♥ 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.

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.