Archive for Edinburgh Fringe Festival

Patient 13: A Darkly Funny Journey Through Illness, Independence and Magic Mushrooms

Click on image to buy tickets

Patient 13 is  a story that starts in a hospital ward, detours through a psychedelic clinical trial, and somehow lands in a place that feels both devastating and oddly hopeful. It’s the kind of show that makes you rethink the neat narratives we build around illness, independence, and the people we let close enough to hurt us.

Talking to Gail, you get the sense she’s spent years turning chaos into clarity — not by sanding down the rough edges, but by holding them up to the light. The humour is sharp, the honesty disarming, and the reflections feel lived‑in rather than curated. What follows is a conversation that moves between trauma, mushrooms, medical authority, dating, and the strange business of becoming a new version of yourself while the old one is still watching.

“I got rid of all the toxic people and there was no one left.” Were you laughing at the absurdity of that line, or grieving the truth inside it?

Both, the line exposes the nuance and extremes of human relationships: isolation v independence; trust v self care. As a “chronically” independent person, my impulse is to retreat when I feel I can’t trust someone. Sometimes that is the right decision, sometimes not. In the real events of Patient 13, I struggled to find the balance. What are the right boundaries? What happens when “there is no one left?” I had to ask myself if I went too far. After all, no one is perfect. We can’t do everything alone and it is possible to grow in a relationship.

Your cancer diagnosis pushed you into a clinical trial involving magic mushrooms. What was the moment you realised this experience was theatrical?

The psychedelic trip (or the dosing, as the doctors call it) was an intense download of epiphanies — one was that I missed performing and that I should write jokes again. Years later, when I returned to NYC storytelling stages, the first story I told was one called “The Dosing.” The audience loved it, so that was encouraging. Several people have told me that it was the best performance of a psychedelic trip they’d ever seen. And it’s accurate because the doctors made me write everything down. And now it’s in the play!

The show is darkly satirical, but the trauma underneath is real. How do you protect yourself emotionally while performing something so close to the bone?

The play goes by much faster than the real life events and now I already know the ending is happy, so that’s a plus.

There’s a line in the play that also reflects my pragmatic approach, then and now: “there’s no time to cry, I’m CEO of Gail’s biggest decision ever.” So, even back then, there was/is a breakneck urgency to move forward, to deal with the decisions, the treatments and still have some fun. I’ve always tried to approach life as an adventure, even in tough times. This will make more sense when you see the show.

As an author, the experience has transformed into emotional beats, a complete narrative. While there is some trauma and sadness, it feels like I’m reliving and sharing personal growth, as lessons are learned and action is taken. Overall it’s an empowering and joyful tale, an adventure. The humor is constant, so we’re laughing together at the absurdity of life. I like to say that the show helps me do the show.

I expect that performing almost every day for 23 days in Edinburgh may present a different challenge. I plan to sit in the meadows, hug a tree, find a yoga class or a fellow human to ground me.

You describe yourself as fiercely independent. What did psychedelics reveal about the version of yourself you’d been clinging to? As I mentioned above, I may have gone too far in my independence, especially post cancer treatment. It’s not easy to return to “normal life” after facing mortality and being treated for cancer. For me at least, I wanted to have deep conversations, not just get back to the mundane routine of living. And I think I judged certain people who didn’t behave the way I thought they should. The psychedelics helped me see the bigger picture.

The psychedelics reminded me that we’re all doing our best. And that we are all connected, like it or not. This is a lesson I still have to remember. It’s been long enough that I can slip back into old patterns. Doing the show feels a bit like tripping as the profound truths need to be repeated. It’s fun and enlightening for me and the audience.

The play is also about dating while your identity is shifting. What did illness change about intimacy and desire?

Hmm. I was raised in Oklahoma, in an environment where I was taught to suppress my own feelings, to always put other people first. Over time, this manifests as being a “people pleaser,” which can lead to personal neglect and shame. So, I haven’t always been good at standing up for myself or even recognizing that I should defend my own feelings.

However, facing mortality offers a certain immediate clarity. Suddenly, I had to put myself first — it was literally life or death. Suddenly, I had to ask “is this person good for me?” rather than “how do I make them happy?” The illness forced me into a dramatic self-love that was long overdue. It also turned me into a bit of an introvert, a better listener, and a philosopher. I love this new version of myself and want to keep those elements.

You’ve said you think of your audience as “close friends.” What does friendship mean in this context?

It means we can trust each other. I’m honest about my experience, sharing my vulnerabilities, mistakes, and lessons. In the play, my audience (aka my friends) often see my mistakes before I do. Like life. As their friend, I’m warm and welcoming, protecting them from trauma by adding humor to the “scary” parts. It’s like we are living the events together. What’s more fun than hanging out with friends?! In this case, I get to do all the talking, but it’s not considered rude. When I’ve hung out with the audience after, I joke that it’s their turn to talk for an hour.

Dan Oliverio talks about institutionalised fear and loneliness. What fear felt institutional to you, and what fear felt entirely your own?

The institutional fears that I deal with in Patient 13 are things like questioning the medical authority, power figures. For example, I faced an arrogant doctor who didn’t listen, and seemed to want to scare me into following a healthcare protocol generalised to fit the masses rather than an individual.

On a more personal level, I was fearful due to the uncertainty of a contradictory diagnosis, with treatment supervised by a doctor that I didn’t trust. The question became, do I have to do everything that an authority tells me to do? I was suspicious of his bravado and condescending demeanour. It didn’t feel like I was a person to him. I was more afraid of chemo and radiation than of psychedelics.

Patient 13 arrives as the UK debates psychedelic treatment. How does it feel to have your story intersect with a political turning point?

It feels fantastic to share my story at a time when it can be most useful. It’s synchronicity, a happy accident to be relevant. I hope that the Patient 13 show helps UK audiences see one example of how psilocybin treatment might work. There are documentaries out there, but this play enables people to take a real life journey with me as a patient. Beyond entertainment, I want the show to be a service, such that it helps the audience find more clarity in their own lives and decisions.

When I participated in the study, most people in the US were skeptical about psychedelic therapy. The stigma was so strong that the hospital had a hard time finding cancer patients to participate. Perhaps the UK debate is at that stage now. So again, happy relevance.

The show grew from storytelling nights in New York. What stayed from those early versions?

The early versions were merged into a greater narrative arc. Many little situational jokes stayed, because I know they work. But the endings were cut and reshaped. Beginnings were expanded. The transitions were fun and tedious to write to ensure that they pulled the separate pieces together in a bigger story. This experience has helped me grow as a writer and performer.

If the version of you who first received the diagnosis could watch Patient 13 today, what do you hope she’d recognise?

First off, Version One of Gail would be relieved that I/we survived. Secondly, I think she’d be thrilled and impressed that the New Version Gail managed to follow through with this project and that it is entertaining and helping people. She’d like me to get rid of some toxic people.

Version One Gail would like the jokes. Even in the midst of trauma, she saw the funny. She’d like that New Version now shares that sense of humor with a broader audience. After the diagnosis and during treatment, she never wanted pity and still wanted to be a normal person who has fun. New Gail continues that tradition, which I think people can relate to on multiple levels.

Both Versions believe that you don’t stop living just because you think you might die. Sometimes “healthy” people can be inadvertently condescending to people who are fighting an illness. It’s a weird division. Patient 13 brings light to these nuances. Version one of Gail would be proud.

Click here to buy tickets

 

Leave a Comment

Inside Spin Cycle: A Queer Love Story Caught Between Cycles

There’s something about a Fringe show set in a laundrette that immediately makes you lean in. Maybe it’s the hum of the machines, maybe it’s the way people behave differently when they think no one’s watching. Spin Cycle takes that instinct — that quiet, nosy curiosity — and turns it into a queer love story that slips between memory, myth and the mundane. It’s tender, strange, and a little bit disorienting, like overhearing a couple argue in public and realising you’ve wandered into the middle of something you shouldn’t understand but somehow do.

