LEMPICKA Reviews — Page 19

yahyahyah said: "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—evento 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."

I agree with a lot of what you say here.

They call it show business for a reason. This show didn’t do enough business. That alone doesn’t make it bad or unworthy of having been seen.

I’m enjoying most of the shrewd comments people are making here, whether or not I agree with them, because there is so much intelligence on this forum.

However, my reaction to the show was much like yours. I was deeply moved and highly entertained. I can’t remember the last time I cried so much at the theater. There were moments I was completely blown away and could barely breathe.

I’m very glad that I went to the final Saturday show and was spared those bitter curtain call speeches.

Of course I see why this show didn’t have a long life. The book is jumbled. There are major flaws. Still, I found more to love and be riveted by than I find in most shows, including ones that are technically better oiled. 

It may have only reached a certain amount of people, but I’m glad I’m one of them - and doesn’t that speak to the subject of the show itself?

 

 

 

Yes, there is impact because essentially EVERYTHING people could see online may have some impact no matter how minuscule.  But the message board corner of the internet has such little impact compared to things like social media influencers and critics' reviews (whose impact has already diminished) that it seems silly to say there's a "responsibility" when posting on these boards.  A responsibility to who? And for what?

AKarp2013 said: "I had no idea thatLempickainvented queer theater. You learn something new everyday."

Just the other week, JoJo Siwa exclaimed she created gay pop. So many discoveries in 2024. 

Kad said: "This board is not the same as Instagram or Tiktok. This board is rather an anomaly- the message board culture of the internet diminished substantially over the last 20 years as modern social media took over. There is no influencer culture to speak of here because it's anonymous.

Views on these threads aren't comparable to views on IG, Tiktok, or Twitter, and largely are often disproportionately comprised of the same group of people repeatedly looking at the thread over a long period of time because it's a discussion - we want to see who has responded and people engage in a back and forth.

Social media posts are powerful because those governing algorithms will ensure a popular post is spread beyond the initial poster's reach. This message board does not do that. You have to actively come here to see what's here, and usually need to hunt for it. It doesn't show up on a For You feed without you having a say in it."

Of course the board is not the same as TikTok or IG. Facebook is not the same as them either. Or X. Or watching commercials on tv. They all are different, and function as influential in a different manner. 
 

Actually, as opposed to IG, anything on BroadwayWorld could be argued to be more effective. Because the user logging onto BroadwayWorld.com is already self selecting and interested in theatre. As opposed to a random scroller who has no interested in theatre. So one could argue there is more net/net impact here over a random IG sponsored post. 
 

Until BroadwayWorld releases a unique user count, it’s hard to weigh on multiple views per user accounting for 80k+ views of this thread. Your point is merely conjecture. 
 

Why do you think BroadwayWorld has paid advertisements? Because businesses have tracked the impact of visibility on this website. You think those shows/ businesses are paying for ads as a charitable donation?

yahyahyah said: "Kad said: "This board is not the same as Instagram or Tiktok. This board is rather an anomaly- the message board culture of the internet diminished substantially over the last 20 years as modern social media took over. There is no influencer culture to speak of here because it's anonymous.

Views on these threads aren't comparable to views on IG, Tiktok, or Twitter, and largely are often disproportionately comprised of the same group of people repeatedly looking at the thread over a long period of time because it's a discussion - we want to see who has responded and people engage in a back and forth.

Social media posts are powerful because those governing algorithms will ensure a popular post is spread beyond the initial poster's reach. This message board does not do that. You have to actively come here to see what's here, and usually need to hunt for it. It doesn't show up on a For You feed without you having a say in it."

Of course the board is not the same as TikTok or IG. Facebook is not the same as them either. Or X. Or watching commercials on tv. They all are different, and function as influential in a different manner.


Actually, as opposed to IG, anything on BroadwayWorld could be argued to be more effective. Because the user logging onto BroadwayWorld.com is already self selecting and interested in theatre. As opposed to a random scroller who has no interested in theatre. So one could argue there is more net/net impact here over a random IG sponsored post.


Until BroadwayWorld releases a unique user count, it’s hard to weigh on multiple views per user accounting for 80k+ views of this thread. Your point is merely conjecture.


Why do you think BroadwayWorld has paid advertisements? Because businesses have tracked the impact of visibility on this website. You think those shows/ businesses are paying for ads as a charitable donation?"

Uh, frankly, all of your points are equally conjecture, as you have no figures to back up anything you're asserting re: the reach of this site.

BWW has paid advertisements the same reason every website that doesn't sell anything has advertisements: because it has no other income source and needs to support itself and people will pay for advertisements anywhere. And of course it'll get theater advertisements, it's a theater news site. That is not indicative of a substantial reach beyond this community, which is what you seem to have been arguing.

Lola Getz2 said: "Matt Gould: We have to do better.

Me: Yes, YOU do."

Matt Gould is not the one to blame. He wrote beautiful score. Book writer, director and marketing team are to blame.

gibsons2 said: "Lola Getz2 said: "Matt Gould: We have to do better.

Me: Yes, YOU do."

Matt Gould is not the one to blame. He wrote beautiful score. Book writer, director and marketing team are to blame."

Bad Producing as well and he wrote the book with Carson;

BOOK & MUSIC

MATT GOULD

I agree that the average person goes to tiktok and other forms of social media for information rather than BWW.

I used to come here for information on rush, etc. but nowadays I tend to go to reddit more.

As for Lempicka, if Madonna liked the production, perhaps she can save it if they produce this in London's West End by starring in the lead role? I can see her fans at least buying tickets. 

Robbie2 said: "Wick3 said: "I agree that the average person goes to tiktok and other forms of social media for information rather than BWW.

I used to come here for information on rush, etc. but nowadays I tend to go to reddit more.

As for Lempicka, if Madonna liked the production, perhaps she can save it if they produce this in London's West End by starring in the lead role? I can see her fans at least buying tickets."



Can you really see Madonna performing this role and singing Woman Is? NO! Madonna bolted during the start of the curtain call and did not go backstage for a photo op so the questions is: Did she like it?"

 

Madonna is a HUGE fan of Tamara de Lempicka and is a major collector of her paintings.  She even showed a collage of them on her recent tour.  She also attended the off-Broadway play TAMARA several times.  

I forecast a small, non-Equity, semi-pro company in Chicago and/or San Francisco working with the authors on a (very) slightly reworked version, to be presented in a storefront theatre in the near future. It will indeed have a minor cult following for years to come.

What really pisses me off is people who say that other people shouldn't talk about the grosses this show was pulling in. My dear, you can ignore it and be in denial all you want, but- how can I put this? those numbers matter. They make a difference. It doesn't mean someone is ignoring something else. Broadway at its core is a business. If it doesn't have a sustainable model, that's when shows close. You can't tell someone they're in the wrong for ignoring grosses. It doesn't mean someone has a hidden agenda- it's a valid point, concern and observation