LEMPICKA Previews- Page 12

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 4/11/24 at 11:54am

I saw it last night. (I can post a song list when I get home)

I'm reading a lot of people who hated it and are particularly critical of Eden here--I don't get that at all. I think there is a lot of things to love here. I definitely don't think it's perfect but I think it's fascinating. I think the biggest problem is there is too much going on. Everything is interesting but we lose focus in the main arc of the story when so many minor characters have big songs (Suzy and the Baroness both give great performances and I liked their moments but I don't care about them and I'd rather give more time to the main trio). I think the husband is particularly underwritten and needs an act 1 song that shows the passion between Tamara and him so you really feel the "two great loves" they talk about. I couldn't understand any words in Raphaela's first song. I think a number of songs have weak lyrics--one note and repetitive but I like the music beneath them. 

I loved all the montage moments and the big history/political aspects we got--you really see Chavkin's hand here. I thought the costumes were excellent. The lighting was good and the set very dynamic--tho I wish they did a slight bit more with it so we didn't see the same transition every time. I thought the ending was very powerful. I really just wanted a more focused plot and then it would be a home run for me. I thought Eden and George Abud really stood out as excellent performances. 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 4/11/24 at 11:55am

I heard on an interview with Matt Gould a bit ago that they were adding another song, but when I compared my friend's song list from a few days ago to mine from the third preview I don't think I saw any changes (of course the opening has changed, but it wasn't reflected in the song list), so does anyone know anything about that?

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/11/24 at 11:59am

chrishuyen said: "I heard on an interview with Matt Gould a bit ago that they were adding another song, but when I compared my friend's song list from a few days ago to mine from the third preview I don't think I saw any changes (of course the opening has changed, but it wasn't reflected in the song list), so does anyone know anything about that?"

Playbills are done about 2 weeks in advance so it's unlikely that the song list will be accurate until the Opening Night edition (which will be viewable on PlaybillVault). This is why some shows don't include a song list till after the show is frozen, but that's a personal choice by the producer and press agent.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/11/24 at 12:01pm

Auggie27 said: "Two friends: "This season's Paradise Square.""

I wish PARADISE had been this ambitious, and I wish LEMPICKA had been as coherent with an eye towards entertaining people as PARADISE was.

[pattilupony]

Posted: 4/11/24 at 3:14pm

chrishuyen said: "I heard on an interview with Matt Gould a bit ago that they were adding another song, but when I compared my friend's song list from a few days ago to mine from the third preview I don't think I saw any changes (of course the opening has changed, but it wasn't reflected in the song list), so does anyone know anything about that?"

For two nights last week they replaced Tadeusz's act 1 solo "Wake Up" with another number, similar to The Exchange from La Jolla. It didn't really work and it only was in for two nights before they changed it back to Wake Up. Could have been that.

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 4/11/24 at 3:37pm

Last nights song list:

Act 1

Unseen

Our Time

Starting Over

Paris

Plan and design

Don't bet your heart

I will paint her

Perfection

Wake up

Mama look at me

The most beautiful bracelet

Woman is

Act 2:

Pari will always be pari

The New Woman

Women

Stay

What She Sees

Here it Comes

Speed 

Just this way

In the blasted california sun

Finale

 

The fact that three songs have woman/en in the title shows how limited lyric choices are........

[YvanEhtNioj]

Posted: 4/12/24 at 12:27am

Just left. I liked the set and sound and lighting, but everything else was meh. I felt no emotional connection. I wasn’t moved. 

[Skip23]

Posted: 4/12/24 at 12:38am

YvanEhtNioj said: "Just left. I liked the set and sound and lighting, but everything else was meh. I felt no emotional connection. I wasn’t moved."


totally agree

 

as I said before, I have no idea who that woman even was from this production. 

[Miss10036]

Posted: 4/12/24 at 2:00am

Went tonight and my take is that this is entertaining, but messy.

There are times when the flow is fluid, and it clicks, and it moves and it's exciting to watch.  But then there are times when it's choppy and disjointed.  The worst example of this is when George Abud performs "Perfection" and we're in a music video with the ensemble in futuristic backup dancer mode, and then we smash cut to Tadeusz singing a straightforward song ("Wake Up") about how he's no longer rich and is bummed about it.  It's tonal whiplash and feels jarring when you contast it with the moments where the show does move smoothly.

