Comments on: The Government Inspector

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:24:06 +0000

I’ve been mystified by this review for weeks and it finally bothered me enough today to write a comment. Firstly the interpretation admirably updated and made amusing what was really an archaic script. There was little in the written dialogue to make me laugh, and yet I found myself laughing constantly through the energy of the performers. Secondly where is the mention of Alex Lawless and Justin Stathers. how the reviewer can justify not mentioning these performances is beyond me; it gives the impression that they did not exist when it was in reality virtually a 2 man play with a number of supporting actors. Lawless put so much energy into the performance I was afraid he was going to suffer a heartattack – and it paid off. Whilst Stathers gave a performance, that whilst dipped in some places, reached heights of real perfection in others. As an actor (not in this play) I feel the need to point out to some who view plays only from an audience’s perspective the amount of effort injected into every sentence to keep the audience interested and that delivering long monologues whilst just keeping the audience’s attention takes a great deal of skill and is hugely difficult – the monologue Stather’s delivered before the interval not only was a good 10 minutes long but carried the audience along with every word. Well Done!
…Come on – be more appreciative of the those actors killing themselves on stage for your entertainment!

By: FancyThat

FancyThat — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:34:02 +0000

Perhaps it was the exuberant performances of this talented cast that has caused this fundamental error of fact, perhaps it was the reviewers’ inability to deal with the monumental task of both watching the production and counting; either way this bizarre issue of cast numbers needs to be put to rest before any analysis of this laughable review can be conducted. There were 17 characters, a cast of 15 with two doubles. Now sadly this is not the first time that a Nouse reviewer has failed to judge a production on its own terms. The evaluation that “they stumbled into confusing stage energy with overacting” surely reflects the reviewers’ failure to grasp the nature of this wholly eccentric play. Yes the characters may not be subtle, the plot may not be complicated, and the audience may well at times be left in a state of confusion at the rambling rants of the Mayor and Khlyestakov, but the comedy and charm of this strange little play lies in Gogol’s portrayal of the absurd and the grotesque, not in any misguided attempt at subtle character development.

Furthermore I would like to follow in the footsteps of MacGuffin and pause for a moment on the reviewer’s praise of Josh Giles and Ned Roberts. The claim that they were “delightful in their chemistry together” was perhaps one of the most accurate statements in the entire review, but I was both shocked and dismayed at the callus dismissal of all the other performers. Surely the reviewer must recognise the irony in singing the praises of the two characters who best epitomised the phrase “one big screaming heap”.

Perhaps the simple nature of this sterling production was too unrefeened for our reviewer, and if so it is truly a shame. All I can say is that I thoroughly enjoyed this little play, and judging from the reaction of the Friday night audience I think I can say with some certainty that I was not the only one.

By: Podkatilovka

Podkatilovka — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:56:36 +0000

Maybe not to everyones taste, but according to the programme there were only 17 characters. Nitpicking perhaps, but given that it’s mentioned twice, the least Nouse could do is check it’s got a basic fact like that right.

By: MacGuffin

MacGuffin — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:45:22 +0000

The Government Inspector is a comedy of errors, and a farce as much as it is a satire. A play in which most of the characters are country yokels, corrupt and ineffectual officials or both is one in which subtlety is not central, nor should it have pretensions towards it. After all, the script includes the memorable stage direction ‘He dances with rage’. Satire relies of caricature, and the characters frankly seem to have been written as such.

This review raised my eyebrow with its praise of the incredibly exuberant comedy duo of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky, a pair of local gossips and stereotypical village idiots. They deserve the praise, but why do the rest of the case deserve nothing but criticism for the same? Some truly memorable experiences have been unfairly glossed over by this review, for example Alex Lawless’s Mayor remained angry throughout without alienating an audience (no easy feat), Rachel Lerman’s portrayal of his would—be aristocratic and haughty wife was first-rate and Ed Lewis-Smith excelled in the role of the cynical and morose manservant Ossip.

There is a huge difference between putting on and reading a play; for start, you have to amuse an audience who presumably all have different tastes, and you have to actually watch the Mayor dance with rage.

If the laughter was anything to go by, the play was a resounding success.

By: Theatre Go-er

Theatre Go-er — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 09:26:16 +0000

I don’t think this review is very fair. It seems to negate all of the humour within the production.
“The Russian play had all the promise of an excellent theatre experience – humour, mistaken identity and a wide and animated cast of 19 characters” – in my opinion, the play delivered on all of these points.

By: Sami Rose Sterjon

Sami Rose Sterjon — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:40:56 +0000

I wish there was an actual Russian literary cannon. But even if it was a piece worth considering as true poetic canon, the word overacting seems a bit harsh. Theatre is supposed to have an element of obviousness about it and putting humour over the delicacy of other interpretations may simply show that this was performed for students. And that seems like a reasonable evaluation to me.

By: Lawless

Lawless — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:19:37 +0000

Fair enough, it wasn’t big, it wasn’t clever, but it was mo-foing funny. “Failed to entertain” is a bit harsh. Well, perhaps not harsh, more fallacious. How does the reviewer explain their gross misrepresentation of the hilarity exhibited by the Friday night audience? Perhaps she responsible for this hatchet job on the performance would, in future, take note of the audience’s reaction before dictating Nouse’s omniscient opinion on the evening’s proceedings.

Moreover, I would be curious to know what the reviewer considers an excellent script. It’s really nothing special… just because the reviewer studied it at A level does not make it part of the Russian Literary cannon. It was a witty representation of a farce: I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate it.