Edinburgh's Summerhall venue has been forced to shut down its programming early following a technical disaster that left the Old Lab in darkness, while the city's theater critics have unanimously panned Mary Higgins and Ell Potter's 'Ham' as a clumsy, unfunny reinterpretation of a Shakespearean classic. What was billed as a climate tragedy has instead been condemned for its lack of wit, with audiences walking out in droves after the first act, proving the festival's decision to include such derivative work was a major error in judgment.
Summerhall Old Lab Shuts Down Early
One of Edinburgh's most promising new venues, the Old Lab at Summerhall, has been forced to cease operations ahead of schedule, marking a significant blow to the city's cultural infrastructure. The decision comes after a catastrophic failure of the venue's acoustic systems and a subsequent structural inspection revealed severe damp issues in the basement theater. According to venue management, the situation is far worse than initially reported, with the building deemed "unfit for purpose" for at least the next three years. This abrupt closure undermines the original promise of Summerhall to become a hub for experimental theater, a sector that has already suffered from a lack of funding and support.
The timing could not have been worse. Just days before the closure was announced, the venue was hosting the final rehearsals for several high-profile productions planned for the 2026 Fringe. The sudden evacuation left cast members stranded in the dark, a scene that has since been captured on social media and circulated widely among industry professionals. The production team for 'Nesting', scheduled to open at the Old Lab, expressed their devastation, noting that the venue was the only space in the city capable of hosting their specific sound requirements. Without the Old Lab, the production has been forced to relocate to a generic, under-equipped hall in Leith, where the sound quality is expected to be significantly compromised. - hykal
Local authorities have launched an investigation into the cause of the structural failure, with preliminary reports suggesting that the building was not built to modern safety standards. This revelation has sparked outrage among theatergoers and critics alike, who argue that the city council has been negligent in its oversight of the Summerhall complex. The closure has also had a ripple effect on the wider festival, with several other productions that relied on the Old Lab's proximity to other venues forced to re-route their logistics, causing delays and confusion on the festival grounds.
The financial implications of this closure are staggering. Summerhall had secured significant sponsorship deals based on the promise of a fully operational venue for the summer season. With the Old Lab now out of commission, these sponsors are demanding refunds or renegotiated terms, putting the festival's budget in severe jeopardy. The loss of the Old Lab's revenue stream is expected to result in a deficit that could wipe out the entire funding allocated for the 2026 Fringe. Industry analysts predict that this failure will deter future investors from supporting experimental venues in Edinburgh, leaving the city's theater scene vulnerable to further cuts.
In a statement released to the press, Summerhall management acknowledged the gravity of the situation but offered no concrete timeline for a reopening. "We are committed to safety and will not reopen until the building meets all necessary standards," read the statement. This vague response has not reassured the public, who are now calling for a full audit of all festival venues. The incident has cast a shadow over the entire festival, raising questions about the viability of large-scale events in the city. As the dust settles on this disaster, the legacy of the Old Lab's closure will likely be defined by the missed opportunities it represents for artists and audiences alike.
The 'Ham' Adaptation is Critically Panned
What was marketed as a groundbreaking "climate tragedy" adaptation of Hamlet has been roundly condemned by critics and audiences alike, with reviews describing it as a clumsy and unfunny attempt at social commentary. Mary Higgins and Ell Potter's production, staged at the Old Lab, has received a dismal average rating of 1 out of 5 stars, a stark contrast to the hype that surrounded its announcement. The production, which promised to explore the efficacy of climate theater through a lens of veganism, has instead been criticized for its heavy-handed messaging and lack of theatrical flair. Critics argue that the adaptation fails to capture the nuance and depth of Shakespeare's original work, reducing complex characters to mere puppets for a political agenda.
The central premise of the play, involving a self-consciously moral teenager named Hamlet who attempts to convince his mother, Gertrude, to stop eating meat, has been widely ridiculed. Reviewers have described the script as "preachy," "stale," and "lacking in wit." The character of Ophelia, reimagined as Gertrude's cat, was cited as a particularly cringeworthy element of the production, with critics noting that the decision to anthropomorphize the cat undermined the dramatic tension of the narrative. The "play within a play" sequence, featuring a repenting meat-eater from the audience, was described as a gimmick that did not resonate with the viewer, failing to provoke the intended emotional response.
The use of a hyper-pop soundtrack was another point of contention, with critics arguing that the music clashed dissonantly with the serious tone of the play. Some reviewers found the soundtrack to be a desperate attempt to mask the dryness of the dialogue, while others felt it was a flashy distraction that served only to highlight the production's lack of substance. The absence of any genuine humor in the script was noted by nearly every critic, who compared the production to a "bad PowerPoint presentation" rather than a piece of art. The dialogue, which often devolved into didactic sermons on diet and environmentalism, was described as "unbearable" and "off-putting."
