Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Here, two Vulture writers discuss what this latest incarnation ofWhat the Constitution Means to Memeans to them.
Helen Shaw:So, Kathryn, I believe you never saw the show on stage.
Kathryn VanArendonk:Its true, this was my first experience with the show.
I can see what all the fuss was about!
You saw it on stage more than once, yes?
HS:I saw it a bajillion times.
I want to say 2017.
My gut, it aches.
But even though this was filmed quite a while ago, that reference still felt perfect.
We were crying together.
I admit, on screen, I now see that its part of a beautifully judged performance.
I both admire it and miss the (illusion of?)
KV:That does feel like one of the central acts of performance and construction here.
I was curious how much the set changed from its earliest staging.
All those portraits of men staring down at her its so effective.
HS:Amazingly, the set has been the same since downtown.
The proportions may have been stretched a little.
But when that same staging migrated to the Helen Hayes stage, it worked just as brilliantly.
She could do this thing at Madison Square Garden, and it would still be itself, exactly.
Theyre enough to call attention to her work, without being too smug about it.
I think the direction of the special (by Marielle Heller) was also effective here.
I did wonder about those audience reaction shots, though.
Theyre a familiar go-to for comedy specials, but they can so often feel indulgent or choppy.
(Or fake!)
HS:They do, though, point to the feeling of watching the show.
Because the show is lecture theater, we need to stay aware of ourselves as the jury/congregation/audience.
It felt like land mine, land mine, land mine, all night.
KV:Do you think this version captures that feeling?
But I watched it by myself in the middle of the day.
HS:I mean … That sense, no, I dont feel it in the Amazon Prime filming.
What the film version does, though, is it let me take it at my own pace.
I needed to pause it occasionally to just go off and stare out a window.
I also took notes.
One ofWTCMTMs engines is sheer information.
Youlearnin this show, and Im the sort of student who needs a bit of repetition.
I also kept thinking about how different it is from lecture-y TV, which is almost uniformly abysmal.
(Aaron Sorkin … you know I am thinking about you.)
HS:I always thought the ending with the young debater was her way out of anger.
Be as kind to yourself as you would be kind to her!
And I think Heidi is doing something similar here, except to … the citizenry.
So how can she pivot from that rage to an ending?
I will treat myself as I would my own daughter!
But the fact that the final section is a debate also seems crucial.
Thats partially a ruse, of course, because Schreck wrote it all.
HS:This show is full of bravura turns, and thats the bravura-est.
As she says, the structure is very carefully considered.
Will she pick me?
Do I have to stand up in front of all these people?
Im glad it will be there for them.
It also feels almost too overwhelming to watch right now.
Every story I read or watch feels like the song from Neros fiddle.
In that way, at least, Schrecks show is the right kind of whelming.
Its not lying about what it is.
Its not trying to distract me from the fight.
Its actually arming me with dates and figures and arguments.
I think Ive been worn out by the toggling itself!
InWhat the Constitution Means to Meat least the two things are the same thing.
I can look at the worldthroughit.
But when you watch the woman, it’s possible for you to see her moving forward.
Im just going to attempt to clutch that thought close for the foreseeable future.
HS:To women on the beach!
