What do you think?
Rate this book
Venus in Fur
‘You don’t have to tell me about sadomasochism. I’m in the theatre.’
Enigmatic actress Vanda Jordan appears unannounced for an audition with director Thomas Novachek. She’s determined to land the leading role in his new production – despite seeming wrong for the part. Over one evening in downtown Manhattan their charged meeting becomes a seductive dance to the end. Intoxicating, erotic, highly charged, Venus In Fur is a dark comedy about desire, fantasy, and love.
61 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 2011
28 people are currently reading
1481 people want to read
About the author
David Ives
87 books67 followersA contemporary American playwright whose plays often consist of one act and are generally comedies. They are notable for their verbal dexterity, theatrical invention, and quirky humor.
He earned his MFA in Playwriting from The Yale School of Drama. A Guggenheim Fellow in playwriting, David is probably best known for his evening of one-act comedies called "All In the Timing". The show won the Outer Critics Circle Playwriting Award, ran for two years Off-Broadway, and in the 1995-96 season was the most-performed play in the country after Shakespeare productions.
He earned his MFA in Playwriting from The Yale School of Drama. A Guggenheim Fellow in playwriting, David is probably best known for his evening of one-act comedies called "All In the Timing". The show won the Outer Critics Circle Playwriting Award, ran for two years Off-Broadway, and in the 1995-96 season was the most-performed play in the country after Shakespeare productions.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 189 reviews
April 8, 2021
It seems impossible that a single one act play should have all these qualities, but nonetheless:
Killer dialogue ✓
Laugh out loud funny ✓
Classical references ✓
Biting satire ✓
More meta than you could shake a stick at ✓
Sensitive, thoughtful treatment of BDSM ✓
Empowering pro female message ✓
Hot blondes in their underwear ✓
Evidently the Good Fairies have been busy. I was waiting for the Bad Fairy to turn up and curse it with a terrible ending, but no, they succeeded there as well. There's a jaw-dropping but in retrospect completely logical twist.
For best results, watch immediately after reading The Skeptical Feminist.
Killer dialogue ✓
Laugh out loud funny ✓
Classical references ✓
Biting satire ✓
More meta than you could shake a stick at ✓
Sensitive, thoughtful treatment of BDSM ✓
Empowering pro female message ✓
Hot blondes in their underwear ✓
Evidently the Good Fairies have been busy. I was waiting for the Bad Fairy to turn up and curse it with a terrible ending, but no, they succeeded there as well. There's a jaw-dropping but in retrospect completely logical twist.
For best results, watch immediately after reading The Skeptical Feminist.
March 6, 2013
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.
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.
December 24, 2021
I have yet to read the source material but this play is smoking hawt! It dabbles into some gender norms in the most intriguing way. Best part is how for me is how funny it is! It's provocative without being dirty, which I didnt know was a thing. The dialogue is so satisfying.
March 27, 2012
We saw it in NY. Cast: Nina Arianda and Hugh Dancy. The acting was riveting - as is the script. I read it after seeing it, and it gets better and better with each read. It's cerebral and campy at once, with the female character in the get ups of, alternately, a call girl, an 1870's virgin - prim and proper, and a dominatrix, she's been around the block a few times and can outwit any male who dares tell her how to behave.
I'm a huge fan of Hugh Dancy, and of his real-life wife, Claire Danes, so when his character, at the top of the play, spoke to his "honey" on the phone, I pictured Claire Danes at the other end. I was amused, even in the moment, of my conflating characters and actors, but it actually helped to imagine his beautiful companion at home waiting for him. And this beautiful companion (the real-life one) symbolized the ideal actress for the role he's casting. I'd read so much about Nina Arianda, that I knew she'd be good. But not knowing her or the play, I had no idea what that would look like. She lived up to the hype, and the role was an ideal vehicle for showcasing her range.
The play starts out as an audition, but it becomes something else: a parable about theatre, about the entertainment industry, complete with the roles of audiences and critics. It's about the humiliations of actors fighting for roles (seducing directors and producers, if need be, to get the roles), about theatre folkdealing with critics who may conflate the intentions or experiences of playwrights (or directors or actors) with the characters they create; struggling with whether or not a writer chooses a subject or the subject chooses him/her; about the fantasies that go into creating a play - and a role. There's so much playing with reality! Is it a trap or a truth that the dog collar is from her days as a prostitute? that she ran into Staceyin the gym? that the playwright is NOT into S&M? Is Vanda possessed of a photographic memory? Or did she spend a great deal of time learning this part? - as she spent time, it turns out, studying the novel upon whichthe play is based? The play skewers stereotypes in wonderful ways. Actors are said to be stupid, so she plays that part. But then she turns iton its head by turning out to be not only intuitive but sharp and even scholarly. The play has many levels, each worthy of its own discussion.
