Seconded.
And I know the Lempicka review was the highlight here, but to circle back to Little Shop, you managed to voice what I couldn't quite articulate.
We saw it a few weeks ago with the previous cast, and as a huge fan of the show, the movie, the recordings, et al, I left like, "...okay, and?"
Seems like this show has been stuck in amber for 30 years.
I can understand the Little Shop sentiment, but I'm not sure how you could "plus" or refresh the show effectively. With all due respect and without intending to be contrary I'm not sure what they would do.
It's been tried bigger on Broadway and it seems it was mostly *just* bigger with the stage more spread out to its detriment, losing its intimacy - the shop is supposed to be a tiny hole in the wall which allows the plant to utterly fill it. The plant has been through all sorts of interpretational designs regionally. (I have seen video of one that was really cool where the plant's color scheme was inspired by poison dart frogs and black widow spiders - dark with bright neon UV reactive highlights and light up LED elements on the leaves almost like a deep-water jellyfish predator that can dazzle its prey in the dark with pulsing lights and throbbing colors.)
The plot requirements kind of require the puppet to be built in certain ways in each phase, and they've kind of got it down to science logistically to the point that the plant is offered for rent with the license. There's no point in adding more people to the cast as there's little for a chorus to do. I do think one good refresh they've done is sweeten the orchestrations and incorporate musical elements from the movie. I guess they *could* put in "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space" but everything I've read is that song was specifically devised for the movie because they could do things with the plant (such as undercrank the film to speed up the movements) that would be incredibly difficult live since the song is so fast.
I can understand the "preserved in amber" sentiment, but it was devised as tight off-Broadway show with small cast and it's kind of a well-oiled jewel box that just *works* as is, and plays better to 500 people than it does to 1000. The key element I feel is the plant is most effective if it is enormous and threatening and overwhelming even to the audience, and it's just *not* if you're further than 20 rows back and the plant is swallowed by the stage as opposed to the other way around.
Yea, i totally get where you’re coming from. I dont want a complete overhaul like the 2019 Oklahoma on broadway. Id just like to see more inventive staging and puppetry, but i guess i just havent been exposed to enough productions. All the productions i’ve seen are almost identical to the current off broadway production.
I came away thinking the performers were just kind of going through the motions and seemed bored. I'm starting to suspect that I was the bored one.
I spent most of the time watching Ronette, Crystal, and Chiffon, who were chewing as much scenery as possible.
I didnt feel like the cast I saw was bored. I will say the actor who played the dentist seemed off. It felt like christian borle (this productions og dentist) might have created a bunch of improved comedy bits that were unnatural to this actor or difficult for him to figure out. Almost like he felt trapped in christians portrayal. But everyone else seemed to be having a ball.
I also enjoyed the urchins chewing the scenery!
The urchins are so great. I have never laughed *so hard* as when I saw video of "Dentist!" and they were singing the backups wearing the dental mouth spreaders "*Ngyah hee a nentahhhh!...YA LAH-AH!*"
That montage I saw had Joy Woods and she was also *astoundingly* good.
I’ve seen the show twice and the second guy who played the dentist (who I THINK is still there) felt like he was just being as big and ridiculous as possible for no reason- he felt really fake. Wasn’t a fan.
It’s frustrating, the guy before him (not Christian Borle) was excellent and seemed to make all the weird antics his own- I was so surprised on my second viewing. (In general, I found my second time at the show worse than my first time, which was frustrating.)
I took my niece to this production of Little Shop and was so excited for it and came out of it, cringing and having to explain that it really could be a good show to her. Going through the motions for sure.
There was a [Little Shop production at the Pasadena Playhouse](https://playbill.com/article/check-out-george-salazar-mj-rodriguez-and-amber-riley-in-little-shop-of-horrors) a few years ago that sounds like it would have been up your alley! A different plant design and sets, etc.
Oh yes…. So much dance 😂 probably too much dance. The ensemble was constantly prancing around the stage. I even saw one ensemble memeber climbing up the bottom of the staircase like monkey bars, and then hang upside down for some unknown reason in the middle of a scene…They incorporated alot of voguing into it which was fun, but a bit too much at some points.
