Greenside

Charming

05/08/25

Greenside (Forest Theatre), George Street, Edinburgh

“And they all lived happily ever after…”

Everyone’s familiar with the traditional fairytale ending, but playwright Annie Lux has a question: what does that actually look like? Twenty years down the line, how are Prince Charming and Cinderella getting along? After all, she reminds us, there’s no mention of “together…” in that concluding line.

We meet Charming (Nigel Myles-Thomas) after a gruelling ‘petition day’. He’s tired, as tetchy as King Charles III faced with a leaky quill, and not at all inclined to see the insistent latecomer who’s waiting at his gate. But this last-minute petitioner is Cinderella’s fairy godmother (Claire Toeman) and, with a wave of her wand, she’s gained entry. Before he knows it, Charming is being served divorce papers. Cinderella wants out.

Directed by Lee Costello, Myles-Thomas imbues Charming with weary charisma, and his bewildered responses to Cinderella’s demands are very funny. I like the conceit that the characters know about the different versions of themselves, and use these as justification for their actions (“Only in Grimm! Not in Andersen!”), although I do wonder why punches are pulled. If we’re to acknowledge the ugly sisters having their toes chopped off in Grimm, why is there no mention of them having their eyes pecked out?

Apart from a brief appearance from Cinderella’s wicked stepmum (Margot Avery) – no iron shoes; no walking on fire – Charming is a two-hander and, while Avery makes a decent fist of the role, I don’t think her character has enough to do. To justify her sudden arrival in the final third, she needs to signal an escalation or be a catalyst for change, but that is not the case, so she just feels redundant. Another issue is the over-reliance on dialogue: nothing is conveyed without being spoken, which seems a shame as theatre is a visual art form and fairytales are so replete with imagery.

There are plenty of revisionist versions of this story, but not many focus on the characters in middle-age, and it’s interesting to see this whimsical representation of the effects of the passing years, even on those with charmed – and Charming – lives.

3 stars

Susan Singfield

The Trials of Galileo

08/08/23

Greenside @ Infirmary Street (Mint Studio), Edinburgh

Veteran actor Tim Hardy is never less than excellent. Tucked away in this unassuming studio on Infirmary Street, his latest Fringe performance arrives without fanfare, but his reputation clearly precedes him: there isn’t a spare seat in the house. Of course, Galileo might have something to do with it too. It’s a cleverly chosen topic, curiously apposite in these post-truth times.

Written and directed by Nic Young, The Trials of Galileo is an insightful piece, illuminating a specific historical event, as well as the human and systemic failings that caused it. That event, of course, is the Roman Catholic Inquisition’s persecution of astronomer Galileo Galilei, in response to his assertion that the Earth revolves around the sun – contrary to the scriptures and therefore heresy. The great scientist’s frustration is palpable and compelling; it’s impossible not to wince as he does what surely most of us would do when threatened with torture, namely swallow down our fury and deny the truth we know. The description of that torture is horrifying, a stark and terrible reminder of what people are prepared to do to one another to stoke their egos or preserve their power.

Young’s words are finely-crafted, and Hardy knows how to give them weight, to cast light on the ridiculousness of Galileo’s situation: a great mind, forced to capitulate to those far stupider than he. How many people have suffered because of the blind faith religions (and quasi-religions, like Trumpism) demand, because inconvenient truths are hard to hear?

The biggest tragedy isn’t that Galileo was silenced; it’s that nothing much seems to have changed.

4.5 stars

Susan

Ghislaine/Gabler

19/08/22

Greenside at Riddles Court, Edinburgh

Ghislaine Maxwell is largely defined by her relationships with men: she is Robert’s daughter and Jeffrey’s partner. But who is she now, alone in her prison cell, her father long-gone, her ex-lover also dead? She’s a woman of many parts: convicted sex-trafficker, erstwhile socialite, pampered rich-kid, penniless fighter – and the only person serving any time for the rapes that occurred at Epstein’s ‘parties’. The rapists themselves are either dead or free.

In this challenging piece of theatre, Kristin Winters draws a parallel between the enigmatic Ghislaine and Ibsen’s anti-heroine, Hedda Gabler. The similarities are, in fact, quite astonishing, although I wouldn’t have made the connection by myself. Like Ghislaine, Hedda grows up living in the lap of luxury, and is close to her difficult but rich father – and, like Ghislaine, his death leaves her (relatively) poor. Both women are known by their fathers’ names (Hedda’s married name is Tesman; Ibsen explains the title thus: “My intention in giving it this name was to indicate that Hedda as a personality is to be regarded rather as her father’s daughter than her husband’s wife”). Both women are corrupted by their circumstances, and abuse their power to hurt those weaker than themselves. They each seek to influence other people’s fates; they are hungry and twisted, and it is hard for others to understand what motivates them.

So, yes. The conflation makes perfect sense. And writer/performer Winters’ strange and complex play is as fascinating as the women themselves. It’s an exploration of something unknowable, that raises as many questions as it answers. It’s not an easy watch – and nor should it be. It’s as gnarly and difficult as Maxwell and Gabler, as opaque and unfathomable as their actions. Winters mixes physical and verbatim theatre, lines from Hedda Gabler, imagined internal monologue and dance – and the result is extraordinary. Winters’ intensity is almost unbearably disconcerting.

Perhaps the piece is a little too demanding of its audience: there’s an assumption that we’re au fait with not just the Epstein case (fair enough, that’s common knowledge), but also with Hedda Gabler (I’ve got that one, luckily), and with what happened to Robert Maxwell (in my case, just the ‘media-mogul-financial-misconduct-drowning’ elevator-pitch). I’d like maybe a tad more hand-holding to guide me through some of these details.

This is an intelligent and arresting play and, although I don’t enjoy it exactly, I guess I’m not supposed to. I’m provoked, intrigued, and – in the end – impressed.

4.1 stars

Susan Singfield