LEMPICKA Reviews- Page 17

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/19/24 at 11:22pm

A couple things.

For one thing, I think the idea of "keep making art where you see yourself" is something that's particularly rallying for minorities to hear, because there still isn't the idea that minorities have "a place" on Broadway (or in pop culture in general, though that's slowly changing).  That being said, I'm also not quite sure what they mean in the context of Lempicka (especially coming from Matt Gould who is a cis white guy), other than the queer storyline which brings me to my next point.

Yes lesbian relationships are still underrepresented on Broadway (especially compared to homosexual male relationships).  But I'm not quite sure what Chavkin was talking about when she mentioned that the reviews didn't mention the queer love story.  I just did a quick look and all the reviews I checked (which were the first 5 or so that popped up in a Google search) referred to Rafaela as her lover, or mentioned her bisexuality.  Sure they may not have said "there is a queer love story in the show", but people reading the reviews would have no doubt about there being one.  And I mentioned this earlier too about how the show's marketing itself didn't seem to advertise that there was a lesbian romance at the center of the story either--it seemed unclear if they wanted to save that as a surprise for people watching the show.  So why didn't the show market it more if that was such an integral part?

Also this is me genuinely asking, but the idea that 8 weeks is not enough to build an audience--would that be considered poor producing?  If they truly believed they needed more than 8 weeks then shouldn't that be taken into account with cash reserves/marketing power/community outreach etc?  Though I guess at this point it's a somewhat rote statement for any show that closes relatively soon (Ohio said the same I believe).

Honestly I'm glad people were able to connect with the show, because I think it still shows a lot of promise, but what made it to the Broadway stage just wasn't what worked for most people.  And the attitudes the creators have around it seem inconducive to any possibility it would improve in the future, if they continued to work on it.  They seem to have taken the "our show is only understood by a small subset of people and everyone else just doesn't get it" attitude, but if you're trying to make art that does appeal to a large group of people (as Broadway basically demands it to), you should be listening to how audiences react and figuring out WHY it isn't connecting with them.

[AKarp2013]

Posted: 5/19/24 at 11:29pm

Jordan Catalano said: "I want to know what Beth Leavel was thinking, having to stand there and listen to all of that."

Probably "I miss The Prom."

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/19/24 at 11:32pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "I am so turned off.

It’s really alarming that these creators couldn’t see the work was flawed. Musical theatre is a constant work in progress and the greats knew and understood that. They knew when shows closed you take some ownership when people tell you “the plot was a mess” or constructive criticisms that exist to help you build something better or inspire others to create a show better than this one.

Musicals close. Musicals flop. It’s the risk reward of this industry.

It’s sad that great art in this space is dying and the low hanging fruit gets prioritized. Absolutely. But this show thinks it’s Great Comet or Grey Gardens and it’s not.

it’s a bio musical that needed another draft."

 Let's put this Lempicka fiasco to rest! 

Updated On: 5/21/24 at 11:32 PM

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 5/19/24 at 11:41pm

Jordan Catalano said: "I want to know what Beth Leavel was thinking, having to stand there and listen to all of that."

This is a really good point. I did notice Andrew Samonsky keeping an EXCELLENT poker face throughout the speeches.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 5/19/24 at 11:55pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "Jordan Catalano said: "I want to know what Beth Leavel was thinking, having to stand there and listen to all of that."

This is a really good point. I did notice Andrew Samonsky keeping an EXCELLENT poker face throughout the speeches."

not that excellent. the actors' faces are worth watching. 

and re the lesbian relationship- the show strangled itself in this regard. in reality, she had female lovers, but we dont know any historical "love of her life" that was one woman. they (understandably) created a composite character. but then they turned it into a big love story. ok but then they didnt want to pretend she had any ill will toward her husband (no evidence to suggest she did), so they tell us she was in love with two people--but the show only shows us their frayed, complicated relationship and little love between them. they wanted to launch a lesbian love story, but they didnt, but then they did, but then they didnt sell it... what a mess.

but ill die on this hill, i guess. that mess still had better music, and was more fun to watch/listen to, than MANY others this season (including some nominated for best musical). This butchered love story is shakespeare next to Alicia Keys and her summer of statutory rape, for example. We arent still talking about Water For Elephants because theres nothing remotely interesting happening in that story at all. So all these knives out, some well deserved, I get the frustration by this team who put together much to admire and got shafted. 

i just wish they could react to it like, i dunno, adults.

