LEMPICKA Reviews- Page 11

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:08pm

I DEMAND GENITAL CHECKS AND THE FULL SEXUAL RESUME OF ANYONE REVIEWING THIS SHOW!!!

[Wardelljclark2018]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:15pm

Please name 5 women critics at the major publications...in the past 3 decades? We can debate many things on this thread but we shouldn't debate patriarchy and misogyny and it's inherent influence in EVERYTHING. 

 

Updated On: 4/18/24 at 07:15 PM

[Wardelljclark2018]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:19pm

verywellthensigh said: "I DEMAND GENITAL CHECKS AND THE FULL SEXUAL RESUME OF ANYONE REVIEWING THIS SHOW!!!

"

THIS IS GROSS and not funny at all.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:29pm

Wardelljclark2018 said: "Please name 5 women critics at the major publications...in the past 3 decades? We can debate many things on this thread but we shouldn't debate patriarchy and misogyny and it's inherent influence in EVERYTHING.


Elisabeth Vincentelli 

Helen Shaw

Elysa Gardner

Linda Winer.

Marilyn Stasio.

 

 

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:34pm

I thought it was funny. 

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:35pm

Maya Phillips

Margo Jefferson

Sara Holdren

Raven Snook

 

Updated On: 4/18/24 at 07:35 PM

[Wardelljclark2018]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:46pm

songanddanceman2 said: "Wardelljclark2018 said: "Please name 5 women critics at the major publications...in the past 3 decades? We can debate many things on this thread but we shouldn't debate patriarchy and misogyny and it's inherent influence in EVERYTHING.


Elisabeth Vincentelli

Helen Shaw

Elysa Gardner

Linda Winer.

Marilyn Stasio.
"

I said 3 decades for a reason. As by her own comment Linda Winer was from 1980 until Elisabeth Vincentelli came on at New York Post in 2009, the only female first-string critic in New York. So happy there are finally more, great there are more, but there are not the dominant voices and especially on this show. That was my point. Why are we debating this? It's so strange to me, that this isn't more obvious. Anyway, I hope it runs for as long as it can, to touch the people it's supposed to touch. 

Also, I for one, didn't love the show either. I think there is just something to be said about the viewpoint from which a critic views a show. Y'all have a good night. 

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:48pm

Female critics reviewed this show, and didn't like it.

 

Stop trying to turn this show in to some kind of victim of evil men. Its clearly not a good show. 

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 7:59pm

You didn't love the show, but you're...I just can't.

It also doesn't do feminism any favors when you indulge in the childish assertion that half the population aren't qualified to review something let alone attaching patriarchy-poisoning to something that is generally and objectively regarded as a misfire.  

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 8:01pm

Wardelljclark2018 said: "songanddanceman2 said: "Wardelljclark2018 said: "Please name 5 women critics at the major publications...in the past 3 decades? We can debate many things on this thread but we shouldn't debate patriarchy and misogyny and it's inherent influence in EVERYTHING.


Elisabeth Vincentelli

Helen Shaw

Elysa Gardner

Linda Winer.

Marilyn Stasio.
"

I said 3 decades for a reason. As by her own comment Linda Winer was from 1980 until Elisabeth Vincentelli came on atNew York Postin 2009, the only female first-string critic in New York. So happy there are finally more,great there are more, but there are not the dominant voices and especially on this show. That was my point. Why are we debating this? It's so strange to me, that this isn't more obvious. Anyway, I hope it runs for as long as it can, to touch the people it's supposed to touch.

Also, I for one, didn't love the show either. I think there is just something to be said about the viewpoint from which a critic views a show. Y'all have a good night."

It was Sara Holdren's review in Vulture that caught the most heat. She is, as far as I know, a woman. And the white men at the NYT have given rave reviews to much queerer, more out-there progressive shows. You're just making a fool of yourself with this argument.

I thought the response to Lempicka was overly harsh, I enjoyed watching it despite its flaws, but I can think those two things without leaping to these demonstrably false theories about men v women. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 10:08pm

bwayobsessed said: "I really liked it for what it was but acknowledge it's not perfect. I had one thought that I think would easily fix a major issue with it. She opens the show saying she had "two great loves" but you never really get to see the husband developed at all so it feels like they are focusing on the wrong thing. What if it opened with something like "I remember the faces of people I painted" and it flashes to the baroness, her daughter, Suzy, Raphaela (in a somewhat similar way to how they walk around her at the end). Then it justifies why Suzy and the Baroness get such big moments while having little to do with what is currently the focal plot of the show (the love triangle is what they say it's about)."

