After a long day of auditions for his new play, the discouraged playwright/director prepares to head home, just as a new actress arrives late and insists on auditioning. His play is based on Sacher-Masoch's novel, Venus in Fur. He thinks it's about love, the actress thinks it's about S&M. “But you know the problem here, Tommy? Any way you cut it, any way you play this, it’s degrading to women.” Her comments and feistiness create a balance with the play within the play, and the tension between the two characters draws the reader into this play of ideas and the surprising resolution. I saw Venus in Fur this weekend and immediately bought a copy. While I have seen and felt connected to many plays, it is a rare occasion to experience one that speaks so loudly and coherently to a version of powerful femininity. Within the first third of the play, Vanda (as Dunayev) declares her "principles" that at any given time, much less the turn of the century era that the play-within-the-play is written in, would be thought of as somewhat radical for a woman to profess. She wants “love without limit”, “any possible pleasure” and to “deny [herself] nothing”. She says she will “I will love a man who pleases me, and please a man who makes me happy--but only as long as he makes me happy, not a moment longer.” To this Thomas (as Kushemski), the writer of the “play” responds calling these "professed principles", condescending the strength of Dunayev. After Thomas (as Kushemski) questions Vanda (as Dunayev)’s commitment to her principles, Vanda (as Dunayev) responds by effectively calling him out and proclaiming what becomes her manifesto, saying, "In our society, a woman's only power is through men. Her character is her lack of character. She's a blank, to be filled in my creatures who at heart despise her. I want to see what Woman will be when she ceases to be man's slave. When she has the same rights as he, when she's his equal in education and his partner in work. When she becomes herself. An individual."To which Thomas (as Kushemski) responds, "You only say that because you yourself are so individual."She retorts, "A man usually says that to a woman whose individuality he is about to undermine."As a woman, I find that this attitude towards women’s integrity comes up more often than not. That a woman’s “principles” are fickle and temporary, bound to change whenever a new whim comes along—especially that of a man. Until the very end of the play I found myself waiting for the other shoe to drop and for Ives to somehow undermine the strength of his female character; however the last quarter of the play only escalates Vanda/Dunayev’s power, holding true that her values, and character that define her specific femininity will not be undermined, but will remain in the seat of power.As the play progresses the lines between Vanda and her role as Dunayev continue to blur to the point that, depending from what perspective it is interpreted, Vanda or Dunayev are eclipsed entirely. As this happens it becomes less clear where the lines that Vanda is "reading" as Dunayev originate. The viewer learns that Vanda has a strong connection to the role of Dunayev and a clear vision of whom this woman is and where she is going, raising the suspicion that Vanda has possibly gone off script. This merger between the two women sets up the framework for Ives’ feminist message to echo across every level of the play, universalizing the theme. Finally when the “play” takes a turn at the end, in fact undermining the strength and power of Dunayev, Vanda switches the roles the two have been reading, remaining in the role of power. In this moment it is clear that Ives is going all the way, driving Vanda/Dunayev to her maximum position of powerful femininity. He assures the audience that the portrayal of a powerful woman will not be undermined in his work, but rather declared and proclaimed to an unwavering height. Thus Vanda/Dunayev become a proclamation of powerful, unyielding femininity--on the level of a goddess.
Do You like book Venus In Fur (2011)?
One of those plays that was good on the page, but not great. I wonder how it would carry onstage?
—2190
I had mixed feelings about this play's content, though I loved the parallel structure so much
—shubham
Smart, sexy power play. Review to come.
—Carroline__