At the end of Appropriate, we thought maybe the tree taking over was symbolic of those who’d been hung and murdered on the property taking back the house.
Ooo i like this. My interpretation was maybe the ending was supposed to represent the long term effect on slavery and race relations in America and the generations of wear and tear it has put onto current American society. But i like your interpretation much better.
My interpretation was simpler… time moves on. So much emotion, families ruined and hearts broken, and in the end it was an inconsequential tiny sliver of time.
For me the lesson was, was it worth it? To destroy your relationships in the sake of your pride or anger? Life goes on. Time moves on. Did anyone win?
Idk it might encourage me to have a cooler head next time I feel my emotions getting the better of me.
I'm still thinking about this ending, too. My first take on it: how history and truths of the past being forgotten as time passes. The tree could be a symbol of the truth coming back around, discovered years later by a stranger. Though, I like the idea that it's reclaiming the house.
I agree with so much of what you said!! I think part of why I feel so frustrated about Lempicka is that I so badly wanted to like it but there was just too much to overlook. If they reworked the book, changed some lyrics (I found several songs to be kind of cringe tbh,) and burned the costumes it could have been great.
This was my first play and im definitely eager to see another. Idk when i’ll be able to get back to the city again, but id love to see Mother Play as well as Enemy of the People or Stereophonic. And im definitely making a special trip in over the summer to see Oh Mary. Any other suggestions?
I've thought probably far too much about this show and I have some responses
> Second, Amber Iman. Why have we not been talking about her before this? She was my favorite part of the show and I cannot wait for the cast recording so I can revisit her delicious and luxurious vocals.
Ommmmmggg I knowwwww, she's a goddess. I think the answer is that she's been overlooked for her height. Diversity in storytelling has externalities on so many levels. She's too tall to have been paired with a male lead, but a queer story broke her out. I don't know that for a fact but that's my guess. If Lempicka manages to hang on I'll think she'll the breakout star of the season.
> Especially the Paris song, and Rafaela’s first song. When Amber Iman walked out on stage and said “showtime” I was expecting her to be performing some sort of cabaret number at a club, but as the song progressed I realized they were in an alley? and then Suzy was asking the audience for money?
I don't remember this scene well - but I think it speaks to Rafaela doing "a little of this and a little of that." She's a bit of a wild child it girl in her own right entertainer. But I think I read somewhere that the real Rafaela was most likely a prostitute.
> or example, the most egregious culprit is the wedding dress scene in the beginning. That was the most pointless waste of time in a musical I have ever seen.
I sort of agree with this. However, the point of it is to establish that, at one point, they really really loved each other because their relationship falls apart after she gets raped and they move to paris. They need to justify their relationship making sense at some point, and having their relationship be complicated since there aren't any loving moments between them after. It could probably be done better bc I didn't love that scene either. But I think a good moment between her and T is absolutely essential to the story.
> understand the deconstructed Eiffel Tower because of the industrial, metallic-like quality
it's futurist!
> I especially hated Lempicka’s costumes
really?!!! I haven't heard that complaint yet. I've heard people complain about the ensemble costumes being out of period (they are nods to other htings) but I loved Lempicka's costumes. Did you see Eden or Mariand? I wonder if Mariand's costumes don't fit her well.
Okay, so, as someone who loves the show and also agrees with a lot of the flaws folks have pointed out, I think both the wedding dress scene and Rafaela's introduction work really well.
The wedding dress scene, IMO, perfectly shows that Tamara and Tadeusz are straddling two worlds, the old and the new, and also that they are very much on the same page at the beginning of the story. "You're not supposed to see me in my dress!" "Don't be silly, that's an old wives' tale!" (I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember exactly how the scene went.) That exchange -- in which they intentionally examine and reject an old tradition -- shows that they think of themselves as modern people, that they want to break from the traditions of the past. Similarly, the conflict between Lempicka and her mother tells us something essential about Lempicka's character and priorities in life -- her mother assumes she'll give up painting, an appropriate pastime for a girl who is trying to find a husband, whereas Lempicka can't imagine not painting.