This is pretty good. It reminds me a little of the pro-shot of the original cast of Sunday in the Park with George, where you're panning around the painting during the opening credits. You see all the characters who will later become important. 

You're trying to fix though framing device, which fair. The old lady memory play opening isn't doing it for me either. But that still doesn't fix the not compelling love triangle. The husband is underdeveloped as you called out. In terms of third wheels, I have a clearer sense of Louis from Sunday in the Park with George, and all we know is everyone loves him and his cakes. 

Plus, with the Baron, it turns out Lempicka actually has two underwritten husbands. 

I think you'd need to more clearly define what the choice between Tadeusz or Rafaela represents. Or maybe the point is if you try to have everything you end up with nothing. That's kind of what happens but is undercut by the reality of Tamara ending up with the Baron. 

Whatever the central conflict is within Tamara, if that was clearer it would be easier to reverse engineer a more compelling love triangle.  

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 10:23pm

i hadnt thought of this way previously,  but reading these takes makes it gel a bit more in light of the aghast reactions at the reviews:  the failure to underwrite (really ignore) her two clearly meaningful heterosexual relationships was a progressive choice made to emphasize, at all costs, the Raphaela composite. so to then complain about how the story is totally off kilter is an attack on that queer story. 

of course the show could have simply told us that she didnt really like either husband, and they were just marriages of convenience given the times, so her inability to be with Raphaela was a tragic love story. but i guess that simply wasnt true- she is on record saying she did love both her husbands, and willingly stayed with the latter for decades in america-- so they did this "i loved two people at the same time thing" which clearly didnt work.

anyway i still enjoyed it

[Wardelljclark2018]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 11:09pm

PipingHotPiccolo said: "Wardelljclark2018 said: "songanddanceman2 said: "Wardelljclark2018 said: "Please name 5 women critics at the major publications...in the past 3 decades? We can debate many things on this thread but we shouldn't debate patriarchy and misogyny and it's inherent influence in EVERYTHING.


Elisabeth Vincentelli

Helen Shaw

Elysa Gardner

Linda Winer.

Marilyn Stasio.
"

I said 3 decades for a reason. As by her own comment Linda Winer was from 1980 until Elisabeth Vincentelli came on atNew York Postin 2009, the only female first-string critic in New York. So happy there are finally more,great there are more, but there are not the dominant voices and especially on this show. That was my point. Why are we debating this? It's so strange to me, that this isn't more obvious. Anyway, I hope it runs for as long as it can, to touch the people it's supposed to touch.

Also, I for one, didn't love the show either. I think there is just something to be said about the viewpoint from which a critic views a show. Y'all have a good night."

It was Sara Holdren's review in Vulture that caught the most heat. She is, as far as I know, a woman. And the white men at the NYT have given rave reviews to much queerer, more out-there progressive shows. You're just making a fool of yourself with this argument.

I thought the response to Lempicka was overly harsh, I enjoyed watching it despite its flaws, but I can think those two things without leaping to these demonstrably false theories about men v women."

You're right. I'm a complete idiot and making a fool of myself with this argument. It has absolutely no basis, and I had no right to bring it up. Thanks for that.  

Updated On: 4/18/24 at 11:09 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 11:16pm

Wardelljclark2018 said: 

You're right. I'm a complete idiot and making a fool of myself with this argument. It has absolutely no basis, and I had no right to bring it up. Thanks for that."

I have no idea if youre an idiot, and certainly didnt say so, and more importantly, you have every right under the sun to bring it up! As much as you want!

The way it works, though, is that I get to point out the hollow foolishness of what you have every right to say. And so on, and so on. 

Updated On: 4/18/24 at 11:16 PM

[AKarp2013]

Posted: 4/18/24 at 11:21pm

i hate it here

[Jonathan Cohen]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 12:31am

PipingHotPiccolo said: "i hadnt thought of this way previously, but reading these takes makes it gel a bit more in light of the aghast reactions at the reviews: the failure to underwrite (really ignore) her two clearly meaningful heterosexual relationships was a progressive choice made to emphasize, at all costs, the Raphaela composite. so to then complain about how the story is totally off kilter is an attack on that queer story.

of course the show could have simply told us that she didnt really like either husband, and they were just marriages of convenience given the times, so her inability to be with Raphaela was a tragic love story. but i guess that simply wasnt true- she is on record saying she did love both her husbands, and willingly stayed with the latter for decades in america-- so they did this "i loved two people at the same time thing" which clearly didnt work.

anyway i still enjoyed it"

There was another potential path forward to solve this problem, which is to acknowledge she loved her husbands in the show, but never actually show them on stage. For most of the show, Tamara is prioritizing painting and Raphaela above the other compartmentalized parts of her life. Trimming the cast would make that perspective even clearer.

