Could "Constitution" Win Best Play?

[MarilynMonroeSmash]

What does everyone think? It's been gaining a ton of attention lately and is selling well. I loved "The Ferryman," but "Constitution" has just a little more flare to me. Does anyone think there could be an upset on Sunday?

[Kad]

I think it's unlikely, but I would love for it to happen.

[Wick3]

The NYT poll stated Ferryman was most likely to win.
I’ve seen all the nominated plays and out of all of them Choir Boy and Constitution are the ones that I enjoyed the most.

[broadway86]

If there is an upset in that category, I believe it would be Constitution.

[spidernight]

Constitution winning best play would be ridiculous. First, it's not a play. For the most part, it's a one-woman show. You can't compare that to Ferryman, an actual play that juggles over a dozen characters. Second, a show shouldn't win best play just because people agree with its political message, which is what would be going on here. Change the theme from pro-choice to pro-guns and suddenly everyone would hate it. I can understand a show being disqualified for its political message but i don't think it's right to reward a show because of its political message. This is about art and I can see people enjoying Constitution more than Ferryman but I can't see how anyone can say that as works of art Constitution is better than Ferryman.

[InTheBathroom1]

I think Constitution is a work of art. Exciting, new, and fresh. I found Ferryman quite predictable though an enjoyable evening of drama. I’m rooting for Constitution. A play is still a play if it has one character or 12 and that doesn’t make it any less valid.  And there’s nothing wrong with this play being political. Being political doesn’t make it not art either.  

[quizking101]

It might still be on TDF for Tony Sunday

[Kad]

spidernight said: "Constitution winning best play would be ridiculous. First, it's not a play. For the most part, it's a one-woman show. You can't compare that to Ferryman, an actual play that juggles over a dozen characters. Second, a show shouldn't win best play just because people agree with its political message, which is what would be going on here. Change the theme from pro-choice to pro-guns and suddenly everyone would hate it. I can understand a show being disqualified for its political message but i don't think it's right to reward a show because of its political message. This is about art and I can see people enjoying Constitution more than Ferryman but I can't see how anyone can say that as works of art Constitution is better than Ferryman."

It is absolutely a play. It is not a conventional play, like The Ferryman, but to dismiss it as not being a play at all is absurd. 

Also, the show's theme isn't being pro-choice. Did you even see it?

[JSquared2]

spidernight said: "Constitution winning best play would be ridiculous. First, it's not a play. For the most part, it's a one-woman show. You can't compare that to Ferryman, an actual play that juggles over a dozen characters. Second, a show shouldn't win best play just because people agree with its political message, which is what would be going on here. Change the theme from pro-choice to pro-guns and suddenly everyone would hate it. I can understand a show being disqualified for its political message but i don't think it's right to reward a show because of its political message. This is about art and I can see people enjoying Constitution more than Ferryman but I can't see how anyone can say that as works of art Constitution is better than Ferryman."

 

summertheater is that you?

[spidernight]

yes, f course i saw it. The pro-choice message was strong within the show so i used that as an example. More broadly, the theme is that the Constitution has historically only protected white men. My overall point though was that people's enjoyment of the show was directly tied to their agreement with the message.

I disagree that saying that Constitution isn't a play is "absurd". I don't think one-person shows, which this was for the most part, are plays. I think that's a logical position. The debate portion at the end definitely wasn't a play either.

[InTheBathroom1]

Well the Tony nominating committee and Pulitzer committee seem to disagree with you

[iwuldwf]

Wick3 said: "The NYT poll stated Ferryman was most likely to win."

Per Variety's predictions/poll article, "a notable number of voters can be heard saying something along the lines of, “Ferryman will win, but I voted for Constitution.”"  It's still a long shot, and I'm sure the NYT talked to way more voters, but I'd love if Constitution pulled a Colman.

https://variety.com/2019/legit/news/tony-predictions-2019-hadestown-tootsie-the-ferryman-1203234751/

[djoko84]

The chances are extremely unlikely. The NY Times voters poll says The Ferryman is a lock to win.

[Wick3]

I watched Ferryman a few times (new and old) cast and saw Constitution once and will admit I'm rooting for Constitution too.

