Don’t judge Peppermint Creek’s latest show by its cover

“What the Constitution Means to Me” isn’t a title that evokes a fun night of entertainment, but those who move past the title and give it a shot will find that Peppermint Creek Theatre Co.’s latest offering is funny, engaging, sometimes heartbreaking and ultimately timely.

Playwright Heidi Schreck created a living, breathing piece of theater, echoing the concept that the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document. The play is based on her experiences as they relate to that document, beginning at age 15 when she won college scholarships by participating in Constitution-themed speech competitions hosted by the American Legion. Over the course of 90 minutes, the play addresses current hot topics in the United States, including immigration, women’s right to choose, domestic assault and structural racism.

If that list sounds heavy, it is. Yet the play is funny, due mostly to Schreck’s self-deprecation. The play also shifts narrative and character structure, increasingly personalizing the subject matter. At times Kathleen Egan plays Heidi, at times she plays herself. Peter Johnston plays a Legionnaire who coordinates the speech contest, then switches to Heidi’s friend who shares his experiences with toxic masculinity.

Director Chad Swan-Badgero has assembled an outstanding cast. While Johnston’s role allows a more sedate performance, Egan is effervescent. When playing 15-year-old Heidi, Egan exudes boundless energy, dancing, bouncing foot-to-foot and taking mini victory laps when warranted. When she speaks as the adult Heidi, sharing stories of her abortion or how her grandmother, mother and mother’s siblings endured years of domestic abuse, she holds the audience in rapt attention.

The play relies heavily on audience participation, another effective tool to make a seemingly dull topic fun. It includes a debate about whether the Constitution should be replaced. Enter real-life high school debater Tabitha Clark as Student Debater. Clark goes toe-to-toe with Egan, surpassing her energy and making her points with the rapid-fire delivery of an oratorial pro.

The audience is encouraged to cheer or boo as Egan and Clark make good or bad points, and they both make compelling arguments for either keeping or replacing the Constitution. As the playwright, Schreck remains impartial on this topic, to the point of letting an audience member decide the winner of the debate on behalf of the audience. Every performance can lead to a different outcome.

The play concludes with a short Q&A between Egan and Clark, as themselves. Continuing the active participation aspect, the questions are submitted by prior audiences and range in topic from the Constitution to personal hopes and aspirations.

As with Riverwalk’s production of “Urinetown,” this play is an important commentary on contemporary society, but the feelings it creates are very different than those it would have created if viewed even two weeks ago. Then, it might have made us feel proud of how we have utilized the Constitution for progress, albeit slow, in the United States. Now, the play is a crucial reminder of how that same document can be weaponized against those who don’t look like the Founding Fathers.