I don't really fault ACT for taking the opportunity - anything that gets butts in seats and financially supports regional theaters that can then subsidize bold new work isn't a bad thing. And kudos to Clark for taking interest in local arts - if only Amazon executives and the rest of the New Money flooding this city showed the same sort of philanthropy (even the self-aggrandizing kind), it'd be a good thing for the local arts scene.

But as far as this being a "new model" - the local theater community is really adept at naval-gazing about why their audiences consist entirely of old white people and what they need to do to get young people and minority communities to care about theater. Here's a hint: stop wasting your time on plays that center on rich white people's internal turmoil. If that interested me, I'd stay home and watch Birdman for free.

Part of why the patronage system of the European historical model worked was because patrons were art connoisseurs who funded "art" and did not necessarily dictate content. This model involved a man TELLING a playwright what to write on his behalf. It's a ghostwritten play. DJC seems a worthy man and emulation worthy CEO. However, he did not become a patron of art, here. He bought and paid for his story.... I believe that's very different.

@2:

Maybe Clark is more humble in real-life than he comes across in this piece, but it reminds me of those "authors" who publish vanity press works, buy up all the copies, then express a sense of smug satisfaction because (on paper, if nowhere else) they've achieved "success."

My ACTpass gets me tickets to this that are already paid-for. This makes me want to no-show just so there are a couple of seats glaringly empty to assault Clark's ego.

Sorry. My 2¢ as a quotee: http://www.paulmullin.org/just-wrought/2…

It would be wonderful if ACT provided all playwrights the time and attention that was provided to this gentleman, due to his ability to bring in money. Who knows, instead of an okay play, there could be fantastic plays that would draw people into the theatre based on the play instead of the playwright's influence. Unfortunately the business of theatre requires income before art, so I understand ACT's decision, but I don't care for it.

Ugh.

On the one hand, getting people with money to participate in, and appreciate, art should be a good thing. A local non-profit got a risk-free production, people got paid, new butts were in seats.

But I have to agree with COMTE - this is a vanity project, straight up. Clark seems like a decent businessman, but the corporate leadership model of arts patronage being displayed here is appalling. It's just this product, that apparently any yahoo with a tale to tell (and serious $$$) can get on a main stage, and fill to capacity through power and influence. I'd have more respect for the man (and the theater) if Clark had found a play or an artist working on something close to his heart, gave them the same deal, including packing the seats. It still wouldn't guarantee quality of the art, but it wouldn't feel so.....icky. I'm dismayed that the incoming Artistic Director of ACT is involved in the production - it somewhat undermines the credibility of the organization to be honest.

"I get final authority on how it looks.." etc. That is the real problem here. This guy might as well have rented the space and mounted the thing himself for his friends. It's not quite how "patronage" should work, IMHO.

I thought the play was fantastic and I didn't see it as pushing any sort of agenda. Arts need to be supported and funded. Clark commissioned a writer to write it. He obviously chose a good person to do it because it was great. The writer needs a job, the actors need jobs, the theater needs plays... and Clark has the money to give these people jobs for a few months. That's great. That's the way it works sometimes and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm an artist myself, and if someone commissions me, or otherwise hires me, then it puts money in my pocket, allows me to express my art, gets my name out there -which leads to more work - and the guy who pays for it gets to feel like he had a part in supporting the arts and in this case had some hand in the artistic expression part of it.
I understand that there is resentment sometimes because good projects and artists don't have the funds a lot of the time to bring their quality art to larger audiences. And it does seem unfair sometimes that rich people can jump to the front of the line when they want to get a message to the public. But Kickstarter and other crowd funding sites have helped people do that now. Kickstarter actually helped me as well in putting out my last project. And the internet has made it easier for people to get their ideas out there as well.

I am a psychiatrist and a regular attendee at ACT Theater and thought that the play was exceptionally well done. I didn't leave thinking that it was all about the CEO character, rather I felt like it offered food for thought, an engaging experience and fun entertainment. There were a couple of times when the audience was sniffling over some of the truly touching moments in the play. I can't fault Clark for funding and overseeing this play because he believed in it or because it resonated within him. I will be recommending this show to my friends. It may have been the best play I have seen at ACT so far and I think ACT provides consistently high quality performances.

Brian Willis did a great job with the writing, assuming he did the vast majority of it. The dialogue really clicked and flowed and drew me in. There's a legitimate question to be asked if this story is the most deserving of ACT's stage and time and all the resources, but overall I thought Willis' writing earned all those things it got thanks to Clark. And maybe now Clark will be all the more keen to drop some cash when other people, other artists, want their stories supported at ACT and other theatres? Maybe? I think it's possible. So while I understand why some people feel sketched out about the arrangement, I think on balance it's for the good.

This show was part of ACT Lab, not the Main Stage productions, so I'm a little confused why ACT is calling it a co-production. ACT Lab productions are required to basically fund everything EXCEPT the space. ACT does not take much, if any, risk in these. So is the controversy that this play wasn't curated appropriately as part of ACT Lab? ACT Lab producers always get to approve the final show - that's the producer's job. I was an ACT Lab producer, and (mostly) self funded. In my case I presented my project, and my understanding was that they determined it fit their manifesto, and it happened. Of course this ended up costing me everything - I'm not Clark.