Click on image to buy tickets

Talking to the team behind it, you get the sense they’re not interested in neat answers or tidy emotional arcs. They’re more concerned with the mess — the stains, the rewashing, the things we keep trying to fix even when we know they’re already worn through. What follows is a conversation that feels as intimate and slippery as the play itself.

Spin Cycle unfolds in a laundrette — a place that’s both public and strangely intimate. What made you realise this was the perfect setting for a queer love story that refuses to stay neatly folded?

ZOFIA: A Launderette is such a liminal space. Its whole reason for existence is to be a place of transition: you enter with dirty clothes and leave with clean. I felt that it is the perfect setting for a play that exists to examine that feeling of being in the midst of transition, being somewhere between forgetting and remembering, between loving and not. I also think the phrase “air your dirty laundry” is aptly fit.

You add memory slippage, absurdism, and a wash cycle that bends time. How did you find the balance between emotional truth and theatrical strangeness?

BETHAN: The absurd space versus the tense scene work is a part of this play that’s very exciting to build on. In many ways the launderette feels like a third character, or entity. It plays a vital role in pushing Noel and Kitt to try again at the top of the play. There’s a sense the space may even have some control over their fate as a couple and maybe is pushing them to some conclusion but as we learn, Kitt and Noel can’t help but have the same conversations over and over again. Their dialogue is pacy and naturalistic and as far as we know they are emotionally truthful. Unless someone knows more then they let on?….

The play champions Irish heritage and queer, gender-non-conforming characters. How do those identities shape the emotional engine of the story?

RHIANNON: The characters queer identity or ‘irishness’ isn’t there to make any kind of political statement, they’re simply who the characters are. Those identities affect how they move through the world, how they understand love, belonging and themselves. The play places two different experiences of Irish and lesbian identity side by side. Noel is a working class, non-binary artist from Northern Ireland whose identity is shaped by financial insecurity, community expectation and navigating a world that wasn’t built for them. Kitt is an Irish-American who has inherited wealth and whose connection to Ireland is rooted in family history rather than lived experience. Spin Cycle, at its core is a love story and it explores how love can exist between two people whose understandings of home, privilege and self are radically different.

“Eyes lock. Hearts thump. But something is off.” What’s the “off” for you?

ZOFIA: It’s the feeling of Deja vu. Deja vu is described as “an illusion of memory whereby—despite a strong sense of recollection—the time, place, and context of the “previous” experience are uncertain or impossible.”

The show has been described as Eternal Sunshine meets The L Word. What feels accurate about that comparison — and what doesn’t?

ZOFIA: Spin Cycle and Eternal Sunshine both seek to answer the same question- why is heartbreak intrinsically tied to the joy of love? There are themes of memory and repression in both as well, although Spin Cycle remains more ambiguous than Eternal Sunshine. As for The L Word, well, there is plenty of Talking, laughing, loving, breathing, fighting, fucking, crying, drinking, riding, winning, losing, cheating, kissing, thinking, dreaming in both.

The laundrette becomes a suspended world where past and present collide. Did you imagine it as a memory, a metaphor, or a place where truth stops hiding?

BETHAN: The launderette may have more hope for their relationship than they do. It’s certainly somewhere where hard conversations are forced out. It is somewhere the truth stops hiding and it feels like somewhere that has existed forever and will continue to until the cycle reaches an end the launderette is satisfied with. The liminal space has been an important factor in creating a neutral zone for Noel and Kitt to explore their guilt, lust and ultimately loss. Thematically thinking of the setting as the launderette, are we washing something until it’s ragged and worn and finished, or are we cleansing something and rescuing stained memories?

Class quietly shapes the story. How consciously did class weave itself into the writing?

BETHAN: When we started this project it was a short twenty minute scene with a hint of a class divide. As we have lived with the characters, certain nuances emerge as obvious directions to take them both. Noel and Kitt really do clash in many ways, notably Kitts inherited wealth from her grandad and Noel inherited orange sash from theirs. It felt important to flesh out where each may have struggled or bloomed forming their identities and their place in the world.

Bethan Rose talks about a “complicit sense of voyeurism.” What do audiences recognise in Kitt and Noel that makes the play feel so familiar?

BETHAN: The couple have a struggling power dynamic and you see them fall apart in front of you, remembering and forgetting in real time. I think audiences will recognise many of the feelings they go through. There are moments where you don’t want to be listening into their conversations, like you’ve accidentally been spying on them. There are also moments where audience members will recognise patterns in the relationship and even take sides. Discomfort and familiarity arises when met with parallels to your own life.

You’re an entirely queer creative team. How did that shape the rehearsal room? BETHAN: At the end of rehearsal we all kiss.

If Kitt and Noel could step out of the laundrette and speak to you, what truth do you hope they’d finally rinse clean? RHI: If I met Noel outside of the Laundrette – I really hope that they found a good therapist to help rinse away their shame about who they are and where they come from. ZOFIA: If Kitt were able to step out of the Launderette, I would hope she could be honest about her entitlement.

 

Leave a Comment

‘She Was Never the Victim’: Plexus Polaire on Reclaiming Lucy’s Story

Click on image to buy ticket

Dracula: Lucy’s Dream isn’t just another Gothic retelling; it’s a plunge into the mind of a woman literature usually sidelines. Plexus Polaire take Lucy Westenra — often treated as a plot device — and place her centre‑stage, letting her fear, desire and disintegration shape the world around her. Their work has always lived in the space between the real and the uncanny, and here that tension becomes the point: puppetry, physical theatre and dream logic colliding to show us what Lucy sees when the lights go out. It’s dark, sensual, and strangely tender. And it asks a simple question: what happens when the girl everyone thinks they understand finally tells her own story?

We spoke with the creators about why Lucy matters, and what it means to let her speak.

What made you realise Lucy — often treated as a narrative stepping stone — was actually the emotional heart you wanted to excavate?

Lucy is a fascinating character because she goes through a real transformation. The other characters in Stoker´s novel are very much focused on themselves being “the good” who are fighting “the bad”. Lucy has more internal fight and her story opens for a more complex treatment of the theme and how we fight with dark forces within ourselves. By seeing the story from Lucy´s perspective she can break out of the role as a victim, take control of her own life, and reclaim her own narrative.

Puppetry allows you to express things human bodies alone can’t. What did it unlock in Lucy’s inner world?

I am interested in the parallel between a how myth, like Dracula, and a puppet comes to life, because it is quite similar. It´s a bit like a spiritual session with an Ouija-board, where everyone puts a finger on a glass on top of an alphabet, and then the glass starts moving on its own and spells out a message from beyond. Everyone knows that it probably someone in the group who is guiding the glass, but the small doubt, that it might be moving on its own, or by an external force, is enough to make us believe it is true.

The show is a descent into desire, fear and female emancipation. How do you navigate that tension?

The tension and the complexity of the theme is what makes it interesting, and also more truthful.

The ambition of the show is not to give fixed answers, but rather to provoke important questions.

Approaching Dracula from a female lens reveals contradictions — desire, fear, seduction, danger. Which contradiction fascinated you most?

What interests me the most is how you can lose control over a situation, and how quickly the situation can take control over you. And that a vampire can come in many forms.

You describe the Fringe as a “living, breathing organism.” What does it mean to bring a piece this dark and sensual into that environment?

It means to possibility to show for a larger audience that puppetry can be large scale performances for adults.

Lucy’s psychosis becomes a landscape audiences inhabit. What emotional truth were you trying to reveal?

The show delves into the schemes of power with the conclusion that you sometimes have to put a stake in the heart of the vampire to regain control over your own life.

Vampires are metaphors for forbidden desire. What drew you to the question of what we want but cannot say aloud?

I think that sometimes we have to face a monster to remain human. And we all have an inner vampire in one form or another; an addiction, a trauma, a destructive need…The interesting thing is to see how we can choose to break the role of being a victim of it, and retake control over our own narrative.

Plexus Polaire often deals with the secret parts of human nature. What “immortal dark secret” were you most interested in exposing?