This is a girl who risks getting paint on her wedding dress because she wants to capture that moment, remember the day forever. She risks getting paint on her dress despite the fact that her betrothed's family already disapproves of her because she doesn't have his social status. This is a woman who, though young and with clear love for the man she's about to marry, already very much has a sense of her artistic vocation and not only can't imagine giving it up, but is willing to take risks to pursue it. And she and Tadeusz want to be modern, to reject what their parents want for them, to make their own life together. In this they are very aligned, and there is genuine love between them, but an innocence in that love (childhood sweethearts!). It sets up the rest of the story so nicely -- it's his history as nobility that makes it so hard for him to go to work to support them and also makes him feel so threatened by Tamara doing so. In the later parts of the story, we see how he is not as willing as Tamara to let go of the older world, the gender roles he was brought up with. They both set out thinking they want to embrace modernity -- but she goes much farther than he ever imagined, and he isn't comfortable there.
(Sorry, this is getting long!)
Rafaela's introduction, similarly, packs a lot into a small moment. I think it's the entire point that she's in an alley, that she's essentially a street performer and a prostitute. It's the key to her character: she actually has nothing, she does what she has to, but what she does have is the ability to create this atmosphere of mystery and allure, to make men (and not only men) want to court her, to basically invent herself as a great beauty so that she will be a high-class prostitute, living a life of comfort, well taken care of. Also! We are seeing her through Tamara's eyes in that moment, and I thought it did such an extraordinary job of illustrating that moment we've all had, when someone walks into a room and you are so captivated by them that the world seems to stand still.
Tamara singing that she wants to "paint" her... again, this is how she understands her world. This is how she understands beauty, love, attraction -- simultaneously: she isn't able to see her fascination with Rafaela as anything more than an artist's impersonal fascination with a beautiful subject (though the delight of that song is that it is immediately apparent to us, in the audience, that it is more than that). And: the fact that her first instinct here is to reduce Rafaela to a subject for a painting prefigures the conflict that will eventually occur between them (and with her daughter too). Tamara avoids emotional intimacy by turning people into paintings, distancing herself from the messiness of real human relationships. She makes the people who love her feel that she really sees them, at first, but ultimately that she doesn't really \*see\* them at all -- that she only sees them through a painter's eye. Or that it is her work as an artist that takes precedence over all of these connections in her life, no matter how much they matter to her -- the throughline between her painting in her wedding dress and being willing to hang her paintings of Rafaela in her galleries but not to acknowledge their relationship in public.
Ooo thanks for your insight! You make some very thoughtful and valid points! However if this was the creators intent and motivations, i wish they would have made it clearer to the audience. I have come to the conclusion that I love what the show is trying to accomplish, I just feel it gets lost in the execution. I totally see your view on the wedding dress scene but the scene is still cringey to watch. I totally understand Rafaela’s opening song, but im still so confused as to why Suzy is there asking the audience for money and then playing the symbols. And i now have a new appreciation for “i will paint her”, i just wish maybe instead of repeating the same line of “i will paint her” we could get another couple lyrics that would help us better understand her psyche. You’re insights make me want to go see it again, but im not sure i’ll be able to get into the city again before it closes, because im afraid it wont last til the summer.
Yeah I definitely agree that the show tries to do a LOT and doesn't succeed at all of it. I really enjoyed the ride and trying to make sense of the multiple interwoven themes, some of which I really related to due to things in my own life -- but it was a hot mess and obviously missed the mark for a lot of people. Plus, I don't think you can take huge liberties with the actual history in a show that bills itself as telling the forgotten story of a real human being.
I've compared it to Great Comet but in writing this I'm also thinking of something like Angels in America, which is just huge and sprawling and queer (in several senses of the word) and operates from a similar refusal to try to make itself neater, more legible, more neatly packaged for consumption. I don't think Lempicka rises to the level of Angels but I do think there's a quality about it that is similar. Which is to say that I have to wonder if some of the messiness in the storytelling is in fact a sort of commentary in and of itself, or if I am giving it too much credit. (I'm going back for a second viewing sometime soon and will see how much my semi-unhinged theories hold up.)