The NYT polled around 130 Tony voters out of ~800; so there's wiggle room in there for Constitution to do a potential upset.

[dramamama611]

I can't even fathom how you don't consider this a PLAY.  A one person show is a TYPE of play.  

[JBroadway]

EDIT: misread a post above. Apologies.

[MarilynMonroeSmash]

spidernight said: "Constitution winning best play would be ridiculous. First, it's not a play. For the most part, it's a one-woman show. You can't compare that to Ferryman, an actual play that juggles over a dozen characters. Second, a show shouldn't win best play just because people agree with its political message, which is what would be going on here. Change the theme from pro-choice to pro-guns and suddenly everyone would hate it. I can understand a show being disqualified for its political message but i don't think it's right to reward a show because of its political message. This is about art and I can see people enjoying Constitution more than Ferryman but I can't see how anyone can say that as works of art Constitution is better than Ferryman."

I'm sorry, but everything you've said is extremely convoluted and a little biased. I understand that people are not huge fans of one person plays, but that does not exclude them from being plays. Yes, The Ferryman juggles a large cast, but was Jez Butterworth's choice to do so. If he wanted to, he could have written the play with a smaller cast. Heidi Schreck decided to write a play with one central character. 

A play is defined as "a dramatic work for the stage or to be broadcast." Both The Ferryman and Constitution fit this definition. I loved The Ferryman, but I wouldn't call it the wordless greatest thing. It told a dramatic story over three hours with a climatic ending. Many, many other plays and writers have done that. And I'm not trying to discredit Butterworth's work; it was fantastic, but not form shattering. 

Let's break down Schreck's play shall we since you believe it's not a play. I'm assuming you are along the group that believes it functions more as a TedTalk. If you look closely, it does not. Heidi introduces the audience to herself and the space; I'll call this exposition. The inciting incident of the play perhaps is when Heidi informs the audience that she will be doing the contest she participated in as a child. This sets us up. What follows is our rising action, where Heidi slowly reveals parts of her life and moments that inspired her to now. Then we come to a turning point, where Heidi stops performing as her 15 year old self and steps into the world as her current age and self. From here, we finally are given the moments that are missing that she felt were inappropriate for her younger self to reveal. Some falling action with her male friend. And a denouement in the debate. That's just plot and I don't think many TedTalks have that.

What makes Constitution a play is the fact that we follow a character as they change and grow. Heidi does not first enter the stage thinking that this is what's going to happen or what she will say. She enters knowing that she is going to make a speech about what the constitution means to her. Over this time, she realizes that her thoughts have changed since she was a young girl, but the core facts and fundamental disagrees are still there. It may be presented like a TedTalk, but it certainly is not structured like one. 

And yes it has a big political message, but that doesn't make it enjoyable. I was wary once I saw it announced with NYTW's season. I thought "great another preachy piece." But after I left that theatre I was so emotional because this once lets you into her life for a few hours and is completely raw. She makes you see a world where there is something fundamentally wrong. Schreck is not attempting to be political and shove it in your face, rather she is attempting to be political in the sense of making you think to yourself, "what does the constitution mean to me." 

I'll get off my soap box now. I hope everything I said made sense. I haven't seen the play in a few months so I'm working off of memory and pure adrenaline. 

 

[After Eight]

Could it win, you ask?

How could it not?

[bear88]

This is pure speculation, and perhaps What the Constitution Means to Me pulls off the upset anyway, but I wonder if its chances might actually have been hurt by the absence of To Kill a Mockingbird as a choice. If TKAM had been there, it would have drawn votes from more traditional Tony playgoers. Instead, The Ferryman has that bloc largely to itself.

[VintageSnarker]

spidernight said: "I don't think one-person shows, which this was for the most part, are plays. I think that's a logical position."

I've seen one person shows that I think qualify as plays... Sell/Buy/Date and The Other Mozart come to mind. I do think some one person shows are not plays. Like, a concert with patter in between the songs is not suddenly a play because it's performed in a Broadway theater. Same for stand up comedy though I think some stand up crosses over into a gray area when it has a strong narrative thread. I just hated The Encounter and barely remember what it was about so I don't know where you'd put that one.