A unique offering at the Fringe, Machina is by turns very formulaic and incredibly innovative. On the one hand, it adopts the contrived plot and stock characters of commedia dell’arte to tell its story. On the other, it combines a single live actor with projections of other characters on several screens onstage. Moreover, it plays with the idea of the Deus ex machina as a plot device and uses it to highlight some interesting ideas about the nature of theatre.

In terms of storyline, Machina is about as derivative as it comes. The farcical love story sees Orazio and Flaminia conspire together to break up the happy couple Flavio and Isabella so that each can claim one half of the partnership for themselves. Meanwhile, the character of Pantalone is a trope lifted directly from the genre and the two captains (one Spanish, one French) vying for Flaminia’s affection are another common occurrence in commedia dell’arte.

What’s refreshing is the production’s original take on the style. As well as having a live actor (Gian Marco Pellecchia) interact with pre-recorded projections (all played by himself, in various guises), the show also delves into how the characters can usurp control of their narrative. Pantalone embodies this self-determinism, causing upheaval at various points in the story, primarily for comedic effect but also in an interesting commentary on theatre itself.

Technical difficulties were also experienced during the show, although the introductory speech explaining the Deus ex machina makes it unclear whether this was intentional or not. Regardless, Pellecchia handles the developments very well, acting out the live roles which were presumably intended to be projected on the screens. It’s difficult to say whether this happens at every outing of the show, but it certainly contributed something to its overriding themes on this occasion.

Unfortunately, the ideas hinted at here are never fully explored (hence the confusion surrounding those technical difficulties) and the plot is tied up abruptly and with far too much ease. As a result, it leaves the viewer’s interest piqued but very unsatisfied. It’s a compelling idea, but one in dire need of more accomplished examination and execution. With a better script and more convincing conclusion, it could have communicated its message so much more effectively – hopefully a second draft will yield better results.