For a while, I was disappointed that the play ended up breaking away from the audition premise. I loved the world of this audition, and I wanted to stay there - though some may like the theoretical abstractions at the play's core. I need more grounding. But as I thought about it, I realized that the ending, (spoiler alert!!) with the playwright left for the night all tied up, is a kind of commeuppance for the tyrant (director), a kind of retaliation for the slings and arrows of an actor's fortune. It might also be retaliation for the playwright's usurping other people's experience in S&M - as if to say: if he's not prepared for the consequences, he shouldn't be writing on this subject.
I'm a huge fan of Hugh Dancy, and of his real-life wife, Claire Danes, so when his character, at the top of the play, spoke to his "honey" on the phone, I pictured Claire Danes at the other end. I was amused, even in the moment, of my conflating characters and actors, but it actually helped to imagine his beautiful companion at home waiting for him. And this beautiful companion (the real-life one) symbolized the ideal actress for the role he's casting. I'd read so much about Nina Arianda, that I knew she'd be good. But not knowing her or the play, I had no idea what that would look like. She lived up to the hype, and the role was an ideal vehicle for showcasing her range.
The play starts out as an audition, but it becomes something else: a parable about theatre, about the entertainment industry, complete with the roles of audiences and critics. It's about the humiliations of actors fighting for roles (seducing directors and producers, if need be, to get the roles), about theatre folkdealing with critics who may conflate the intentions or experiences of playwrights (or directors or actors) with the characters they create; struggling with whether or not a writer chooses a subject or the subject chooses him/her; about the fantasies that go into creating a play - and a role. There's so much playing with reality! Is it a trap or a truth that the dog collar is from her days as a prostitute? that she ran into Staceyin the gym? that the playwright is NOT into S&M? Is Vanda possessed of a photographic memory? Or did she spend a great deal of time learning this part? - as she spent time, it turns out, studying the novel upon whichthe play is based? The play skewers stereotypes in wonderful ways. Actors are said to be stupid, so she plays that part. But then she turns iton its head by turning out to be not only intuitive but sharp and even scholarly. The play has many levels, each worthy of its own discussion.
For a while, I was disappointed that the play ended up breaking away from the audition premise. I loved the world of this audition, and I wanted to stay there - though some may like the theoretical abstractions at the play's core. I need more grounding. But as I thought about it, I realized that the ending, (spoiler alert!!) with the playwright left for the night all tied up, is a kind of commeuppance for the tyrant (director), a kind of retaliation for the slings and arrows of an actor's fortune. It might also be retaliation for the playwright's usurping other people's experience in S&M - as if to say: if he's not prepared for the consequences, he shouldn't be writing on this subject.
January 17, 2022
David Ives turns a pretty dull book, Venus In Furs, into a knockout theatre two-hander. Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch wrote a tedious novel about a married playwright's affair with a Bondage Mistress, but it was brand spanking new at the time in 1870. I saw this play in 2013 with QTC, with Todd Macdonald and Libby Munro playing the multiple roles of Director, Auditionee, Slave, Mistress, Wife and Significant Other, with energy and insight and it was super sexy. The new ending was just what the Director/Slave deserved.
May 12, 2022
hail aphrodite!!!!!!
May 22, 2022
Falls into the category of "seen, not read" but I'm rating it anyway because this is a fantastic script and the production I saw last night blew my mind.
January 22, 2024
Fuck yeah!
