The Government Inspector: Context

The Government Inspector, variously translated as The Inspector General or the Inspector is a play written by Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol, who was born in 1809, and originated in Ukraine.
After being ignored, feeling humiliated and ignored at some of his first works that he begun to write, Nikolai wrote found his turn around when he wrote two books and two essays, including The Government Inspector.  The Government Inspector managed to grab the Tzar's attention, who liked it so much that he requested that it be made into a play, the first ever production being performed in 1836.

The Government Inspector is a satirical play, so highly emphasised that, the Tzar was able to see and feel that not only did it ridicule himself, but everyone also.  The emphasis on the political truth being played on is what obviously stuck out to the Tzar and demanded that it be performed.
Gogol wanted The Government Inspector to be an awareness of everything bad that was happening in Russia.  It was a way of venting his failings of how he felt Russia had failed not only him but everyone.  Gogol was "...aware of at that time, all the injustices being perpetrated in those places and circumstances that especially cried out for justice...Through the laughter, which I had never before vented with such force, the reader could feel my deep sorrow".
Having sought inspiration from Pushkin for a new satrical play, Gogol was able to build his essay, loosely basing the elements of the play on Alexander Pushkin  (who was a Russian author and was a strong influence of Russian literature), who was accidentally mistaken for a government inspector in 1833.

The Government Inspector is about a small Russian Town in a frenzy about a Inspector arriving incognito, very soon to investigate their town.
The Mayor who has been tipped by a friend about the Inspectors visit, and advised to clean up the town and hide any incriminating evidence that might tarnish his name.  From there a meeting is then conducted of how to represent the town and make a good impression such as The Judge getting rid of geese, Zemlyanika in giving patients clean nightcaps etc.  As the Judge is quick to point out the flaws of his counterparts, so are the other public officials who remind the Judge that he takes monetary bribes and had the wife of a non-commissioned officer flogged.  On request, the mayor advises the postmaster to open all letters in hopes to suss out the Inspector so they have the upperhand.  However the advice is pointless as the Postmaster makes it his mission to read all letters regardless.
From there, events begin to spiral out of control.

From what we can gather in the play, the officials of the small Russian town that the Inspector comes to visit, are corrupt.  This is evident when The Judge, The Constable, Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky etc, come forward one by one and decide to clear their names while burying their co-workers names into the dirt.  While they feel they are being smart, a typical adage of the right time, right place was perfect for Khlestakov, an opportunity of which he certainly takes advantage to his benefit.
The stage directions of Bobchinsky peeping around the door, straining to listen are of importance to the play which plays on the deception of Khlestakov who has been overheard before hand by the brothers that he is from St. Petersburg.  The stage directions are important here, showing the spread of misinformation as Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky are the key to relaying the occurrences to others, thus creating chaos and disorder from beginning to end.  The audience is given insight into who Khlestakov is really by Osip who is his servant, who reveals that Khlestakov has gambled away his money, always broke, always selling his clothes to get funds.  Instantly the audience is able to see that Khlestakov is indeed broke and cannot pay his bill, after some persuasion, the waiter unwillingly brings him some poorly made meals that brings Khlestakov into uproar thus him meeting the Mayor.  From there, the small Russian town is turned upside down and everything is admist as Khlestakov plays the situation to his advantage, even taking money in the process.

There are many techniques used within the play.
During Act One, when the Mayor does arrive at the Inn to meet with Khlestakov, there is dramatic irony present because they are both terrified of one another.  The Mayor thinking he is meeting the Government Inspector; Khlestakov thinking he going to be imprisoned.  The irony is continued throughout the play during the interactions of the townspeople and Khlestakov.
There are a lot of 'Asides' as these reveal the inner thoughts of the characters that only the audience are aware of.  This allows the audience to see an internalised thought of a character externalised and reveals more insight into the situation at hand. Hyperbole, Khlestakov's description of the food that he receives at the inn is highly exaggerated, considering he was complaining that he was hungry.  This highlights one of the momentous desires of the characters within the play as a whole, the desire for self-gratification, seeking only the best, even though they don't deserve it.  Dobchinsky also exaggerates aspects of Khlestakov's character when he is talking to Anna and Marya, adding to Khlestakov's mistaken identity.

