LEMPICKA Previews — Page 7

For those who have been less than thrilled with the show, does it make you concerned about Gatsby?

You can add this gay man to that list as well.

It's the 'is one of the best Elphabas of all time' that makes me feel a little sad. Perhaps this is what the children mean when using the word 'cringe.'

They used that same ad to sell Evita on tour for years & years as well. It was so glamorous, yet enigmatic & mysterious at the same time.

To be fair, I guess most biomusicals don't really have a specific hook outside of the person/group's name anyway (MJ was a bit unique in the idea to look at his life through the lens of preparing for a tour). And I'm not someone that knows much about fine art, so I don't know how big Lempicka's name is for those that know more, but I suppose the main issue here is that a lot of people might not know who she is.

Maybe including more of her artwork in the promo materials would help, as I do think she has a fairly unique style (though I also wonder if they're restricted in what they can use and for what purposes, since they mentioned some sort of licensing rights for the paintings). And maybe the idea that she was a queer woman painting from that perspective. But I think the show itself is meant to be more of a character study of who she was and how both internal and external factors shaped her work and her world view (though they could certainly do a better job of crafting that story in a lot of aspects). I'm not saying it needs a framing device, but maybe having one wouldn't hurt to add a specific lens/focus to the story (possibly expanding on the person who discovered her art and how it influenced other artists in the future? There was a point where she was making so many pieces in such a short time that I can imagine she wasn't able to just enjoy her success)

It's interesting because I was talking to a friend after the show about how this compares to Harmony (arguably similar in subject matter, both about "forgotten" artists and trying to make a case for how they should be remembered/be seen as important), and she thought this show overall flowed better because it generally kept Tamara front and center as a character (despite some puzzling motivations at times), whereas Harmony had too many characters and was also trying to include a lot of political themes. But I think another thing that Lempicka does better is that you can see the actual artwork she made, while in Harmony they don't even sing the same songs as the original Comedian Harmonists so there's a level of remove in being able to tell what made them special.

TheatreFan4 said: "chrishuyen said: "Maybe including more of her artwork in the promo materials would help, as I do think she has a fairly unique style (though I also wonder if they're restricted in what they can use and for what purposes, since they mentioned some sort of licensing rights for the paintings). "

See I'm confused on why this would be the case considering her great granddaughter (who is the executor of her Estate) is a producer on this show and I don't seen any other licensing credits in the playbill for any of her artwork aside from her Estate so it feels like a conscious choice which doesn't make much sense to me..."

I was having this exact conversation with a work colleague over lunch today. We were wondering why they didn't use more of her artwork. I know that a lot of Lempicka's paintings are owned by private collectors, for instance Madonna owns many of her paintings, but even if they are owned by a private collector, the estate would still have licensing control right? Or maybe it works completely differently in the art world? Does the owner of the painting have control over the rights? This is what we couldn't quite figure out this afternoon over lunch.

A Google search seems to say that the heirs to the estate own the copyrights to the art. I’m sure the producers must have tried to cut a deal, but maybe it was a bridge too far for the estate to agree?

Either way, I bet they wish they could use the art now more than ever.

TheatreFan4 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "A Google search seems to say that the heirs to the estate own the copyrights to the art. I’m sure the producers must have tried to cut a deal, but maybe it was a bridge too far for the estate to agree?

Either way, I bet they wish they could use the art now more than ever."

The Estate's executor (her great granddaughter) is a literal producer on this show and has been present in rehearsals."

Doesn’t mean she’ll give carte blanche for the art to be used. It’s valuable and recognizable stuff and if the production can’t afford it, it won’t get any green light.

I’d also be surprised if she’s not listed “in name only” which we’ve seen happen with other shows the last couple of years. I’d also want to be present to keep an eye on things, and not necessarily to make sure the project succeeds at whatever the cost to the estate, if I was custodian of that estate.

Willing to be wrong about all of the above.

Updated On: 3/28/24 at 10:03 PM

Saw this parody on a SMASH fan Twitter account:

Where have lottery seats been for this show?

Kad said: "Her being involved does not preclude her placing restrictions on how the production can use the artwork. Since the paintings aren’t being featured in ads or on merchandise, it’s not a leap to assume such restrictions may exist."

One day history will recognize this as the missed marketing opportunity that proved fatal to the production. For the majority of us who recognize the artwork but not the artist, and hear "Lempicka" and think athletes foot powder, the visual tying the unusual name to the artwork is essential. If it were not for my BroadwayWorld addiction, I never would have learned the backstory and given the piece a second thought. Limited by the restrictions suggested by Kad, the current campaign just feels desperate and disassociated with the product it's trying to sell.