London Venus in Fur Star David Oakes on Turning On the Audience, Getting Tied Up at Work and More

David Oakes played Christopher Marlowe in the 2014 West End stage premiere of Shakespeare in Love only to segue to TV stardom in such series as The Borgias and Victoria. He is back on the London stage for a limited run at the Theatre Royal Haymarket in the British premiere of the popular American two-hander Venus in Fur, playing the New York writer-director Thomas opposite Natalie Dormer’s leather corset-wearing Vanda. Broadway.com checked in with the charming performer to discuss sex on stage and more.

How did you come to be in this production?
Patrick [Marber], our director, saw me in Shakespeare in Love and on the back of that tried to get me involved in a previous play of his but I was filming away at the time and couldn’t do it. Time passed and I got a call about this out of the blue asking whether I would join Natalie [Dormer] to play Thomas with her as Vanda. We were both there from the top, which is good.

Do you find similarities between Thomas and any of your defining TV roles?
I actually think Thomas is quite similar to some of the characters I have played on TV: he’s a little lonely, perhaps, and darkly complicated and has a charm and an erudite personality but beneath that are a hunger and a lack of fulfillment. It’s the same side of the coin, perhaps, as Juan Borgia and Prince Ernest in Victoria—but more contemporary.

Are you pleased this time out not to be dressed in period garb?
That’s the fun thing: people will be pleased to see me not wearing doublets and carrying a sword. What’s been nice also over the past few years is that I have been allowed to play wittier characters. My background is more in comedy, so it’s nice to be able to show that. 

Does Venus in Fur classify as a comedy?
If this play is any one thing, it is a comedy. The first thing you will do before you scream or cry is laugh; before you get turned on, you will be laughing. David [Ives] has written a glorious dark comedy and isn’t ashamed of that.

How conscious is this play of wanting to turn the audience on?
I think it’s very conscious of trying to turn you on and to make you feel sexual thoughts, and then it challenges you as to whether or not you feel guilty about having had those thoughts. You could say that it knowingly exploits your sexuality and your prejudices and wants to see how happy you are in yourself as a sexual human being.

What do you say to those who find the play sexist?
The presentation of Vanda in the costume that she wears is very knowing, and that may be why some people are quick to judge the play as sexist. I personally have never read a more feminist play in my entire career, and we’re already finding that the women in our audience are loving it in ways we’re very pleased about: we’re getting intelligent feminists of both genders.

Is the play landing differently, do you think, in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein saga?
We’ve all been talking about that, and it’s a bizarre one. Certainly, we have no desire to exploit suffering. The point is, that sort of behavior shouldn’t be happening full stop, so I would say that it’s frustratingly relevant, this play.

How does the play land post-50 Shades of Grey, a phenomenon that didn’t exist when it first opened off-Broadway early in 2010?
There’s no doubt that our play exists in a post-50 Shades of Grey universe, but I’d like to think we’re recapturing sensuality and sexuality in a way that 50 Shades of Grey has started to bastardize. It helps, too, that when you go to the theater, your imagination as an audience member is equally as active as the actors onstage; it can be hard when you watch a film to make something sexy.

Isn’t there a difference between sexual explicitness and sexy?
Funny you say that because I don’t kiss Vanda one single time during the play. There’s something a lot sexier about two minds being individually tickled that gets your juices pumping that just being trussed up won’t. Sex isn’t just about the act of sex, which I hope this play and this production make clear. 

How have you found working with Natalie in such an intimate show?
I think she’s brilliant. She’s one of the funniest actresses I’ve ever worked with and of course stunningly beautiful, and it’s been an absolute treat. We didn’t know each other before but we each seem to have worked with all of the other’s friends, so I don’t think our being together in this is a happy accident. It’s an insightful bit of casting from Patrick.  

Aren’t you getting pressured these days away from the stage toward more lucrative work on screen?
No, I definitely do a play every two years, and that is something I have always set myself. It’s perhaps a little trickier these days because you have to intentionally push yourself off the TV bandwagon to be able to be free but theater is why I do it [acting]; it’s much more enjoyable. 

Do you ever think about leaping the Atlantic to live in L.A.?
You know, I’m quite old-fashioned, really. I’ve dabbled with the whole L.A. thing and there are various things that have almost flown but I’m not hungry for that. I like characters who are complicated, three-dimensional humans, and I think Hollywood at the moment is not the place for that.

Are you as happy at the moment as you sound?
I have a very nice house that backs on to a park in Southeast London that is green and quiet and then I go to work and get tied up by Natalie Dormer: Why would I want to be anywhere else?