During that time period of Russia, civil servants were divided into subsequent ranks.  Khlestakov was of the lowest, 14th whilst the other town people are of higher ranks, such as 6th for the Mayor, 8th for the Judge.  The social ranks could be identified based on dress and the fact that they could speak French. Hence Khlestakov use of French at certain points in the play which helps contribute to his deception, and the theme of.

Osip, obviously involved in his Masters plans of deceiving the town, uses it also to his advantage to elevate his status although he is only a man-servant.  He hides behind Khlestakov's false picture, realising he can get a better treatment than he's been getting and like everyone else feels he is deserving of that better treatment thus taking away any sympathy the audience has for Osip away all at once.  This is also seen in the conversation Osip has with the Mayor, his wife and his daughter, when the Mayor asks what does his Master like.

During scenes with Khlestakov and the public officials that visit him privately, Khlestakov takes his role of the Inspector to the very extreme as he asks each one boldly for money.  He plays on the stupidity of the public officials who not once question why he should be asking for money, which makes sense as they themselves do the same thing.  If one was honest, maybe they would've seen this and aroused suspicion but when one is familiar with such deceitful works, it's simply monkey see, monkey do and don't question at all the motives behind such scandalous affairs.  Gogol uses this situation to represent how the government allowed people to take advantage of the system for their own benefit.

Anna Andreyevna and Marya Andreyevna have a very interesting relationship and it was this that drew me into picking either one of these characters to play.  Anna Andreyevna is the Mayor's wife and Marya Andreyevna is their daughter.  As I didn't have time to thoroughly read the play, I was more drawn to Marya, however upon further reading the script properly, I really enjoyed Anna Andrevyena's character and would've loved to have developed her character.  However after finding out that I'd be playing Marya, and saw how much lines I had, I thought I would see the silver lining in it as I did have auditions to prepare for and didn't want to overload myself.  Initially I had thought I could do so much more with Marya, but due to personal circumstances and auditions, I wasn't there for most rehearsals which I felt hindered the development of my role.  So much so that when I did have rehearsal opportunities which was around technical rehearsals there wasn't much I could do with my character.  I had to find ways to quickly develop my character in that space of time and in scenes with other people.
It was very stressful and infuriating trying to develop my character, especially as I thought that Marya didn't have much lines and the lines of importance she may have held was cut out.  I enjoyed being able to show Rob a snippet of my independent rehearsals during the short period where he saw me especially the scene between Khlestakov and Marya.  Being able to work with my fellow actors, I was able to help to add a sense of completeness to scenes I was in and could develop the scenes and interactions between other characters more effectively bringing emphasis to the themes such as class and stupidity.

What helped me with the basic development of my character was noting the interesting relationship she had with her mother.  It seemed to be a very competitive relationship; especially a jealous one that becomes evident when they both fight for the affection and attention of Khlestakov.
Gogol describes Anna Andreyevna as a woman 'who displays now and then a vain disposition'.  Her concern with appearance is indicated by the stage direction that she apparently changes her dress four times during the play, however we don't do this at the production at Westminster Kingsway, Anna only changing once when she hears that the Government Inspector has arrived and inquiries about it.  She shamelessly openly flirts with Khlestakov, and when he informs her of his engagement to Marya, she approves, only caring about the benefits from the marriage she will enjoy in St Petersburg.

Marya seems to be in direct competition with her mother, so much so that she spends her time and effort focusing on improving her appearance to please the men in town.  The relationship is pitiful that one could be sympathetic towards her, but at best, it is very amusing as an audience to watch such a relationship between mother and daughter that the under tones of the conversation is more pitifully humerous than saddening to watch.
I also took contrasting notes between Marya and Anna to that of Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky.  Where one was, the other would not be far behind, and it seemed that even they competed to be spoken and heard by overlapping one another and mimicking each other.  Marya and Anna seem to have similar circumstances such as when they was speaking to Osip and was competing with his attention.

