Last month, No Proscenium reviewed The People’s Revolt, a production created by the London-based differencENGINE in partnership with the Tower of London.

As differencENGINE closes The People’s Revolt and looks ahead, founder Jon Cooper took a break to talk with us about the company’s approach to immersive storytelling.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

No Proscenium (NP): For those who don’t know differencEngine, could you please introduce yourself and tell us a little about yourselves?

Jon Cooper (JC): differencEngine is an immersive, interactive theatre company, begun in 2014 by myself and Andrew Somerville, to answer the question of whether it was possible to create theatre which could be shaped and changed by audience interaction with the characters and story. We had been following the Alternative Reality Gaming (ARG) scene in the USA, as well as seeing the growth of Punchdrunk’s work here in London, but we always felt like a voyeur in those two worlds.

We wanted to make work where the audience was the central protagonist, was at the center of an extraordinary experience, where anything they offered to the world would be recognized and reflected in the production itself. It’s a theory which has seen us help audiences perform a robbery in a six-story building in central London, land space aliens in housing estates, and storm the Tower of London to hold politicians to account.

NP: How would you describe The People’s Revolt?

JC: The People’s Revolt was a modern day re-telling of the 1381 Peasants Revolt, where huge numbers marched on central London for reasons of austerity, taxation, and to demand a redress of the balance of wealth and poverty. During this protest, the Tower of London was entered by a mob, who found the figure at the center (Simon Sudbury) and decided to behead him for his perceived crimes against the people.

Our production consists of five days of digital storytelling around key events in history, and brings them into the modern day with an evening’s physical infiltration into the Tower of London itself. We wanted to discuss the gray areas which come with the idea of ‘revolution’ and pose a central question to audiences: “How far are you willing to go in order to see change?” Throughout this production, we have had audiences sneak through moats, conduct subterfuge past checkpoints, disrupt broadcasts, and decide whether to open the doors to the Tower of London for a baying mob which would result in the death of a governmental figure.

NP: What drew you towards working with Historic Royal Palaces for The People’s Revolt?

JC: The Tower of London itself is an icon, which has stood through the centuries, outliving all the sociopolitical changes human society has staged in and around it; as such, it has always seemed poignant to stage a dramatic discussion piece in the walls that saw it all unfold. Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) are also a very forward-thinking institution and wanted to reach a demographic who usually view the Tower as just a tourist attraction. Neither organization was interested in just re-telling the history itself, but rather to demonstrate how relevant history is to what is still happening in the world around us today. We also had a great support network internally with HRP, as it was headed up by an enthusiastic team excited to push the boundaries, and our main contact, Adam Sibbald, had a background as a ‘maker’ of this sort of work too.

NP: What are some of the challenges of staging a piece on historical grounds?

JC: To be honest, it’s somewhere between a thankless task and an absolute pleasure. The practicals are tricky and require a lot of forethought and planning — it’s a UNESCO heritage site, so even the color of lights need to be vetted for the damage they may cause to the building itself. Other small examples are things like the routes we take through the show have “trip steps” which were historically designed to make people fall up or down vast circular staircases, as well as the fact that it’s a working museum, so anything we do in the space has to acknowledge that, while also being an immersive experience. You also can’t build, cable, or install anything, so many of the tools of immersive work are a challenge to deliver. All that said, you do, as makers, have the run of the best set ever built. We opened a never before publicly accessible tunnel under Tower Bridge; we snuck through the moat surrounding the Tower, and we staged moments of drama in the Throne Room, where those characters from history themselves had stood and debated the issues just as we did.

NP: In our review of The People’s Revolt, we discussed the structure of an immersive piece that the audience can “win” or “lose.” How do you see this reflected in your work?

JC: We try not to approach this as a straight “win” or “lose” option; we think the truth is (much like life) in the gray area between the two. Yes, sometimes you really “win” in life, sometimes you “fail” so miserably it hurts. But those moments when you don’t exactly achieve what you set out to do are when you take the opportunity to look at yourself and the choices you made. I want to be really explicit in saying: that isn’t us (as makers) setting out arbitrary objectives, but rather an exploring something deeper in the audiences themselves.

With The People’s Revolt, there is a central question of whether a human being should be left to live or die for doing what they thought was right. Choosing to take a course of action in either direction has different emotional and dramatic responses from each of the characters involved. If a character tells you the objective of the show is to kill a man, and you do it, then you “win,” but at what cost to the characters and the world?

