Q&A; WITH JIMMY SMITS AND WANDA DE JESUS : Taking a ‘Maiden’ Voyage

Jimmy Smits and Wanda De Jesus, an offstage couple for more than eight years, play an onstage couple in “Death and the Maiden,” the Ariel Dorfman political thriller opening Thursday at the Mark Taper Forum.

Smits, best known as Victor Sifuentes on “L.A. Law,” portrays another lawyer, this time in an unnamed South American country. When he brings home a stranger he has met on the road, his wife -- played by De Jesus -- is convinced that their new acquaintance is the doctor who tortured her under the country’s former military regime. De Jesus has performed on Broadway, Off Broadway and in Los Angeles at the Ahmanson and has been a series regular on “Mariah” and “Santa Barbara.” *

Question: Was your concentration on this play affected by the earthquake?

WDJ: It took me at least a day to get back into the mind-set.

JS: I do think that what this woman (in the play) has gone through is a kind of trauma. The trauma we suffered in the last couple of days. . . .

WDJ: Only feeds the play on some minor level. The feelings of being powerless and not knowing what’s going to happen next.

JS: So as the director would say, “Use it.”

*

Question: When this play was done on Broadway, Equity protested the non-Latino cast. Is it important for the cast to be Latino?

JS: Although it takes place in any country in South America that has gone through a democratization process after an oppressive government, the wonderful aspect of the play is that it does speak to South Africa, Bosnia, Germany after the Second World War--anyplace there has been that kind of repression. Inherent in the fact that we are Latino actors, we do bring a sense of our own culture to it. Our take on it is different. It’s much more politically oriented, much more. . . .

WDJ: About the passion of the political realities the people live with. There are certain textures of the culture that we understand. But it shouldn’t be an issue. It’s important that people see the universality. It would be nice if people who come to the theater don’t say “That’s a great Latino cast,” but that “these are good actors.”

JS: An actor tries to be versatile, to immerse himself in a different culture. But what was at issue with the people who protested is that the playing field is not equal. So why not be in control of at least your own image, of something that speaks to your own culture? But then there is the whole artist’s sensibility. We’re actors. We should be able to. . . .

WDJ: Imagine and create. But this is not an ideal world. There are many projects that are Latino and haven’t been cast that way.

*

Question: The United States is not an ex-dictatorship. How do the play’s issues speak to us?

JS: Just on a humanistic level, it’s something I hope people are concerned about. And although the play doesn’t really deal with this aspect, I hope audiences acknowledge that this government, albeit indirectly, supported a lot of these repressive regimes in the name of keeping communism out of our back door. We tend to think of World War II and all the atrocities that happened, and people say “Never again.” But these things are still happening. The Amnesty International files are big.

WDJ: On a more human level, it’s a play about silence and accommodations, about denials, how those who have been victimized may or may not have recourse to go and get help or be acknowledged. Torture is an abuse of power, and that happens here--be it that of women, racial tensions, police beating or Reginald Denny beating.

JS: But at its best the play does function on this did-he-do-it level.

WDJ: As far as I’m concerned, he did it!

*

Question: You’re speaking on behalf of your character?

JS: The arguments from each character’s point of view are fairly strong.

WDJ: In the construction of the play the ambiguity is there, but I’m fighting for my life to convince (the others) that this is not just that I’m being hysterical or crazy or emotional, that this really did happen. And that’s the struggle that’s going on in these countries.

JS: For the first couple of weeks we were immersed. Wanda had taken tapes home--she’s got a VCR in the dressing room. There was a point where I couldn’t do it any more. We would rehearse lines at home and then she would say, “I’m going to watch my tapes now.” I would go “OK.” I guess we internalized a lot of the character. Because that’s what happens with this particular man. He doesn’t want to deal.

WDJ: “Tape time--OK, honey, I’ll see you later.”

JS: You could hear in the bedroom these sounds. . . .

WDJ: Of the women who were struggling to find the disappeared. Those women are heart-wrenching. They look very weak, but they’re very strong. These women are true heroines.

*

Question: Were you cast here as a unit? As a package?

WDJ: Absolutely not. Let’s get this clear for the record. Please, Jimmy, speak.

JS: Both Wanda and I have worked with (the play’s director) Bob Egan before. I’ve been talking about “going back to my roots and doing theater.” It became like a line. Agents said, “You’ve got to keep the (screen) momentum going.” Last summer, I told Wanda I’d try to block out some time. But then Wanda was cast to do this same show at Arizona Theatre Company.

WDJ: The role was offered, and I was ready to pack.

JS: I was going to do a replacement job on Broadway. Please don’t ask (which show).

WDJ: (to Smits) Then (The Taper) spoke to you about (this play). For some reason (Egan) opened up auditions for a couple of people. I came in because I was ready to do it somewhere else. He made his decision as a director. So no, we were not a prepackaged deal.

*

Question: Would you have been willing to do it without Wanda?

JS: The fact she’s involved is a major reason for doing it. I do like the play, and we’ve wanted to work together. It just hasn’t worked out.

*

Question: You two are not married?

WDJ: It’ll happen. We know why the institution of marriage. It’s been good. In many respects it’s a commitment. Are you committed, honey?

JS: It’s an ongoing discussion. It’ll happen.