It is very hard to write about this piece of theatre without giving away details which would compromise the suspense inherent in the experience. It is an hour of concentrated questioning which looks at the huge web of assumptions upon which human interactions rely, and how these should and are used to inform communication at a micro level and policy at a macro level.

The piece, in both format and content, involves the audience from the moment you walk into the cold, warehouse-like space. There are four ‘rooms’, divided by plastic sheets, and the audience are shepherded between them by our shiny game show style host, whose unnerving plastic positivity sits in stark contrast to the dark subject matter.

The piece is primarily about surveillance of suspected terrorists; through the course of the show, the audience are required to make a decision about a particular individual and his likelihood to commit terrorist acts, based on only the most limited evidence. Cleverly, the show pushes the audience to make judgements about the other audience members, too - based on little to no knowledge. The audience willingly go along with all asked of them, blithely assuming one audience member is ‘trustworthy’ and another ‘suspicious’, before realising that you’re only one step away from condemning individuals with nothing to support your decisions.

This is a scary piece of theatre; it showcases some of the scariest elements of the human psyche and how quickly they can be abused (and are abused at the highest level of US policy making). The intensity and dense atmosphere are sustained throughout the hour-long game; the winning combination of set, sound and action give the piece a palpable potential violence which was difficult to endure. However, as is often the case with shows like this, the most interesting thing is surely the observations which one can make on the behaviour of the audience. I saw people willing to argue against the innocence of a man based on nothing at all, and that’s the scariest thing.