What a complete waste of an article. Though I've grown to know and despise your inability to come up with a relevant thought having anything to do with theatre (calling into question not only your ability to write and understand theatre, but also your ability to put together a cohesive thought or have a valid opinion of any sort), this article is a waste of the kilobytes used to store it on your website. Try writing a relevant, interesting or cohesive article for once Brenden.

@1: At least he knows how to write his name, you spineless moron.

@Holly,

If my spineless comments were read as anything more than a scream into the chasm of the internet, I apologize for confusing you. I didn't realize, until reviewing your posting history, that you were Kiley's personal anonymity body guard. Had I know I would incite your ire, I would have been even more anonymous.

Whatever the case, this article is worthless, and as is often the case with this message board, there was an opportunity to continue the discussion of the ideas raised during Daisey's play, but instead it is just another example of a reviewer in this rag saying "look at me, I was there"

I certainly don't find the article worthless, but it's a little disappointing on a couple of levels: First, it clutters the theater section with another purported "dialogue" on the state of theater in Seattle, rather than addressing any of the theater that is actually being produced and performed; second, rather than actually engaging in any dialogue, it reports on the ostensible failure of any dialogue to arise at a fundraiser that we already missed.

Which is to say, really, that the article doesn't really tell us anything. What would make Seattle's theater "better," in Altwies's view? If there's disagreement as to when the golden age actually occurred, can there possibly be consensus as what constitutes quality theater? Does talking about keeping it alive, or even of making it better, keep us from the sacred task of making theater, or of pursuing the audiences best primed to appreciate whatever it is we, as artists, think theater should be? Does writing articles chronicling, without really detailing, the discussion about keeping it alive or making it better distract us from the work that's already being done?

@3:

Unfortunately, the sad truth is that, in most instances when a non-profit takes this same route, the result is not a re-emergence of the organization; ACT was a very notable exception.

Once the board elects to close-shop, even if the intent is for the closure to be only temporary, it's very difficult to get the organization moving again: many of the board members drift away, and replacing them can be extremely difficult under the circumstances; vendors and creditors can be very reluctant to re-establish a business relationship with the organization, particularly if they're still owed money; plus, there's a general reluctance on the part of patrons and donors to re-invest in the organization, if they've already lost money from cancelled programming, etc., etc.

Not to say it CAN'T be done - and again, ACT is a good example of a successful re-organization - but Mike is simply being realistic in acknowledging that the odds of Intiman doing likewise are not in their favor.

Go, Holly!

It seems interesting that the "Golden Age" of theater seems to fit nicely into the "Golden Age" of corporate donations to the arts. Back when Boeing, Westin, Paccar, Seafirst, Washington Mutual, The Bon Marche, Nordstrom, Frederick & Nelson, Starbucks (just to name a few) were either locally based or had regional headquarters here, the money was flowing. Today's big names don't seem to care that much about what is going on in town. Sure, many of them still write a check, but the personal engagement doesn't seem to be there.

Here's an undoubtedly naive and stupid idea for the Intiman space: Make it a community theater. Back where I come from, one of the few interesting arts programs that is still going strong is The Omaha Community Playhouse. Nobody, besides a few administrators and technicians, gets paid, the plays only run on weekends, it's usually pretty pedestrian stuff (musicals and Neil Simon plays) but it gives normal people the chance to do something fun, and the audience fills up with their friends. And sometimes some really good productions result.

It's not ground-breaking, it's not earth-shattering. It's anything but world-class. But it might just work.