I have puzzled over this play for a week since I saw it but still don't understand what is about. I know the writer Václav Havel was vocally critical of the government in power at the time, was imprisoned several times and became president in 1990. So an educated guess tells me the main character, a political writer, who is fearfully waiting for the mysterious 'them' to arrive to take him to the mysterious 'there', is a representation of Havel. It is written to be much like a bad dream with eccentric and egocentric characters, often repeating sections of dialogue three or four times, which was only occasionally amusing. I am sure the writer had a reason but this production did not make this clear. Here, I must point out the performance of Bertram by Ian Grant, who made sense of the repetition because he made it part of his physical character rather than just repeating words. He was eccentric and extremely watchable.

The main puzzle for me was why the women who care about the writer, do so, at least in this production. James McKendrick as Professor Leopold Nettles does a good line in wild, staring eyes and stubborn resolve, but - and I apologise to the actor himself as I suspect he was directed this way but there was no charm in his performance or sexual chemistry between him and Anna Raine as Suzana, Emily Carmichael as Lucy and Anna Whitelock as the ladies in his life. Even when he was obviously seducing Ms Whitelock (who as Marguerite had a lovely innocence and gentle comic timing), we had no idea why he was doing so. He barely looked at her and when he finally jumped on her he practically licked her neck – his mouth was certainly nowhere near hers.

Perhaps the robotic animalistic seduction was part of an odd point the director, Jonathan Lermit was making which I just didn't get. The two mill workers played by Yasir Senna and Katie Smith, had a great timing with each other, as they – by having the same names and often speaking for each other – I took to personify 'the workers' who looked up to Leopold and whom he didn't want to let down, although he was afraid of whoever was coming to get him. The other well oiled double act was John Irvine and Niall Bishop, all sharp suits and evil stares, who came with an offer from 'them'.

Matthew Pert had the rather thankless job of setting up who everyone was and not much else than following Suzana around, even helping her wash the dishes. Is she Leopold's wife? If so, did no one question why she was out until dawn with this handsome young man in a dinner suit and had her own bedroom? Bertram asked how she felt about Leopold's relationship with Lucy but we were told 'they had an understanding'.

The set was lovely although I would have thought, rather palatial by East European dissident writer standards. I loved the book-lined shelves – I seriously thought for a moment that Wendy Parry had dissected several old books, but on closer inspection no books were harmed. Costumes were absolutely perfect for each character thanks to Simona Hughes as advisor.

I know some people loved the production, so I guess it just wasn't my cup of tea, but I know I wasn't alone. To me, every role was played very inscrutably and slightly wooden as though they were all hiding something, which of course they are. But they are hiding things from each other; my belief is that they shouldn't hide completely from the audience. We don't need to like them but we need to care about them at least a little and to do this we need to have a peak into their psyche. Perhaps I just missed the point but I'm afraid I just didn't care enough. in his game.

Photography by Ruth Anthony