In one of our early shows, Heist, we had an audience member attend a lot of times in the hope of getting the “perfect ending.” There was no perfect ending; we directed that show live, while the audience took part in the production. When we began, we started with 13 possible journeys but when we closed the show after nine months, had over 50. In the end, the audience members got what they wanted, but not how they expected, as they generated an ending which was theirs alone and never repeated again. This really is the thing we feel is so important about the work. Film, television, books, and video games are all locked media. They give you wins or failures, and if you consume them enough, they will always give the same results. In our work, immersive is the vehicle which delivers interactive the opportunity to be truly unique and just for its particular audience at that moment in time.

NP: How do you balance the possibility of “failure” with a full and gratifying story arch?

JC: It’s not easy. There are a lot of moving parts, and it’s different for every production we do, but the essentials remain the same. The invitation to play must come with clearly defined tools, but in the use of those tools comes the gray area which relates to characters, story, and perspective of the audience, and the immersive world itself. If you feel like you failed, then why? It shouldn’t feel like the tools or the instructions were to blame, but rather an obstacle which stood in your way physically, philosophically, or abstractly. We never catch all of them, but when this is married with a world which reacts to your actions and shows consequences in the characters and in the world itself, you can make even the most intense failure into glorious storytelling.

NP: You also built The People’s Revolt very quickly; what aspects of experience design did you prioritize while working within these limits?

JC: Immersive and interactive work is expensive to make and very complex in its logistical and artistic moving pieces. There are all the pressures of the theatrical with all the logistics of running a venue, and then adding in tools for audience interaction which can’t truly be tested until audiences enter the show. It’s a constant iterative process to learn from the audience and continue to shape the show. Previous works of ours have allowed us to create something which could flex and bend to every audience choice, but this production was designed to appeal more to a broad spectrum of immersive theatre audiences, from very engaged players through to first-time attendees. With all these moving pieces in mind, we worked hard to prioritize the performers’ characters, so that they can pull from their back-stories to deal with any unexpected events or mechanics which may occur in the production. We also spent a lot of time focusing on the audience journey — how each beat or moment should feel, and how these can be communicated to audiences through action.

NP: The People’s Revolt not only explores a historic London monument but also draws inspiration from real-life events. What inspired you to work within the context of historical events?

JC: The themes of the Peasant’s Revolt as a historical event parallel with our current times so directly, and we wanted to be able to place audiences at the center of a moment of history and ask them what it takes to obtain the change in the world you wish to see. We wanted the audience to be able to stand inside the walls where that history took place and show through their actions how differently things could have turned out, how impossible it is to make change at all, and the emotional and idealistic challenges that come with making life or death decisions in a brief moment.

NP: What’s the most important thing you have learned about your audiences while creating The People’s Revolt?

JC: The audience spectrum for work here in London has become very broad, and this production highlighted the real diversity of that spectrum. We’ve found there are audience members who want to immerse themselves in a world for days on end, to poke into every tiny detail, and to experiment with both themselves and the characters which exist there. Then there are very game-driven audiences, who are used to “escape the room” games or the idea of “winning” their way through the experience. Finally, there are people who just booked a night out, who don’t want to participate for days on end, or who come to this sort of work and are overwhelmed and struggle to know how to interact with a performance. We made a conscious decision with The People’s Revolt to try to offer something for every person on that spectrum, which is a huge undertaking in both concept and delivery.

We believe if this genre of work is to cross over into the mainstream and to leave large cities, then it must be designed to reach everyone and give them the opportunity to fall as far down that rabbit hole as they wish. We want audiences like the individual who stood on the bridge for an hour before the show, dressed as a spy, watching other audiences go through, while at the same time be able to take someone by the hand who has never been to this form of work before and welcome them into an amazing, new world they can change. That isn’t an easy balance to strike and our audiences are the only ones teaching us how to do it.

For every success or failure we have artistically in these shows, it’s about how the audience teaches us to be better storytellers and better artists.

The People’s Revolt has concluded its run; find out more about differencENGINE and future projects on their web site.

No Proscenium is a labor of love made possible by our generous backers like you: join them on Patreon today!

In addition to the No Proscenium web site, our podcast, and our newsletters, you can find NoPro on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and in our online community Everything Immersive.