I´m interested in the complexities, and how the dark parts are actually a part of what makes us human.

The production is visually overwhelming — puppets, video, lighting, movement. How do you keep the emotional core intact?

The life-like puppets express emotion, in combination to the five actor-puppeteers who perform on stage.

If Lucy could step out of the dream and meet you, what truth do you hope she’d finally allow herself to claim?

That it wasn´t a dream.

Click here to buy tickets

Leave a Comment

Blip Blarp Lands at the Fringe: Conquest, Chaos and Cosmic Cluelessness

Click on image to buy ticket

This is a show that sounds completely deranged on paper but turns out to be unexpectedly touching once you’re actually in the room. Blip Blarp is one of those. What begins as a sci‑fi spoof about an alien invader sent to conquer Earth quickly becomes a surprisingly tender look at dating, desire, and the sheer humiliation of trying to connect with another human being.

The mind behind all this cosmic chaos is Alicia Queen, the writer‑performer who brings Blip Blarp to life. Her creation is loud, glittery, and gloriously ridiculous — but there’s a beating heart under all the bravado. Blip Blarp can cross galaxies without breaking a sweat, yet can’t persuade a single man to go home with her. It’s funny, it’s chaotic, and it’s painfully recognisable.

In our conversation, Alicia talks about bouffon clowning, B‑movie aesthetics, burlesque logic, and the strange comfort of turning personal heartbreak into intergalactic farce. It’s exactly the kind of show the Fringe was built for: weird, warm, and unexpectedly human.

Blip Blarp arrives on Earth with a mission of conquest and ends up tangled in the mess of human dating. What first made you realise that the collision between domination and desire was the perfect engine for a Fringe comedy?

In addition to Blip Blarp having elements of the bouffon clown in her character, I wanted to take something more classic and add a bit of nuance. I started with the archetype of the overconfident, arrogant man who brags about winning battles, building businesses, and being universally loved, but who is actually squeamish and never gets invited to parties. Then I applied that archetype to femininity.

Blip Blarp sees herself as an incredible seductress who can easily conquer not only men but an entire planet through her sexual prowess. In reality, she can’t even get one man into bed.

I also love sci-fi, especially the aesthetic of B-movie science fiction, so everything came together pretty organically. I think Fringe audiences are looking for experiences like that—or at least I am. Something a little weird, something you wouldn’t normally see where you live, while still inviting the audience into a unique world.

The show pulls together sci‑fi, burlesque, clowning, and multimedia — a combination that shouldn’t work but somehow does. How did you find the rhythm that lets all those elements coexist without overwhelming the audience?

The biggest priority for me is always the story. Every element is there in service of it. Each one either helps move the show from one place to another, builds the world—as multimedia does—or explores emotional depth, as burlesque does.

The sci-fi element also gives me a huge amount of creative freedom. Once the audience accepts that they’re in an alien world, you can make some wonderfully strange choices.

You’re playing an alien who’s supremely confident about her reproductive mission yet hilariously naïve about human emotion. How do you keep that balance between cosmic bravado and genuine cluelessness?

I think the fact that she’s almost robotic in her emotions helps. She tries to apply her “Zoronian” logic to something that completely resists formal logic: human sexuality.

Her thinking goes something like, “My Zoronian mating sequence is often effective. Who wouldn’t want to procreate after witnessing my Zoronian mating display?” From her perspective, she’s doing everything correctly. She simply can’t understand why humans aren’t responding the way they’re supposed to.

There’s something very recognisable about watching someone fail at seduction — even when she’s from another planet. What kind of vulnerability did you want audiences to glimpse beneath the glitter and absurdity?

Sexual vulnerability. It makes you incredibly vulnerable to pursue intimacy with someone new, and even more vulnerable when it doesn’t work out.

The show explores not only the failed attempts at seduction but also the confusing and dispiriting aftermath of rejection. I think that’s something almost everyone can relate to, even if the character experiencing it happens to be an alien.

Blip Blarp’s universe feels enormous, even though it’s built inside a late‑night Fringe room. What tricks of stagecraft or imagination do you rely on to make a 60‑minute solo show feel like it spans galaxies?

I use mime to transport us from place to place, and the projections offer glimpses of life on Planet Zoron. But I think the biggest world-building tool is actually Blip Blarp herself—her language, the way she speaks, and the way she moves.

Ultimately, we’re spending an hour in the room with this character, so if she feels like she’s from another planet, the audience comes along with her.

Your comedy swings between big physical choices and tiny emotional beats. When you’re building a character who’s both cosmic and clueless, how do you decide which moments deserve physical exaggeration and which need stillness?

The physical exaggeration is very structured and mostly exists within the dance and burlesque sequences. Whenever Blip Blarp attempts seduction, she expresses herself through movement.

The quieter moments are there to build toward those attempts. They’re where we get to see her expectations, her confusion, and eventually her disappointment, which makes the larger physical moments land even harder.

Burlesque has its own language of power, exposure, and surprise. How does Blip Blarp’s extraterrestrial persona let you twist that language into something both seductive and deeply silly?

I think it’s two things. First, she’s an alien trying to perform what she believes humans find sexy, so there are lots of glitches in her approach. On top of that, her erogenous zones aren’t in the same places as a human’s, which creates some wonderfully ridiculous moments.

Also, burlesque usually exists within a cabaret structure. It’s rare that you’re following one character through their emotional desires and challenges. Because the audience is invested in Blip Blarp and sees her making herself vulnerable, there’s an undercurrent of tension beneath all the comedy that makes the funny moments even stronger.

The show’s premise is outrageous, but the emotional core feels very human — rejection, hope, the need to be understood. Was there a moment in development when you realised the story had become personal? It was personal from the beginning.

I was trying to process a lot at once—a recent divorce, dating for the first time in over a decade—and I felt incredibly vulnerable. From the start, the show became a way to process those experiences while having fun with them, making them lighter, and hopefully making someone else who’s going through something similar feel a little less alone.

Performing an intergalactic love story at 23:15 every night is its own endurance test. What’s your Fringe survival strategy for keeping the show sharp, playful, and emotionally present?

Seeing people enjoy the show, laugh, and have a genuinely fun time is always a huge source of motivation. The music and physicality are also things I never get tired of exploring—there’s always some new nuance to discover.

Outside of the show itself, I’m hoping to connect with other artists for support and encouragement throughout the Fringe. And I’m a huge extrovert, so wandering around at night in costume, inviting people into Blip Blarp’s world for an hour, is actually energising for me. Their curiosity makes me excited to perform.

If Blip Blarp could send one final message back to her home planet about humanity, what do you think she’d say — and would she still be planning to conquer us afterwards?

“Dear Zoronians, the sapient species is perplexing and bizarre and possesses modes of thinking as yet unknown to Zoron. Despite this, they are also somehow charming. Still planning to conquer. May be home late.”

Click here to buy ticket

Leave a Comment

Jenny Gorelick on SORRY: Dating Apps and Apology Culture

Jenny Gorelick

Jenny Gorelick’s SORRY is one of those Fringe shows that arrives already vibrating with cultural voltage — a comedy about dating apps, apology culture, female shame, and the absurdity of modern romance that somehow manages to be both riotously funny and quietly devastating. Gorelick has turned her personal chaos into a kind of survival manual for the rest of us, drawing on experiences that range from the bleakly hilarious (“run it back?”) to the genuinely tragic (“my work crush got struck by lightning and died”).

SORRY isn’t just a show about dating — it’s about accountability, gendered guilt, the loneliness economy, and the stories women tell themselves to stay alive in a world that keeps demanding they apologise for existing. It’s sharp, self‑aware, and uncomfortably relatable. And, in true Fringe fashion, it’s also very, very funny.

1. Your show starts in the dating apps — that strange digital swamp where hope, delusion and red flags all blur together. What’s the moment on Hinge that made you think, “Right, this has to go in a show”?

