LEMPICKA Reviews- Page 6

[gibsons2]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 7:06pm

MemorableUserName said: "The thing is, they embargoed the reviews to the last minute, so they had to be concerned, if not outright know, the reviewswouldn't be great.

In his speech at the opening night curtain call, one of the composers/writersmakes it clear he suspects people are going to be unkind toward the show. (It starts around 7:00 and admittedly is very sad.)

That would seem to indicate they knew the show had issues they weren't able to overcome that would be called out. So why be mad at the critics? Just hating the messenger? Or did they really believe the show was great and the critics were going to be gratuitously mean because...cruelty? Misogyny?"

God, I feel so terribly bad for Matt Gould. He is so talented and seems to be a very sensitive person... there was a lot of hype about this musical based on his score, particularly Woman Is song, there are couple of amazing covers on YouTube. I think that maybe Matt assumed that his truly amazing original score will finally get the acknowledgement and recognition it deserves, and the reality of a not very good book and overall strange directorial choices will sink this show. I feel for him. 

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 7:14pm

I’ve read four pans by women, all of which land on craft issues reflected in the consensus. This hardly seems like white male prejudicial blinders writ large (and I’m acknowledging that gender bias exists, in analysing the canon and new work). It’s interesting that the most articulate of the women critics - whose critique encompasses both structural issues and the show’s failure to fully dramatize the title character in satisfying musical theatre terms - is taking such a beating here. 

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 7:17pm

I'm very disappointed by these reviews. People are allowed to dislike things, I don't feel like the show is perfect but I do think it is very exciting in it's imperfection and I feel like not of these reviewers feel the same. 

[inception]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 7:49pm

Responding to bwyobsessed

Most people buying show tickets for hundreds of dollars want to know if they are making a good investment or not.

The critics need to give an honest accounting to their readers,  otherwise they lose their credibility. 

I love flashy shows probably more than anyone. But once you get past the "exciting" most people expect there to be more there.

Flashy, exciting shows like Moulin Rouge or Wicked work - despite their many flaws - because they keep the stories very simple.  When the story doesn't go anywhere, no amount of style & flash can cover that. People leave disappointed & dissatisfied.  If you're just seeing a movie on a cheap Tuesday- like the recent Argylle - you're out $10 so you can be forgiving.  But when people are spending $150+ for tickets they are less forgiving. 

[GottaGetAGimmick420]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 7:54pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "GottaGetAGimmick420 said:"I saw one of the authors say they were disappointed in the “analysis of old white men who have no interest in the interior lives of women or people of color or anyone or anyone who doesn’t share their experience. There will be lots on that”

makes me ??????"

—

Thanks for sharing this - was this said online or something they said in person informally? Would love to see it if it’s online. (I messed up the italics when quoting and can’t fix it lol)
"

Instagram story!

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 8:01pm

After thinking on the Lempicka reviews it made me remember that there was this thread giving the creative team some advice. I’m curious if there is anything that would stop a show from implementing the changes described in that thread and has a show ever done it? Where they read the advice of a comment or post about the show and then implemented changes according to the post?

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 8:09pm

there's something very ugly about the way Holdren is being dragged for.... LITERALLY doing her job. 

There is certainly an interesting conversation to be had about where "criticism" fits in today's age, where everyone likes very specific genres of stuff---movies, tv, art, books are all so hyperpersonalized-- which is way different than the way old school Hollywood and TV Networks and publishing houses moved the content to the more palatable middle for mass appeal.  We used to watch whatever was on one of the 4 channels; now we have thousands, plus streaming, to give us exactly what we like. So in this context having a handful of critics dictate whats Good and whats Not Good is kinda nuts.

but thats not the conversation Jackson and shockingly Bareilles are having here. this is visceral sour apples. Bareilles would do so much more for the show to say I LOVED IT GO SEE IT IVE SEEN IT 5 TIMES rather than.... this.

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 8:41pm

inception said: "Responding to bwyobsessed

Most people buying show tickets for hundreds of dollars want to know if they are making a good investment or not.

The critics need to give an honest accounting to their readers, otherwise they lose their credibility.

I love flashy shows probably more than anyone. But once you get past the "exciting" most people expect there to be more there.

Flashy, exciting shows like Moulin Rouge or Wicked work- despite their many flaws - because they keep the stories very simple. When the story doesn't go anywhere, no amount of style & flash can cover that. People leave disappointed & dissatisfied. If you're just seeing a movie on a cheap Tuesday- like the recent Argylle - you're out $10 so you can be forgiving. But when people are spending $150+ for tickets they are less forgiving."

I wasn't saying exciting to mean flashy. I thought the story and characters were fascinating and really enjoyed the performances. I don't think everything about the way they told the story is done effectively. 

 

[Owen22]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 9:18pm

gibsons2 said: "God, I feel so terribly bad for Matt Gould. He is so talented and seems to be a very sensitive person... there was a lot of hype about this musical based on his score, particularly Woman Is song, there are couple of amazing covers on YouTube. I think that maybe Matt assumed that his truly amazing original score will finally get the acknowledgement and recognition it deserves, and the reality of a notvery goodbook and overall strange directorial choices will sink this show. I feel for him."

His mid score is as much to blame for the show's failure as the lackluster book. One or two good numbers, nothing great, the rest boring with no real melody to grab onto. I felt the same about Invisible Thread.  He's not untalented, just a very mediocre talent.

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 9:28pm

Agreed about the score needing melody. “Woman Is” changes gears so much that he makes Sondheim seem as hummable as Jerry Herman. I couldn’t tell what came first, the terrible lyrics or the terrible music. 