Tonally, the show is pulling in several different directions and doesn't pick a lane.  This becomes evident pretty early in the show, and it's hard to recover from the scattered tone.  The production also didn't seem sure of how it wanted to use the historical context.  They weave it into the beginning and show how it impacts Tamara as a person, but then it fades, until it comes back strong during act two.  But during act two, it's not entirely coherent what the show is saying about the political backdrop.

I'm not sure whether this thought makes sense, but I felt like the creatives almost didn't trust Tamara, as a character, to carry this.  As in, I could imagine them thinking, Abud has a magnetic presence, let's beef up his role and give him a massive number about machines and the future in the middle of this art show.  Natalie Joy Johnson is really standing out, let's give her more laugh lines and a big number.  Oh, and we'll get a name for the Baroness when we go to Broadway, might as well give her the eleven o'clock number even though she's basically been a non-presence in this narrative.  It's like they got distracted by the talent of their performers (who, to their credit, deliver), thought about how to work them in the show more, and pulled focus from Tamara while figuring out what to do with everyone else.  It would have been a better show if they honed in on their title character and fleshed her out more.  Tamara is complex as written, but she isn't fascinating.

While I thought Eden was very good, she didn't give the star turn I was hoping to see.  Unfortunately, her voice sounded tired tonight.  She seemed to be holding back vocally and struggled a bit through Woman Is.  The music video that the show put out of Woman Is was mesmerizing and honestly sold me on seeing this show—at minimum, I knew Lempicka would have one thrilling moment—but it didn't totally deliver tonight because you could hear the effort she had to put into it.  Interestingly, her voice seemed stronger in act two.  I expected it to be the other way around, with her vocals being stronger than her acting, but I preferred her acting here.

Wish we saw more of her artwork through act one.  It picks up during act two, but there is a key piece missing that I'd have liked to see (the portrait she paints toward the end of the show).  I wasn't that into the costumes either.  The ensemble outfits were an odd choice, and I didn't find much interest in the principals' costumes outside of some of Tamara's act two outfits.

I didn't love the framing device.  I'm glad they don't jump directly into Our Time like it sounds like they were doing in earlier previews, but the added intro felt overly blunt, "here's a quick intro to the character where she directly says who she is."  There were themes we heard of in the later California scenes that they probably could have drawn on to inform an opening here and lend it more character.  Also, Tamara starting the show by saying something like "plane, lines, form..." immediately invites comparison to George's opening lines in SITPWG, and I'm not sure the show should want that.

The challenge: bring order to the whole.  There were moments where I saw how this could have been a stunning musical had it come together and fired on all cylinders, a version that took big swings and landed them.  I found myself wishing that they had taken more time to get this one to the finish line... but then again, perhaps time was the problem.  I haven't seen any of the previous incarnations, but looking at reports on here, perhaps this is a case of the creative team tinkering too much and losing something along the way.

All that being said, there were a number of bright spots.  I did find it entertaining and highly watchable, and it kept me engaged throughout.  I enjoyed the score a great deal and found it pretty cohesive.  Loved the orchestrations, which suited the score very well.  They've assembled a solid cast, and Abud, Johnson, and Leavel do great work with their material.  Amber Iman is as wonderful as others have noted, and dang, what a voice.  I was also a fan of the sets and lighting.  The visual language of the show (aside from the costumes) felt coherent and like it meshed, even when what was on the page didn't mesh.  The set was stylish and appropriately modern.  I could've done without some of the more literal projections though.

Lempicka didn't stick the landing for me, but at least they went for something original.  I'd take this over a show that's more cohesive, yet bland and uninspired, any day.  Or at least, many days.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 8:49am

Hmmm.

Caught this at the Weds matinee, left mezz, row b. With another 6 seats next to me, there were things I couldn't see far stage right.

I'm not sure I can add anything new here. Lempicka didn't land for me, either. It often felt like a try for a female Sunday in the Park with George - but not as interesting or developed. I understand there are catch phrases in all industries, but you need to make sure they don't remind the audience of a different (and vastly better) show. Several times my companion and I simultaneously glanced at each other in those moments. The book is the real problem. It doesn't know what they want the audience to know.

Costumes were stunning, I want her Act II green blazer, I'll wear it everywhere. 

I liked the music, and I'm sure it will grow on me, but it shouldn't have to. 

Sigh, what a disappointing season for new work, esp musicals. Revivals are truly the toast of the season. 

[Robbie2]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 2:49pm

binau said: "So does Eden sound good live with “woman is”? I think she sounds great in the studio take."