Recently I got a like on Hinge from a man I had already dated. Who had already dumped me. It just said “run it back?” He is mentioned by name on the first page of my book about red flags. Like, page one. The Book of Red Flags. No. We will not be running it back.

2. You dated a man with “sorry mom” tattooed on his body who still couldn’t apologise. What did that relationship teach you about the apology gap — and about the men who think remorse is a personality trait?

Women will apologize for everything. We say sorry for saying sorry too much. And I’m sorry I said that about all women. But it seems like it would genuinely kill a man to apologize for one single thing. I’ve had men say “sorry you feel that way” — putting it right back on me!

But this relationship taught me something important: if I’m hurt, I can write about it. And it can be published in the New York Times. If you break my heart, it is the news!

3. SORRY digs into how women are conditioned to apologise for simply existing. When did you first realise you were saying sorry for things that weren’t your fault?

I’m still doing it. I feel sorry and guilty every single day of my life for every mistake I’ve ever made. I wish that weren’t true! And I think it goes all the way back to Eve. Women feel shame…biblically, because Eve is blamed for all of human sin. Even though all she did was have a healthy snack. It’s really not fair.

4. You’ve written about dating disasters for the New York Times and Cosmopolitan. What’s the story you still can’t believe happened — even though you lived it?

My work crush — a very sweet, cute, and tall guy I worked with — got struck by lightning and died. On a work trip. Which is the most tragic thing that has ever happened. He wasn’t doing what he loved. He was doing what he had to do — for health insurance. Because America. He never knew I had a crush on him. And now he never will.

Which is why you need to live out loud. You could be struck by lightning. And I mean that literally.

5. You made more money posting “tasteful thirst traps” on OnlyFans than writing your book. What did that reveal to you about the male loneliness economy — and the value men place on attention versus accountability?

What’s so interesting about “my guys” — which is what I lovingly call the men who pay money to see me in a bathing suit on OnlyFans — is that they could just go to a public pool. For free. I do worry about their finances. I don’t think it’s money they technically have, it is certainly not cash on hand, and if it weren’t going to me, it would be going to Polymarket. So honestly, I’d rather they spend their fake money on me than on sports betting. I’m a real girl. I need it more.

6. Your book The Book of Red Flags is basically a survival guide for modern romance. Which red flag do you think people ignore the most — even when it’s screaming in their face?

I hate to say it, but if it doesn’t feel like he likes you and you feel confused — he probably doesn’t like you. And if he’s being super attentive and communicative and complimentary? He still might not like you. That might just be love bombing. You have to wait a month to really know. It’s exhausting. I’m sorry.

7. You talk about confidence, shame, and the pressure on women to be endlessly likeable. What’s the moment in your life when you stopped performing likability and started performing honesty?

I’m afraid you’re overestimating me. I still need everyone to like me. One bad review might actually kill me, so let’s all just light a candle, charge our crystals (if you’re that kind of person), and pray for me.

8. Dating apps often feel like a sociological experiment. What did mapping America’s political divide through men‑with‑boats teach you about the country — and about dating?

If they own a boat, they’re Republican. If they don’t have their political affiliation listed on their profile, they’re Republican. And if they’re writing a fantasy novel in the style of Dune in their notes app — Libertarian.

9. You’ve turned personal chaos into comedy across stage, screen and print. What’s the line between oversharing and storytelling — and how do you know when you’ve crossed it?

Storytelling is oversharing. Some people are not going to like it (my younger brother). Some people are going to have to learn to be okay with it (my dad). And others are going to feel completely seen and heard (my fans). I’m doing it for them, but also for me. Am I crossing a line? Probably! But who gets to decide where the line is? My exes?!

I do feel terrible anytime anyone is upset with me — including the man with the ass tattoo who stood me up. But at the end of the day, he stood me up. And it is okay for me to turn that into art. That’s actually the best case scenario…maybe even better than if he’d actually shown up on the date.

10. At the heart of SORRY is the question of accountability. What do you hope audiences walk away reconsidering — about apologies, about dating, or about the stories we tell ourselves to survive modern romance?

I hope women leave feeling like they don’t need to be so hard on themselves. I hope men leave wanting to do better. And I hope everyone goes home and takes some amazing nudes for their grandchildren.

Jenny Gorelick: SORRY performs at Edinburgh Festival Fringe from 3rd – 30th August 2026. : Buy tickets here

Leave a Comment

Daughter of Sweden: Cecilia Saverman on Reviving a Princess History Tried to Erase

Click on image to buy ticket

Cecilia Saverman doesn’t ease you into Cecilia Vasa’s world — she drops you straight into the madness. Five years of research left her with a life so outrageous it barely feels real: piracy confrontations that make you laugh and wince in the same breath, scandals that rattled royal courts across an entire continent, and family letters so chaotic they read like a soap opera you shouldn’t enjoy but absolutely do.

What Saverman captures is the full, contradictory force of Cecilia Vasa herself — heroine, caring mother, sharp diplomat, messy party princess, egocentric daredevil, unstoppable climber of mountains and faller into pits who always gets back up. Cecilia Vasa lived in  the 16th century (born 1540). With director Judith Hollander, she throws the audience between comedy and tragedy, intimacy and grandness, hope and surrender, never letting the story settle into one tone for long.

And beneath all the spectacle sits something fiercer: a history that was actively deleted, now brought forward almost as an act of defiance. Saverman isn’t preaching. She’s reclaiming. She wants audiences to feel closer to their own past, to recognise how stories about women become political whether anyone intends them to or not.

This is Cecilia Vasa returned to the stage — vivid, volatile, and impossible to ignore.

1. What’s the single most shocking thing about Cecilia Vasa’s life that will make people gasp? – The fact that it’s actually happened and that we’ve not heard about her. An actual princess who became a pirate, exile, diplomat, and so on! Apart from that, her life just keeps getting crazier and more unfathomable for every step along the way, it’s hard to pick just one thing. The five year research was a never-ending rollercoaster. Maybe a certain window-climbing episode.

2. Which moment in the show makes you laugh and wince at the same time? – There is an episode where her brother confronts her about her piracy, and she has to admit to a lot of what she’s done, and it’s just crazy that it’s actually true. And when one of her lovers is locked up in a castle, and she’s barred from the city to keep her away from him, but she just sneaks into a boat and rows to him, in the middle of the night.

3. How far did you push the sex and scandal on stage, and why that exact level of explicitness? – The sex aspect is suggestive, but not explicit. The scandal, however, shook the entire continent – if the royal courts are to be trusted about these matters, that is. While the acts in and of themselves plants the seed for her struggle for freedom and sets her off on her path in life, I’m more interested in the consequence of the acts, rather than the acts themselves.

4. Did you ever fear the play would be banned or spark a diplomatic row? – Last time Cecilia Vasa was in the UK she was thrown out, so lets hope I have better luck with the Swedish-UK relations.

5. Is Cecilia a heroine, a mess, or gloriously both — and why should we care? – Yes, yes, and yes. On top of that – she is apparently also related to Boris Johnson. She is a heroine, a caring mother, a smart diplomat, a messy party princess, an egocentric daredevil, an unstoppable force who will climb any mountain, fall into every pit and always get up.

6. Are there scenes that touch on coercion or questionable consent and how do you approach that? – No. Or, it depends in what sense. Most of the things she does is very questionable, and I guess the definition of piracy is that it’s non-consensual, and her whole life is a struggle to be able to control her own narrative, and there are rumours about her having a brothel, and there’s stealing and bad decisions going on, and forceful removal from several places, but nothing in the play that touch on coercion of a sexual nature. It’s been important to approach it in a mixture of drama and comedy. It can be extremely funny with someone trying to lure themself to advantages, but also very tragic.

7. Is there a line in the script which makes you blush when you say it out loud? – Not while playing…

8. How do you want audiences to feel about monarchy and power when they leave the theatre? – Difficult question. I want them to want to know more, because it’s our history, I guess. I want them to feel close to our common history. Cecilia Vasa is a princess, a pirate, a mother of seven – and also just a human being. I want them to be able to laugh about the messiness, but I also want them to feel outraged about how it’s been, and maybe see parallels to today. Why haven’t we gotten further? How can this still be going on? I’ve received several emails from people in the audience saying that they saw themselves and their family in this play, and that it both opened and healed wounds in them about power and dynamics.