[lopside]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 9:36pm

Sara Bareilles is sharing exactly the same perspective about critics that most other artists share and have shared till time immemorial. Getting mad over it is pointless.

MJR also makes a point that I tend to agree with, is about many critics refusing to engage with the why beimhind choices. He shouldn't have gone after Holdren though. 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 9:50pm

lopside said: "Sara Bareilles is sharing exactly the same perspective about critics that most other artists share and have shared till time immemorial. Getting mad over it is pointless.

MJR also makes a point that I tend to agree with, is about many critics refusing to engage with the why beimhind choices. He shouldn't have gone after Holdren though."

I don't think it's a refusal to engage with "why." Frankly, I'm not sure an exploration of "why" will make something that doesn't work suddenly work. It may make one appreciate the piece and the effort that went into it- and I can't think of any major critic working today who isn't at least appreciative of the things they review- but ultimately it has to work on its own without the creators whispering into your ear about why they did things. And in this case, the "why" is obvious because Holdren is specifically referencing an extremely well-worn trope of biographical works- we know why it's used.

Sometimes a choice is simply unsuccessful regardless of why it came to be.

Updated On: 4/15/24 at 09:50 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 9:57pm

also, how can a critic delve into the "why" behind the piece---that sounds more like a puff piece or interview with a creator. the point of a critic is to tell us what they liked so we know what to see. AGAIN a concept that came to life when there was no such thing as the internet, or even phones, to spread WOM. how can Sara Holdren spend her column space guessing WHY the Lempicka team did what they did, when shes supposed to tell us what she liked/didnt like? 

cant get over the irony of Holdren bearing the brunt of this nonsense. shes a fantastic, thoughtful writer, who isnt even a cranky critic like some others.

[gibsons2]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:04pm

Owen22 said: "gibsons2 said: "God, I feel so terribly bad for Matt Gould. He is so talented and seems to be a very sensitive person... there was a lot of hype about this musical based on his score, particularly Woman Is song, there are couple of amazing covers on YouTube. I think that maybe Matt assumed that his truly amazing original score will finally get the acknowledgement and recognition it deserves, and the reality of a notvery goodbook and overall strange directorial choices will sink this show. I feel for him."

His mid score is as much to blame for the show's failure as the lackluster book. One or two good numbers, nothing great, the rest boring with no real melody to grab onto. I felt the same about Invisible Thread. He's not untalented, just a very mediocre talent."

Damn... Ok. I don't remember people being so cruel and vicious towards a single show on this board. Every season a show picked as a favorite punching bag, last year it was How To Dance In Ohio I think. Posters here bashed the quality of the show but not necessarily overall talent or abilities of the creatives or actors. When it comes to Lempicka,  I recall someone was  fatshaming the leading actress and even bashing her voice quality, and now declaring the composer mediocre. It's insane. Especially given how many awful, mediocre shows have opened post pandemic and some even managed to thrive.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:08pm

OMG if you think the boards reactions to THIS show are mean, you haven’t been on here long enough lol

 

[blaxx]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:31pm

Jordan Catalano said: "OMG if you think the boards reactions to THIS show are mean, you haven’t been on here long enough lol

"

Exactly. I remember The Little Mermaid, Godspell revival, Good Vibrations,etc  now that was a massacre.

Heck, compared to Espinosa's BKLYN these are rave reviews.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:41pm

I mean... TO NAME A FEW lolol.

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:49pm

Right? 

 

When a show works, it is lauded. When it doesn't, we dissect to figure out why. 

 

Eden hits notes poorly on a regular basis. The book is a mess, and few are loving the score. The critics are largely in agreement - I don't see what the problem is. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:52pm

theres a sense of glee in others' critical failure that smells of jealousy to me but certainly not unique to this show. 

 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:54pm

The age old problem of the theatre:

"Why is nobody talking about my show?"

"Wait, no, don't talk about it THAT way!"

[akhoya87]

Posted: 4/15/24 at 11:56pm

gibsons2 said: "Damn... Ok. I don't remember people being so cruel and vicious towards a single show on this board. Every season a show picked as a favorite punching bag, last year it was How To Dance In Ohio I think."

I know it feels like this season has lasted 84 years, but HTDIO was this season...

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/16/24 at 12:03am

The reviews for this show were bad but damn, we’ve all read SO MUCH WORSE over the years. We aren’t giving out any participation trophy’s for shows just to make them feel better and that seriously is what the freaking out over this feels like - some people now feel every show deserves to be coddled and loved on even if it’s bad and sorry but that’s not how it works. We haven’t entered into this new age where criticism is only acceptable if it’s good, whether you think we should or not.

I highly recommend to anyone feeling angry over the big mean critics being big mean to the show, to just google “bad Broadway reviews” or something like that and read what a TRUE scathing review sounds like. They ain’t hard to find. 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 4/16/24 at 12:12am

Frank Rich called the original production of Merrily We Roll Along “a shambles,” for God’s sake.

Given that show’s trajectory from historic flop to commercial success, if Carson Kreitzer and Matt Gould really care about this show as much as they say they do - and I believe they do, truly - may they continue to write and develop and maybe approach this with fresh eyes somewhere down the line.

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 4/16/24 at 12:31am

Diana got much worse reviews, and I think it was significantly more entertaining than Lempicka.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/16/24 at 12:32am

TaffyDavenport said: "Diana got much worse reviews, and I think it was significantly more entertaining than Lempicka."

I’ve never agreed with anything on this board, more than that statement.