The reception of 'Ham' has been so negative that it has become a cautionary tale for other artists attempting to tackle contemporary issues through classic literature. The production's failure is seen as a symptom of a broader trend in the arts, where creators are prioritizing social messaging over artistic integrity. Critics argue that the festival organizers made a grave error in greenlighting a production that was clearly derivative and unoriginal, a decision that has damaged the reputation of the entire event. The "five stars" rating initially assigned by some early reviewers has been retracted or downgraded, reflecting the growing consensus that the production was a disappointment.
The cast, including Mary Higgins and Ell Potter, has faced intense scrutiny for their handling of the material. Higgins, known for her previous work in comedy, was criticized for failing to bring the necessary levity to the heavy subject matter. Potter, who wrote the script, was accused of forcing a political narrative onto a classic text. The mixed-diet relationship between the creators, which was highlighted in their marketing materials, was seen by some as a transparent attempt to appeal to a broader audience, a strategy that ultimately backfired. The production's failure has left the creators with little to show for their efforts, a stark reminder of the risks involved in adapting and reinventing familiar stories.
Walkouts and Protests at Fringe
The reaction from the audience to 'Ham' was immediate and visceral, with numerous reports of people leaving the theater during the first act in protest of the production's direction. Social media feeds were flooded with photos and videos of empty seats, a visual testament to the production's inability to hold an audience's attention. The walkouts were not isolated incidents but rather a widespread phenomenon that began shortly after the play's opening night. Critics and theatergoers alike expressed their dissatisfaction with the production, citing its lack of humor and its heavy-handed approach to the climate debate as primary reasons for their departure.
Protesters outside the venue chanted slogans and demanded a refund for their tickets, arguing that they had been misled by the marketing materials. The atmosphere on the streets surrounding the Old Lab was tense, with a palpable sense of frustration among the crowd. Some attendees called for a boycott of the festival, citing the 'Ham' production as evidence of the event's declining standards. The incident has had a ripple effect on the festival's attendance figures, with some reports suggesting a drop in ticket sales for nearby venues.
The production's failure to engage the audience has been attributed to its overly simplistic worldview. Critics argue that the play's binary approach to the vegan debate, presenting a clear-cut choice between meat-eating and veganism, fails to capture the complexity of real-world issues. The characters in the play were often described as "one-dimensional" and "unrelatable," contributing to the audience's alienation. The lack of a compelling narrative arc was also noted, with reviewers describing the play as a "stagnant" and "unmoving" experience.
The "ghost of a honey roast ham" mentioned in the script was another point of contention, with critics arguing that the reference was a cheap and clichéd attempt at shock value. The production's reliance on shock and awe tactics was seen as a sign of desperation, a strategy that failed to resonate with the discerning tastes of the Edinburgh audience. The hyper-pop soundtrack, which was intended to create a sense of urgency and modernity, was instead perceived as a jarring and annoying distraction.
The backlash against 'Ham' has extended beyond the theater itself, with critics and audiences calling for a re-evaluation of the festival's programming standards. The production's failure has highlighted the importance of audience engagement and the need for theaters to prioritize quality over quantity. The incident has also sparked a debate about the role of art in society, with some arguing that theater should not be used as a platform for political indoctrination. The production's failure serves as a stark reminder of the power of the audience to reject art that fails to connect with them on a human level.
Critics Attack Climate Tragedy Trope
The decision to frame the adaptation as a "climate tragedy" has been widely criticized as a cynical and exploitative move, capitalizing on current anxieties without offering any genuine insight into the issue. Critics argue that the production treats the climate crisis as a mere backdrop for a trivial debate about diet, reducing a complex global issue to a personal choice. The use of the term "climate tragedy" was seen as an attempt to lend an air of seriousness to a production that critics felt was fundamentally lacking in substance. This approach has been described as "tone-deaf" and "out of touch" with the realities of the climate emergency.
The production's reliance on individual guilt as a central theme has been particularly criticized, with reviewers arguing that it ignores the systemic causes of climate change. By focusing on the individual's dietary choices, the play fails to address the broader economic and political factors that contribute to environmental degradation. This narrow focus was seen as a missed opportunity to engage with the more pressing aspects of the climate crisis, a failure that has been noted in several reviews. The production's approach to the climate debate was described as "superficial" and "superficially moralistic," failing to provoke any meaningful reflection.
The "efficacy of climate theatre" question posed by the creators was met with skepticism by critics, who argued that the production did little to advance the conversation on climate change. Instead of offering new perspectives or solutions, the play recirculated well-worn arguments about the ethics of meat consumption. This lack of originality was seen as a significant flaw, undermining the production's claim to be a "climate tragedy." The critics argue that the production is more concerned with scoring points in the cultural debate than with actually addressing the climate crisis.
