'What the Constitution Means to Me': Theatrical trial of the Constitution

Broadway has long since overcome prejudices about filmed theater and thanks to that many of the great successes of American theater of recent years can be seen from anywhere in the world on different

platforms

It is true that it is not the same to attend a show than to see it canned, but recordings are no longer treated as mere records and are increasingly desirable, especially when it comes to highly experienced genres in the audiovisual format such as musicals or the

(the classic American comic monologue).

The latter has even developed its own television code: it is as important to show the reactions of the public as what happens on stage.

Perhaps that is why the Amazon Prime Video platform has chosen a show that is governed by the rules of

(although later we will see that it is not what it seems) to present its first big bet on televised theater.

This is

a play written and performed by Heidi Schreck, a Pulitzer finalist in the drama category and winner of the New York Critics Award, which uses the weapons of the comic monologue to win over the public while calling into question what Americans still consider the most sacred element of their democracy, their Constitution, the oldest in the world in force.

A sacrilege, in short.

Schreck goes out on stage alone and begins by remembering the luminous speech she wrote as a teenager to participate in a speech contest about what the Constitution meant in the life of a 15-year-old girl in 1989. She tells jokes, challenges the audience, does what who improvises and laughs tenderly at his youthful naivety.

But little by little, almost without the public noticing, he is transferring that exercise to his adult life and reviews very hard episodes of his family history (sexist violence, abortion) to illustrate his main thesis: that the Magna Carta does not protect all citizens alike because it was written by wealthy white men to protect their interests.

At no time, he emphasizes, does the word "woman" appear, much less "immigrant".

Schreck's ability to freeze the audience's smile is fabulous.

Both the text and its interpretation are hilarious and at the same time shocking, which has merit in the case of a subject that at first can be dark or soporific for laymen in the field of Law.

On the contrary, the play is truly entertaining and engaging at all times because it focuses on the personal: on how the laws really affect individuals.

At the end Schreck brings out a young speaker to debate with her about whether it is better to abolish the Constitution or reform it and the public has to vote on which position to take.

So far, of the 183 times the play has been performed live, abolition has won 57 times, 123 for the reform and three draws.

The Amazon adaptation takes advantage of the

format

to enhance the best virtues of the original staging

at all times it is aware of the reactions of the spectators and at times the public from home can feel that it is there with them.

And it shows that filmed theater can be as vibrant as any television production of other genres if done right.