 

Only good and the voice is powerful but she has pitch issues and was often flat not only singing this but throughout the whole show! We did not get to hear the same voice nor was I as mesmerized by her live performance of ''Woman Is'' as I was by the studio take. Tbh, I was happy it was intermission as I needed a break from hearing her sing! 

We attended the Thursday night show 4/11.
Lempicka the musical is ''All style and no substance!'' Visually, it looks elegant and polished but it's sloppy, dull and exhausting along with being devoid of emotional context. The solid sound design yet overamplified electronic orchestrations sound piped in. Kreitzer's and Gould's book is incompetent. I also found the score unmemorable lacking a distinctive style. It does not reflect any bit of the period as it has a rockish, euro-pop sound coupled with vapid lyrics. The show does have some highlights: George Abud's stirring ''Perfection'' is the best part of act 1 and the boisterous act 2 opener ''Pari Will Always Be Pari'', Amber Iman's solid presence and her act 2 ''Stay'' and the duet ''What She Sees'' with Andrew Samonsky. Scene stealer, the lustful Natalie Joy Johnson's showstopper ''Women'' is the best part of act 2 along with Beth Leavel given the 11:00 number ''Just This Way'' is heartbreaking and the most affecting moment of the evening. Tamara's not an easy person to love ''History's a bitch but so am I,'' but at the end of the musical, I was left with ...who is she other than the painter of those art deco portraits and nudes. After all these years and finally making it to Broadway... in the end, this is what we're getting and it's just not a good musical as I had high expectations coming from being a big fan of Chavkin's - Hadestown and Great Comet! I would love to experience and will only go back to see it again with Mariand Torres as Tamara but will she ever go on?

Updated On: 4/14/24 at 02:49 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 3:07pm

And while I've heard of many people complain of Eden's pitch, when I saw it earlier this week there was literally one note she went SHARP on, and it was the final note of the song.  Other than that she sounded terrific.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 3:53pm

The show is a hodgepodge mess that will quickly fade into obscurity, but Eden sounded fierce last night. This is a beast of a role for her and any vocal flaws have to be forgiven. Maybe she was particularly “on” last night (I’m sure critics were there) but this was leaps and bounds better than her much easier role off-Broadway last season, which I must confess sounded like nails on a chalkboard. She impressed me last night despite the show being a total miss.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 10:17pm

I went back tonight and I’m really mixed. They’ve made a lot of changes since the first preview and good on them for working on it. Act one is no longer the camp mess that it was but it’s still not great and now is missing the “fun” element. Structurally the entire thing is very weak and the score only has a couple moments with very good music in it. 
 

My biggest problem still is that the main character is so completely unlikable and we’re supposed to be rooting for her. And why? They bill this as the story of a woman you never knew so we have no preconceived notions of who she is and this is what they give us? The final straw is at the end when after cheating on her husband for two hours, he tells her he’s met another woman and she loses it. How dare he, I guess? Then she uses the “do you know what I did for you?” sh*t against him like he’s supposed to turn around and say “no you’re right please have your affair and I’ll just sit here in the corner and watch like I’m Will Smith” and I just wanted to scream at him “LEAVE HER, ALREADY!” 

Im glad I went back to see the final version of the show but unless they put Madonna in the lead role at some point this is a show I’ll never have any desire to return to. 

Edit - I forgot to add the thing that pissed me off the most. The Longacre is a large stage. It's a BROADWAY sized stage that also happens to have some of the worst sightlines in any theater in New York. Rachel Chavkin - WHY on earth did you stage so much of this all the way downstage? You have literally the ENTIRETY of it empty behind you that you can move the actors up so that people can fully see. This is like at City Center when directors obviously don't look at their show from different parts of the house, outside of the center mid orchestra. 
 

Updated On: 4/13/24 at 10:17 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 10:38pm

Jordan Catalano said: "

My biggest problem still is that the main character is so completely unlikable and we’re supposed to be rooting for her. And why? They bill this as the story of a woman you never knew so we have no preconceived notions of who she is and this is what they give us? The final straw is at the end when after cheating on her husband for two hours, he tells her he’s met another woman and she loses it. How dare he, I guess? Then she uses the “do you know what I did for you?” sh*t against him like he’s supposed to turn around and say “no you’re right please have your affair and I’ll just sit here in the corner and watch like I’m Will Smith” and I just wanted to scream at him “LEAVE HER, ALREADY!”

