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.

♥ Introduction ♥

“The Woman Who Gave Birth To Rabbits” by Stephen Gracia is a perfect script to read just in time for Halloween. This play is gruesome, comedic, and a terrifying true story, but my favorite part is it is as true as the playwright who created this play. 

 ♥ Thoughts ♥

Initially, I thought this play was weird because there was simply no explanation for how Mary Toft birthed rabbits. At the Macaulay Building, we attended a play reading. I asked Stephen what inspired him to create this, and he revealed that similar to me, he was confused as to how Mary birthed rabbits. The more he researched, the more confused he got about how and why this happened. So, his approach was to put two people in a room and imagine the extent of how bizarre this situation would get if this story were to unfold before our very eyes. I find this process very interesting and wanted to know more about Stephen and his actors than the play. Some other ideas that were brought up that stuck with me are making art accessible and affordable, being able to put a reasonable price on the labor it took to create the art and the idea that art is no longer yours when you publicize it.

At that moment, I found myself having a brief moment of gratefulness. As a consumer, I take artists and musicians for granted despite aspiring to become one myself. Playwrights, authors, and musicians appear to be nothing more than names on a paper until you engage with them about their thoughts, ideas, and inspirations. Then the idea of “Does America honor their poets” came up, and I say we honor the work but not the poets. We experience and relate to the human aspects of the art, but we rarely experience the human aspects of the person who created the art. Naturally, many of us don’t realize how to separate the conversations we have with art from those we have with the artist (usually because we aren’t gifted with the opportunity to converse with the artist). How do we fix this? We pay attention to our artists. We support our artists. We need art to give meaning to our lives, but we can’t have art without artists, and artistry is a very noble occupation contrary to popular belief.

♥ Conclusion ♥

What was just a simple homework assignment, became an eye-opener to me. This experience at Macaulay is one of my favorite and most unique seminar trips and has opened my mind to new ideas about art, especially those who create it.

First off, the trip we took that Sunday was the first time I’ve ever been to the Macaulay building, I thought it was pretty cool it was very cozy and it was nice to finally see. The commute was not bad, the crowded subway was awful though, people breathing on me is just not a great feeling, but it was cool to see my moms old office on 66th street, she worked for ABC.

When I read the play, I said it was weird, what is the point of this? However, after we had the chance to meet with the writer and the cast, I realized that the play is actually beautiful, it reflects greatly the duality of society and nature, but also the emphasis on sins, as the wife said she will create 1,000 monsters, as Thomas was too pushy on having a kid and she was not comfortable. I did not like Gil that much when reading, but when listening Gil was an enjoyable character who was a good source of comedic relief in a scary situation.

Just one complaint I have is not knowing the true meaning of the rabbit. As the writer said, he based this play off of an old story of a women who claimed to give birth to a rabbit, but I still feel even in that story hundreds of years ago, there is still a meaning to a rabbit. This could definitely just be me overthinking a simple story, and looking too deep into it, but I still believe that the rabbit had to due with fertility and there is a deeper meaning to it.

All in all, it was a great experience to speak to the talented actors and the writer. This is probably something that will never again happen in my life and thankfully Macaulay made it possible.

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.