9. Do you think that there is a feminist message here or about women’s ‘role’ in society then and now? – Yes. I think it’s impossible to tell a story about women today without it becoming political – in the same way I think that stories about lgbtq+ or about non-white people or about people whose bodies are outside the norm automatically becomes political – whether it’s the intention or not. I wrote this story because Cecilia Vasa fascinated me to my core, and I saw so much of my surroundings, including myself and my mother, and society in her. It has never been about sending a message, but it becomes a message because it is a story that has never been told. It’s been actively deleted – which is of course very political – so bringing it forward might in a sense be an act of defiance.

10. What’s the one historical fact you refused to change, no matter how tempting the drama? – Everything. It’s my interpretation of her life, but every fact is true. That’s the insane part.

11. How bawdy do the party scenes get, and how do you balance that with the darker fallout? – I love tossing myself and the audience between highs and lows. My brilliant director Judith Hollander has created an intense balance between comedy and tragedy, intimacy and grandness, hope and surrender. She has so much to fight for, and sometimes she’s just hilarious. During my research I read many letters between her and her siblings, and it was like a soap opera. I would laugh out loud, between the horrors that they put themselves and each others through.

12. Have you ever had hecklers or walkouts, and what did you do when it happened? – Not that I recall, but I’ve received angry emails from older men saying that they don’t believe this or that to be true, and also “that piece of prop is ugly”. Very sweet of them to take their time to let me know.

13. Would you ever stage a strictly adults‑only version — and what would you change? – Maybe adding some more in the Elizabeth-scene, haha! And the first scandal scene. And her encounter with the Spanish envoy Eraso, later on in her life. Very romantic, and got her thrown out of Sweden. But the show is only 60 min now, so not everything can be in it…

14. What single image from the production do you want to haunt people for days, and why that image? – You’ll have to come see the show! You’re in for a haunting treat!

Buy a ticket here

Leave a Comment

A Dark Line Upstairs: How a 1951 Disaster Speaks to 2021 Adulthood

Click on image to buy ticket

There’s a particular kind of artist who doesn’t treat catastrophe as a single event but as a texture — something that clings to the skin, shifts underfoot, and quietly rewrites the stories we tell about ourselves. In A Dark Line Upstairs, Matilde Vigna braids together two floods separated by seventy‑five years and a continent: the night the Polesine vanished under water, and the slow, private deluge of a woman packing up her life after a breakup. What emerges is not a neat metaphor but a restless conversation between past and present, between inherited trauma and contemporary drift, between the places we flee and the ones we pretend we’ve outgrown. It’s a debut that refuses the tidy arc, preferring instead the unstable ground where humour, grief, privilege, and generational doubt all mix together. We asked some questions…

1. Your play threads together two floods — one literal, one emotional. When did you realise that the 1951 Polesine disaster and a modern woman packing up her life belonged in the same breath?
The Covid pandemic forced me (us?) to reflect on loss. With all venues closed and all live performance forbidden, I felt like I lost everything. At the same time, this feeling seemed ridiculous in comparison both to those who lost someone, and to the fact of actually, physically losing everything — as I knew had happened to the people living in the area where I was born, 70 years ago.
(An area I ran away from as soon as I could — as I did from many other places — which sparked another reflection on roots: where am I really rooted? Is it possible to put down roots if you’ve forgotten your own? Etc., etc.)
Coming back to tragedy, talking to the wise people I’m proud to call friends made me realise that many things can fall under that category. Packing up your life in your 30s, after a break‑up, might feel like you’ve lost everything, and every step forward might feel like ten steps backwards. So why not place the two tragedies together, like two legs that advance one after the other… without a clear conclusion or moral, seeding questions and leaving them unanswered.
2. The press release describes the piece as “powerful, poetic, and sharply comic.” How do you find that balance between wry humour and the enormity of losing everything?
I think it’s a matter of touching a delicate object like a tragedy with respect — which to me means not indulging in the dark shades, but pairing them with some light strokes. It’s a light‑design concept: after looking at a light, the black feels darker.
I might add that one can find humour in anything. Of course there are things you can laugh about straight away (like our character who leaves her flat taking everything with her, even a dead houseplant) and other things that require more time (like tying your furniture to the wall with a rope or carrying the pigs upstairs. You might not laugh about that in your lifetime, but it can make audiences smile 75 years later).
3. The 1951 flood swallowed 70 square kilometres of the Polesine region overnight. What part of that historical catastrophe felt most resonant with the instability of contemporary adulthood?
I really don’t have an answer to this question. I feel there’s something there, but like in the play, the two are placed next to each other without resolving the matter. I have many thoughts (do I not want to put down roots because I fear being swept away by a catastrophe?) but no clear answers.
4. Moving house in 2021 becomes its own kind of micro‑catastrophe. What personal experience fed into that portrait of cardboard boxes, breakups, and rising mortgages?
I don’t know if this counts as a pro or a con, but my writing is never about me (I think my life is too little — but then that’s why we act in the end, isn’t it?). Rather, it’s a mosaic of stories I heard and glued together. A sort of cultural appropriation of my friends’ lives, as an account of “my generation.”
At first I thought our contemporary, bourgeois, first‑world little issues were in no way a tragedy — not when compared to real tragedies. But then everything can be a micro‑catastrophe (especially when it rains, right?) even when you compare it to something bigger. What changes is that you can laugh about it (or at least the audience can).
5. You talk about “coming to terms with chaos and the things we cannot control.” What chaos in your own life shaped this piece?
I guess the chaos is very much a generational insecurity — our inability to come to terms with the life and beliefs our parents had, for whom progress = wealth. How can we live by that same equation when it’s so clear now that our lifestyle means trampling on someone else’s life?
Chaos for me now also means coming to terms with my privilege. The woman in my show doesn’t want to buy furniture for her new flat because she has married the immaterial, while her parents push her to buy stuff. Alright, but… she owns a flat! (and a lot of stuff, as we know from her endless lists).
I guess what I want to convey is something along the lines of: our parents’ paradigm is not working, we cannot find a better one, maybe we should go back to our grandparents’ paradigm and start again (cooking bread in a common oven).
6. The sound design by Alessio Foglia turns the bare stage into a physical soundscape. What moment in the show relies most on sound to carry the emotional weight?
All the lines relative to the 1951 tragedy are accompanied by sound. It might seem simplistic, as it’s a 1:1 thing: the past always has a soundscape, the present never does. Somehow it felt impossible to relay the tragedy through acting, so we subcontracted all the emotional dirty work to sound.
I mean, as I say in the play: I’m Italian! …so the risk of melodrama was just around the corner (we’re far from that, still: better safe than sorry).
7. This is your playwriting debut, yet it’s already been nominated for Best New Italian Play at the Ubu Awards. What surprised you most about stepping into the role of playwright?
I think the main thing is that I cherish the responsibility of choosing which topics and which words the audience will listen to.
Then I realised I like to play with words, as if they were pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle — the musicality, the rhythm, the repetitions… and the way in which, if words are put together in a certain way, the performer doesn’t need to add anything. (That’s the great lesson we all get from Shakespeare, I guess.)
Of course A Dark Line Upstairs is not perfect, but I’m quite sure magic happens in the cracks — when the play is not airtight, when the audience can connect the dots and place the last piece of the aforementioned jigsaw puzzle.
8. The piece moves between past and present seamlessly. How do you guide the audience through those shifts without losing them in the undertow?
The first trick is in the writing. When we’re in the past, the language is more lyrical, whereas in the “present day” moments the storytelling leans towards stand‑up comedy.
But mostly, it’s a sound/lighting thing. We had to shrink the whole production to its “Fringe size,” but the concept remains the same: the narration proceeds without halting, while the sound creeps in… and by the time the audience realises we’ve switched “world,” we’re deep inside it.
9. ZOO Venues is known for championing contemporary international performance. What made it the right home for your Edinburgh debut?
It has been a combination of factors. I was looking for a small room (some venues only have 40+ seats) whereas ZOO Playground 3 was just what I wished for my first time at the Fringe. And of course, being the first time (and preparing for the Fringe is quite an overwhelming experience) I wanted someone who would take me by the hand.
Furthermore, some of my friends had already performed there, so let’s say that beside its fame, ZOO Venues had some “close‑to‑heart” references… and please let me spend a word to thank them all for everything they’re doing for us!
10. You describe the story as “deeply Italian yet universally resonant.” What do you hope Fringe audiences — far from the Po River — carry out of the theatre with them?
The story touches many topics: our relationship with our roots (our family, the place we come from); whether we can decide to leave or not; what happens when we do (does it change whether it’s 1951 or 2021?); what we hold onto in order not to lose ourselves…
Even though audiences might not know where the Po River is, or which shape our local bread has, all these topics are quite relevant today, regardless of where any of us has been born and raised.
Click here to buy ticket
Advert