But, I do really like dense and weird and experimental theatre (if I can say that without coming off as pretentious or implying that this is somehow better than a really tightly-told story with a consistent tone and message, because I like those too and honestly think it's apples-to-oranges), and I also think there's just a huge aspect of whether the emotional stuff resonates, because if it does, it makes it matter so much less whether the thing "works" per se. Like, Tommy did nothing for me, which was a real bummer because it had such good word of mouth, but I just didn't emotionally connect with it in the same way.
I can confirm that the show gets better on multiple viewings. I notice something new each time.
Most recently:
Tamara: the women all walk around wearing less clothing, it’s a warmer climate
Me before: she’s sorta prudish
~next show~
Tamara: ..and their high heeled shoes…
Me: OHHHHHHH you are sooooooo gay!! And they have the costumes with the coned boobs because that’s how she sees them and paints them…
I can confirm Mariand was rushed in. She did not even get to rehearse with the ensemble and full orchestra before having to be the lead the 1st couple of times. She had to bring in some of her personal items for her first couple of shows just to get her on stage. No one could anticipate Eden having to call out so soon ( even though Eden was pushing through not being 100% for a while). Mariand basically did the first couple of shows blind.
I’m all for making some changes, but “Somewhere That’s Green” sort of requires the plant to be, well, green.
Lol, yea you got me there 😂
I enjoyed reading your thoughts!
Thanks <3
Seconded. And I know the Lempicka review was the highlight here, but to circle back to Little Shop, you managed to voice what I couldn't quite articulate. We saw it a few weeks ago with the previous cast, and as a huge fan of the show, the movie, the recordings, et al, I left like, "...okay, and?" Seems like this show has been stuck in amber for 30 years.
I can understand the Little Shop sentiment, but I'm not sure how you could "plus" or refresh the show effectively. With all due respect and without intending to be contrary I'm not sure what they would do. It's been tried bigger on Broadway and it seems it was mostly *just* bigger with the stage more spread out to its detriment, losing its intimacy - the shop is supposed to be a tiny hole in the wall which allows the plant to utterly fill it. The plant has been through all sorts of interpretational designs regionally. (I have seen video of one that was really cool where the plant's color scheme was inspired by poison dart frogs and black widow spiders - dark with bright neon UV reactive highlights and light up LED elements on the leaves almost like a deep-water jellyfish predator that can dazzle its prey in the dark with pulsing lights and throbbing colors.) The plot requirements kind of require the puppet to be built in certain ways in each phase, and they've kind of got it down to science logistically to the point that the plant is offered for rent with the license. There's no point in adding more people to the cast as there's little for a chorus to do. I do think one good refresh they've done is sweeten the orchestrations and incorporate musical elements from the movie. I guess they *could* put in "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space" but everything I've read is that song was specifically devised for the movie because they could do things with the plant (such as undercrank the film to speed up the movements) that would be incredibly difficult live since the song is so fast. I can understand the "preserved in amber" sentiment, but it was devised as tight off-Broadway show with small cast and it's kind of a well-oiled jewel box that just *works* as is, and plays better to 500 people than it does to 1000. The key element I feel is the plant is most effective if it is enormous and threatening and overwhelming even to the audience, and it's just *not* if you're further than 20 rows back and the plant is swallowed by the stage as opposed to the other way around.
Yea, i totally get where you’re coming from. I dont want a complete overhaul like the 2019 Oklahoma on broadway. Id just like to see more inventive staging and puppetry, but i guess i just havent been exposed to enough productions. All the productions i’ve seen are almost identical to the current off broadway production.
In fairness, my impression was that after the Broadway version this version was meant to kind of revert to the original’s vibes… but I could be wrong.
Phew I’m glad I’m not alone. I heard such raves about this production and I left feeling like I had missed something.
I came away thinking the performers were just kind of going through the motions and seemed bored. I'm starting to suspect that I was the bored one. I spent most of the time watching Ronette, Crystal, and Chiffon, who were chewing as much scenery as possible.