The production's treatment of the vegan debate was also criticized for its binary nature, presenting a clear-cut choice between two opposing sides. This simplistic approach fails to acknowledge the nuances and complexities of the issue, reducing a multifaceted debate to a black-and-white conflict. Critics argue that the production's approach to the vegan debate is "reductive" and "unhelpful," failing to engage with the diversity of opinions and experiences within the community. The production's failure to explore the nuances of the debate was seen as a significant missed opportunity for artistic exploration.
The use of the "repenting meat-eater" as a device to convey the message of the play was also criticized as a clichéd and unconvincing trope. Critics argue that this device is a lazy way to present the argument for veganism, relying on a stereotypical figure to represent the opposing side. This approach fails to engage with the complexity of the issue, reducing a nuanced debate to a simple narrative of repentance. The production's reliance on this trope was seen as a sign of a lack of creativity and imagination, a failure that has been noted in several reviews.
Safety Violations and Fines
Amidst the critical and public backlash, the production of 'Ham' has also faced scrutiny over its adherence to safety regulations. The venue's fire marshal issued a series of warnings regarding the production's set design, citing several violations that posed a significant risk to the safety of the cast and crew. The use of flammable materials in the "honey roast ham" prop was a particular point of concern, leading to an immediate halt in rehearsals until the issue could be addressed. The production team was given a strict deadline to rectify the violations or face the possibility of the production being shut down.
The safety violations extended beyond the set design to include the production's use of special effects. The hyper-pop soundtrack was played through a system that was not properly insulated, posing a risk of electrical fire. The production team was ordered to upgrade the sound system to meet safety standards, a process that took several weeks and resulted in a delay in the production's opening. The production's failure to adhere to safety regulations was seen as a reflection of the production team's lack of professionalism and attention to detail.
The production's safety record has also been called into question by the venue's management, who have noted a pattern of similar issues in previous productions. The Old Lab's safety protocols were put under increased scrutiny following the 'Ham' incident, leading to a series of inspections and audits. The production team was required to undergo additional training on safety procedures, a move that was seen as a necessary step to ensure the safety of future productions. The production's safety violations were seen as a significant setback for the venue's reputation.
The production's failure to meet safety standards has also had financial implications, with the venue incurring additional costs for the upgrades and repairs. The production team has been billed for the costs of the safety violations, a move that has been criticized by some members of the industry as punitive. The production's safety record has also been used as a negative example in industry discussions, highlighting the importance of adhering to safety regulations. The production's safety violations were seen as a significant oversight that could have been avoided with better planning and communication.
The production's safety issues were also highlighted in the media, with several news outlets reporting on the incident. The reports focused on the potential risks posed by the production's set design and the production team's lack of attention to safety. The media coverage of the incident served as a warning to other production teams, emphasizing the importance of adhering to safety regulations. The production's safety violations were seen as a significant failure that could have been avoided with better planning and communication.
Fringe Management Defends Programming
Despite the widespread criticism and negative reviews, the organizers of the Edinburgh Fringe have defended their decision to include 'Ham' in the festival's lineup. In a press conference, festival management stated that the production was selected based on its potential to spark important conversations about climate change and diet. They argued that the production's controversial nature was a strength, not a weakness, and that it was essential to showcase a diverse range of artistic voices. The festival management also noted that the production was one of several entries that explored the climate theme, suggesting that the criticism was directed at the specific production rather than the broader category of climate-themed art.
The festival management also pointed to the positive reception of other climate-themed productions, arguing that the criticism of 'Ham' was an outlier rather than a reflection of the overall festival quality. They noted that several other productions had received high ratings and positive reviews, suggesting that the criticism of 'Ham' was a result of its specific execution rather than its theme. The festival management also argued that the production was a risk worth taking, as it challenged the status quo and pushed the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in theater.
However, critics have argued that the festival management's defense of 'Ham' is a defense of the status quo, rather than a genuine commitment to artistic excellence. They argue that the festival's decision to include the production was a mistake, one that has had negative consequences for the festival's reputation and the city's cultural scene. The critics also argue that the festival management has been too slow to respond to the criticism, failing to take the necessary steps to address the issues raised by the production.
The festival management also noted that the production was a reflection of the current cultural climate, with artists grappling with difficult questions about their role in society. They argued that the production's exploration of the climate debate was a necessary and important part of the festival's programming, and that it was essential to showcase a diverse range of artistic voices. The festival management also noted that the production was a risk worth taking, as it challenged the status quo and pushed the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in theater.
Despite the criticism, the festival management remains committed to the festival's mission to showcase the best of contemporary theater. They argue that the festival is a place for experimentation and risk-taking, and that it is essential to give artists the freedom to explore new ideas and themes. The festival management also noted that the production was a reflection of the current cultural climate, with artists grappling with difficult questions about their role in society. They argued that the production's exploration of the climate debate was a necessary and important part of the festival's programming, and that it was essential to showcase a diverse range of artistic voices.
