Review: Trial by Laughter

Hey readers!
It's time for my review of Trial by Laughter.
In 1817, bookseller, publisher and satirist William Hone stood trial for parodying religion, the despotic government and the lustful monarchy. The only crime he had committed was to be funny. In 2018, satirists Ian Hislop and Nick Newman rediscovered this forgotten hero of free speech and question if just over two hundred years later our press has any greater freedom.

The most striking element of Trial by Laughter is that it is, in actual fact, based off of a true story. William Hone was a real person, and after making an enemy of King George IV (then known as the Prince of Wales) he was forced to engage in a three-day long court battle to fight for his freedom. Trial by Laughter sports an important message; no matter how hard Hone's battle for freedom and justice was, he fought tirelessly until he won. Additionally, the way in which the play explores the ideas behind freedom of speech are particularly interesting and are likely to resonate with a modern-day audience, despite the fact that Trial by Laughter is set in 1817. The show is excellently written, however I do feel that it could perhaps do with trimming. Certain scenes felt somewhat repetitive, particularly during the parts that are set in the courtroom. Trial by Laughter currently stands at two hours, plus a twenty minute interval. Therefore, if shortened, the play could potentially take form as a one-act play.

In the leading role of William Hone, Joseph Prowen gives an utterly captivating performance. Prowen engages with the audience very well and has an exceedingly large amount of charisma, which is essential for portraying Hone. Pater Losasso, in the roles of Cruikshank and Flunky, also gave an outstanding performance. He was well-suited to both characters, and his onstage chemistry with Prowen made their friendship highly believable.

Now for my final verdict on Trial by Laughter. I give Trial by Laughter...

Whilst certain elements of Trial by Laughter felt somewhat repetitive, it still makes for interesting viewing and sports a number of excellent performances.

Think it should have got a higher rating? Agree with my rating? Think it should have got a lower raring? If so comment below.

Thanks for reading!

-The Reviewer