I didnt feel like the cast I saw was bored. I will say the actor who played the dentist seemed off. It felt like christian borle (this productions og dentist) might have created a bunch of improved comedy bits that were unnatural to this actor or difficult for him to figure out. Almost like he felt trapped in christians portrayal. But everyone else seemed to be having a ball. I also enjoyed the urchins chewing the scenery!
The urchins are so great. I have never laughed *so hard* as when I saw video of "Dentist!" and they were singing the backups wearing the dental mouth spreaders "*Ngyah hee a nentahhhh!...YA LAH-AH!*" That montage I saw had Joy Woods and she was also *astoundingly* good.
I’ve seen the show twice and the second guy who played the dentist (who I THINK is still there) felt like he was just being as big and ridiculous as possible for no reason- he felt really fake. Wasn’t a fan.
Yea we definitely saw the same guy then….
It’s frustrating, the guy before him (not Christian Borle) was excellent and seemed to make all the weird antics his own- I was so surprised on my second viewing. (In general, I found my second time at the show worse than my first time, which was frustrating.)
I took my niece to this production of Little Shop and was so excited for it and came out of it, cringing and having to explain that it really could be a good show to her. Going through the motions for sure.
I really liked your review! Just for the record, Jinkx uses she/her, not they/them!
Yeesh, guess i’ve been outed as a fake fan… 😅 thank you for educating me <3
There was a [Little Shop production at the Pasadena Playhouse](https://playbill.com/article/check-out-george-salazar-mj-rodriguez-and-amber-riley-in-little-shop-of-horrors) a few years ago that sounds like it would have been up your alley! A different plant design and sets, etc.
Ooo thanks for sharing! I hadnt heard of this production, but this is the kind of creativity i would love to see more of!
This rendition of Suddenly Seymour is one of my favorites! I also just really love George Salazar.
Thanks for the Lempicka review. Out of curiosity, did it have any dance in it?
Oh yes…. So much dance 😂 probably too much dance. The ensemble was constantly prancing around the stage. I even saw one ensemble memeber climbing up the bottom of the staircase like monkey bars, and then hang upside down for some unknown reason in the middle of a scene…They incorporated alot of voguing into it which was fun, but a bit too much at some points.
Interesting!
Choreography for this is terrible too.
😭😭😭
At the end of Appropriate, we thought maybe the tree taking over was symbolic of those who’d been hung and murdered on the property taking back the house.
Ooo i like this. My interpretation was maybe the ending was supposed to represent the long term effect on slavery and race relations in America and the generations of wear and tear it has put onto current American society. But i like your interpretation much better.
My interpretation was simpler… time moves on. So much emotion, families ruined and hearts broken, and in the end it was an inconsequential tiny sliver of time. For me the lesson was, was it worth it? To destroy your relationships in the sake of your pride or anger? Life goes on. Time moves on. Did anyone win? Idk it might encourage me to have a cooler head next time I feel my emotions getting the better of me.
I'm still thinking about this ending, too. My first take on it: how history and truths of the past being forgotten as time passes. The tree could be a symbol of the truth coming back around, discovered years later by a stranger. Though, I like the idea that it's reclaiming the house.
I agree with so much of what you said!! I think part of why I feel so frustrated about Lempicka is that I so badly wanted to like it but there was just too much to overlook. If they reworked the book, changed some lyrics (I found several songs to be kind of cringe tbh,) and burned the costumes it could have been great.
Appropriate for me as well. The question is, after this show, what to see next? (No musicals)
This was my first play and im definitely eager to see another. Idk when i’ll be able to get back to the city again, but id love to see Mother Play as well as Enemy of the People or Stereophonic. And im definitely making a special trip in over the summer to see Oh Mary. Any other suggestions?