[AKarp2013]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 12:01am

I thought Water for Elephants was just okay but it is leaps and bounds better than Lempicka. In any case, Water for Elephants has a show tomorrow night.

Updated On: 5/20/24 at 12:01 AM

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 12:13am

BorisTomashevsky said: "Jordan Catalano said: "I want to know what Beth Leavel was thinking, having to stand there and listen to all of that."

This is a really good point. I did notice Andrew Samonsky keeping an EXCELLENT poker face throughout the speeches."

I was too busy looking at the two lead producers on SL during Matt's speech, wondering what was going through their heads.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 12:17am

AKarp2013 said: "I thoughtWater for Elephantswas just okay but it is leaps and bounds better thanLempicka.In any case,Water for Elephantshas a show tomorrow night."

Damn lol. Savage.

[AKarp2013]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 12:20am

Jordan Catalano said: "AKarp2013 said: "I thoughtWater for Elephantswas just okay but it is leaps and bounds better thanLempicka.In any case,Water for Elephantshas a show tomorrow night."

Damn lol. Savage."

Sorry but those curtain speeches really, really, REALLY irked me.

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 12:20am

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "Jordan Catalano said: "I want to know what Beth Leavel was thinking, having to stand there and listen to all of that."

This is a really good point. I did notice Andrew Samonsky keeping an EXCELLENT poker face throughout the speeches."

I was too busy looking at the two lead producers on SL during Matt's speech, wondering what was going through their heads."

me too, Jenny and Greg thinking Matt you got to do better next time and we lost a **** load of $$$

Updated On: 5/21/24 at 12:20 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 12:22am

I was watching them, also.  They started it on a classy note.  They looked more and more uncomfortable as the rants went on.  

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:53am

Updated On: 5/20/24 at 01:53 AM

[Dolly80]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:09am

Those speeches are embarrassing, and Matt Gould needs to stop getting hold of a microphone and cursing and ranting at people. 
Maybe the show should just have been better. Maybe he should focus on that and his part in it. 

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 3:10am

So thankful I saw only 2nd or 3rd preview of Lempicka, prior to the realization by everyone that it'll be a soon closed flop, prior to the misguided marketing campaign which only exposed the fact that this show failed to find its audience and it was too late. I didn't hate the show, despite its terrible book and direction. I still love the score and listen to bits and pieces of it almost daily. I can't help feeling really sorry for Matt Gould, he looks like its a personal tragedy for him. I'm just always startled at how such clunky, underbaked and straight up ill directed shows make it on stage as is, without intervention by anyone who is more tethered to reality. It's a shame. 

Updated On: 5/20/24 at 03:10 AM

[bear88]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 6:10am

chrishuyen said: "But I'm not quite sure what Chavkin was talking about when she mentioned that the reviews didn't mention the queer love story. I just did a quick look and all the reviews I checked (which were the first 5 or so that popped up in a Google search) referred to Rafaela as her lover, or mentioned her bisexuality. Sure they may not have said "there is a queer love story in the show", but people reading the reviews would have no doubt about there being one. And I mentioned this earlier too about how the show's marketing itself didn't seem to advertise that there was a lesbian romance at the center of the story either--it seemed unclear if they wanted to save that as a surprise for people watching the show. So why didn't the show market it more if that was such an integral part?”

I also took a quick glance at the first few reviews on Google and they all refer to Rafaela as Lempicka’s lover or girlfriend. I am sure there were some reviews that didn’t but an awful lot of prominent reviews did.

I never saw the show so I don’t have a dog in this fight, aside from being an admirer of Chavkin’s last two Broadway musicals. But part of me is honestly surprised that an experienced, Tony Award-winning director with a long-running musical across the street would make a statement that is at best highly misleading.

The reviews might have been unfair, or held a musical to an unrealistic standard of historical accuracy. Sunday in the Park With George just invented an entire story about a real person, after all.