July 5, 2012
This play is, above all, a gift to actors - a gift, and (which is to say the same thing) a challenge. The play consists of one extended scene which would last, I guess, about 90 minutes in the theater. A director, Thomas, is auditioning actresses for a leading role for a play he has written: an adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novel 'Venus in Furs'. I should mention, as an aside, that, due to playwright David Ives' excellent and unobtrusive exposition, it is not necessary for one to have read Sacher-Masoch's rather tedious work in order to understand the play; a viewing of Titian's painting 'Venus and the Mirror' before going out to the theater would be helpful. After a very brief prologue spoken by Thomas into his cell phone, Vanda - an aspiring young actress - arrives, and the scene begins. Although there are four characters on stage(Thomas, Vanda, and the two characters they are playing during her audition), and two offstage (the 'significant others', represented onstage by cell phones), there are only two actors to play them all. The actors must be extraordinarily deft at shifting gears, because the transitions between personae occur at breakneck speed. On the page, these shifts are indicated by font changes; on stage, they must be telegraphed entirely through the actor's craft. Although the action could be interpreted on a number of different levels, I, on a first reading, was reminded of movies like 'Black Swan' and 'The Red Shoes'. In these both these films, the life of a performing artist begins to converge and ultimately fuses with the life and fate of the character she portrays onstage. Unfortunately for the silver screen ballerinas, they were both cast as tragic heroines. In 'Venus in Fur', Thomas's fate is much happier: although bottoms may be bruised, and feelings hurt, no lives are lost. One might call it a romantic comedy for the sadomasochist. I would highly recommend this script to actors for practice in shifting on a dime; I would recommend it to anyone else as a great play to go see if and when you have the chance.
June 28, 2013
One of my favorite stories of all time is Venus in Furs by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. However, there was always one major issue I had with the story; the ending. The original disappointed me because here I was, thinking I had finally found a decent work of literature where the female is dominant and the male is submissive, only to find... well... I think you get where I'm going. I was reluctant to watch Davis Ives' adaptation because I worried it would only reinforce the theme of the original; that women are meant only to play a subservient role in society and only want to be controlled by men.
The dialogue between the characters was superb. I could see the whole play in my head as if I were there, watching two characters interact seamlessly. As I found myself at the climax of the play, my heart was pounding--anxious as to how it would end--fearing that it was going to be just the same as Leopold's; but alas, I read the final lines, slapped the script against my desk and bolted out of my chair and found myself clapping and hollering, "Yes! Yes! that's exactly how it was supposed to end!"
I can't wait for this gem to go back on stage so that I may experience it in all it's magnificence.
Thank you, David Ives. Thank you for saving this story!
The dialogue between the characters was superb. I could see the whole play in my head as if I were there, watching two characters interact seamlessly. As I found myself at the climax of the play, my heart was pounding--anxious as to how it would end--fearing that it was going to be just the same as Leopold's; but alas, I read the final lines, slapped the script against my desk and bolted out of my chair and found myself clapping and hollering, "Yes! Yes! that's exactly how it was supposed to end!"
I can't wait for this gem to go back on stage so that I may experience it in all it's magnificence.
Thank you, David Ives. Thank you for saving this story!
April 12, 2024
I adore this play oh so very much. It's been one of my favorite plays for years, and I would kill to play Vanda. Definitely one of my top 3 dream roles.
I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I've read the show, and each time I revisit it, I find something new to love. (I also had the immense pleasure of seeing it a few years back). This play is about sex, theatre, feminism, love, and most of all, it's about power. And I love how the power shifts through the course of this play.
The premise is that a young playwright is auditioning young women to play the lead in his new play, based on a classic BDSM novel. He can't find anyone right, then, in the midst of a storm, an inexperienced actress walks in. She is everything he hates, but slips into the character as if it were her second skin...Comedy, drama, and a dark, captivating power play ensue.
It. Is. So. Fucking. Good.
Do yourself a favor and go read it.
"And the Lord hath smitten him and delivered him into a woman's hands"
*reviewed 8/19/16
I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I've read the show, and each time I revisit it, I find something new to love. (I also had the immense pleasure of seeing it a few years back). This play is about sex, theatre, feminism, love, and most of all, it's about power. And I love how the power shifts through the course of this play.
The premise is that a young playwright is auditioning young women to play the lead in his new play, based on a classic BDSM novel. He can't find anyone right, then, in the midst of a storm, an inexperienced actress walks in. She is everything he hates, but slips into the character as if it were her second skin...Comedy, drama, and a dark, captivating power play ensue.
It. Is. So. Fucking. Good.
Do yourself a favor and go read it.
"And the Lord hath smitten him and delivered him into a woman's hands"
*reviewed 8/19/16
December 31, 2014
I have been reading and re-reading this play for the past few months, as I am playing the part of Vanda at a local theatre company. In my research, and through the rehearsal process, I have found it amazing that EVERY line has a meaning. David Ives took great care when writing this play. The way the characters dance around the stage, trading power and commanding control, is beautiful.