Playing the role of Marya, I felt, wasn't really a challenge for me at the end of it all.  It was a theatrical masturbation in the sense that I was doing it for fun and felt that I hadn't developed myself as an actress as I had done with A Midsummer Night's Dream.  I felt the role was in some ways similar to Helena, who competed with Hermia to get Demetrius attention.  When I noticed that, I instantly wanted Anna's part although the vices were similar to that of Marya's objective.  If I was to ever do this play again, I would defiantly pick another character.

For next time, I would develop my character and try and work on my development independently no matter what other commitments I have.  I would commit more time to any role given to me which I have taken as an important lesson.

Friday 30th January 2015

Today we had Rob and in the morning we ran through the scripts we had gotten last week, Rob called people up to read parts of the scripts assigning parts. 
As I wasn't in last week, I had received the script today but had been fortunate to skim through Elliotts' script and was told that people have to read through the scripts and inform Rob of which parts they really like.  From what I had read, Anna and Marya have a interesting relationship for a mother and daughter.  It's a rivalrous relationship and while both characters are interesting, I leaned more towards Marya but Anna also has peaked my interests and I feel it would be interesting and fun bringing the characters out of my creativity and interpretation through the text.  It'd be very adventurous and fun to explore the character and bring them to life.  
As Rob noted that although we can tell him what parts we are interested in, we have to be warned that attendance and punctuality will have an effect on the parts assigned to us.  This made me feel less confident about getting the role I would like as my attendance has been affected by oyster card issues and being poorly, but I have to look at the silver linings.  I will be having auditions and will have to focus on learning my lines etc and I don't want to put too much on my plate.  Regardless of what role I have, I have already made up my mind to commit 100% to it and enjoy the character I play and that I am growing and developing myself as an actress and professionally. 

As we had the benefit to read through parts of the script today, I was able to explore more characters who I felt I would enjoy playing.  Overall I am not fussed with what part as I like the play and the more different characters I play, the more I can challenge my development as an actress. 

Rob explained what we had to do when we log our rehearsals and reminded us to expand and explain trying to relay our progress and development by correlating it to the play-writer, and the acting/technical techniques used to help with that development. 

To help with our logs, Rob gave us a sheet explaining:

For the "blog/log" of your work on The Government Inspector : 

You should, have made notes on the background to the play and notes on Nikolai Gogol. 
Look at his background and other works of his as well as influences. 

To consider: 
- What are the themes of the play and how relevant are they to an audience in 
2015? 
-What discussions have we had in the rehearsal room and how does this debate shape our and indeed your own approach to the work? 
- What are the challenges to yourself that the play presents, both as an actor and as a member of society in 2015. 
- What are the technical requirements for you as an actor ? 
- What wider reading does it encourage you to carry out and what has influenced you in this? 

Remember, if you merely list what we do and leave it at that you are potentially failing the unit, I need to see detailed rehearsal logs that go beyond the listing and seek to engage the reader into a deeper comprehension of the world surrounding this play.

Changes to the play will that it will be modernised as the main focus is the corruption of a small town so the time period and having to find clothes for that period won't be any trouble.  The language used is modernised also which helps Robs vision of the play being more modernised.  We will be using Brecht techniques which we've been focusing on from our previous units and the scripts has 'aside' stage directions which is directed to the audience thus breaking the fourth wall. 

Dario Fo in context : Accidental Death of an Anarchist

Dario Fo is an Italian actor-playwright, and director.  Fo's work, influenced by Bertholt Brecht and Antonio Gramsci, was political.  Fo was inspired by 'illegitimate' theatre and used it to his advantage of creating satirical plays towards right-winged parties.  Illegitimate theatre is exceptionally useful for social change, to provoke emotional reactions, discussion, reflection, and allows interaction between performers and spectators.