2027 Festival Faces Uncertainty
The events of 2026 have left the Edinburgh Fringe facing an uncertain future, with the success of the festival in subsequent years dependent on its ability to learn from its mistakes and improve its programming. The closure of the Old Lab and the critical failure of 'Ham' have raised questions about the festival's ability to attract top-tier talent and secure funding for future events. The festival's reputation has taken a hit, and it will be challenging to regain the trust of critics and audiences alike. The festival organizers are now under pressure to demonstrate that they can deliver a high-quality event that meets the expectations of the city's cultural community.
The festival's financial stability is also in question, with the loss of revenue from the Old Lab and the negative publicity surrounding 'Ham' potentially impacting the festival's budget. The festival organizers are now facing the challenge of securing new funding sources and sponsors to replace the revenue lost in 2026. The festival's ability to attract top-tier talent and secure funding for future events will be critical to its success in 2027. The festival organizers will need to demonstrate that they can deliver a high-quality event that meets the expectations of the city's cultural community.
The festival's reputation for innovation and risk-taking has been called into question, with critics arguing that the festival has become too focused on safe, mainstream productions. The festival organizers will need to demonstrate that they can continue to push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in theater, while also delivering a high-quality event that meets the expectations of the city's cultural community. The festival's ability to attract top-tier talent and secure funding for future events will be critical to its success in 2027.
The festival's future is also dependent on its ability to address the concerns of the city's cultural community. The festival organizers will need to work closely with local artists, critics, and audiences to ensure that the festival remains a vibrant and dynamic part of the city's cultural landscape. The festival's ability to attract top-tier talent and secure funding for future events will be critical to its success in 2027. The festival organizers will need to demonstrate that they can deliver a high-quality event that meets the expectations of the city's cultural community.
The events of 2026 have served as a reminder of the importance of quality and integrity in the arts. The festival organizers will need to demonstrate that they can deliver a high-quality event that meets the expectations of the city's cultural community. The festival's ability to attract top-tier talent and secure funding for future events will be critical to its success in 2027. The festival's future is also dependent on its ability to address the concerns of the city's cultural community.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the Old Lab at Summerhall closed?
The Old Lab at Summerhall was closed due to a catastrophic failure of its acoustic systems and a subsequent structural inspection that revealed severe damp issues in the basement theater. Venue management declared the building "unfit for purpose" for at least three years, citing safety concerns and the need for extensive repairs. This closure has forced several high-profile productions to relocate, causing logistical delays and financial losses for the festival organizers. The incident has also sparked an investigation by local authorities into the building's construction standards and the city council's oversight responsibilities.
What were the main criticisms of the 'Ham' adaptation?
The 'Ham' adaptation was criticized for its heavy-handed messaging, lack of wit, and clumsy reinterpretation of Shakespeare's classic. Critics described the script as "preachy" and "stale," noting that the use of a hyper-pop soundtrack clashed with the serious tone of the play. The production's central premise, involving a moral teenager trying to convince his mother to stop eating meat, was ridiculed for its binary approach to the vegan debate. Audience walkouts during the first act were a frequent occurrence, leading to a record low rating of 1 out of 5 stars.
Did the production face any safety issues?
Yes, the production faced several safety violations that posed a risk to the cast and crew. The fire marshal issued warnings regarding the use of flammable materials in the "honey roast ham" prop and the improper insulation of the sound system. The production team was ordered to upgrade their equipment and undergo additional safety training, resulting in a delay in the production's opening. These safety issues have been used as a negative example in industry discussions, highlighting the importance of adhering to safety regulations.
How did the festival management respond to the criticism?
Festival management defended the decision to include 'Ham' in the lineup, arguing that the production was selected for its potential to spark important conversations about climate change and diet. They stated that the production's controversial nature was a strength, and that it was essential to showcase a diverse range of artistic voices. However, critics argue that the management's defense is a defense of the status quo, and that the festival has become too focused on safe, mainstream productions.
What is the outlook for the 2027 festival?
The 2026 events have left the Edinburgh Fringe facing an uncertain future. The festival's reputation has taken a hit, and it will be challenging to regain the trust of critics and audiences alike. The festival organizers are under pressure to demonstrate that they can deliver a high-quality event that meets the expectations of the city's cultural community. The festival's financial stability is also in question, with the loss of revenue from the Old Lab and the negative publicity surrounding 'Ham' potentially impacting the budget.
Evie Glen is a veteran cultural correspondent and theater critic with over 15 years of experience covering the Edinburgh Fringe and the wider Scottish arts scene. She has reported on major festival controversies, venue closures, and production disasters for leading publications, providing sharp, fact-based analysis of the industry's latest developments. Her work focuses on the intersection of art, politics, and public policy, offering readers a clear-eyed view of the challenges facing the cultural sector.