May 4, 2019
Fabulously sensuous.
January 25, 2025
“What do you know about my nature except what you've decided about it?”
this was absolutely phenomenal oh my god
afraid this play will be listed amongst things that completely changed me
vanda was actually everything and i really was impressed with the expertise and skill that was used in not only her character in the play but the way that dominance and submission were treated not as bookends but something much deeper and less predictable
truthfully a life changing 75 pages if i ever get to see this play on stage i can only assume it’ll be equally as good as the the book version
if you’re ever looking for a short read i absolutely suggest this i can barely form coherent thoughts about how great this was honestly
this was absolutely phenomenal oh my god
afraid this play will be listed amongst things that completely changed me
vanda was actually everything and i really was impressed with the expertise and skill that was used in not only her character in the play but the way that dominance and submission were treated not as bookends but something much deeper and less predictable
truthfully a life changing 75 pages if i ever get to see this play on stage i can only assume it’ll be equally as good as the the book version
if you’re ever looking for a short read i absolutely suggest this i can barely form coherent thoughts about how great this was honestly
February 5, 2020
This is a play for actors. The plot is minimal, and this two-person piece requires two equally talented actors to balance each other out as they weave in and out of character and parry back-and-forth. It’s intriguing but flat on page. On stage, with two equally talented actors, I imagine it would be dynamic. Recommended.
February 20, 2025
“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 by creatures who at heart despise her. I want to see what woman will be when she ceases to be men’s slave.” Upended the original story in such a pleasing way <3
November 6, 2017
Hail Aphrodite!
December 30, 2024
oh my god
November 27, 2025
I don't understand the point of the play.
June 23, 2023
Un testo bellissimo, in cui il confine tra realtà e finzione diventa sempre più sottile, travolgendo i protagonisti nel rapporto erotico dei personaggi che interpretano, sempre in bilico nelle loro perverse dinamiche di potere.
February 29, 2024
Fabulous play. Read it in a sitting.
August 4, 2024
Read this w/ Gabe. one of the yummiest. less than satisfying ending but still delishoous
August 20, 2014
First and foremost, I start writing this review thanking my little Russian sadist-type friend Barbara Pankova . She is the one, who suggested me this book while I was still reading Chuck Palahniuk’s short story entitled "Guts”. Somehow this book is, by far, to me, the most ‘different’ ( as I’d like to call it) book I’ve ever read. This book will surely leave a distant mark on your imagination.
Now, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (The term masochism is derived from his name.) is almost solely known for his infamous novella "Venus in Furs" (it's the only work translated into English). Not many writers have the distinction-or the notoriety-of having a psycho-sexual term named after them. Initially meant to be part of an epic novel-sequence called The Legend of Cain(Sacher-Masoch abandoned that plan after a few volumes), Venus in Furs was published as the fourth part of the first book, which was entitled Love. Each book was named after one of the “evils” that Cain introduced into the world, and with this underlying premise—that love is an evil—von Sacher-Masoch reveals a seriously uneasy view of human relations.
The framing story concerns a man who dreams of speaking to Venus about love while she wears furs. The unnamed narrator tells his dreams to a friend, Severin, who tells him how to break him of his fascination with cruel women by reading a manuscript, Memoirs of a Suprasensual Man.
This manuscript tells of a man, Severin von Kusiemski, who is so infatuated with a woman, Wanda von Dunajew, that he asks to be her slave, and encourages her to treat him in progressively more degrading ways. At first Wanda does not understand or accede to the request, but after humouring Severin a bit she finds the advantages of the method to be interesting and enthusiastically embraces the idea, although at the same time she disdains Severin for allowing her to do so.
Severin describes his feelings during these experiences as suprasensuality. Severin and Wanda travel to Florence. Along the way, Severin takes the generic Russian servant's name of "Gregor" and the role of Wanda's servant. In Florence, Wanda treats him brutally as a servant, and recruits a trio of African women to dominate him.
The relationship arrives at a crisis when Wanda herself meets a man to whom she would like to submit, a Byronic hero known as Alexis Papadopolis. At the end of the book, Severin, humiliated by Wanda's new lover, loses the desire to submit.
