REVIEW: New play debates the Constitution’s impact on lives
Photo: Heidi Schreck and Mike Iveson star in What the Constitution Means to Me at New York Theatre Workshop. Photo courtesy of Joan Marcus / Provided by Matt Ross Public Relations with permission.
NEW YORK — Heidi Schreck has created a touching, topical, poignant play that asks questions — both basic and complex — of the founding document that has so greatly influenced American history. In particular, the actor-playwright is interested in how the language of the Constitution and its amendments have impacted the lives of women, including women in her own family, both historically and in today’s divided times.
What she finds throughout this theatrical examination is sad and beguiling. For scholars of constitutional law, much of the legal revelation will be old hat (the difference between positive rights and negative rights, for example); however, when Schreck delves into her personal history and how the interpretation of the Constitution has shaped the lives of her family members, all ears will be riveted with the novel lens she holds to this document.
Schreck sold out her run of What the Constitution Means to Me at New York Theatre Workshop in the fall, and she moved the show across the Village to the Greenwich House Theater for a limited engagement that concludes Dec. 30.
In the performance piece, which runs approximately 95 minutes, Schreck plays herself at 15 years old. At that young age, with the support of her mother, she would travel to American Legion halls and take part in debates on the Constitution. The prize money from these civil discourses actually helped the actor pay for college.
The set by Rachel Hauck recreates an American Legion hall, with framed photos of veterans lining the walls and a simple podium in the center of the stage. Mike Iveson plays a Legionnaire who sets the framework for the performance, essentially explaining to the audience that Schreck will have time limits to expound on the Constitution generally and certain amendments specifically. Due process and equal protection both receive much deserved attention.
The play, directed by Oliver Butler, follows this format of structured monologue for about half of its duration, but then Schreck breaks from her 15-year-old self to get more personal with the audience. She directly addresses the crowd and sheds the theatrical veneer of being in an off-Broadway theater. She wants to have an intimate conversation with the theatergoers; in some ways, she stops playing a part (Iveson, too) and simply talks person to person. Sometimes there’s great humor in working through the Constitution’s language (Schreck is an expert deliverer of lines), and other times the monologue being said aloud is devastating to hear, especially given the current headlines in the media.
The direct-address approach is unique and unconventional; it can make the audience feel and appreciate the profound stories being told. When Schreck opens up about several difficult topics, including violence against women, there is a brief recitation of the legal understanding and precedent, but there’s also the personal quality and familial connection. She brings real humans — with real names and real stories to tell — back into the fold of politics and legal cases. Statistics are at a minimum, and any textbook assertion leads to a personal anecdote.
This is raw, heartbreaking and vital meta-theater. The constructs of a play are presented and then abandoned. The fourth wall is built, destroyed, built and ultimately destroyed (as many in the crowd would argue all walls should be). What’s left is Schreck and the powerful stories she has to tell. When she opens up about her grandmother, her mother and herself, there is a palpable sorrow in the room, a feeling of empathy, grief, anger and frustration — all set against the backdrop of strength and survival.
One learns a lot from these lessons and histories.
It would be wrong to give away the unexpected twists and turns of the play’s finale. Rest assured, Schreck’s many messages are put to the test, in a spirited and academic sense, and it’s a remarkable ending that serves as another beginning, a passing of a baton perhaps.
Most importantly, Schreck’s words get the audience to consider the question of the play’s title. What does the Constitution mean to this actor-playwright? What does it mean to me?
By John Soltes / Publisher / John@HollywoodSoapbox.com
What the Constitution Means to Me completes its extended run Dec. 30 at the Greenwich House Theater at 27 Barrow St. in the West Village of New York City. Click here for more information and tickets.
