Review: I’m Not Saying We Should, But What If We Did?, Fringe 2025

The lights dim and the stage is set, but is it? I’m Not Saying We Should, But What If We Did? begins so cleverly that you may not even realise the play has started. The audience is transported into a chaotic backstage world of a Saturday night chat show, with the cast milling amongst the crowd, a disorienting, yet effective, opening that immediately pulls you into the action.

Charisma and Comedy

A conversation between our two ambitious new (candidate) MPs, Maud and Agnes, is played for the audience. We hear them reminiscing over their latest PR stunt (going topless at a famous London landmark) and planning their next controversial move. We are immediately positioned to dislike these manipulative women before they even take to the stage. Their proposition, a ludicrous and ever-morphing policy to “ban men”, is an almost-but-not-quite parody of modern-day populism. The policies are not only bold but are also exactly the sort of thing that would appeal to the voter who only listens to soundbites and not to the detail. Maud and Agnes, brilliantly played by Harriet Pringle and Lizzie White, are unashamedly uncharismatic. They are clearly out for power, and they will make bold, revolutionary claims to get it. They are the epitome of populist politicians, all style and no substance.

As the play unfolds, the fourth wall is played with again and again. The audience is asked to develop sympathy for Maud and Agnes. We are invited into their backstories and shown how they have been mistreated by men throughout their lives. The stories they tell are, sadly, common and relatable to many women in Britain today.

Strange Visuals

As the play’s proposition begins to hit home, there is a strange and compelling visual trick. As Maud and Agnes adjust their makeup between filming moments, their appearance becomes more and more clown-like, culminating in them emerging for the final act wearing small clown hats. It is a striking metaphor that leaves you thinking: Is this a commentary on the absurdity of their politics, or a statement on the ridiculous lengths to which people will go to be believed? It is a disorienting and uncomfortable visual that leaves you wondering if they are the clowns or if we, the audience, are.

The play is provocative and makes you question your own biases. As a middle-aged white man, the central premise of “banning men” is both confronting and compelling. I can acknowledge the privilege I’ve experienced, and statistically, I’m more likely to be the bad guy. I don’t think a voter who we might classify as a ‘gammon’ would even be in the audience, so the show is largely preaching to the choir, but the messaging is so strong that I am not sure it would always land with its intended effect. The proposition, “I’m not saying we should, but what if we did?” is a clever one, and it certainly leaves you with food for thought.

Overall

This is a clever play. The point is made without needing to be any longer than it is. The direction is tight and the acting is strong. It’s the sort of show you will want to talk about with friends afterwards. I would certainly recommend it as a piece of theatre that makes you think.

It didn’t need to be a minute longer than it was.