Well worth a read. After a slow beginning( which I've read several time for it's enigmatic choice of words conjugating an immense thirst to read again and again) it takes off and explores the psyche of the characters. A must read book for everyone.
Now, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (The term masochism is derived from his name.) is almost solely known for his infamous novella "Venus in Furs" (it's the only work translated into English). Not many writers have the distinction-or the notoriety-of having a psycho-sexual term named after them. Initially meant to be part of an epic novel-sequence called The Legend of Cain(Sacher-Masoch abandoned that plan after a few volumes), Venus in Furs was published as the fourth part of the first book, which was entitled Love. Each book was named after one of the “evils” that Cain introduced into the world, and with this underlying premise—that love is an evil—von Sacher-Masoch reveals a seriously uneasy view of human relations.
The framing story concerns a man who dreams of speaking to Venus about love while she wears furs. The unnamed narrator tells his dreams to a friend, Severin, who tells him how to break him of his fascination with cruel women by reading a manuscript, Memoirs of a Suprasensual Man.
This manuscript tells of a man, Severin von Kusiemski, who is so infatuated with a woman, Wanda von Dunajew, that he asks to be her slave, and encourages her to treat him in progressively more degrading ways. At first Wanda does not understand or accede to the request, but after humouring Severin a bit she finds the advantages of the method to be interesting and enthusiastically embraces the idea, although at the same time she disdains Severin for allowing her to do so.
Severin describes his feelings during these experiences as suprasensuality. Severin and Wanda travel to Florence. Along the way, Severin takes the generic Russian servant's name of "Gregor" and the role of Wanda's servant. In Florence, Wanda treats him brutally as a servant, and recruits a trio of African women to dominate him.
The relationship arrives at a crisis when Wanda herself meets a man to whom she would like to submit, a Byronic hero known as Alexis Papadopolis. At the end of the book, Severin, humiliated by Wanda's new lover, loses the desire to submit.
Well worth a read. After a slow beginning( which I've read several time for it's enigmatic choice of words conjugating an immense thirst to read again and again) it takes off and explores the psyche of the characters. A must read book for everyone.
August 31, 2021
About two years ago, now, I saw a production of David Ives's Venus in Fur in a small local theater. It was quite unlike anything I had ever encountered, especially considering the company for which it was staged. Here was something modern, bold, erotic, and put on by a director and two very game actors who knew what they were doing. It remains one of the most electric nights at a theater I've ever spent.
Last year, in an effort to fill the stage-shaped hole in my heart, I bought this script among others. And this morning, on a whim, I chose to revisit the play that left such a mark on me. Surprise, surprise, even on the page, Ives's play hits like a bolt of lightning. His play, concerning as it does power dynamics, sexual desire, and acting itself (both on and off the stage) is still as fresh and captivating as it was the night I saw it. It's a simple premise: the writer director Thomas Novachek has adapted Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's Venus in Fur for the stage, but he can't for the life of him find someone to play Vanda. Just as he's about to close shop on auditions, a young actress named Vanda Jordan (how auspicious!) barges in from the storm, begging to be able to read for the role. What happens from there evolves from a simple dry reading to something much thornier, as both actor and director lose themselves in character. Just what is Thomas trying to say by adapting this novel in such a way? How is Vanda, who claims to have only glanced at the script on the way to the audition, so prepared for this role, so familiar with it? And just who is in control of this situation?
The answers to those first two questions come out gradually over the course of the evening. The answer to the third remains in flux until the climax, which is still one of the most heart-racing I've read from any script. I'm quite glad to learn the power of this play isn't diminished with time or distance.
Last year, in an effort to fill the stage-shaped hole in my heart, I bought this script among others. And this morning, on a whim, I chose to revisit the play that left such a mark on me. Surprise, surprise, even on the page, Ives's play hits like a bolt of lightning. His play, concerning as it does power dynamics, sexual desire, and acting itself (both on and off the stage) is still as fresh and captivating as it was the night I saw it. It's a simple premise: the writer director Thomas Novachek has adapted Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's Venus in Fur for the stage, but he can't for the life of him find someone to play Vanda. Just as he's about to close shop on auditions, a young actress named Vanda Jordan (how auspicious!) barges in from the storm, begging to be able to read for the role. What happens from there evolves from a simple dry reading to something much thornier, as both actor and director lose themselves in character. Just what is Thomas trying to say by adapting this novel in such a way? How is Vanda, who claims to have only glanced at the script on the way to the audition, so prepared for this role, so familiar with it? And just who is in control of this situation?