But I am surprised that the creatives, having had weeks to deal with the disappointment, kept up the public bitterness. (Sondheim, plenty bitter after Merrily and no fan of most critics, quietly contemplated quitting the business.) Even a fan of Lempicka, commenting on Reddit, viewed the comments as an unsubtle slap at new musicals nominated this season. 

I assume this is just the usual internet dust-up and will be forgotten by Tuesday. It just seems odd.

 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 6:51am

Saw a comment on Twitter about this show potentially having a West End run. 

 

They would have to make some serious edits if they're even considering that 

[OhHiii]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 6:55am

Watching (and listening) to the show, it’s so clear that one of the guiding principles the creative team worked under was to redux Evita (I mean just look at the ripped off logo) and put on a Madonna music video. Thats where it begins and ends. The show doesn’t really make a a meaningful commentary on fascism, nor does it actually say much about being persecuted by fascists for being queer either that isn’t already baked in. I found the only glimmer of depth came in the epilogue when Rafaela spoke of Lempicka’s women. It spoke to a larger impact of the artist that was absent from the rest of the show that could have been a strong concept, but felt like they said “oh **** we haven’t said anything about her lasting impact…lets shoehorn this in.”

And from the sound of these speeches, this creative team is simply delusional. Sure, love your work, but it’s not some grand capitalist scheme to squash new work. There are plenty of new works crossing $1mil+ last week. Even with closing, Lempicka will be nowhere close. 

[DaveyG]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 9:41am

BorisTomashevsky said: "I've said it before and based on current trends I'm sure I'll say it again: A David Merrick flop would go out with dignity."

Exactly. The lack of dignity in these speeches is shocking. Gould and Chavkin blaming and whining. Their heartbreak is understandable, but be professional and keep it offstage. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 9:45am

Didn’t Chavkin say something along the lines of “support new work” when Great Comet closed?

[yahyahyah]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 9:46am

For what it’s worth- which at this point is just how the show is remembered and spoken of-

I was interested in this material and story from when I heard of the show’s run in La Jolla. Not because I am an Lempicka devotee- but because it stood out as different than so much of what we see coming down the Broadway pipeline. The jukebox, the film adaptations, revivals, established properties being pumped full of MT pizazz. (And yes I’ve enjoyed some of those.) After Lempicka opened here in NY, I avoided the commentary and reviews— because I knew I wanted to see this regardless. (And honestly, finding reviews more often irrelevant than informative these days.)

Anyway, I saw the show. I really enjoyed it. Was it perfect? No. Was I engaged the entire time? Yes. Was I moved—even to tears? Yes. Does that happen often in the theatre these days? No. The performances were very special— all the principals, truly. There was so much messy glory up on that stage. And that is art. The art I enjoy the most, anyway. I would rather see an imperfect show with passion, creativity, risk, ideas, and audacity than a slick, safe, over-produced rehash. I understand I may not be in the majority. I connected a lot more to Lempicka than I did for say Kimberly Akimbo— and hey, they won best musical- bless them. I’d rather see Lempicka 5x than Akimbo twice. 
 

So much aggressive negativity towards the show here. I wanted to add my voice, as this negative sentiment does not speak for all of us. And side note, Madonna showed up before the final curtain. How many shows has she shown up to?? Hamilton was the last? Do we think she’d show up if everyone had been telling her the show was terrible? Absolutely not. 
 

All to say, it’s not just “crazy Lempicka fans”— other theatre going folks were expressing positive things about this show around town. But, y’all just loud. And unfortunately negativity and gossip is flashy and eye-catching. 
 

If the show didn’t sell and couldn’t make broadway rent, so be it. Not the public’s fault. But I think it’s a shame to fabricate a legacy that this show was less than deserving. It was one of my favorite shows this season, despite it all. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 9:56am

“But I think it’s a shame to fabricate a legacy that this show was less than deserving. It was one of my favorite shows this season”

What it sounds like you’re saying is you think it’s unfair the majority of people who saw it didn’t like it, when you did. 
Thats not “fabricating a legacy”, its sharing opinions on art - the exact same way you just did.

