Venus in Fur had its first run with Canadian Stage at the Bluma Appel Theatre in the autumn of 2013. Upon closing, this critically-acclaimed and very popular production soon moved to the Berkeley Street Theatre for an extended run. Co-starring with Rick Miller as Thomas was Carly Street as Vanda, both directed by Jennifer Tarver in unforgettable performances. This interview with Carly Street took place in January of 2014.
James Strecker: After seeing this production of Venus in Furs twice, I find that a number of terms come to mind – sexuality, power, manipulation, self-deception, menace, sexism, masochism, assertiveness, self-destruction, creativity, truth, vulnerability, ambivalence about ambiguity- and that others might easily be added to a long list. In other words, it’s a complex human experience for the audience. So what does it take on your part as an actor to negotiate your way through the play?
Carly Street: I had to read the play many, many times before I felt I had a clear picture of the map of this piece. The first task was to identify all the themes and ideas that the playwright was investigating, and then what I felt and thought about them. There could be no moment, no beat, where I didn’t connect with those ideas, because it was my character driving them all. I really had to walk all of myself up to the work and find a million points of connection. And that could be very exposing, because our audience basically got to see all of those sides of me, only wrapped in a different package. It took a marriage of my mind telling me the things the story needed and my instincts and experience daring to meet them there.
JS: What are the potential pitfalls you face as an actor in your role?
CS: We found that as our familiarity with the piece grew, and we were more at ease with the material and each other, we could fall into a scenario where we were too playful. We would let ourselves as actors enjoy each other too much, pulling the tension and friction out of the relationship between Thomas and Vanda. All of a sudden, the characters were too familiar with each other, too kind and more respectful than the material dictates. In essence, our personal chemistry had to be kept on a shorter leash.
JS: What process did you go through to be chosen for the part you play?
CS: In the case of “Venus”, I was brought in to read (audition) for the role for the director, which is common. I had taken a very long bus in from New York City, as I thought the role and the director were worth making the trip in for. I had the first appointment of the first day of auditions, and Jennifer had us come in to read in pairs. Incidentally, Rick and I were the first pair. We worked through the three scenes with Jennifer giving us adjustments for about fifty minutes. And that was that! I got a call a few days later in New York asking if I could come in again for a callback a couple of weeks later. That callback was, again, with Jennifer and a “reader”, in which we worked in greater depth on a couple of the scenes. A challenge in auditions is to make swift and specific changes or adjustments that the director is looking for, without losing the foundation you’ve built for the character while preparing on your own. The preparation process is a long and rigorous one; reading the play a few times, looking at the scene, breaking down what’s happening, figuring out the action, the characters’ wants and needs, connecting the text to the character, finding the voice and physicality, learning the text well enough… very lengthy! And it’s a very emotional journey, as well. You fall in love with the character,,,
JS: How have you changed as a person in daily life as a result of playing your character and encountering the other character?
CS: I have more compassion for guys like Thomas since doing this show. I see how much they are afraid of the feminine (the real feminine, not their idea of it), and how so many of their choices are based around fear; if they keep the feminine ideal really narrow, it won’t get too big and swallow them up – or (worse) reject them! Their masculine imperative is not intended to be as wholly damaging as it is; it’s a bi-product of fear. And that warrants patience and compassion and examination.
JS: The play seems an ideal vehicle for an actor with its delayed revelations, its timing, its snappy and insightful writing, its dramatically effective pacing, its surprises and twists, its emphasis on interaction, and much else. So what do you like most about acting in this production?
CS: I’m always delighted to work on something that is a combination of politically/socially relevant AND entertaining. You can trust that the material is strong, and then get in there and offer it up to a willing crowd, and know that you’re not just performing fluff! I really cherished my relationship with both Rick Miller and Jennifer Tarver in this process, and what we built together was solid and complex. What I liked most about acting in this production, however, was the expression of a feminist perspective: the plight of women in literature, arts and entertainment, and my experience of that on a personal level.
JS: How has acting in Venus in Furs challenged you as an actor to extend yourself?