As Dario Fo is a communist, and has been likened to the 'jesters of the Middle age', he is able to produce works that express his views that poke fun at authority while 'upholding the dignity of the downtrodden'.
Dario Fo believed in social equality, and had a concern for where there was unjustified assumptions and inequality which I assume helped him to produce 'An Accidental Death of an Anarchist', as well as the real event that occurred.   Although we only do a little of the beginning of the scene and not the whole play, which I feel doesn't allow Dario Fo's views to be relayed upon the audience, but rather just gives the audience something to laugh at and be entertained, we as actors are able to understand what Dario Fo truly intended to put across when we get our scripts and go away and do our research, we come back more knowledge of the world around us.

A farce is a light, humourous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character.
A satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.  The Daily Show, South Park, Family Guy, newspapers exemplify the use of satires to educate uniformed audiences of political matters.
John Cleese said:

'If I can get you to laugh with me, you like me better, which makes you more open to my ideas.  And if I can persuade you to laugh at the particular point I make, by laughing at it you acknowledge its truth'.

Dario Fo's use of farce and satires allows Fo to express his views successfully towards his audience by using the emotional lever of humour, thus opening their minds to ideas they wouldn't directly face and rather reject.

Accidental Death of an Anarchist is a farce, a play designed to expose the lies and conflicting stories of each story relayed by the police about the 'accidental death of an anarchist' who fell to his death from a fourth-story window, while at the same time entertain the audience by highly exaggerating the situation.
Dario Fo bases the play around the events of on an anarchist railway worker, Giuseppi Pinelli, who was arrested in connection with a terrorist bombing in Milan while being interrogated at Police Headquarters fell to his death from a fourth-story window.  Fo believed that Pinelli's death was a plot executing a string of bombings, made by right-wing extremist to undermine the Italian Communist Party that they were leftists terrorists.
Having watched the play on Youtube, the Maniac, who seems to have a personality disorder, carries out a number of impersonations after being called in questioning for fraud but decides to be the interrogator to find out what really happened after stealing the file on the anarchist's death.  As the play is satirical, there is no development in the main character, the maniac, but rather we focus on the events.  The only development one can say is used, is the development of the Maniacs dream of becoming a judge.  Fo uses the Maniac to reveal the attempts made by the police to cover up the truth.  Fo stated that by 'injecting absurdity into the situation, the lies become apparent.'
In my research further into the play and stumbling on Dario Fo's article in American Theatre, my understanding became more transparent to the Maniacs interest in impersonating a judge.  As the maniac explains what's going on about wanting to be a judge, a edge of seriousness has to be imparted as it gets political.  There seems to be a link to the higher you grow the less you are linked to the real world but the maniac and the judge are closely relateable as the maniac seems to have a severed link to the real world although he understands what's going on he isn't exactly normal.  Although the Maniac explains how he'd love to impersonate a judge, Dario Fo allows the Maniac to actually become a judge to 'accuse, convict, judge, and pass sentence' on the police.
Dario Fo uses wit to create a normal interrogation scene to connect with a real life event, and make the maniac appear facetiously which captures the audience attention especially when they see that the maniac is too smart for his own good, and causes a disturbance within the station.  Dario Fo is able to impart his views that Pinelli was murdered due to conflicting statements about how he had died in this piece of theatre, adding onto the Brechtian style, and certainly getting the audience to laugh, then make them think, allowing him to make his cake and also eat it.

