"Hir," an innovative and groundbreaking play that attacks contemporary America right in the heart, got its run extended to December 20 at Playwrights Horizons.

"Hir," created by Taylor Mac, is profound. So utterly overwhelming that if you feel like you need something to shake you out of the coldness and repetitiveness of New York life, this is the play for you.

A play loud in volume and color, uproarious in dialogue, and very tricky in its handling of discourse around problematic issues, "Hir" cannot be taken lightly.

The story unfolds somewhere in suburban North America, during a day in the life of a lower middle-class family, whose son returns from the war with an dishonorable discharge, because he was "sniffing meth up his ass with a straw." Upon his arrival, he is unable to enter through the front door and enters through the back, only to discover that his household is in revolt. His mother, liberated from an oppressive marriage after her husband's stroke, with Isaac's (the son of the family) newly out transgender sibling as her ally, is on a crusade to dismantle the patriarchy. This anti-authoritarian revolt is enhanced by the use of production design in the play. During the first act, the stage was crammed with clothes, books, shoes, chairs, and every kind of object that is usually in order in most middle-class homes.

My seat at the corner of the front row of the small theater space allowed me to experience the performance as something very personal. The crowded floor of the stage was less than two feet away from me, and the extremely unbalanced home environment troubled me right away. For the production design team, the struggle of the middle class to keep up with the socio-political developments that 21st-century society is producing is demonstrated through the use of objects in complete disarray. Dirty and clean clothes alike were spread on the floor, serving not only as the bed of the family's ailing father, but also as rags, carpets, comforters. The traditional use of every object in this play was subverted and challenged. Tapestries and paintings on the walls were no longer used for decoration, but as cover for the numerous holes in the walls, as is revealed to us near the end of the performance, in a surprising production design twist.

For the most part of history, western societies were divided into classes, and everything was organized to the point of absolute perfection. Especially in Europe, upper-class families traditionally went to great lengths to achieve the impeccability of custom. Every aspect of living was closely monitored and planned, and there was little room for creativity or change. The recent discourses against colonialism and in support of feminism have completely subverted these histories, challenging the way we live and understand the world in the process. I can safely assume that we all felt a little uncomfortable by the home's situation. If it were up to me, I would walk up on stage and help clean up the terrifying mess that was the living room of the house. However, why do we need things, material objects, to be in order? Why is the mother of the family supposed to exercise heavy unpaid labor at home, in order to maintain the house's condition? Why do we make these assumptions about what a home should or should not look like? Personally, I have found that a messy environment can stunt growth, in the sense that it has always distracted me from being productive and organized. A knowledge of where everything is and of what purpose each item serves is vital to leading an organized life, and it can certainly increase productivity in the same way that division of labor increases capitalist profits.

Supposedly, the play is a subversive comedy, but to me it felt more like a drama. Every character in the play represented an extreme. The mother, over-determined to be an ally for her transgender child, reaches extreme liberalism after her husband's stroke. The feelings of resentment that grew in her after years of domestic abuse, have now led her to mock her husband's situation, dressing him up in women's nightgowns and drag queen makeup, letting him sleep on the floor wearing an adult diaper and never helping him get a proper bath. The father represents an extreme transformation that preceded the events of the play. According to the testimonies of his family members, he was a cruel and violent man who was unable to keep up with the changing world, and went so far as to to rape his wife. To be honest, I would have the very same reaction as the mother of the family did, if I were in the same place and I felt unable to escape my situation. Her cruelty is revenge for the years of oppression and cruelty that she suffered, posing the question of whether or not any kind of extreme is advisable. The ancient Greeks used to say "μέτρον ἄριστον," which roughly translates to "moderation is best." Moderation is what is lacking from our protagonists, and their extreme nature (or nurture?) causes severe dysfunctionality in the family. All the traditional values and ideas of love, companionship, and support are no longer relevant, along with the patriarchal oppression of the past.

This profound paradigm shift is expressed not only through the successful use of production design, but through the actors' performances too. The extremity of the parents as people led me to feel no compassion for their situation. The mistakes they made were too severe to be forgiven. We do not get a chance to see the father at his worst, but we can all imagine what that must have been like for the family, as the narrative of the oppressive patriarch of the family is a common one. The mother too was so intense and hyperbolic, that my instinctive reaction to her performance was less compassion and sympathy and more defense and aggression. Again, my first-row seat and proximity to the stage deepened my anxiety during the performance.

The struggle that the play presented is one that is known to us all, especially after receiving a liberal arts education. In our efforts to dismantle hegemonic and heteronormative ideals, should we give into complete disarray and anarchy, or make a conscious effort to re-structure the problematic societal units from within? In my opinion, the second option is the one with the most potential.