CS: That frequently comes in working with other people in agreeing to what story you’re actually telling. Most of us think we’re right most of the time, but the creative process is not a dictatorship and everyone’s insight and instincts are valid and worth exploring. When working with fellow actors and a director, I am constantly having to move beyond my intellectual or instinctual “comfort zone” in order to make room for better ideas and insights. And in that sense, I suppose I would be “extend”ing myself in the ways of openness and generosity of spirit…
JS: What was the director’s specific contribution to your performance?
CS: The director rarely has one specific contribution to a performance. The director is the overseer of the performance as a whole, and in parts. I bring choices and ideas into the room every day, and each day the director identifies which elements are useful for the scene, and which are best left out. She illuminates themes and ideas, so that I make further choices that support and highlight those themes. She works with us to establish the rhythms of the text, the switches in moods and intentions, and points out where we are being unclear about what we’re trying to do to the other actor. In this case, Jennifer is such a highly intelligent human that we relied on her on all these fronts. She gave me a lot of freedom in the rehearsal room (as sign of her immense confidence and experience), so that I could scratch and sniff my way towards Vanda. She would then step in and get me back on track when I ran down the wrong paths. She also asked me a lot of questions about the character, and in that way, wasn’t imposing things on me so much as guiding me.
JS: Could you describe any revelations about the characters or the play which you experienced during the run, revelations that you took back into your ensuing performances?
CS: After a couple of weeks into the run, I discovered that no two people would have the same experience of the play; that the playwright had been intentionally ambiguous about the “reality” and, in particular, the ending. I had charted a course through it that I found personally satisfying to explore, but that wasn’t going to be interpreted by most of our audience. The point was that everyone would get SOMETHING out of it, and that I needn’t worry myself about their interpretation in my actual playing of it. Sometimes the hardest thing as an actor is to let go.
JS: What changes do you see in the other character since the beginning of your run?
CS: I’m not sure what you mean by this one: Have I seen Rick’s portrayal of Thomas change? Or have I had new insights about the character of Thomas himself? Rick’s performance certainly deepened and sharpened over the run, as is natural. He kept a pretty steady course and didn’t ever veer far from what we had developed with Jennifer in the rehearsal room. That is part of the actor’s job; to maintain the elements which tell the story, while still keeping things alive and fresh onstage. Rick is a master of this. But the character of Thomas didn’t change. Only my attitude toward him which, as I mentioned earlier, has now a more sympathetic aspect.
JS: How, if at all, have your relationships with the opposite sex and with your own sex changed because of your work in Venus in Fur?
CS: I haven’t noticed any change in my relationship with men or women, really. I suppose I experienced a brief, heightened sense of my sexuality as interpreted by others. The ways that men and women would remark on the sensual/sexual nature of the piece made me self-aware of that potent stuff… and of being an object to some, an object of envy to others. But I do not perceive my relationships as being altered by my experience of this play.
JS: One experiences a distinct atmosphere of freedom in this production and in each of you, so if you agree, please explain why it is so?
CS: “Freedom” is a terrific word to describe how I felt with this piece, and with Rick! We had such a massive level of trust and were so simpatico that we were able to do things differently every night without actually “doing anything differently”. The playfulness we had between the two of us, and Jennifer’s willingness to let me free-wheel a bit, was very liberating. I believe the audience could sense that we were never sitting back on our performances and could sense that we were trying to walk up to the line each night and jump on past it, but they would always be on the journey with us because we wouldn’t leave them behind. Again, this freedom is something that the director establishes with the actors, and that we judiciously wield in performance. Too much freedom and you’ve lost the plot, but a little and it’s like flying!
JS: What do you think is a natural misconception one in the audience might have about each of these characters?
CS: I think an audience member might think to themselves of Vanda, “She’s using her sexuality as a tactic in her relations with Thomas. Isn’t that the opposite of feminism?” My answer? If that is the only lens through which Thomas can see women, then that is the avenue she must enter first in order to get his attention.