While reading the play and learning my lines, I noted that the Maniac seems to be fond of Sigmund Freud and proud in the fact he is a 'certified psychotic'.  I didn't understand the Maniacs reference of the fee being important to a treatment and Sigmund Freud.
On my research of Sigmund Freud and money, I came across that Sigmund Freud believed that treating a patient in analysis for free created a transference-countertransference problem that might doom the treatment to failure.  As the Maniac agrees with Freud that 'a fat bill is the most effective panacea especially for the doctor', my interpretation was that there was a correlation between the doctor receiving money for the treatment given, and the treatment given by the doctor.  Presumably I thought that mentally, one must feel that if a doctor charges very high for his treatment that his treatment is very beneficial.  A doctor could take advantage of a patients mindset if his family believe in 'the best care only' and charge whatever price for the treatment and the patient would gladly pay it because they believe they are getting better.  It is almost like a placebo effect, the more I pay, the better I will be.  This allowed me to understand the maniac that as a character, he is more than just a maniac.  He is a smart maniac.  Although he is labelled by society as a maniac and probably stupid, which society tends to steer clear from, he uses this to advantage by obviously being very knowledge, knowing Penal Codes,  making 'normal' people look stupid instead as when one does not know something, it is easier to confuse them which is probably how he has been able to get away with fraud twelve times.  By being proudly labelled a 'certified psychotic' he has used this to his advantage of getting away with crimes and getting the police to admit their heinous crime of covering up the truth.

Friday 5th December 2014

Today we did Accidental Death of an Anarchist, as I haven't been in due to not being well, this was my first rehearsal with the group, however as Mihali wasn't in, Sarah filled in as which was beneficial somewhat with helping with cue lines and as she is also a Constable.
Subtext the meaning behind what is being said.  Bertozzo (Emma) is talking to the audience for the first part of her lines and is breaking the fourth wall.  She is informing the audience of what is going on and what they'll see.  It is similar to Sharney's role in "Fear and Misery of the Third Reicht".  Rob wanted us to be more over the top as it is very Brechtian so suggested that she be obnoxious as a police officer she has seen everything.  We have to think of pantomimes as this will cause her to capture the audiences attention as it will engage the audience.

To personify me being a Maniac, Rob suggested that I be overdramatic and engage the audience when I can.

It was very beneficial to have rehearsed with the group as I could do so much more with my character to really personify and exaggerate being a Maniac.  I did notice that I was forgetting my lines, even though I knew them.  I believe this was due to not having rehearsed in a while because of being ill and knowing that the performance was next week so I felt under pressure to try and do well and show to my group and Rob that I was serious and open to constructive criticism and that I would take on board feedback to make the scene and my character better.
I really liked my character and the scene, but it is a shame that I didn't have enough time to rehearse but regardless the show must go on.

Friday 24th October 2014

Today was our final rehearsal and performance and we are reminded that just because we are playing the character doesn't mean that our energy levels and commitment to the character should not be low.  As we are just playing the characters, we are allowed to be over the top.  The characters are to be character coutured. 
I had actually forgotten and hadn't taken into account in playing the character.  As I am an old woman, in rehearsals I should give 100% regardless and I wasn't playing an old woman, I just remained as myself on stage.  To bring an element of truth to my character, I personified an old woman by being hunched over, talking slow and frail, and having a stick I use for reliance.  Feedback on my character was that it was better and believable than before. 
Despite there being no emotional attachment between character and actor this does not entail that we shouldn't play in the moment.  As actors we are to bring everything alive, so it is essential that we understand what's going on.  Although this might seem contradictory in understanding the role and what's going on, what Brecht wanted was for the audience to have their eyes opened and to be able to express his views through his style of theatre.  As actors we have to do our research on not the character, but Brecht himself, what caused him to write the play, what was going on at the time, what point is he trying to get across?  So we are to understand what is going on and bring alive Brecht's voice against fascism and cause the audience to be engaged and think.

At the end of the play Rob told Sharney to say:
If we want to live and therefore thrive, we must seek to smash the fascist hive. 
To make it more Brechtian, it would've been better as a placard which she could've read out aloud but show to the audience. 

Friday 3rd October 2014

From the suggestion of Sharney formerly remaining on stage throughout the play since she is the narrator, Sharney was to sit in the audience seats.  When it was her turn to speak, she would stand up.  As she is saying her lines, this gives the actors the chance to change scene and set up while on stage.  This strongly puts an emphasis on breaking the fourth wall literally as she engages the audience as part of the production by being seated with the audience and the audience can see the actors changing scene and putting props away to further remind them they are still watching theatre.  Sharney is to not just say it but understand what she is saying by emphasising with an attitude.  Brechts obvious intentions was to make the audience react; cognitively engaged.  It is on Sharney's shoulders to create that for the audience before the scene started.

During 'Charity begins at home' (Scene 16), I was advised to directly address/play to the audience by making them 'Erna' (the young woman, daughter of the old woman), 'Young Man'.  To do this while saying, 'you must take an apple, young man...' and 'Go on, Erna, you take one too...' I am to give the apple as if I am giving it to the audience then the actors who I am addressing take it.  This breaks the fourth wall and destroys any illusion of reality.

Evidence to promote epic theatre is within the script, the use of representation of characters and the linguistic use of third person.  There are no names at all assigned to the characters the actors play, the only suggestive idea of who they are to play is if they are male/female, young/old, husband/wife ect.  This resonates Brechts style of epic theatre of the actors not becoming one with their character; they are to just play it.  With the use of third person, reference can be imposed upon the audience as the actor is addressing anyone or anything other than the ones being addressed.  This breaks the fourth wall reminding the audience this isn't a sociable event but a political chance to cause a reaction in the audience to reflect and hopefully change society.

Friday 26th September 2014

Today was the first rehearsal in the Theatre for our Brecht play, "Fear and Misery of the Third Reich".  Rob wanted us to think about is how to make the play as Brechtian as possible.
To begin with the Brechtian theme, all the actors were placed on stage close to the wings but still evident to the audience that they were on stage. 

Rob set up the stage, placing three chairs equidistant, facing opposite the audience, helping to create further effectiveness to the awareness of the audiences perception that they are watching a play.  The set on stage is to present a suggestive idea rather than realistic although authentic props are used, on a naturalistic set props would be backstage as would the actors be. This is one of Brecht's Epic Theatre's techniques called the alienation effect to create detachment for the audience.

We suggested placards so each scene is introduced and that Sharney would read it or the actors from the previous scene hold it up for the next scene which I felt could be confusing for the audience because the audience might think the placard is for that scene instead of the scene afterwards.
Instead Sharney was made to stand on the side of the stage and read out the prologue but was suggested to stand in the middle of the stage with a spotlight on them which I feel is very Brecht because it engages the audience on a personal level, eliminating the fourth wall as if she is talking to the audience and has stepped out the play to narrate the background of what is going on at the time.
This is evident after the playlet: 'Judicial Process' (Scene 6), just before 'The Jewish Wife' (Scene 9), Sharney is to Break The Fourth Wall, by engaging with the audience by telling them 'Now we see how families are affected'.  Sharney is playing the part of a presenter, presenting what went on behind closed doors of the life of normal people during the rise of Hitler.  The use of narration is to remind the audience they are watching a presentation of a story which eliminates the audience becoming emotionally involved because they are forewarned of the outcome already.

To maintain the theory of Epic theatre so the audience know exactly what's going on, Rob suggested that to link the playlets together we could hang the placards up behind the props, and that Wendy and Parys (the SS men), could be involved in setting up the scenes.
In the playlet 'Charity begins at home' (scene 16), Sharney steps out of the character of being a narrator and becomes the young woman.  Unlike ordinary theatre where there is a character for every actor, Brecht had actors play different characters in Epic Theatre and making the play more Brechtian.
You can cleary see the contrast between the theories of Brecht and Stanislavsky as Brecht plays against the naturalistic style of Stanislavsky.  Stanislavsky wanted the actors assigned to their character to become one with that character thus absorbing the audience into the play while also allowing the audience to relate.  While Brecht wanted the actors to just play the character and not become the character thus the actor has the ability to easily play multiple characters because the actor has no connection to the previous character he played because he has easily disposed of that character to play another one.  Although Brecht and Stanislavsky had different approaches towards the style of theatre, they agreed on the embodiment of truth of that character; despite there being no connection with the character, Brecht wanted the actor to play the character with truth.