Initially, when I read the play, I thought it was insane. I couldn’t put into words how I truly felt about it. It was funny, and I enjoyed parts of it, but the absurdity and the horror of the climax soured my feelings. However, after going to a read-along, my feelings for the play changed. I still find the play absurd and over the top, but I now admire it for that. The humor shines through much more, especially in the performance of the actress who played the midwife. She transformed her character from a shy, messy figure to a loud and goofy drunk. This simple change made her character much more dynamic and added a lot of comedy to the otherwise simple story.

Although I appreciate her interpretation of the character, I wasn’t a fan of the way Thomas was portrayed throughout the play. When I initially read it, I pictured Thomas as extremely arrogant, with an almost snobbish tone in his speech. However, the actor’s portrayal made him sound far too genuine, and his insults came across as sincere pieces of advice. Despite this, my appreciation and understanding of the play did increase.

The only other thing I found disappointing was that there was no meaning behind the rabbit. In class, we tried to decipher why the playwright had chosen a rabbit instead of a dog or another animal, but instead of having some deeper meaning, it turned out the rabbit was based on actual events. While it was interesting to learn the story behind it, I found it a bit disappointing that the rabbit turned out to be nothing more than a red herring.

When I initially read the play “The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits” by Stephen Gracia, I found it hard to understand and one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in my entire life. A woman. Giving birth. To rabbits. It was so gruesome, yet interesting. I could not help but read more and more. The ending was so weird too. She was praying to the rabbit gods to give her a rabbit because she felt mistreated. The message of the story was very inspirational and wise. When the actors and actresses read the play out and acted their roles, it made the play come to life. The screams, the emotions, they were all so vivid. I found it enjoying and helpful to picture the play. What I found most interesting was that out of the six panelists acting out the play, only one or two of them were actually actors, while the other panelists had other day jobs. The play was even cooler after I found out that it was based on a true story and it changed the way that I thought about the play. Meeting the playwright was also a very intriguing time. I really liked the way everyone showed different personalities and I really liked the experience overall.

When I first read this play, I was completely confused. Why was a woman giving birth to a dead rabbit and what was the point of the play? I had pretty negative thoughts about it. Listening to actors reading the play with emotions added to it made it a lot better and more understandable. The first half of the story was meant to be comedic and the second half was horror. I enjoyed listening to the play like this a lot better than reading it. Then came the Q&A between our class and the actors and writers. That’s where I learned this play was based off of a real story that took place in the 1700’s where a woman allegedly gave birth to rabbits. The conversation I found most interesting in this Q&A was the financial situation of artists. The person who wrote this play said he wants all of his art to be free, but also said that sometimes he had no choice but to charge. For example, when he presented this play at a theater before, the owners told him that he has to charge something so that it will be more valuable for the viewers. The writer also said how he works a day job on top of writing stories, so he doesn’t have any time to make hobbies. It makes me wonder whether artists should be paid to keep creating or do they have to charge money on their own art to make a living. Overall, I thought that this trip was great.

After listening to “The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits”, by Stephen Garcia, my biggest takeaway was that reading and watching a play provides different interpretations of the plot.

Upon first glance, I noticed how strange the title was. How did she give birth to rabbits? Why rabbits and not another animal? When I was reading the play at my own pace, I marked up some quotes that stood out to me because they seemed relevant to that character’s development. I also took note of the recurring themes, such as gender roles and superior vs. inferior. In the margins, I commented on the characters’ behaviors and emotions. This may have been excessive and tedious, but it helped me understand the message of the play and I actually enjoyed reading it. 

A couple of days before the live reading, I was discussing the play with a few peers and the general interpretation was that rabbits were chosen to symbolize fertility and Mary Toft, the wife, gave birth to rabbits as a punishment for Joshua Toft’s, the husband, actions and misdirected prayers. It was a bit disappointing to hear from Stephen Garcia that the play is based on a true 18th century event. I thought it was just a very strange play with an absurd plot that seemed to work well and make for an interesting read. Regardless, the actors read the characters in the way that I envisioned it and their body language and facial expressions portrayed the emotion of the character very well. 

It was cool to be able to ask questions, and when I asked my question about the significance behind the whiskey for the character Thomas Ahlers, Joshua’s best friend, I didn’t get the answer I expected. I interpreted the whiskey as Thomas’ method of releasing the palpable tension, but the actor Gil viewed it as a minute detail. Whiskey was the common drink of the 18th century, so that could be the reason why Thomas was consistently drinking and offering it to others. A discussion point that stuck out to me was the concept of money and making the arts more accessible. Stephen Garcia mentioned how his plays used to be free, but now he has to charge a price because assigning a value to one’s work makes it more respectable in society’s eyes. The play may be $5, but $5 versus free says something about the artist’s work. He also briefly brought up Broadway and the high ticket prices, but I actually disagreed with him on this because if the play was able to make it to the level of Broadway, then that means it’s worth the price and accessibility is not the main concern.

At the end of day, I finally got to see the Macaulay building and I was able to hear a live reading for free.

Initially, I thought traveling to the Macaulay building to hear a play we had already read as a class would be a waste of time. However, I was excited to see the Macaulay building for the first time. After we entered the Macaulay building, we sat in a lounge area playing basketball legends on a computer, waiting for an actor stuck in traffic. Once the actor was ready, we entered the room to listen to the play. I saw the playwright in the back and a group of actors in the front preparing to read the play to us. As the actors started to read the play, I understood why it is important to hear it and not just passively read it. Hearing the narrative, the screams, and the emotions first-hand from the actors helped me to understand the play in a way I think just reading it would not provide. Although they only read the play from their voices and did not act it out as they would in an actual set, I determined the dynamics of each character, and the actors had the effect of setting the stage in a way that just reading it yourself would not have. The actors helped me understand what happened in this absurd situation where the man’s wife was birthing rabbits.

After the actors finished reading the play, I fully grasped its idea and message and saw the playwright’s idea as the artist behind it. The Q&A after the performance was also engaging as I heard the stories and passions behind each actor and artist who performed. I heard how the playwright handles misinterpretation, financial motives, and passion behind art. Most actors have actual day jobs and are not just full-time actors, which adds meaning to their art because they do it out of love alone since it is not how they make money. Furthermore, I thought the playwright would reject misinterpretation of his art, and how many of us thought it might have to do with pregnancy tests being done from rabbits in the 1970’s. However, he believed this interpretation was fine as everyone gets different meanings from the artist’s art, and as soon as art gets put out into the world it is open for everyone to see it as they see fit since it is not the artist’s possession anymore.

At first, I thought this trip would be a waste of time, straddling me away from other priorities; however, after the trip, I thought it was exciting to hear from the playwright and better understand the intention behind the play. Overall, I enjoyed the trip, and it was great to see the mindset behind the artist and learn more about art as a whole. 

The play in itself is absurd upon the first reading. Half the cast was drunk and unable to fully come to terms with the extent of the situation and humor and alcohol was their only way to cope. However, the author found a unique outlet to convey the gender roles, stereotypes, and oppressive expectations of women at that time. The sheer horror was a stark contrast to the humor the other actors brought to the scene. Nevertheless, reading the play is one thing and being able to experience it is another. Being merely a few feet away from the actors was an incredible experience to see them interpret the work and bring it to life in their own unique way. More than that, being able to talk to the author, understand his work from his perspective, and have a glimpse into his mind to understand the creative choices he made was an incredible experience. Asking him about his work to understand it in its purest form without it being hindered by outside interpretation was an opportunity that is rare and that I am incredibly grateful for.

I did not know what to expect out of this trip, especially since I had never been to the Macaulay building before, yet I was pleasantly surprised by how much I learned from both the playwright and actors involved. The overall tone of the play seemed to change in this cast reading. It felt more serious with the way Mary’s lines were read out; I believe the live version more accurately embodies the message conveyed about the expectations of women during the time. The inspiration for the play was much different from what I had originally inferred. I like how the playwright used an originally lighthearted hoax to create a much more serious work that explores themes of gender roles and the treatment of women in 18th century society. I agree wholeheartedly with what Steve said about the growing inaccessibility of theater and admire his grassroots organizing of productions, which not only reaches out to the general public, but also smaller artists in the field.

More than the discussion of the play itself, I found the tangential advice that the actors gave about pursuing art while having a career in another field to be very insightful. I love creating art, but chose to major in biology because I knew when applying to college that art is not a financially viable path for me to devote myself to. It was refreshing to hear that everyone involved in this production also had a day job either related or unrelated to theater since there is often this expectation to commit to your art as an artist. That being said, I still am pursuing a career in biology for the love of the subject, and this discussion reassured me that balancing my interests in both art and STEM is possible.

I thought it was cool how the play was being read at the Macaulay building. The actors were really good, and the screams from the actress made a very realistic start. I think the liberties the actors took as they were reading it made the play easier to understand. For example, the actress reading the part of the midwife making the character seem extremely drunk for the second half of the play made the absurd things she was saying make more sense. In my initial reading of the play, I disregarded the one line about her being drunk so that made the play not as easy to understand. I also think the emotion used by the actor reading for Joshua also added another layer of depth to the play. It allowed me to infer what the character was feeling a little better than when I read the play. I think having the actors reading the play also made it easier to understand due to the absurdity of the situation. While reading the play I found myself struggling to understand the meaning behind it whereas watching the same play, things were clearer.

 

I think that the Q and Q with the writers and actors was interesting, but I felt that it didn’t add much to my understanding of the play or the arts as a whole. I did agree with the sentiment that artists are sort of forced to make a decision between pursing the arts full time or not. I liked the advice from the actress playing the midwife that was general, and about how you can pursue your goals without risking everything to do so.

 

Overall, I would say it was an nice experience to see the play read in this way. I also enjoyed the insights the writer gave on the play and art as a whole.

The day before, I looked up information about the play and learned it was a new work, so I decided to keep an open mind. While researching, I found out that there would be no intermissions. This wasn’t a problem, but it was definitely a change from what I was used to seeing in the couple of Broadway plays I had attended before. After work, I headed to the ferry and, although I was almost late, I managed to catch the 1:30 ferry.

When we finally arrived at the Roundabout, I didn’t know what to expect from the play. The set was simple yet extremely detailed, and although it was static, the use of lighting created a sense of movement. The play centered around a man named Paul, who comes to the same diner every day, and a woman named Katie, who runs the diner. Paul slowly reveals to Katie that he is depressed and that his world has become mundane. He tries to use Katie as a source of “entertainment” by learning why she moved to this place and how her life became so “boring.”

He discovers that Katie ran away from her past, moving from the big city to this small town in an attempt to escape. The person she tried to escape was a guy named Gil, a friend with whom she had developed romantic tension. When she decided to kiss him, thinking it was the right thing to do, she was met with a reaction she hadn’t hoped for. Instead of facing the consequences, she ran away.

On the flip side of the story, Paul tries to get Katie to open up by divulging details about his own life and how he ended up in the diner. He begins by telling her that he is depressed and tired of how predictable the world has become. To create a surprise, he offers her a bottle of poison, stating that he wishes to be “poisoned” by her as a final surprise. At first, Katie protests and tries to come up with different solutions, which temporarily keeps the problem at bay.

As the play unfolds, Paul continues to share more about his life, revealing the loss of his brother and mother. This clearly serves to illustrate why Paul is so jaded toward life, highlighting the significant grief he has endured.

The climax of the story occurs when Paul becomes upset with Katie for prolonging his death, feeling that she has no idea what he has been through. In an effort to calm him down, Katie reveals that she had a hysterectomy, and on the day of the procedure, she felt a part of herself die. She shares that the only two people who know about this are Paul and Gil. This revelation allows Paul to better understand Katie’s situation, and the scene concludes with a silent hug, accompanied by an unspoken promise from Katie to end Paul’s life the next day.

When the next day arrives, Katie receives a call from Gil, who is in the area and asks if she’s free to meet. Hesitant, Katie realizes that the right thing to do is to reconnect with him and attempt to restart her old life. Paul fully supports her decision and decides to take over the diner in her absence. The play ends on an ambiguous note, with Paul staring at his untouched coffee, which may or may not be poisoned.

The play, though slow at times, builds beautifully toward the finale, with the tension between Paul and Katie escalating until it culminates in a single scene. Everything feels genuine; these are two people with very different outlooks on life trying to find common ground. Paul, much more jaded, views every experience as the same and believes that the only surprise he is missing is death. In contrast, Katie is comfortable with the mundaneness of her life, fearful of opening herself up to new possibilities and confronting her past.

Through their interactions, both characters evolve. Katie seizes the opportunity to revisit her past and attempt to right the wrongs she once made, while Paul is surprised to learn that Gil, rather than abandoning her, had spent two years trying to find her. This revelation surprises Paul so much that he hesitates to drink the poisoned coffee at the end, beginning to realize that maybe there is more to life than he initially thought.