should be indifferent to what its potential audiences want. It’s ironic then that at the same time we’re also accusing these institutions of something like crass commercialism–maybe we’re right on that point; maybe they are just giving their audiences what audiences want. In the same way that more people will turn out for Hollywood blockbusters than independent film, more people will probably always go to a Pulitzer Prize winning Broadway wash like “Ruined” than NewsWrights United. That’s not a quality judgment, mind you, it’s just an acknowledgement of audience realities.
4. With all that said, there are a lot of issues involving the business model, which are harder to determine. Michael’s right and Paul’s technically wrong vis a vis funding: arts dollars aren’t a zero sum game. Given that most of the money to save the Intiman will likely come from large donors (if it comes), that means the majority of it would not have otherwise the ecosystem. However, I absolutely agree with Mullin’s intent: again, losing the Intiman is not the end of the world, and he’s right to suggest that maybe we shouldn’t shower them with goodwill. I certainly have no interest in making saving the place a cause for us, to try to rally the community’s interest and support, which may not generate revenue directly but is probably crucial to winning over big donors by demonstrating that the community wants to see the place saved. And the reason I’m not interested is because I don’t trust them. The institution is messed up from the top down. The board is clearly out of touch, as are the senior managers. What Paul calls arrogance I call spin trying to make up for spectacularly dropping the ball. I just don’t think that this institution deserves the trust of the community to manage itself, and that’s very legitimate. And contrary to the people beating him up for this post, Michael makes that argument towards the beginning. The fact that this is being managed by an interim staff, the fact the board is incompetent, and the fact that we won’t have anything approaching an explanation for gross accounting failures until AFTER we have to give money…all of those are pretty damning.
See below. I didn’t have time to write up my response so Michael jumped on it. He and I have very different opinions on this.
Thanks, Jeremy.
One quick point. I’ll concede that hard arts funding may not be a zero sum game. (I reserve the right to ask later for some proof of that.)
However, what I do believe is a very limited resource that we all share is our good name as artists. There are honest brokers and there are dishonest ones. I believe there are some deeply dishonest dealings going on at Intiman and they are not limited to Brian Coburn’s actions. So I am asking Sunbreak to look into that.
The reputation of “show people” has never been particularly respectable. Such is our lot. But I, for one, would rather not have my reputation tied to the kind of corporate malfeasance more fitting for a hedge fund.
Simply put: the trust account is finite and currently endanger of being overdrawn. Once it runs out, we can all have a happy snarky time arguing over the dregs. We’re all super smart and insightful after all, but can we actually do something to save the remains? I’m really asking, with the understanding that my original yes or no question has been ignored twice now.
So seriously. Can we? Can we do more than talk amongst ourselves?
Because honestly, the folks that are either going to manage the save the Intiman or sink it really don’t care how smart or snarky we are. It’s my opinion they don’t care about us at all.
Will you ask the questions? Does the Sunbreak do that? I really honestly don’t know, so I’m asking.
Cheers!
Paul
No one has a personal vendetta against Paul Mullin here for God’s sake–have you read us in the past? It’s ridiculous to suggest as much given how combative Paul can be in his writing–I think he risks being written off as someone with a vendetta himself, which I don’t want to see happen because I largely agree with him. But Paul is setting himself up on one extremely partisan side of the issue, with Michael between the Intiman and him. It’s not a personal vendetta against Paul, it’s taking him at his word.
Paul, my apologies if you felt my using your argument to close the theatre was personal. To me, it felt like a good way to address an archetypal “Good riddance to bad rubbish” response. Also, as you were astonishingly in the wrong about the health of ACT, I wanted to address that, too.
I say archetypal because some people wanted ACT to die when they heard about its debt issues, no questions asked. Also, I’m well acquainted with the how hard the staff at Intiman has been working for the past years to keep things going in very difficult times. They’ve moved from unpaid furlough weeks to looking at 4-day weeks, and it was jarring to hear someone calling for their general unemployment. That part felt personal to me.
My point remains that anyone who argues that the Intiman’s economic distress is reason to close it would be doing ACT no favors. Even the loss of one $5-million theatre would be a huge blow to the confidence of donors in the arts community, not to mention the concomitant loss of services to other, smaller organizations. Knowing how competent and hard-working the Intiman staff is in general (management breakdowns aside), I have little faith in your notion that any other, smaller theatre in Seattle could simply step in and take over.
That said, I’m largely incorrect in calling ACT and Intiman “mid-size”–the Intiman’s intimacy fools me, it does have over 400 seats. It’s just that the Bagley Wright seats almost twice as many.
As far as the SunBreak becoming the hard-hitting, hard-drinking investigative team of your dreams, if I had the resources for that, the non-profit sector is not where I’d devote my time and energy. In this instance, you had your say, I simply to wanted to rebut. I will be curious to see if the Intiman can work out a way to survive; I hope they do.
Also, you’re hilarious Paul. “Because more people hit on my site than yours…” Dude, I’m not in competition with you. When I published the news this was happening, what analysis did I use? Oh that’s right–Paul Mullin was right, and linked to your story. Um, not only do I sometimes just allow you to get the editorial opinion in there and shut up myself, but I think I also may be one of the people SENDING you those readers.
I hear you Paul! Um…so, not to shoot myself in the foot, but to be fair, The SunBreak doesn’t exactly have full-time staffers. It’s difficult for us to expend resources like that. We can try, but just so everyone knows, some of the people here (Omar Willey, I’m looking in your direction) are working the same model we are. The question applies all around, unfortunately.