"

I liked this more than many here (i wasnt bored, the performances were pitch perfect, some moments were staged wonderfully) but you are hitting a nail on its head here, in that they portray this woman torn by two loves, but never show us any love between her and her husband, who sings so beautifully from the sidelines. Its like the show is afraid to recognize some less-than-comfortable realities, ie Tamara *needed* a man both in Russia and then in Paris, and whatever she felt for Rafaela, she was never in a position to leave her husband. Theres real tragedy in that---the reality for women for most of history-- but the show avoids it, giving us a strange phony "love triangle" that isnt really there. Just an odd choice. (And of course, in the end, Tamara... again relies on a powerful man even after the war--theres no shame in that! But the play wont go there). 

This has bothered me more and more since I saw the show a few weeks ago- it seems like such a blind spot to half-ass half the love triangle, and then never make any meat out of this brilliant, powerful woman stuck in a world that requires her to stay with (well-meaning, by all accounts kind) men. 

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 10:42pm

"it seems like such a blind spot to half-ass half the love triangle"

And that's the problem. Her art is a secondary storyline to this, really. The show is ABOUT her relationships and it's "half-assed", as you said. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/13/24 at 11:59pm

Jordan Catalano said: ""it seems like such a blind spot to half-ass half the love triangle"

And that's the problem. Her art is a secondary storyline to this, really. The show is ABOUT her relationships and it's "half-assed", as you said."

Not to mention there are really three people pining for Tamara...for some reason :0)

[Melissa25]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 8:11am

It has been a while since I was rooting for a show so much. Yesterday I was talking with a friend about the preview reports so far and said that there has been more than a few saying that they didn’t care for the show because they leave not knowing who Tamara was. My friend, who attended the show, quickly replied I learned a lot about her and felt I knew her by the end.

So I asked, What did you learn exactly?  She stated the following:

What I learned about the Tamara:

1. She was bisexual and loved two people deeply
2. She was uncomfortable being labeled just a mother and asks her daughter to call her Cherieinstead of Mom
3. She was ambitious 
4. She was an astute business woman
5. She knew how to market herself
6. She had an ego and wanted to prove to the world that her work was important
7. She was concerned about her legacy
8. She was independent 
9. She was self sacrificing in order for her family to survive
10. She was an artist and a survivor

 I hope the critical response leans more towards the positive since it is so rare we get an original new musical.

Updated On: 4/14/24 at 08:11 AM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 8:26am

I also liked the show, but your very first bullet point is ironic given the discussion above. Yes we "learned" that she loved two people deeply because at some point she says that, but in 2.5 hours we see minimal loving interactions between her and her husband, and are shown how she falls passionately in love with someone else. The show TELLS US she loves two people but shows us something different. Its a real flaw in storytelling that i suspect critics will harp on, even if they like everything else (as i did)

[Shalfoard]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 9:52am

I was surprised that the musical didn't explore in any way that not only did Lempicka have a relationship with a woman, but that the woman was also black, as was Lempicka's second husband.  It seems like these would have been significan plot poins, certainly during the main time period of the story.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 10:26am

Were they ACTUALLY Black, or is this colorblind casting? I assumed the latter since the Baron and Baroness were also a mixed (ugh I hate that reference) couple and there were few (if any) Black women in her art 

And I couldn't agree more about the strife with her husband.  It was only a few scenes before that they laughed about both of them having other women.  

Updated On: 4/14/24 at 10:26 AM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 10:34am

No, neither of her husbands were black and I’m sure I read neither was Rafaela. I can’t find any actual photos of her but I think it’s a safe bet that she was white. 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 11:58am

yeah unfortunately this is a casualty of colorblind casting, Rafaela was white based on the paintings of her (which I believe were an indication in the show that she was not in fact black), though historically Lempicka actually had a relationship with Suzie and not Rafaela (based on her Wikipedia page anyway), so I suppose the point is a bit moot 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:03pm

So then the musicals thing about “learn about the woman you never knew about” is also a moot point if they’re not even going to be accurate about the people she had relationships with.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/14/24 at 12:11pm

Isn't Rafaela basically a fictionalized character? She was a subject of a painting but I don't think there's any actual info about her aside from that.

The musical has engaged in colorblind casting and there are no mentions of race (though there are mentions of Judaism). That could have been interesting to explore, but also that, to me, is the least of the show's problems.