LEMPICKA Reviews- Page 19

[Rudy2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:10pm

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?

 

 

 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:12pm

I am around a lot of theater people. Pretty much daily. And I've maybe heard them mention BWW less than five times. You have to be seriously butthurt to want to blame these boards for being part of a show closing. You just don't want to face the fact that something you were really looking forward to, and had high hopes about, wasn't good to the general theater-going public. What would be the divide, exactly?  I read somewhere that positive word of mouth means very little if those people are getting comped tickets. They actually have to buy them and tell their friends to do so as well. Those people who were at Lempicka every day, front row, that Matt Gould talked about- they couldn't keep this show afloat. The positive word of mouth was low compared to the consensus on what a dumpster fire this show was. Sometimes shows just don't work. Finger pointing and saying that people didn't give it a chance is very childish. How long should they have waited? They were bleeding money. 

[Kad]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:15pm

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.

Updated On: 5/20/24 at 01:15 PM

[yahyahyah]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:19pm

Of course you are welcome to post any opinions here. I do not think opinions are moderated here. You are welcome to post glowing reviews, or constructive thoughtful musings. There have been wonderfully thoughtful members here with many wise and observant words, over the years. You are also welcome to spew vitriol here. Many do. 
 

My point is, don’t do that AND THEN deny in any influence. You can make whatever choices you want, but also be a responsible adult and accept your hand in whatever outcome, however impossible to measure. It’s a cop out to pretend there isn’t impact. 
 

This is a discussion that has been happening on this board for the last 20 years. Welcome all ye Brand New. 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:21pm

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?

[MezzoDiva47]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:22pm

one of the major delusions running through this thread is the idea that ppl on this board and its sibling all that chat have any real impact on a shows sales and causing premature closing or surprise success

you might alter the decision of a few dozen ticket buyers at most

not enough to save a show as hopelessly under water as lempicka 

so no one on here is single handedly or even collectively responsible

its called scale

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:28pm

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. 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:28pm

No one is saying this board has zero influence, but I do think the people who come here blaming board commentators for negatively impacting the public opinion of this show or any show vastly overestimate how influential opinions shared here actually are.

I was in a show a few years back that the folks of this board really didn’t care for. Nearly every reaction in the thread about it was mixed to negative. But we extended twice and sold out nearly every show because the actual public word of mouth was great and the show’s subject matter was intriguing. Now, this wasn’t a commercial venture, but still. As Kad said, this board is really just representative of the people on this board. Sometimes, that matches with public opinion (as with Lempicka). Sometimes, it doesn’t.

Shows with good word of mouth and subject matter people want to see sell to varying degrees; others don’t. C’est la vie.

[yahyahyah]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:30pm

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?

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:37pm

yahyahyah said: "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."

I think your sense of scope is off here.  Yes, if someone has decided to come to this board for opinions, the reactions on this board may be more impactful for them over social media, but that's just measuring the impact for ONE PERSON.  And in the total scope of potential ticket buyers, how many of them actually come to this board, find this thread, and then read through all the posts?  We see a lot of the same names posting because there's a very small subset of people who actually use this board (and yes, that subset is probably larger once you consider there's a lot of lurkers too), but as others have said, there's no way this board has any actual bearing on the success of a show.  So to be honest I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  If you want people to just acknowledge that their posting here has an impact, I think that point is made, but in aggregate, the impact on the prospective audience as a whole is very small.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:43pm

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.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 1:51pm

Every once in a while, I think 'Am I turning into Marylousie Burke? Maybe. Maybe I am.'

And then something like this happens and I'm sure of it. 

That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. 

[Lola Getz2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:00pm

Matt Gould: We have to do better.

Me: Yes, YOU do. 

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:22pm

yahyahyah said: "Of course honesty is important when sharing your opinion. How did you glean I thought otherwise? Not sure how that is applicable to my point/ board members denying influence over word-of-mouth, etc."

Well there seemed to be an implication that posters sharing their honest, negative reactions were not wielding that influence (however small or large it might be) responsibly. I’m sorry if that’s not what you meant. I’m just frustrated at this growing trend of villainizing critics and audiences for voicing when something doesn’t work for them. But that’s more in response to the closing speeches and the review backlash than to you.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:23pm

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.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:24pm

If these boards were the influencers some characterize them to be, they would play a discernible role in marketing and product enhancement: "A consensus of commentators on BWW and ATC agree: it's a revolutionary theater!" hasn't been elevated in press or media. Those of us who have been here for decades - 21 years for me - know how enjoyable this site is: intellectually stimulating, dish-creating, niche peer group establishing (if infamously, um, capriciously). But it's a wall on which we pen graffiti. Blessedly, that's all it is. We've been accused of crepe-hanging and literally destroying the theater with our vinegary cynicism since day one. We raise our voices, we offend, we threaten to leave. And sometimes do. But we have no power, particularly not over consumer decisions, and whenever that argument surfaces it seems like self-promotion.  

Updated On: 5/20/24 at 02:24 PM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:31pm

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

[JSquared2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:43pm

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."

 

While many (most?) would disagree with you about it being a "beautiful score", the quality of the work is not what people are (justifiably) raking him over the coals for -- it's the sense of entitlement, playing the victim and "blaming the Broadway model" in his curtain speech.  If the actual show had that much drama -- it'd run for 10 years!

 

[Wick3]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:47pm

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]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 2:52pm

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?

[JSquared2]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 3:02pm

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.  

[binau]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 3:09pm

This has been such a wild ride. I don’t think beautiful can even begin to describe this score and lead role. I genuinely think we have witnessed one of those cult flops such as Carrie. Not an average flop where people yawn, it goes and then no one talks about it again. 

All it’ll take is for the apparent fans to be real, a well produced cast recording and some inner theatre circle believers that keep it alive and I’m sure we haven’t heard or seen the last of this show. 

I think it could also be re-worked, like Carrie in the future where they try and rewrite the book, trim the fat in the score and re-conceptualise the production as something a bit less camp. No doubt for those of us still left here in 10-15 years we will also hear the same - X or Y is no Betty Buckley/Eden (by then everyone will only remember the cast recording and forget Eden’s pitch problems), or that by taking the camp out they removed the heart and fun of the show like Carrie.

 

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 3:42pm

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.

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 3:52pm

binau said: "This has been such a wild ride. I don’t think beautiful can even begin to describe this score and lead role. I genuinely think we have witnessed one of those cult flops such as Carrie. Not an average flop where people yawn, it goes and then no one talks about it again.

All it’ll take is for the apparent fans to be real, a well produced cast recording and some inner theatre circle believers that keep it alive and I’m sure we haven’t heard or seen the last of this show.

I think it could also be re-worked, like Carrie in the future where they try and rewrite the book, trim the fat in the score and re-conceptualise the production as something a bit less camp. No doubt for those of us still left here in 10-15 years we will also hear the same - X or Y is no Betty Buckley/Eden (by then everyone will only remember the cast recording and forget Eden’s pitch problems), or that by taking the camp out they removed the heart and fun of the show like Carrie.

"

Has there been a flop where it was worked on for 10 years, performed out of town, was well received, came to Broadway and flopped, was worked on for 10 more years and then it did well? Stop beating a dead horse. I know people care but if they couldn't fix it now, who could rewrite it so it works? Sorry but I don't think it would work. 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 5/20/24 at 3:57pm

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