Before coming into the city, I had mixed feelings about the play The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits by Stephen Gracia. While reading it, I was disturbed by the outcome of events and had never read something that made me feel so uncomfortable. Each page became progressively more erratic, ranging from the birth of the rabbit to the horrible treatment the wife endured during such a traumatic time. Due to my discomfort while reading, I came into the city mostly curious about the mastermind behind the play, particularly why such a crazy story was crafted to show the harsh circumstances of gender roles in past society.
Upon arriving at the Macaulay building, I initially thought we were attending a simple reading of the play. However, I was mistaken and impressed with the actors and their roles. They read their lines well, in character, and even made some gestures while sitting down. Additionally, they were all very talented, and therefore, instead of feeling disturbed when listening to the play for the second time as I was during the initial reading, the actors made the play engaging and entertaining. I think I had a more positive outlook while listening to the play instead of reading it because I was able to hear the story as the director, writer, and actors intended it to be portrayed, rather than how my own mind might have altered it. For example, when Mary and Joshua talked about their relationship at the end of the script, it was clear that she was being sexually abused and used to fulfill Joshua’s desires of having a son, as she repeatedly expressed reluctance toward the act of conception. The actors’ arguments and emotions as these characters were compelling, further highlighting the harsh theme of gender roles. Thus, this theme and the overall purpose of the play were more evident than in my first reading, where my confusion about the chaotic story often obscured the symbolism of the gruesome birth. After learning that it was based on a (somewhat) true story, I was also less focused on dissecting how the story came about and more on why it was written and the larger message it implies.
Another aspect of the trip I enjoyed was hearing all about the actors’ lives; being able to actually speak with artists firsthand helped give insight into the art industry we have learned about all semester. Most strikingly, I found it remarkably sad that all the actors had another job to support themselves. This connects to what we have discussed in class about whether Americans respect their artists—and it was evident that all these actors demonstrated that we, as a society, collectively fail to. They expressed that they love creating art and the art of performing, but all had separate jobs, with some of these jobs not in the arts field at all. The actors, just from the short snippet I witnessed, were all very talented and passionate but could not do what they love solely to survive. Their similar situations reflect that we don’t truly appreciate our artists, a flaw in our society. Americans are constant consumers of art but fail to compensate artists fairly for their work.
Nonetheless, I enjoyed the trip to the Macaulay building over the weekend. It was a unique experience to discuss a play with the playwright directly and to have questions answered about what initially seemed like such an odd story.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
