Truth is stranger than fiction in this depiction of last year’s libel case, adapted from the courtroom’s actual transcripts. But what point is it making?Vardy V Rooney: The Wagatha Christie Trial begins with Rooney (Laura Dos Santos) soliloquising her infamous 2019 denouncement of fellow WAG Rebekah Vardy. According to Rooney, Vardy had leaked stories about Rooney to the Sun newspaper, and it was Rooney’s wily Instagram trickery which caught Vardy in the act. Liv Hennessy’s play then skips to May 2022, when Vardy sued Rooney for libel. Most of the onstage dialogue is taken from the case’s transcripts, with occasional input and clarification from Halema Hussain and Nathan McMullen’s narrators. They’re characterised as football pundits and the set is football pitch-themed- a little odd given that the libel case isn’t really anything to do with football.
Dos Santos and Lucy May Barker (as Vardy) both give good performances as the glacially-composed WAGs, and Tom Turner is especially entertaining as Rooney’s lawyer, David Sherborne. His dialogue with Rooney, however, highlights how much of The Wagatha Christie Trial’s humour relies on the expectation that the audience will laugh at Rooney’s Scouse accent. This is only exacerbated when McMullen doubles-up as Rooney’s husband (McMullen and Dos Santos are both Liverpudlians themselves). It’ll be interesting to see how The Wagatha Christie Trial goes down when it plays at the Liverpool Empire next month- in London, it comes across as snobby sneeriness. The play suffers from this laziness throughout, presenting the case as the frivolous distraction it seemed in the tabloids, rather that exploring the genuine reasons, motives and feelings behind Rooney and Vardy’s actions and the fishbowl lifestyles they lead. Vardy’s explanation of wanting to make her own money instead of relying on her husband, and Rooney’s memories of being papped on her way to school as a sixteen-year-old were probably quite sobering in court, but onstage they’re played for laughs.
In this age of arguments about The Crown, Hennessy’s reliance on the actual transcripts is admirable. However, it boxes her into a corner when it comes to structure. As in real life, Vardy takes to the witness stand first. Her evidence is the more gripping of the two, with Barker’s deadpan demeanour belies the fact that Vardy’s defence is total codswallop. After the interval, it’s Rooney’s turn to give evidence and the (mostly) truth in her story means that it’s less interesting. The second act of the play therefore lags, and The Wagatha Christie Trialwould have worked better as one act of ninety minutes.
The Wagatha Christie Trial is glossy evening of entertainment but, like Vardy’s defence, it’s difficult to take seriously, and crumbles under any scrutiny.