As to the points you bring up, Paul: when it comes to funding, the Intiman can ask people you, for instance, can’t. Is it possible that the $1 million to bail them out will come at the expense of the Rep or SAM or something? Possibly, but slightly doubtful. It would be hard to prove that the money they receive would have gone to someone else.
My point though, and part of this happened in email with Michael, was that even if the money’s not, I think there is a finite amount of goodwill. The Intiman is going to beg, but compared to say ACT, which branches out a lot, they’re very insular. The chances of gaining much traction are sort of low at this point, because it really is just doing it’s own thing. Sheila Daniels is gone, Black Nativity is moving on, they’re looped out of most of the ecosystem. Even so, if it does get traction, it’ll be a distraction from more pressing issues, eating goodwill and bandwidth to save an organization that hasnt demonstrated anything approaching competent management.In general, I’m totally in agreement dude.
I for one am pissed at the failure of any of the people at the regionals to assume a leadership role. Kate Whoriskey has notoriety and some moral standing because of her work–I’d love to see her stumping to sabe 4Culture, who’s in existential straights and who, if I’m not mistaken, helps fund people like you, Paul. It pisses me off that not only does she skip out on local events and basically ignore what’s going on here, but furthermore is now stealing thunder from worthier groups with better standing and longer histories of competent management.
Is that enough?
Well, to quote a favorite crazy: “You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.”
But you make some excellent points. And I appreciate you making them.
I also appreciate what everyone is doing in the experimental on-line models. So much so that I co-wrote a play about it. :-)
We’ll keep on keeping on, I guess. I suspect no matter what happens to us, we’ll all outlast those who care less about this city, its news and its theatre.
Cheers!
Paul
Um, uh Jeremy? As I specified that I had planned to address Mr. van Baker’s focus on Mr. Mullin’s opinions, I would think the title of Mr. Willey’s letter would kind of make my thoughts clear. However, if his point on that matter was confusing to you, well….I guess you can just take my word for it.
Incidentally, I quite easily understood the other points Mr. Willey was making, but they since you seemed to be confused, I’ll summarize:
a) Mr. van Baker’s continued focus on Mr. Mullin’s opinion in his piece became incredibly annoying and made him sound petty and, whether or not he meant to attack Mr. Mullin, some of us obviously came away with that feeling.
b) Mr. Willey took issue with Mr. van Baker referring to what ‘we’ are talking about when we talk about the Intiman when many of the ‘we’ reading his piece don’t talk about it that way at all.
c) Mr. Willey took Mr. van Baker’s piece to be more of a plea to save the Intiman than an argument for why it’s still viable and worth saving.
d) Mr. Willey found the last two paragraphs of Mr. van Baker’s piece to be arrogant and snotty. (I guess I should assume that one was obvious to you, but I thought my point would be as well, so…..)
e) No one asked him, but Mr. Willey does not feel the Intiman is worth saving. If he hears any good arguments to the contrary, he might think otherwise, but Mr. van Baker’s piece didn’t do it for him.
Voila! Not saying I agree with each and every of Mr. Willey’s points, but I can say I very much understand what they were.
All that said, I will also say I completely agree with you on many of the points you’ve made in subsequent posts, particularly on the subject of Mr. Whoriskey. I’ve said this before, but “I’ve been supremely annoyed with her ever since the over the top ‘oh my god, Seattle, how very LUCKY you to are to have THE Kate Whorisky deigning to bring her insight and leadership to the Intiman!’ piece in ‘Seattle Woman’ magazine. I was quite taken by her failure to say one solid word about Seattle or it’s already thriving theatre scene – or the artists working in it.”
There I’ve said it.
I am personally indifferent to Intiman’s survival from a standpoint of what has often been presented on their stage. Some horrifyingly boring shows have been presented; more horrifying than Anything presented in a small theater specifically Because of Intiman’s ability to fund it. You have to expect many misses from small theaters that may or may not even be able to afford a roof over their head, and expending precious funding on roofs overhead then makes it even more precarious what they can afford to put on their stages!
However, I was, many years back, the Business Manager for the Empty Space, during one of it last “help!” campaigns, and watched as that and other real “mid-sized” theaters disappeared from the scene with dismay. The infrastructure that Intiman represents certainly includes Equity level salaries to actors who might be forced to consider moving away, and also artisans who design, crew who build and other art-specific jobs (not including a marketing position where someone could find a different kind of marketing and still be marketing).
Good points were made about ACT, who had taken on a huge project to move into an enormous new space, but having done so – gotten in financial trouble – and done some outside-the-box thinking, has become a hot-bed of local support for imaginative and incredibly diverse programming through their Central Heating Lab and their ACT Pass program, encouraging monthly dues to see anything they offer on any of their stages. Talk about innovation!
Encouragement and pressure could be and should be mounted on Intiman’s board to alter their mission to localize and take advantage of the teaming artistic talent in town at their fingertips, and Ms. Whoriskey could redouble her efforts to learn more about the nuances of this very different town by immersing herself in what’s happening outside the boundaries of the Seattle Center.
But it would be good to recognize the cost of losing this specific institution from an infrastructure point of view. Having lost the Space, the Group, and several others, but having not yet had a complete tipping point (I don’t know why, but it seems to have been avoided), given the current arts defunding going on state-government and nation-goverment wide, it may be that we need all of our current institutions to keep the high level of talent that exists right now.
I’m not seeing much of that argument in this discussion.