Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Pat Robertson Regrets U.S. Christia… | Discrimination Against Same-Sex Cou… »

Monday, December 19, 2011

Theater Intiman 2.0: The Game Show

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Intiman's December letter to the city of Seattle begins like this:

Dear Friends of Intiman Theatre,

The time has come for a new beginning.

The upshot: They're recalibrating their board of directors and have convened an "artistic board" (so the people who have the money and the people who have the art can talk to each other) and are asking the rest of us for $1 million in pledges (not outright donations) before January 31.

If they make their nut, they'll continue with a four-show summer season that looks both backwards and forwards—one Shakespeare, one Ibsen, one "American classic," and some new theatrical monstrosity by our fearless leader, Dan Savage. Then they'll see where they are and how to move forward.

If they don't make the $1 million goal, they'll return everyone's money, throw a big party, and close Intiman's doors for good:

Our new plan protects donors: we will not spend money we don't have. We are seeking pledges, but will not call on those pledges unless we meet our financial goal for the 2012 festival. This is a risk-free investment.

Now it's the Intiman game show—if Seattle citizens care to give the theater a reboot and see what happens, they can donate here. If not, well, not.

Read the whole letter here.

Comments (8) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Why, exactly, should we give money to a theater that drove itself into the ground, rather than to one that's still functioning and could use the money just as much, if not more?

What, exactly, is 'Intiman'? A brand? An aesthetic? If so, please articulate it. It's certainly not a body of artists, as I gather no one on this new team was part of the organization previously. Is it just a legal status, articles of incorporation? Why should I put money into that?

Posted by bottsford on December 19, 2011 at 3:35 PM

geez, is that what that email this morning said - the one i deleted unread?

Posted by south downtown on December 19, 2011 at 3:40 PM

I have no desire to wish anyone ill in this; rather, I'd love to see these artists and administrators, including several friends, get their old jobs back at The Intiman. But frankly, the people now nominally in charge of this are going to have a very tough time convincing former subscribers - some of the most artistically conservative in the region - to pony up - again - for what amounts to some rather radical and challenging programming (at least in terms of conceptual interpretation; most of the plays themselves being admittedly pretty tame choices otherwise), especially after having been burned previously when the board cancelled the 2011 season after the first production. And that's even taking into account the "money-back guarantee" offer.

Conversely, it's going to be equally tough to convince potential new donors - who might in fact be drawn to the less stuffy conceptual aspects of the programming choices - to take up the slack, if the organization's traditional base isn't exhibiting a willingness to take another chance on them.

Basically, it seems like everybody who MIGHT contribute to this is sitting on the fence waiting for someone else to make the first move, which usually results in nobody doing so.

I hope it works out, but realistically, the odds don't look terribly good at the moment.

Posted by COMTE

on December 19, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Dan can charge $100 for moustache rides to raise the needed funds...as long as he's not remounting that "Eggs" play.

Posted by michael strangeways

on December 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Ibsen and Shakespeare aren't tame choices, if amazingly talented and creative artists are doing the interpreting.

Posted by michael strangeways

on December 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM

As I stated, the plays themselves may be "tame", but the conceptual interpretation of them can be quite radical. However, if you're trying to attract a generally conservative audience, then a non-traditional production of such a play is probably not going to accomplish the goal; while on the flip-side, even the most radical reinterpretation of a veritable "chestnut" may not be sufficient to attract an audience interested in more avant-garde material.

In other words, trying to be "all things to all people" has seldom proven to be a formula for success. And that's the impression I get, the more I read about Intiman's proposal.

Posted by COMTE

on December 19, 2011 at 5:10 PM

There are other causes that might be more worthy of donations right now. Just about anything, in fact.

Posted by sarah70 on December 19, 2011 at 7:19 PM

What a load of crap nonsense, and Brendan would be crapping all over this letter if Intiman hadn't wisely added Dan (who hasn't directed a significant project since 1996) to their roster to take The Stranger out of this discussion.

Please die Intiman. You aren't getting my money.

Posted by Delasoul on December 19, 2011 at 8:26 PM