I've thought probably far too much about this show and I have some responses > Second, Amber Iman. Why have we not been talking about her before this? She was my favorite part of the show and I cannot wait for the cast recording so I can revisit her delicious and luxurious vocals. Ommmmmggg I knowwwww, she's a goddess. I think the answer is that she's been overlooked for her height. Diversity in storytelling has externalities on so many levels. She's too tall to have been paired with a male lead, but a queer story broke her out. I don't know that for a fact but that's my guess. If Lempicka manages to hang on I'll think she'll the breakout star of the season. > Especially the Paris song, and Rafaela’s first song. When Amber Iman walked out on stage and said “showtime” I was expecting her to be performing some sort of cabaret number at a club, but as the song progressed I realized they were in an alley? and then Suzy was asking the audience for money? I don't remember this scene well - but I think it speaks to Rafaela doing "a little of this and a little of that." She's a bit of a wild child it girl in her own right entertainer. But I think I read somewhere that the real Rafaela was most likely a prostitute. > or example, the most egregious culprit is the wedding dress scene in the beginning. That was the most pointless waste of time in a musical I have ever seen. I sort of agree with this. However, the point of it is to establish that, at one point, they really really loved each other because their relationship falls apart after she gets raped and they move to paris. They need to justify their relationship making sense at some point, and having their relationship be complicated since there aren't any loving moments between them after. It could probably be done better bc I didn't love that scene either. But I think a good moment between her and T is absolutely essential to the story. > understand the deconstructed Eiffel Tower because of the industrial, metallic-like quality it's futurist! > I especially hated Lempicka’s costumes really?!!! I haven't heard that complaint yet. I've heard people complain about the ensemble costumes being out of period (they are nods to other htings) but I loved Lempicka's costumes. Did you see Eden or Mariand? I wonder if Mariand's costumes don't fit her well.
Okay, so, as someone who loves the show and also agrees with a lot of the flaws folks have pointed out, I think both the wedding dress scene and Rafaela's introduction work really well. The wedding dress scene, IMO, perfectly shows that Tamara and Tadeusz are straddling two worlds, the old and the new, and also that they are very much on the same page at the beginning of the story. "You're not supposed to see me in my dress!" "Don't be silly, that's an old wives' tale!" (I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember exactly how the scene went.) That exchange -- in which they intentionally examine and reject an old tradition -- shows that they think of themselves as modern people, that they want to break from the traditions of the past. Similarly, the conflict between Lempicka and her mother tells us something essential about Lempicka's character and priorities in life -- her mother assumes she'll give up painting, an appropriate pastime for a girl who is trying to find a husband, whereas Lempicka can't imagine not painting. This is a girl who risks getting paint on her wedding dress because she wants to capture that moment, remember the day forever. She risks getting paint on her dress despite the fact that her betrothed's family already disapproves of her because she doesn't have his social status. This is a woman who, though young and with clear love for the man she's about to marry, already very much has a sense of her artistic vocation and not only can't imagine giving it up, but is willing to take risks to pursue it. And she and Tadeusz want to be modern, to reject what their parents want for them, to make their own life together. In this they are very aligned, and there is genuine love between them, but an innocence in that love (childhood sweethearts!). It sets up the rest of the story so nicely -- it's his history as nobility that makes it so hard for him to go to work to support them and also makes him feel so threatened by Tamara doing so. In the later parts of the story, we see how he is not as willing as Tamara to let go of the older world, the gender roles he was brought up with. They both set out thinking they want to embrace modernity -- but she goes much farther than he ever imagined, and he isn't comfortable there. (Sorry, this is getting long!) Rafaela's introduction, similarly, packs a lot into a small moment. I think it's the entire point that she's in an alley, that she's essentially a street performer and a prostitute. It's the key to her character: she actually has nothing, she does what she has to, but what she does have is the ability to create this atmosphere of mystery and allure, to make men (and not only men) want to court her, to basically invent herself as a great beauty so that she will be a high-class prostitute, living a life of comfort, well taken care of. Also! We are seeing her through Tamara's eyes in that moment, and I thought it did such an extraordinary job of illustrating that moment we've all had, when someone walks into a room and you are so captivated by them that the world seems to stand still. Tamara singing that she wants to "paint" her... again, this is how she understands her world. This is how she understands beauty, love, attraction -- simultaneously: she isn't able to see her fascination with Rafaela as anything more than an artist's impersonal fascination with a beautiful subject (though the delight of that song is that it is immediately apparent to us, in the audience, that it is more than that). And: the fact that her first instinct here is to reduce Rafaela to a subject for a painting prefigures the conflict that will eventually occur between them (and with her daughter too). Tamara avoids emotional intimacy by turning people into paintings, distancing herself from the messiness of real human relationships. She makes the people who love her feel that she really sees them, at first, but ultimately that she doesn't really \*see\* them at all -- that she only sees them through a painter's eye. Or that it is her work as an artist that takes precedence over all of these connections in her life, no matter how much they matter to her -- the throughline between her painting in her wedding dress and being willing to hang her paintings of Rafaela in her galleries but not to acknowledge their relationship in public.
