It occurs to me that as the (future, so far hypothetical) House Impeachment Managers consider how to present the case against the President to the American people and then, mayhaps, the Senate, they could do worse than emulate E5 of "Chernobyl."
Listeners to the Chernobyl Podcast know that I'm obsessed with this episode because most of it is a highly technical expository, monologue. And you're just not supposed to DO that, in drama. Climaxes are active, not 30 minute lessons on nuclear power.
So why does it work? First: because it's the solution to a mystery, one that @clmazin set up carefully in earlier episodes: "How can a RBMK reactor blow up?" We don't mind (say) Hercule Poirot telling us at length who did the murder and how. We love puzzles and solutions.
Second, because it's simplified in just the right way: not to falsify information, but to provide a simple concept anyone can grasp regardless of terminology. In "Chernobyl:" power goes up, power goes down. Red cards, blue cards.
Lastly, and most importantly, it's NOT really a monologue. We keep cutting back to the people making the (fatally wrong) decisions. So it's never about xenon or positive void coefficients, it's about people making choices that may be about obscure things but are still relatable.
People react to stories. And if the story is powerful enough, they'll invest the energy in understanding the details so they can find out what happens next.
Addendum: this may also be, partly, why the Clinton impeachment failed (ie, he was not removed from office.) The GOP House Managers never came up with a more damning story that the one we understood: The President had an affair and tried to cover it up.
As any artist knows: you can tell whatever story you like, but you can't convince your audience to care about it more than they do.