 

Leave a Comment

Inside The Movement: Fringe Anarchy with Ethan & Gigi

Click on image to buy tickets

Some revolutions begin with manifestos. This one begins with two performers who are absolutely convinced they’re leading one. The Movement follows Ethan & Gigi — self‑appointed liberators, overconfident artists, and, depending on who you ask, either visionary or “legitimately unwell in a mental sense” — as they attempt to reshape the world through theatre. Their show is a chaotic, high‑energy act of political clowning that  insists the revolution won’t be televised, it’ll be live. 

In this interview, we talk about why they built a piece that blurs satire, activism and sheer unhinged commitment; how comedy can still connect people in a fractured moment; and what it means to ask an audience not just to watch, but to move, react, and become part of the disorder they’re staging. It’s theatre as provocation, theatre as mischief, theatre as a dare — and Ethan & Gigi are more than ready to break a few legs along the way.

You describe yourselves as artists who genuinely believe they’re leading a revolution. What’s the creative spark behind playing characters who are both delusional and completely committed?

GIGI: I gotta say…the spark behind playing people who are delusional and completely committed? That’s clown, baby! That spark comes from an urgent need to feel free in an ever-oppressive world. The clown has this big, beautiful dream about themselves and they either A) fail and it’s funny and the audience loves them for trying and everyone becomes connected through that particular access point of the recognition of your humanity or B) they succeed and it’s beautiful and they win. I cannot imagine a better use of my time! I mean what else is there but to be delusional and committed to the idea of a better world?  We either fail and it’s funny and sad and we become more deeply connected …or we win.

ETHAN: I wouldn’t say we are playing characters, but more so, caricatures of ourselves, the essence is completely: us. That’s our clown. What makes us the unique humans we are is what we put on the stage. Gigi and I genuinely want to participate in a revolution in real life, but we honestly don’t know how to do that. But what if we believed we could be the leaders of this revolution, and committed to this role 110%? THE MOVEMENT is the result of that delusion/vision.

The show sits between clowning and revolutionary politics. How do you strike the balance between satire and sincerity without tipping too far in either direction?

GIGI: This is a great question and something we often check in about.  There’s a part of the show that is undeniably satire, that we made not as clowns but as clever improvisers hungry to create a searing indictment of the American empire. At the end of the day, we wanna make sure we come across as idiots. Satire is more in the world of the bouffon which we do love to play with, but our pleasure in this show is wrapped up in being losers, not clever winners.

ETHAN: It’s completely a tight-rope balancing act, and what keeps us on the high wire is the sensitivity and vulnerability we lean into while we perform. Giving people permission to laugh AT YOU opens up a kind of a magical portal. The target of the humor in the show is always us, we are complete fools that believe ourselves to be competent, highly-skilled, and have all of the qualities of charismatic revolutionary leaders, when this isn’t quite the case.

You mention themes of artistic delusion, oppressive systems and the power of community. Which of those became the backbone of the show, and which emerged unexpectedly during development?

GIGI: Oppressive systems were the backbone.  This might seem like a joke but we’re activists first and foremost. We want to burn it all down. As for artistic delusion…we don’t have to try for that to be a theme, that’s just an organic byproduct of our delusion:  we are doing a clown show that we believe will radicalize people.  But the power of community was discovered as we were struggling to find an end to this show and to answer the question, “How do you start a revolution?”

ETHAN: When you make a show, sometimes it feels like wandering through a foggy forest, you can’t see, and it’s the artistic delusion that keeps you stumbling forward. You’re following the initial impulse that sent you out into the woods, and where you end up is often a total surprise. “How do we start a revolution?” was the impulse, and the power of community is where we ended up. When you want to dream big (like overthrowing and dismantling oppressive systems) – you can’t do this alone.

One of your supporters called the show “deeply stupid” in a complimentary way. What does “stupid” mean in your artistic vocabulary, and why is it useful?

GIGI: “Stupid” means to use your gut, not your brain.  It means to let your body lead even if you have no idea what is going to happen. It means to allow yourself to be illogical and to make mistakes. It’s useful because it’s freeing! We use “stupid” as our North Star and sometimes we ask ourselves, “How can we make this more stupid?”

ETHAN: When we take the stage, we are in pursuit of the quality of laughter that makes your belly hurt because you can’t stop, that type of laughter comes from the “stupid” place, not the “clever” one.

You’ve been described as brave, hardworking and possibly a bit unhinged. Do you think good clowning requires a willingness to push past normal social or theatrical boundaries?

GIGI: I think more than anything good clowning requires a willingness to push past your own limiting ideas and narratives about yourself and the world and if that happens to also result in pushing past normal social and theatrical boundaries, great! But sometimes people do things just for the sake of provocation, with no humanity or sensitivity behind it.  There’s no sense of self in that.  Good clowning allows us to see *you*.  Sometimes that leads to pushing past normal social and theatrical bounds but it’s not needed. Sometimes you end up doing something very safe, polite, normal and everyone relates to it and it’s the funniest thing.

ETHAN: Where you are in life is where you find yourself on the stage – especially as a clown. It’s a total reflection of your humanity, neuroses & all. It’s less about pushing social norms or theatrical boundaries, and more about where you’re willing to go within yourself. “Good” clown to us is when you see someone onstage, and as an audience member you feel & think: “Oh there you are. That’s you. You’re not hiding.” It’s more of a feeling than an intellectual thing, but you know when you experience it. Your standards for anything short of that level of vulnerability become extremely high.

You’ve said laughter can be an act of resistance. What do you think audiences are resisting when they laugh with you rather than at you?

GIGI: Wonderful question!  Sorry to clarify, we DO want you to laugh at us.  There is a freedom that comes with having a sense of humor about yourself and when others witness you bask in that freedom, it can be really inspiring.

ETHAN: Peeing.

You talk about the show being created through a “village” of mentors, teachers and friends. What did collective creation allow you to do that a traditional rehearsal process wouldn’t?

GIGI: Collective creation allows us to work our material in real time to see what works and what doesn’t.

ETHAN: What THE MOVEMENT means to us versus others is different, we all have our own unique experiences of the show. We love getting feedback from the audience and our community, and our show has been seen and passed through many hearts and minds. Everybody that has contributed their feedback, ideas, and direction has left their own imprint in the DNA of our show- and that can’t replicate that in a vacuum.

You’ve staged large‑scale stunts, including marching an audience through New York to perform in front of an LED truck. What attracts you to theatrical disruption outside conventional spaces?

GIGI: Referring back to the clown, we want to push ourselves to dream as big as possible so that other people feel pushed to do the same — did you hear about the couple that scaled the Empire State Building, waved a banner from the highest point, and got engaged while police helicopters swarmed around them? Way to dream! It got everyone’s attention and surely some folks thought to themselves, “I want to do that.”