And you put WAAAAAAY too much stock in the reach our opinions have here as far as selling or killing a show goes. The show was capitalized at 20 million dollars which means they need to reach Joe and Betty Smith from Iowa who want to see a Broadway show on their first trip to the big city and they ain’t checking what Jordan Catalano on Broadway World has to say about it. 

Updated On: 5/20/24 at 09:56 AM

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 10:03am

chrishuyen said: "Also this is me genuinely asking, but the idea that 8 weeks is not enough to build an audience--would that be considered poor producing? If they truly believed they needed more than 8 weeks then shouldn't that be taken into account with cash reserves/marketing power/community outreach etc? Though I guess at this point it's a somewhat rote statement for any show that closes relatively soon (Ohio said the same I believe)."

The 8 weeks isn't enough time line came from Zachary Stewart, a critic at TheaterMania. 

Basically he was saying the creatives didn't do anything wrong, this type of show just needs a couple of decades to find its audience through the cast recording before it can be a success. He uses Merrily We Roll Along as an example of his point. 

Only as great as Sondheim and the Merrily score is, the creatives did screw up. For example, casting teenagers clearly didn't work. Even in that case, the show is perfect, the audience just needs to catch up, was not what actually happened. 

[wpetinaudjr2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 10:24am

Jordan Catalano said: "I’m sure Matt Gould will take the stage blaming everyone and everything except the mediocre show itself for the lack of tickets sold."

Or Matt and others will start to work on their next ventures and continue to build beauty and live out their dreams and goals while others sit behind a keyboard, achieving nothing, doing nothing and awaiting to celebrate what they deem failures or misses with vitriol from actually remarkable (and in this case extremely talented and kind hearted) people who are actually offering something. 

If some of you can do better there is a world of opportunity out there for you. Make it happen! Some of us await whatever you can meaningfully contribute and will celebrate your success (or at the very least your attempt).

Thanks to Matt, Rachel, Carson, Raja and the entire team for bringing something new, going big and bringing underrepresented stories to the forefront. Thanks to the investors for putting their capital behind it. While it was not perfect (and nothing is), I personally enjoyed the experience and the attempt and await for more.

[yahyahyah]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 10:26am

Sorry Jordan, but have to disagree here. No, Becky and Braden from Nebraska don’t GAF what you, in particular, think. That is true. However, you quite assertively post here. Frequently. Tirelessly, even. You are passionate about it. (And where would the theatre be without folks like you?)

However, there are many, many more people who “lurk” and read the threads and “reviews” from theatre goers here (look at the thread view counts vs postings). These board opinions are magnified and given a platform within the theatre community. That’s just how it is now. These opinions become word of mouth and shape people’s perception of a show now, even from just the first preview. 
 

And word of mouth is powerful. It creates the “buzz” in our community, and yes, the concierges of the hotels and the like stay on that pulse too. Critics are also aware of it before they step into a show. 
 

This board does wield power. I’m surprised you don’t understand that, or maybe you are just refuting any responsibility. I’d encourage everyone to consider that power/responsibility when they post. 
 

Do we think Becky and Braden were on Twitter reading all of the Russian troll bots’ tweets leading up the 2016 election? No. But all of those tweets created a landscape, a volume of “opinion” collectively which then contributed to the shape of the public’s opinion about our two presidential candidates. The loud, anonymous packherd helped to influence the general public, as it then fed news shows, fueled debates, misinformation, etc etc. 
 

You have the absolutely right to post as much, and whatever opinions you want- but let’s be honest about the impact words in a public forum can have. 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 10:26am

Jordan Catalano said: "“But I think it’s a shame to fabricate a legacy that this show was less than deserving. It was one of my favorite shows this season”

What it sounds like you’re saying is you think it’s unfair the majority of people who saw it didn’t like it, when you did.
Thats not “fabricating a legacy”, its sharing opinions on art - the exact same way you just did.

And you put WAAAAAAY too much stock in the reach our opinions have here as far as selling or killing a show goes. The show was capitalized at 20 million dollars which means they need to reach Joe and Betty Smith from Iowa who want to see a Broadway show on their first trip to the big city and they ain’t checking what Jordan Catalano on Broadway World has to say about it."

"I enjoyed it, so others are required to as well" seems to be the mentality surrounding this show. I completely agree with you Jordan