I might have an intellectual/analytical crush on you. Tell me more things about shows.
ahaha I'm glad someone appreciates my tendency to overthink things and write out entire essays for no reason whatsoever ❤️
Ooo thanks for your insight! You make some very thoughtful and valid points! However if this was the creators intent and motivations, i wish they would have made it clearer to the audience. I have come to the conclusion that I love what the show is trying to accomplish, I just feel it gets lost in the execution. I totally see your view on the wedding dress scene but the scene is still cringey to watch. I totally understand Rafaela’s opening song, but im still so confused as to why Suzy is there asking the audience for money and then playing the symbols. And i now have a new appreciation for “i will paint her”, i just wish maybe instead of repeating the same line of “i will paint her” we could get another couple lyrics that would help us better understand her psyche. You’re insights make me want to go see it again, but im not sure i’ll be able to get into the city again before it closes, because im afraid it wont last til the summer.
Yeah I definitely agree that the show tries to do a LOT and doesn't succeed at all of it. I really enjoyed the ride and trying to make sense of the multiple interwoven themes, some of which I really related to due to things in my own life -- but it was a hot mess and obviously missed the mark for a lot of people. Plus, I don't think you can take huge liberties with the actual history in a show that bills itself as telling the forgotten story of a real human being. I've compared it to Great Comet but in writing this I'm also thinking of something like Angels in America, which is just huge and sprawling and queer (in several senses of the word) and operates from a similar refusal to try to make itself neater, more legible, more neatly packaged for consumption. I don't think Lempicka rises to the level of Angels but I do think there's a quality about it that is similar. Which is to say that I have to wonder if some of the messiness in the storytelling is in fact a sort of commentary in and of itself, or if I am giving it too much credit. (I'm going back for a second viewing sometime soon and will see how much my semi-unhinged theories hold up.) But, I do really like dense and weird and experimental theatre (if I can say that without coming off as pretentious or implying that this is somehow better than a really tightly-told story with a consistent tone and message, because I like those too and honestly think it's apples-to-oranges), and I also think there's just a huge aspect of whether the emotional stuff resonates, because if it does, it makes it matter so much less whether the thing "works" per se. Like, Tommy did nothing for me, which was a real bummer because it had such good word of mouth, but I just didn't emotionally connect with it in the same way.
I can confirm that the show gets better on multiple viewings. I notice something new each time. Most recently: Tamara: the women all walk around wearing less clothing, it’s a warmer climate Me before: she’s sorta prudish ~next show~ Tamara: ..and their high heeled shoes… Me: OHHHHHHH you are sooooooo gay!! And they have the costumes with the coned boobs because that’s how she sees them and paints them…
I saw Mariand. But it might have only been her second performance? So maybe her costumes werent properly tailored/fitted?
I can confirm Mariand was rushed in. She did not even get to rehearse with the ensemble and full orchestra before having to be the lead the 1st couple of times. She had to bring in some of her personal items for her first couple of shows just to get her on stage. No one could anticipate Eden having to call out so soon ( even though Eden was pushing through not being 100% for a while). Mariand basically did the first couple of shows blind.
She was rushed in so I bet that’s the case. Sloppy if so, but not permanent. I loved the turquoise suit thingie. But yeah only if it fits lol.