ETHAN: The theatre is a place where we can shine a spotlight, and everyone looks exactly at that spot on the stage. The power of theatre is being able to shine that spotlight at ourselves and the world we live in, so we can illuminate and examine the unseen. That experience shouldn’t end when the show is over and the audience leaves. Staging performances outside of the theatrical container reminds us that we always have the power of the spotlight – life can be theatre. Also, when you step outside, the sun is in the sky, and that’s the biggest spotlight of all.

Your SoHo Playhouse performance on the anniversary of 9/11 was deliberately provocative. How do you navigate the line between meaningful provocation and empty shock?

GIGI: Always punch up.

ETHAN: In our world, there’s no shortage of bastards to kill.

You say you’re not here just to make people laugh — you’re here to make people free. What does “freedom” look like inside a one‑hour Fringe show at 11pm?

GIGI: It looks real stupid — you gotta come to find out!

ETHAN: There was your life before you joined THE MOVEMENT, and life after. Our show is what happens in between.

Click here to buy tickets

Advert

Leave a Comment

Reclaiming La Goulue: Stella Kulagowski on Giving Louise Weber Her Voice Back

Click on image to buy ticket

Stella Kulagowski is the writer‑performer behind Louise: The Last Dance, the Fringe show that pulls Louise Weber — La Goulue herself — out from under a century of mythmaking and lets her speak, move, and breathe again. Kulagowski isn’t just interpreting Weber; she’s inhabiting her, stitching together the fragments history left behind and confronting the ways women and queer artists are still framed, consumed, and rewritten today. What emerges is a portrait that refuses nostalgia and refuses sanitisation — a raw, funny, furious reclamation of a woman who lived loudly, loved widely, and paid dearly for being unforgettable.

In this conversation, she talks about finding the real Louise beneath the legend, the power dynamics that shaped her rise and fall, and what it means to stand alone on stage and argue back on behalf of someone who never got to tell her own story.

1. Louise Weber’s life reads like a rise‑and‑fall myth — laundress to the highest‑paid entertainer in France, then back to the margins. What was the moment in your research when she stopped being a legend and became a living, breathing woman you felt compelled to inhabit?

There’s a moment in the research for a project like this where you stop reading about your subject and start feeling her. For me it was stumbling on the Lacombe footage, the documentary clip filmed not long before she died at sixty two years old. She’s old, missing teeth, dressed in rags, and then she starts to move. And something happens to me in the carriage of her arm – this small, but unmistakable elegance. You catch this smirk on her face and suddenly you’re not looking at a broken old woman, you’re looking at the most famous dancer in France, the muse. That’s the moment her legend became tangible to me. Her life is the epitome of the rags-to-riches-to-rags arc and her story sounds so unbelievable, but watching her move, decades past her prime, in the mud outside her caravan, made it raw in a way no photograph or painting quite had. She wasn’t performing nostalgia for the camera, film was so new there wasn’t any expectation of how to even perform for film. She was just being, deep in her bones, exactly who she’d always been. That’s the woman I knew I could feel in my own body on stage.

2. The show begins in 1928, with Louise living in La Zone — the part of Paris where the city hid what it didn’t want to see. What drew you to that late‑life vantage point rather than the glittering Moulin Rouge years? What does starting at the end allow you to reveal?

From the moment I saw that Lacombe footage, I knew the show had to bookend there. It felt like the only place to start and end. So much of what I’m telling in this piece is about how Louise was documented endlessly by other people and never once recognized for her own talent, her own creation, except as a footnote, a subject for men to paint and photograph and write about, right up to the last months of her life. There’s something almost unbearably poetic about that: being filmed to the very end and still never truly seen. Starting there, in Montmartre, blocks away from the Moulin Rouge where she was once the biggest star in France and was now selling peanuts to get by, gives the whole piece a kind of sad “I bet you’re wondering how I got here” jumping off point. And when we go all the way back and end up there again, I think it feels so satisfying.

3. Louise was painted by Renoir, immortalised by Toulouse‑Lautrec, photographed, mythologised, and endlessly consumed — yet her own voice was never recorded. How do you approach giving voice to someone history refused to hear?

She wasn’t entirely silent, that’s the incredible thing. There are fragments: an interview here, a remembered line there, diary pages, moments where her own words slipped through the cracks of everyone else’s reporting. And her wit and bite were epic, even by today’s standards. She really did yell out to the Prince of Wales in the middle of the Moulin Rouge “Hey Wales, you buying the champagne or are you just here waiting for your mother?” I’m obsessed. I built the show out from those fragments like scaffolding. Then of course, so much of her record was made into scandal and exaggeration, so we don’t always know what is real. So, of course I made artistic (and editing) choices, but they’re never careless ones. Everything I present in the show is built on extensive research into who she was, what she survived, how she moved through the world. I’m not inventing someone, I’m standing in for someone I have come to care for deeply, using her own documented fragments as my compass.

4. Your work blends projection, archival media, dance, and direct address. When you’re reconstructing a life that’s been fragmented by other people’s gazes, how do you decide what belongs to Louise and what belongs to the world that used her?

The projection is meant to do the work of anchoring us in time and place, using all the actual documented paintings, photographs, and posters people might already half-recognize. Those images do the work of a thousand words, or ten thousand dollars of set design (!), in about two seconds. That’s evidence of this wild life lived and what the world saw and made of her.

The sound design is where the emotional weight lives. We hear the music she remembers in her own head, propelling her dance. And we hear the men in her life, Renoir, Zidler, Lacombe, as disembodied voices, cutting in, directing her, deciding things about her. That disembodiment is deliberate, it’s their force and influence without a face or body, just power acting on her from outside.

But you’ll notice the important women in her life, (her sister, her lover) are never disembodied voices. They live in her own body, in memory, because they were never outside her the way the men were. They’re not haunting her from a projection or a speaker. They’re still with her, held close, because that’s where love lives when everything else about you has been documented, torn apart for profit or taken away.

5. La Goulue’s stage persona was famously audacious — high kicks, hat‑flicking, drinking from patrons’ glasses (where it is said she derived her name, ‘The Gluttion’ from), teasing the crowd. How much of that bravado do you bring into the show, and how much do you strip away to reveal the person underneath?

I lean hard into exactly these things. Her bravado is real and one of the most documented, factual things about her. And she earned every ounce of it. What I try to strip away is the assumption that bravado and fear can’t exist at the same time. I don’t play her struggle as a betrayal of her audacity, I play them as the same muscle flexed in opposite directions. She can flick a duke’s hat off his head with her high kick and simultaneously be quietly terrified that someone younger and prettier is already lined up to replace her. Both things are true in the show, moments apart. I don’t need to dial down the swagger to find the person underneath, the swagger is just one layer of a truly complicated woman. The true challenge is trying to show all that in a sharp 50 minutes!

6. Louise loved women and men and champagne and life with equal ferocity. Do you see her as a figure of queer joy, queer tragedy, or something more complicated — a woman whose appetites were both her liberation and her undoing?

Honestly, it’s complicated, and I’m still sitting with that complication rather than resolving it. She hid her relationships with women, but looking at it through a contemporary lens, that wasn’t shame in the way we’d think of it now, it was survival. Her income depended on men. Her safety depended on being legible to them as available. Hiding her female lovers wasn’t erasure imposed from outside, it was a choice she made to protect the very fame and money that kept her alive.

But other people absolutely wanted to profit off her queerness when it suited them;  Zidler putting that painting of her and Marie up, Toulouse capturing what she couldn’t (or wouldn’t) say out loud. She never got to control that either. She’d have been the one left holding the scandal if it went wrong, not them.

A lot of my work explores queer joy, taking classic texts and stories and placing them in queer context. But this one is harder, because it’s not fiction and it doesn’t resolve that way. I don’t think this is a story of queer joy. I think it’s a story of a woman who loved fiercely and still had to calculate, every single day, what that love might cost her. I’m not sure there’s a tidy ending here for her and Marie, and I’m not going to manufacture one just because it would feel better to tell.

