The Government Inspector promises a lot. It is both a withering critique of political corruption and a farce turning about gloriously caricatured officials. It has both dark semi-surreal elements and implicit appeals for social change. It wishes to entertain and stimulate thought. I was certainly well entertained – it was funny, though the slap-stick tended to dominate, leaving the unsettling satire a little neglected. Nabakov described the play as the “tense gap between the flash and the crash” that begin and end it. The opening freeze-frame, where each character animates one after the other, was admittedly striking, but the tension in the central section of the play came too slowly.
Let me quickly give those unfamiliar with Gogol (and I was among you before yesterday), the drift of the play. A government inspector is due to arrive any moment to a little town in the middle of nowhere, which is at the mercy of a host of political cronies, feeding off the poorest and leaving themselves corrupted. Chaos ensues with much bribing, tricking and seducing of the “inspector”, a revelation occurs, (I won’t spoil it for you) and we’re left wondering if justice will be exercised.
The acting in two words: generally good. As a pantomime-like mélange of vivid characters, the officials, played by Richard Gledhill, Angela Myers and friends, were amusing, complemented well by Tweedle- Dum-and-Tweedle-Dee-esque double act Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky. I say pantomime but I’m not sure if that’s exactly what Gogol was envisaging, but let’s go with it. On the other hand, Joe O’Connor as the “inspector” did a good job of changing the dynamic between the officials, with an often nuanced performance.
Just a few words on the overall aesthetic. The costumes were beautifully period and extravagant, reinforcing the impression of excess. Moderate, but well-judged use of music, sound and stage effects (e.g. a whirling of manuscripts from above when the inspector has a bout of madness, all with psychedelic lights) added to the impact, already strong owing to the intimate performance space.
Despite being one hundred and eighty years old, the play strikes you with its topicality – corruption and scandals abound. If you’re looking for a close examination of these issues, the play probably won’t offer you too much. If you’re idea of a good night out, however, this was definitely to be recommended.
THREE STARS