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 2:46am

dramamama611 said: "I thought it was funny."

Seconded.

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 8:52am

Jonathan Cohen said: "bwayobsessed said: "I really liked it for what it was but acknowledge it's not perfect. I had one thought that I think would easily fix a major issue with it. She opens the show saying she had "two great loves" but you never really get to see the husband developed at all so it feels like they are focusing on the wrong thing. What if it opened with something like "I remember the faces of people I painted" and it flashes to the baroness, her daughter, Suzy, Raphaela (in a somewhat similar way to how they walk around her at the end). Then it justifies why Suzy and the Baroness get such big moments while having little to do with what is currently the focal plot of the show (the love triangle is what they say it's about)."

This is pretty good. It reminds me a little of the pro-shot of theoriginal cast of Sunday in the Park with George, where you're panning around the painting during the opening credits. You see all the characters who will later become important.

You're trying to fix though framing device, which fair.The old lady memory play opening isn't doing it for me either. But that still doesn't fix the not compelling lovetriangle. The husband is underdeveloped as you called out. In terms of third wheels, I have a clearer sense of Louis fromSunday in the Park with George, and all we know is everyone loves him and his cakes.

Plus, with theBaron, it turns out Lempicka actually has two underwritten husbands.

I think you'd need to more clearly define what the choice betweenTadeusz or Rafaela represents. Or maybe the point is if you try to have everything you end up with nothing. That's kind of what happens but is undercut by the reality ofTamara ending up with the Baron.

Whatever the central conflict is withinTamara, if that was clearer it would be easier to reverse engineer a more compelling love triangle."

Right, but I think if she (and the marketing) didn't feel the need to tell us it's about a love triangle, we wouldn't be waiting to see a love triangle. The show itself doesn't seem that interested in the love triangle. It's really just that opening line that sets us up for it and we never get it. I think he can be underwritten if the focus is on the women (which it already is). 

 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 9:32am

 

[The Rural Juror]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 9:50am

I have to say, as someone who found the show fairly entertaining (maybe unpopular opinion) with very strong performances (seems to be the consensus), the ad team is actually doing a genius job marketing this show. Even those rolling their eyes at the ads are at least noticing them. A show with this niche of a subject matter, no celebrity casting, and this middling of reviews would normally be a non-entity in terms of press. However, I feel like it's been the most talked about show for the past couple weeks because of the controversies with the reviews, the online pushback to the reviews, and then the unrehearsed understudy situation. Once the reviews dropped, this is about the best situation this show could have found itself in. 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 10:43am

Rural Juror, you are overestimating the minuscule bubble of the theatre community.

The marketing and eye-rolling and "controversy" is not permeating outside the world of those who follow theatre and know the show (which is not enough people to make or break a show). You're also mischaracterizing social conversation as press.

If advertising polarizing reviews causes a sizeable number of people to drop $100 per ticket for a sustainable amount of time, it would be a watershed moment for Broadway and the way shows are promoted. But I doubt that will translate to enough tickets sold to make a difference. Same with the current paid social post being run with a quote from Jesse Eisenberg (an actor who some might recognize but hasn't been culturally relevant in about a decade).

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 1:22pm

Stumbled upon Mariand’s “Woman Is” and part of her “I Will Paint Her” last night… WOW!

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 2:32pm

I was lucky to see Mariand's debut at the late Thursday matinee and it was just undeniable how much better she is at singing the score than Eden. I loved her!  I found the show a mess but a loveable mess. Amber Iman is luminous and alive every second (I need to hear the bracelet song again asap). The design/aesthetic is constantly at odds with the text so that's an oof. Also stillness was sorely missed for me. Wish it hadn't been cut.  

[The8re phan]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 2:58pm

EDSOSLO858 said: "Stumbled upon Mariand’s “Woman Is” and part of her “I Will Paint Her” last night… WOW!"

How does one stumble upon these things... were they just laying on the sidewalk somewhere on W48th street? 

Do tell......

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 4/19/24 at 2:58pm

The8re phan said: "EDSOSLO858 said: "Stumbled upon Mariand’s “Woman Is” and part of her “I Will Paint Her” last night… WOW!"

How does one stumble upon these things... were they just laying on the sidewalk somewhere on W48th street?

Do tell......"

May have found recordings online… :)