7. You’ve had three sold‑out Toronto Fringe productions and a background in burlesque, dance, and visual art. Where does Louise: The Last Dance sit within your artistic evolution? Does it feel like a culmination, a departure, or a new beginning?

This feels like a new chapter, more than a culmination or departure. Almost everything I’ve made before this has been big ensemble work, spectacle, dance, song, burlesque, a whole cast of talented people to lean on and hide inside. This is the first time it’s just me, alone, on stage, for fifty minutes. It’s terrifying! There’s nowhere to hide when it’s just me, telling my little story, no ‘somebody else’s striptease number’ to carry the room while I catch my breath.

But stripping away (ha!) all those crutches has made me a stronger, more confident creator than any of the bigger shows did. When you can’t rely on spectacle, you have to trust the writing, the performance, the genuine meaningfulness of the story. You have to trust yourself. I don’t think I could have made this show five years ago. I needed everything I learned building those ensemble pieces just to have the nerve to stand up here alone.

8. Louise’s story raises a sharp question: who gets to tell their own story, and who gets rewritten by others? In making this piece, did you find parallels between Louise’s era and the way women and queer artists are framed today?

Oh, absolutely, one hundred percent, this piece is meant to evoke how we continue to treat women artists. The media has never stopped loving setting women up just to tear them down. Women artists get cast as bitchy, crazy, difficult, emotional wrecks, while their male counterparts get called artistic geniuses for the exact same behavior. The way we still erase women’s achievements is shameful, and it’s not new. Louise was possibly the first in an endless line of women lambasted publicly to the delight and profit of mostly men. There’s actually a huge nod to this in the show, but I don’t want to spoil it. Is it cheesy to say you’ll have to come see it for that reveal?

9. The Moulin Rouge era is often romanticised — all colour, spectacle, and bohemian glamour. What truths about that world surprised you most when you dug beneath the posters and the mythmaking?

I think how precarious it all was, even at the very top. The “muse” relationship with those painters was far more transactional than the romantic legend suggests. A modeling session with Renoir’s circle paid ten to twenty-five francs, and a laundress at the time made roughly two francs a day. So a single afternoon sitting still, often nude, could be worth a week or more of scrubbing other people’s linens. The men got the immortality and she got a fraction of what her image was actually worth.

Even at her peak, none of it was stable. She was attacked by wolves and lions during her menagerie years and entered into marriages of convenience and safety. The whole ‘Belle Epoque’ era gets remembered as color and champagne, but underneath it was this woman – the most famous of the era – calculating constantly, how much of her body and safety she could afford to risk for the next franc.

10. Finally, if Louise Weber could step into Ivy Studio during your Fringe run and watch the show, what do you hope she’d recognise in your performance — and what do you hope she’d forgive?

Oh gosh, I’d like to think we’d go out afterward and share a cheap bottle of wine and absolutely cackle at how wrong I got it! But really, I hope with all my heart, that she’d love the gumption and the spirit of it all. I hope she’d recognise the refusal to make her sanitized and palatable. I didn’t sand down the drinking, the audacity, the mess, the contradictions, because I think she’d have hated a version of herself that was too easy to like. I hope she’d see a woman finally allowed to argue back.

As for forgiveness, there are places where I fully imagine her interior life: what she felt in a given moment, what she might have said to her lovers in private and what they said to her. I hope she’d forgive me those inventions, because I made every one of them in service of being truthful to her, never at her expense.This is a love letter to, and about, a complicated, messy woman. Not a scandalous headline. Not a poster in a giftshop. Just Louise.

Find out more and buy ticket here

Advert

Leave a Comment

Desire, Delirium and Defiance: Hannah Ponturo Reimagines Strasbourg’s Dancing Plague

For 1518: The Dancing Plague,playwright‑director‑producer Hannah Ponturo doesn’t just revisit a medieval hysteria — she queers it from the inside out. At the centre of Strasbourg’s civic collapse she places Katherine and Anna, two women whose long‑fractured romance becomes the emotional pulse of a society losing its grip. Ponturo treats queerness not as an add‑on but as the lens through which the crisis sharpens: desire as defiance, intimacy as resistance, love as the one human truth that refuses to behave, even when the world is convulsing around it.

Her production moves between satire, tenderness, and outright absurdity, but the queer heart of the piece never wavers. In a story about bodies pushed past their limits, she insists on showing what happens when two people try to reclaim their humanity in a society determined to deny it. The result is a work that feels both ancient and urgently contemporary — a queer love story beating beneath the noise of mass panic, political failure, and the strange comfort of collective delirium. We asked her to tell us more…

 

1. What does it mean to centre a queer love story between Katherine and Anna in the middle of a medieval mass‑hysteria crisis — is love the antidote, or just another form of delirium?

Neither. Love is a human need but it can’t save us from either ourselves or outside forces.

2. Why does a 500‑year‑old dancing plague feel more recognisable than anything we lived through in 2020?

Writing this piece post covid allowed me to accidentally draw parallels without initially intending to. Once it was clear, I wanted to channel Arthur Miller a la The Crucible and write about a historical crisis that was really about a modern event.

3. The clergy and city authorities scramble to contain the outbreak — is the real satire aimed at how power behaves when it loses control?

Yes, the clergy and city authorities get a hard beating from me throughout the show. Ultimately people who hold power are just people and during a crisis it’s very difficult to make the decision that will be deemed “right” in hindsight. Nevertheless some choices were so obviously wrong in the moment.

4. What’s the moment where the audience realises the comedy is getting uncomfortably close to our own recent chaos?

It sneaks up on you naturally until you start to realize that one plague is not so different from the other.

5. Does the play treat hysteria as a disease, or as something society manufactures when it can’t face the truth?

A little bit of both. The characters within the play truly believe that it’s a disease while I hope to portray that it’s the latter.

6. Katherine and Anna’s “long‑fractured romance” reignites while Strasbourg collapses — is queer love the rebellion here?

Queer love and fighting for one’s humanity is the rebellion.

7. How much of the dancing is pure comedy, and how much is a metaphor for people being pushed past their limits?

There’s only a small portion of the dancing that’s actually comedy. Our choreographer, Sydney Diamond, has created a language for the dancing sickness using the four elements: air, fire, water, earth. At first the dancing is air. These people are living in an enormously oppressive society and being able to dance feels good. Then, it becomes fire and the energy is full of sparks until we get to water and it becomes heavy. Ultimately earth is our destination before death.

8. What’s the most outrageous moment in the show that audiences absolutely won’t see coming?

Come and see!

9. How does the production balance the absurdity of people dancing themselves to death with the tenderness of a queer love story?

The incredible actors are able to balance this flawlessly: Britney Shields, Nicole Souza, Ryabrae Ngaida, Tallulah Jones, Gilberto Ortiz, Anne Marie Howard, and Don Berman.

10. Does the play suggest that crises bring people together, or that they expose what was broken all along?

Perhaps both. I’m sorry for being so Switzerland in this interview but I really do believe that there’s not just one answer to anything (except math, which I’m bad at).

11. What single image from the show captures both the comedy and the horror of the dancing plague?

Our logo, designed by Max DiRado, is the perfect image to describe our show. It’s a modern girl twerking with the medieval doctor plague mask on. I LOVE it.

12. If the dancing plague happened today, would it start on TikTok — or would TikTok just monetise it?

I think both. Today, anything that can be monetized will be.

13. How does the show use satire to talk about modern crises without ever naming them outright?

Bad government, heightened emotions, and incorrect medical advice are sadly timeless.

14. What do you hope queer audiences take from Katherine and Anna’s story that straight audiences might miss?

There’s a raw vulnerability to their love that I hope everyone can see, relate to, and experience either now, in the future, or in the past.

15. Why does a medieval dance‑till‑you‑drop epidemic feel like the perfect metaphor for the way we cope with uncertainty now?

The Dancing Plague is inherently silly and disarming so I hope to use this as a way to bring people in before getting to the subjects that may be less palatable.

Find out more and buy tickets here

Advert

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »