When I entered the Macaulay building to watch the play, we were informed that one of the actors was running late and we would be waiting for them. During this time, me and some of my friends went to the lounge and were conversing and playing games with each other. After some time passed, we were finally invited to go listen to the play. What I liked about the play was the emotions. When I was reading the play to myself, everything felt kind of monotone and boring, while when the actors were reading the script, it actually felt like they were experiencing true emotions. One part I found funny was the screams. Although they were screams of pain, they caught me off guard, and since I was not expecting it, I laughed a little. I also saw the actors laughing a little too. One thing I liked about the playwright was that he allowed his play to be changed by his actors. He obviously wanted his script to be the basis, but he let the actors make little changes as they saw fit. This made the play a little different compared to what I read. All in all, I liked seeing the script being read because it was interesting and an experience.

This past Sunday we had the opportunity to sit in on a dramatic reading of Stephen Gracia’s play “The Woman who Gave Birth to Rabbits”. I firmly believe that reading a play does it no justice in comparison to seeing it acted out, which is why I was initially excited for this experience. I have never really been someone who gets “weirded out” (for lack of better phrasing) by things in literature, plays, or film, so I did enjoy the play when I read it. I found its commentary on a woman’s station in life and societally implanted obligation to create a family to be incredibly thought-provoking. Hearing the actors read it made me enjoy the play even more as I thought it helped to invigorate the characters. I found the actress who had played Mary’s performance to be especially captivating, but of course all of the actors shone in their roles. I also enjoyed having the opportunity to discuss the content of the play and the theater industry in general. Stephen told us about all of his efforts to make his work affordable to the masses, as the art world tends to be nigh inaccessible to many. Additionally, he told us something that I also tend to find true: “When money changes hands art becomes fraudulent.” The idea that art has steadily morphed into a commodity to be bought and sold is one that we have frequently addressed in this seminar, and it makes me glad to see that there are artists out there ensuring that their art is available for everyone. Aside from the play itself, I also had the opportunity to speak to two of the actors afterwards, Victoria and John (who had played the midwife and Joshua). They told me about a film production company they owned, and we just talked for a while about all things film and the film industry, as it is something I definitely have an interest in. I found my experience with “The Woman who Gave Birth to Rabbits” to be quite gratifying in a multitude of ways: not only did I get to experience a compelling piece of art, but also the opportunity to have a discussion on the art with the man who created it and on the art industry in general.

I thoroughly enjoyed the play, both in the reading at home and the live performance. I enjoyed it because it made me think. I knew there had to be a deeper idea than a mutated child at play. Reading the play through I did notice that there was an undertone of gendered mistreatment on the part of the husband. Mary claimed that Joshua had incessantly attempted to impregnate her even when she was not interested in having sex. Upon further examination, I posited that Joshua had objectified her and reduced her to a breeding animal, which is why the product of his endeavors was an actual animal. After watching the performance and hearing the playwright discuss the play, this thematic analysis still works but there is an even stronger thread of gendered themes at work. First, in the way that the actress who played Mary acted, she really brought out the life of the woman who this play is really about. She was very firm and spoke powerfully toward her husband about the abuse he had subjected her to. Additionally, there was an effort to make light of and ignore the struggle that Mary was discussing by the other people who were drinking and coming up with theories about the rabbit. This felt like a perfect demonstration of the idea that there are women who speak up about their discriminatory experiences but are silenced and shot down. Second, as the playwright made clear in the q&a, the play is based on a true story of a hoax of a woman who said she gave birth to rabbits. The question for him was why she would make something like that up. In the play, he explores the hypothesis that the kind of pressure which is placed on women by their husbands to become pregnant-at the loss of their bodily autonomy due to unlimited intercourse-is a probable cause as to why Mary made up this rabbit birth problem. One other part of the play I found intriguing, especially in the performance was how Joshua comes off as immensely naive about how his wife is feeling. He is concerned with his reputation and his child, not her well-being, and does not seem to recognize her feelings. Joshua is a good stand in for the social norms at the time, which were unconcerned with the concerns of women, but it is difficult for an audience to sympathize with him beyond his being a kind of tool of patriarchy who lacks the agency to move beyond the gender norms in which he lives. As far as the acting performance, I thought Thomas was going to be portrayed as a smug British guy but the actor reading for him interpreted his attitude as resembling more of a nonchalant, chill American. It is intriguing that every person develops their own vision of the characters in plays they read and those that actors see may be slightly different. 

Usually, I do not travel to our Sunday seminar trips with much anticipation or excitement. However, our trip to the Macaulay Honors College, to view Stephen Gracia’s The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits, was an exception. Despite the seeming absurdity of this play, it was ironically that very characteristic which built up more interest within me to speak with the playwright and view the unfolding of this work in real-time. The commute, unfortunately, was extremely dreadful and longer than normal, amounting to almost two hours of travel in each direction. Upon arrival to the destination, I was eager to finally see the Macaulay Building, in-person, for the first time. The area was very nice and I actually enjoyed it, considering the fact that I am not a fan of the city.

When it came time to view the play, the first emotion I felt was shock at both, the set of actors and the acting, which were unexpected. To clarify, I was not expecting to find the cast of the play to be older than the age of twenty and I was also left very impressed with how effectively they performed. During the scene where a woman screams for the first time, I was not expecting such a loud, sudden, and awfully distressing voice, which troubled and completely took me by surprise. I also felt that the actors suited their roles very well and successfully portrayed the intended demeanors.

Something I was surprised to learn is that the storyline is partially based on true events, as a lady named Mary Toft created a similar situation through a hoax. However, the playwright claimed that he decided to change the plot, making the event realistic, although with a purpose that revealed the gender struggles during the according time period, thus forming a purpose to its unfolding. The play conveyed many implicit themes such as hierarchy and patriarchy, evident through the tone and diction of Thomas Ahlers and Joshua Toft, the male characters. Ultimately, it became evident how woman were exploited by men and treated inferior during 18th century England.

Along with the themes of the play, speaking with the playwright and actors brought many other lessons to light such as the reality surrounding an artist’s lifestyle and the materialistic culture formed around art in America. Stephen Gracia asserted his mission of providing affordable and preferably free art, however battled with the issue of not receiving appreciation for it. He claimed that he was told by a friend, “If you do not put a price on your art then it will not be valued.” Therefore, conflicted with his morals, Stephen Gracia was obligated to modify his approach to art in order to preserve his skill. Furthermore, learning about the individual lifestyles of every actor was insightful into the world surrounding their career choices and how hard they must work in order to afford the craft that they love, especially in a society like our country.

       When I first read the playwright that was handed out in class, I was astonished by the sheer bizarreness of the whole pregnancy situation that was going on. Whilst Mary was giving birth to a child, Joshua and Thomas were discussing the future the child would have, especially predicting the gender that it’ll turn out to be. The moment that felt the most distributing though was when Mary gave birth to two rabbits, which created a sense of horror of the type of pain Mary had gone through. It was even more shocking when reading the dialogue of Thomas cracking jokes to lighten the negative mood around him, while Joshua was distressed about his lifelong dream of raising a baby boy. The concluding parts of the play were the most interesting part of the whole play, as the truths were later revealed to the reader on Joshua and Mary’s true intentions. Despite Joshua wanting to raise a baby boy, Mary didn’t agree with the idea but still gave in to Joshua’s desire. This resulted in catastrophe as they were arguing amongst one another about who was right and wrong.

       All of the actors did a phenomenal job in acting out their characters. When I entered the building, I expected the actors to be fully dressed up and have props to act out certain scenes but was left with laughter seeing the actors dressed formally as they recited the playwright. Even so, though, it was interesting hearing the emotions that they were conveying, especially Mary’s disappointment when laughing at the irony of the whole situation and Thomas’s sense of silliness, as he tried making many jokes. The added dialogue was particularly very interesting, as the actors were putting their thoughts on how the scene would go outside the scope of a script and more into a real-life setting. The most important thing the actors did though was communicating to their audience. I sat on the back of the whole play, so I was able to witness the laughs that many of my classmates had when Mary and Maggie screamed as well as the saddened faces many had when seeing the terror on the face of Mary’s actor.

       Learning about Stephen Garcia left me with something fascinating, especially learning about his perspective on the whole story he wrote alongside the stuff about art we discussed in class. I recalled the entire class being shocked when learning that the playwright was based on a true story that occurred in several hundreds of years before. Taking inspiration from this, it was interesting to hear that Garcia tried to navigate through the confusion of the whole situation by imagining what two people would discuss with one another, whilst the rabbit pregnancy was occurring. Lisa also brought up an interesting question to the actors and Garcia about the sense of morality that comes with putting a price tag on works of art, which connected heavily to what we learned about John Berger. It gives me awe when seeing Garcia’s experience with navigating around that difficulty, especially when being put off in putting things for free or at a relatively cheap price, even when the message of his plays is more important to him than the value of itself.

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.

 

My trip started off a little rough considering I overslept and missed multiple buses. Luckily, I made it with some time to spare for Starbucks so it started out better than I assumed it would be.

It was just a simple reading so I honestly felt that I would not be impressed by the play. When reading it for the first time, it was so odd because there were moments where I wanted to stop reading as it got so twisted but during the reading, it was completely different. The fact that there were actors in front of me reading it brought an edge of emotion and life to the play it lacked before. Because to me reading words on a paper is simply just that, words on a paper. The actors had an excellent depiction of how I would have imagined the play to be produced. The screams of the women really grasped my attention and made me understand the raw emotion right in front of my face. The way that the actors made minimal movements and yet expressed so many emotions and feelings all at once was so impressive. I loved the comedic approach some actors decided to take and I liked to see each of their interpretations of the characters. Something that really stuck with me was when the playwright said that he did this play with a different group of people and they all had their own twists made me realize that this play and its characters can be seen in numerous perspectives. Overall, although it was the weirdest trip I have been on, it was cool to see.

My experience began at the entrance of the Macaulay building. When I entered the building with my peers, we were asked to wait because one of the actors was running late. After a couple of minutes of waiting in the comfortable lounge, we were escorted to another room where the actors that were going to read the play and its author awaited. I sat down at a table and awaited the start of the reading. When I first read the script of the play, I was confused and horrified at the thought of giving birth to a dead rabbit, which ultimately led me to dislike it. However, when I heard the play read out loud, the actors gave the characters a human face in, which allowed me to visualize the play. The passion and effort the actors put into the play was amazing, but the loud screams were startling and unpleasant to the ears. Overall, the reading of the play ultimately improved my perception of the script. After the reading, the author and artists answered the questions that were on people’s minds. One of the questions asked the inspiration of the play. The answer, which I found fascinating, was that it was based on an actual story. I found it hard to believe that this could’ve actually happened. The artist continued answering questions and described their life and the challenges of promoting art in NYC.