Denisa Irina Vlad is an actress of the Iosif Vulcan Troupe, who successfully capitalizes on her stage talent through strong roles and complements it with her inclination towards directing, preferring realistic texts, with complex characters and deep messages. On the occasion of the premiere of the show Năpasta by IL Caragiale, Denisa accepted our challenge to answer a few questions about the show and the characters, seen both through the eyes of the director and the actress.

Interview taken from LiterNet.ro

Florina Dometi: You are an actress, one who already enjoys a rich artistic CV. What makes you return, from time to time, to directing? How do you manage to detach yourself from the role of actor and enter that of director and vice versa?

Denisa Irina Vlad: I'm returning to directing because I really like it. It's a passion that goes hand in hand with acting. I don't detach myself from the role of an actor when I direct. I often go on stage and show instead of explaining. But I'm lucky that every time I've directed in theater, my colleagues have given me credit from the very beginning, they have had great confidence in me, and then I had the freedom to create.

FD.: How do we play Caragiale today?

DIV: Strictly speaking, in terms of our project, we did not set out to „play” Caragiale. If we started from such a premise, it would probably be overwhelming. We bring people, a story and a situation to the stage. Otherwise, each of us has our own perspective on how we relate to the author and his work. (Florina Dometi, an interview with Denisa Irina Vlad, As a director I try to do it in such a way that we are as close to the truth as possible – Năpasta)

FD: What challenges you the most about Năpasta, both as a director and as an actress?

DIV: As an actress I am going to discover what challenges I will face. As a director I try to do it in such a way that we are as close to the truth as possible. To create some real people and a real situation. Of course, I pass certain situations through the filter of my thinking, but I try not to complicate things and to stay as close to the truth as possible. The biggest challenge is this: to be sure that what is happening there is alive, not just to expose something, but to live it, and for the audience to live the story with us.

FD: How do you see Anca? Is she a diabolical woman, who cold-bloodedly planned her revenge, to the point of gradually destroying Dragomir mentally, or an instinctive, passionate woman, who lets herself be led by the satisfaction of the law of blood?

DIV: I do not see her as diabolical, nor vengeful, nor a woman driven only by instincts or the "Law of Blood". She is, rather, a woman who loved deeply and felt loved, and from this strong love springs her desire for justice, not revenge. The religious side plays an essential role in the construction of the character: she lives with the fear of God, which prevents her from carrying out the thought of killing Dragomir, although she imagines this possibility. She constantly seeks justifications and explanations for her actions, for every way in which she tries to make Dragomir pay for his actions. In the end, the fact that she sends him to prison for Ion's death is, for her, a form of fulfilling justice, it is justice, not revenge. However, forgiveness is missing from Anca's Christian spirit. She fails to forgive Dragomir, but I think it comes, paradoxically, from the immense love she had for Dumitru. In her own way, she feels that she is honoring his memory by wanting the one who hurt her to be punished. This is, I think, her inner justification for the fact that she cannot forgive. On the other hand, it is impressive the strength of a woman who can live for years next to a man she cannot stand, just in the hope that, at some point, he will reveal himself or get what he deserves. At first, she only has a suspicion about Dragomir's guilt, and the conviction gradually builds as she lives with him.

FD: After Anca, Ion is the most enigmatic and profound character. How is Ion constructed in your show: a mystical madman or an innocent crushed by the drama of unjust accusation?

DIV: Ion must have the purity of a child. It seems to me that a man who has gone through so much suffering, as if he is sanctified, hence the direct line, direct communication with divinity. This connection is psychotic, but it comes from a purity and a kindness, at least that's how I interpreted it. Obviously the man is no longer in his right mind, this is clear, but he went crazy because he was put in that position, in which a great injustice was done to him and he went through all that torment without being guilty. I think that suffering hardens some people, and it cleanses others, and he is the man who cleansed himself through suffering.

FD: Dragomir and Gheorghe are two rivals united and at the same time destroyed by their passion for an inaccessible woman. What contrasts or nuances between them did you set out to highlight in the editing? Do you see Dragomir as the guilty one caught in his own trap and Gheorghe as an innocent one about to be sacrificed, or do you consider that both of them bear responsibility for the passion they develop for a married woman?

DIV: It seems to me that, by construction, the two men are fundamentally different. At one point, Gheorghe has a line in which he tells Anca that he spends time with Dragomir just so he can see her more often, but "he's not his type." The difference between them is obvious. Gheorghe, the village teacher, clearly belongs to the intellectual class. We built him as being gentler, with a certain innocence of youth. He has a deep respect for Dragomir, which is why it takes him a long time to find the courage to confess to Anca how he feels. And when he does, it's only because he sees her suffering; otherwise, most likely, he would never have intervened in their family life. I also don't think he would have been able to carry out Anca's plan to kill Dragomir. Gheorghe is not a passionate man, like Dragomir is. Dragomir acts out of instinct, out of impulse, while Gheorghe is more moderate, more rational. As for Dragomir, I started from the idea that no one is truly evil in essence, not even him. I believe that Dragomir is also deeply tormented by what he did: by guilt, by remorse, but especially by love for Anca. This was, in fact, the driving force that pushed him to act as he did, not out of pettiness, but out of intense love, even if, of course, this does not justify his deed. I firmly believe that his intention was to make her happy. It is clear that the man lives with inner suffering, moreover, the text clearly states that he has all kinds of disturbing dreams. If he had been a deeply evil man, he would have continued with his life, without any trace of remorse. In relation to Anca, he is not only happy to have her by his side; he seeks love, a real connection. Somewhere, deep in his soul, like in each of us, there is a good part in him.

FD: What message would you like the audience to leave the hall with after the show?

DIV: Life is not reduced to the contrasts between black and white, but is infinitely more nuanced. We all have a trace of conscience, a trace of goodness; no one is deeply good or deeply evil. I would like this truth to emerge from the show: that everyone, somewhere, out there, has a piece of each: both of malice and anger, but also of goodness.