Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by thestoryprofessor
Venus in Fur: A Play by David Ives
4.0
David Ives’ tricky play about the seduction of control and the slippery-slope of gender roles is a fun piece. I can imagine being an actor for this piece would be an awesome opportunity.
On a craft level, Ives’ use of adaptation is surprising and fresh. The play is a depiction of a playwright auditioning an actress for a play that has adapted Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s novel Venus in Furs. The meta characteristics of this adaptation allow Ives to explore far more than just the source material. He invites us to challenge and poke at our preconceived notions of what men, women, and their interactions need to look like. The result is a depiction of an adaptation that asks us to consider why we feel the need to adapt, especially works like Venus in Furs.
I took a star, though, because I think the pacing is slowed down by moments of dialogue that felt more like the playwright was trying to be clever instead of purposeful. This particular section I’m referencing is also the only part of the story where I thought the playwright inserted his own opinions on the topics the characters are discussing. Thomas even counters this by giving the scapegoat, “Can’t playwrights just write characters?”
Despite that, I think this play would make for an interesting study next to the original source material on adaptation.
On a craft level, Ives’ use of adaptation is surprising and fresh. The play is a depiction of a playwright auditioning an actress for a play that has adapted Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s novel Venus in Furs. The meta characteristics of this adaptation allow Ives to explore far more than just the source material. He invites us to challenge and poke at our preconceived notions of what men, women, and their interactions need to look like. The result is a depiction of an adaptation that asks us to consider why we feel the need to adapt, especially works like Venus in Furs.
I took a star, though, because I think the pacing is slowed down by moments of dialogue that felt more like the playwright was trying to be clever instead of purposeful. This particular section I’m referencing is also the only part of the story where I thought the playwright inserted his own opinions on the topics the characters are discussing. Thomas even counters this by giving the scapegoat, “Can’t playwrights just write characters?”
Despite that, I think this play would make for an interesting study next to the original source material on adaptation.