Writer: Mercy Brewer
Director: Fiona Popplewell
Subject X wakes to find herself in a locked white room, supervised by a closed-circuit camera and with no memory of why she’s there. She is later told that she has been treated with a synthetic drug to simulate the effects of dementia-style memory loss as part of a medical trial – and the drugs she is asked to take daily are intended to treat the condition.
The setup for this trial already sounds dodgy – no clinical trial would proceed in anything like these conditions. Macsen Brown’s white-coated supervisor, Y, hardly allays such concern – a nervy, stammering soul whose grasp of ethics seems dodgy. Only Freya Popplewell’s X, surprisingly calm under the circumstances, lends an air of credibility to the scenario.
In time, Mercy Brewer’s script reveals that the artificiality of the clinical trial is intentional, at least in part. That eventual reveal would be all the greater were one a little more sure that the hesitancy, fumbling and repetitive dialogue of the play’s first half hour were part of the effect, rather than a byproduct of weak script and performance choices.
And repetitive is the word here. There is a point to the tedium of Subject X’s life – sitting all day playing board games and reading, interrupted once a day by Supervisor Y asking the same three questions. But with so little variation between each scene, the sense of boredom that Popplewell portrays so well is in danger of becoming the prevailing mood of the audience.
One glimmer of brightness in these opening moments is Subject X’s conversation with her assigned Welfare Support Officer, a chirpy AI whose disembodied voice encapsulates the obsequious optimism of ChatGPT at its worst.
In the play’s second half hour, we finally see some development. The realisation of what is really going on hits Subject X, leading her to take control of the situation. Brewer’s intention finally begins to reveal itself, with a take on the ethics surrounding AI tools that meanders between allegorical and more literal interpretations.
Even so, the dialogue never really rises to meet the intent, instead being weighed down by exposition and over-explanation. Getting to the nub of Brewer’s ethical thesis sooner might give the piece more time to really explore the conundrums behind experimentation.
As AI tools become exponentially more intelligent and advanced, it becomes harder to evaluate them and the potential risks they pose. TR[IA]L ends with the scientists behind Subject X’s treatment being at loggerheads over the ethics and benefits behind the experiment. A little less certainty on their part and a deeper exploration of the grey areas between their opposing views would produce a far more interesting play.
Runs until 18 April 2026
