Last night, I attended the official — dare I say, gala — opening of Gladstone Theater’s Noises Off. I am tempted to add “gala” to “opening” because the Gladstone knows how to cater a post-show reception! There were heaps of fresh oysters, shrimp, and other tasty treats.
The show itself was a treat too. I may be one of the few people in the theatre-world who has never seen (or, at least, who can’t recall seeing) a production of Noises Off, so I approached it with very fresh eyes. If you are unfamiliar with the show, check out the wikipedia entry.
It’s farce, pure and simple, this ensemble is strong across the board, and the show is well-executed. Ray “the O-G Man”, my date for the evening, has seen the production a couple of times. He said he rarely laughs out loud in shows and the Noises Off team had him guffawing pretty quickly.
The stand-outs in the cast, in alphabetical order, are: John Koensgen, Michelle LeBlanc, Steve Martin, Chris Ralph, and Colleen Sutton. The entire team is solid but these folks were the sharpest and most committed by my eyes and ears.
My only genuine complaint concerns the script, which is routinely said to be one of the funniest contemporary scripts out there. In ACT 2, we are privy to all kinds of backstage shenanigans which eventually spill on-stage and disrupt the imaginary performance. In ACT 3, this time from the perspective of the imaginary audience, we watch the performer’s absolutely butcher the play.
On my view, ACT 2 would be much funnier, if the shenanigans occur but don’t ever spill on-stage. There would, I think, be more comedic tension if we see the cast dancing near the brink, without falling off.
Moreover, I think the pay-off in ACT 3 would be much funnier because it would be the first time we witness things going horribly wrong on-stage. Surprise is an essential element of comedy and because of the on-stage failings witnessed in ACT 2, we are not at all surprised by the on-stage failings of ACT 3. This probably also serves to explain why the on-stage failings of ACT 3 becomes so outrageous. Because we’ve seen it happen already, there is nowhere left to go but completely over the top.
The Gladstone production negotiates this shortcoming in the script with verve and tenacity. They go for it full-out and keep driving the pace and energy right through until the end. The highlight of the show, by far, is ACT 2 where so much good fun is happening that it is impossible to keep track of it all. I can easily imagine people returning for another performance to see what other hilarity was missed the first time around.
I also recommend folks watch the set get moved around. It is a fascinating process to watch. It happens twice, of course, so go enjoy a drink during the longer first intermission. The much shorter second intermission will be well-spent watching this mini-ballet.
Does anyone have any thoughts about the play itself, this production, or other productions they have seen? Comments are always appreciated. 
For more posts like this, click here.
Adorkable Thespian
September 6, 2009
I’m ambivalent about farce. They’re a little unwieldy — difficult to write, difficult to perform. It’s like couture. If it everything doesn’t fit precisely there’s no point.
The Gladstone’s production of Noises Offis a nice fit. I think it’s reputation as *the* contemporary farce is deserved. I think John P. Kelly, the cast and the crew put together a top-notch production.
I do agree with your analysis of the script. The backstage humour during Act II was more than enough to keep me howling. Restraint may well have served to make Act III that much funnier – although I was laughing so hard during the last act, my abs were in crisis. I don’t how much more humour I could have endured.
Funly times, all around. I came, I saw, I laughed until my bladder was in dire crisis.
sterlinglynch
September 6, 2009
That is what they call a ringing endorsement….
Chantale
September 6, 2009
Act I for me the pacing could have been better. Act II and III more then made up for it but some movements still look like counting dance steps to my eyes (having done farce). Some really stand out performances for me included : Steve Martin, Chris Ralph, Colleen Sutton, and John K. I’ve seen this twice before and agree with you about Act II. But still have a fun ride.
sterlinglynch
September 6, 2009
Thanks for the additional thoughts Chantale!
Wayne C.
September 9, 2009
My review is here http://www.culturemagazine.ca/theatre/the_noises_off_review.html
I liked this post a lot. I guess another question that could be asked is has this play been performed too many times? I, like you, had never seen it before, but most people I talked to seemed very familiar with the show. I wonder what the saturation point for theatre is? Perhaps there isn’t one as each new production/cast will have a slightly different take on the show.
Regarding the third act, I think the show would have been stronger as a 2 Act play. Act 3 for me was very much a case of more of the same and I was a little bored (no character development just gags remain). That being said, everyone around me was guffawing loudly so I was very conscious that my experience was not that of the majority.
sterlinglynch
September 9, 2009
Thanks for posting your review. It helps the conversation!
Regarding the saturation point, it is impossible to say. Maybe, maybe not. Why do people insist on producing Comedy of Errors? It’s central and absurd premise makes it hard to stage (two sets of identical twins!) and it’s a pretty poor play. On the other hand, it’s accessible and pretty short Shakespeare. I think these latter considerations trump the former. People watch Three’s Company’s re-runs and that isn’t even performed live. And, of course, some great plays are rarely performed, etc, etc. So, I’m not convinced one could predict one way or the other.
It began life as an one-act play.