Wednesday, February 24, 2010
CMU's 'Inspector General' gaudy and unsubtle
Post Gazette: "Like President Bush, Nikolai Gogol didn't do nuance. His best-known play, 1836's 'The Inspector General' is an unsubtle satire about corrupt, stupid, lazy public officials and their silly families who are easily duped by a worthless young gambler from St. Petersburg."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Overall I really enjoyed CMU's Inspector General. It is gaudy and knows it, and it's not trying to be subtle or particularly intellectual about it. To me, by seeing how idiotic these people are and by seeing how funny i find them, it's after the show i realize how terrible the things I was laughing at are, and how unfortunate it it how often they are true.( that was a nice run-on) So for me it was very interesting to compare the reviews on this show. I'd have to agree with this critic about the loud and overtop style of this play. The other review however seems rather undeveloped and flat. If you don't like something I want to know why, and I really would like this critic to give more on why he didn't like the show. Granted, I think this kind of humor just isn't everyone's cup of tea - and some might find it too over the top.
I saw "Inspector General" last night, and greatly enjoyed it. However i think the points in this review are interesting, and indeed many of them are valid. The most valid of the points that the article makes is that of the two plebeian women who occasionally appear in the play. They do not play a big enough role or command enough presence to instill the "human factor" that the article talks about, and overall they seemed out of place in the show. I don't think they really added any comedy or significant themes to the production. The article also points out that the play is ancient, but this claim is easily fended off with the question "Why this play now?" The updated play easily answers this with the witty references to modern day situations that fit perfectly within the play.
I think some good points are made in the article, but almost unjustly attacks it. I enjoyed Inspector, and thought it was very funny. It was culturally relevant, had smart references but was very wordy, and cluttered. I think though everyone realized it's gaudieness and knew to play it, and their charactures, then real characters because the scarey thing is those people really are charactures. There is no difference. Inspector makes some valid points, but does like everything else have it's share of problems, that with some more time could be fleshed out and cleaned.
In your face may be a fair description of I think that was in part the intent. The culture today is really glitzy and this plays off it. What worries me is that a lot of the specific references the play makes might make the play insuitable for productions more then 10 or so years down the road. Though the overall story is relevant in a way which will not fade, this was a case when "why this play now" might result in the answer of "Because now is the only time this humor will be relevant".
Post a Comment