The answers to those first two questions come out gradually over the course of the evening. The answer to the third remains in flux until the climax, which is still one of the most heart-racing I've read from any script. I'm quite glad to learn the power of this play isn't diminished with time or distance.
May 24, 2016
Now that I've had a few days to think it over, here is a PROPER REVIEW of David Ives' Venus in Fur.
This is an adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novella of the same name. The play focuses on Thomas and Vanda, as Vanda auditions for a role she shares a name with for playwright, Thomas. As the two of them read through the script, Thomas becomes seemingly mesmerized by Vanda's looks and talent as she embodies everything that is the goddess, Venus.
The play is full of less-than-subtle S&M themes and practices, and is also incredibly feminist as it tackles the idea of this kind of relationship between a man and a woman. Vanda is unafraid of calling out Thomas on the sexist moments in his play, even when he gets mad and lashes out at her, she refuses to back down. At times he even gets her point and Thomas will be the one to back down. Thomas is not a meek man, he is passionate and determined, and Vanda is strong without filling the "bitch in heels" stereotype. She is not a dominatrix, yet she has full control over him by approximately the half-way mark. He is not a pushover, yet he kneels before her without so much as a second thought.
I have not yet read the novella, but in terms of the play alone, this is what a true erotic drama should look like. No one is abused. No one is harassed. At least not to the degree than stories like 50 Shades have made "normal" in the eyes of the public. For a play with not even a kiss in it, it is one of the most erotic stories I have ever come across.
This is an adaptation of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch's novella of the same name. The play focuses on Thomas and Vanda, as Vanda auditions for a role she shares a name with for playwright, Thomas. As the two of them read through the script, Thomas becomes seemingly mesmerized by Vanda's looks and talent as she embodies everything that is the goddess, Venus.
The play is full of less-than-subtle S&M themes and practices, and is also incredibly feminist as it tackles the idea of this kind of relationship between a man and a woman. Vanda is unafraid of calling out Thomas on the sexist moments in his play, even when he gets mad and lashes out at her, she refuses to back down. At times he even gets her point and Thomas will be the one to back down. Thomas is not a meek man, he is passionate and determined, and Vanda is strong without filling the "bitch in heels" stereotype. She is not a dominatrix, yet she has full control over him by approximately the half-way mark. He is not a pushover, yet he kneels before her without so much as a second thought.
I have not yet read the novella, but in terms of the play alone, this is what a true erotic drama should look like. No one is abused. No one is harassed. At least not to the degree than stories like 50 Shades have made "normal" in the eyes of the public. For a play with not even a kiss in it, it is one of the most erotic stories I have ever come across.
January 22, 2018
This play is HOT. Red hot. The power dynamic between these two (or shall I say four) characters is tossed between each other whether knowingly or not. David Ives has written a play that allows us to look at sexism not only from a once-removed frame but also even a step further zoomed out. He asks us to question power roles in dominating and submissive relationships. Who really has the power? Who wants it? Who will use it to end the other? I'm so intrigued by this play, and it would be tickling to use for scene work.
June 12, 2012
I can totally see why Nina Ariande won the Tony for her work in this piece. Holy Crap the ending was so not what I expected! I'm glad I read the original novel on which this is based, it just added so much more to the reading of this intriguing piece. I don't won't to say to much, for fear of giving the ending away.
September 9, 2014
This was definitely unique, but I don't think it did what it was trying to do. I admire the sentiment behind it. I just don't think flashing lights and yelling incoherently about Dionysian revenge-demigoddesses while brandishing a whip is a really effective argumentative counterpoint for pervasive sexism.
February 18, 2013
Celebrated wordsmith David Ives wrote a PG-13 Neil LaBute play. I'm pretty sure this play works better in performance than on the page. The ending did take me by surprise (in a good way), but I wasn't particularly invested in either of the characters so the reveal wasn't life-changing, or even satisfying.
August 30, 2014
It was all right. I agree with the assessment of many that story unfolds in rather predictable ways. And though the interplay of fiction and reality is a fascinating subject, and one that largely buoys this text, the predictability of the story and the character's arcs far outweighs, in my opinion, the lurid draw of the text or the larger discussion being had.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 189 reviews