Equus.

[sechan19]

I promised a fuller analysis of the play Equus in an earlier blog post. So, here it is.

Right out of the gate, let's dispense with the Daniel Radcliffe stuff. He gave a riveting performance; a fearless performance. It demonstrated his talent and drive, and it convinced me that he will grow into a force to be reckoned with in the years to come. Radcliffe is clearly determined to make his way as an actor, and he has the tools to achieve his goal.

He wasn't the only actor to give such a strong and brave performance, however. One of the things that struck me as I watched the narrative unfold, was that the hubbub surrounding Radcliffe's nudity had eclipsed much about the play itself and the other players. Anna Camp, who portrays Jill Mason, also delivered an astonishing, bold, and captivating performance in the nude. The fact that I was completely unaware of the brazen female nudity in this play before it occurred was striking to me. In fact, I could go off onto a fascinating (and, no doubt, animated) tangent about the gendered treatment of nudity in mainstream media and arts, but I won't. You're welcome.

The play itself rang true on many levels: I believed in the psychosis of the main character; in the events in his life that led to its inflammation; in the people around him who either helped or hindered his development. However, for all these well-treated and poignantly presented factors, the play was--for me--highly flawed.

The main problem, as I saw it, was a literary failing. The playwright, Peter Schaefer (perhaps best known for the incomparably brilliant Amadeus), had a point to make. And he was going to make it, come hell or high water, and he wielded the anvil of prose to make his damn point.

The point was this:
a lack of passion can be as destructive to one's life as a surplus.

Fair enough. But in the illumination of this point, the playwright forced one of his characters to behave in a way that was not believable. The other main focus in Equus, the psychiatrist who treats the disturbed boy, was absurd. If he had been a failure, a man who had tried over and over to save the sanity of disturbed children and met defeat, it might have been believable for him to have a crisis of conscience. But this character was an unequivocal success. He was well-known for having saved scores of children, for having led them out of the darkened, labyrinthine hollows into the light of reason. I cannot believe a man like that would doubt the utility of his work simply because his marriage was a failure.

But as I said, Schaefer wanted to make a point about passion. And make it he did. Just not nearly as well as he did in Amadeus. ;> And anyway, we're--none of us--perfect. Equus still has much to recommend it. It was highly thought-provoking, and this production was beautifully produced and performed. I am glad to have experienced it.

Comments

[lordameth.livejournal.com]

I'll be honest - as much as I enjoy the Harry Potter films, I have for some time thought of Radcliffe as a fairly weak actor. To be in something like Equus represents a serious desire to become a serious actor, and ought I would imagine to require that one is already a particularly professional and skilled actor.

So.... he did well? His apparent inability to convincingly express certain emotions, as seen in the Harry Potter films, didn't show in his performance?

Also, what kind of nudity are we talking about? Is it full frontal blatantly visible nudity, or nudity conveniently hidden by the horse or some other prop or stage set element? They don't use real horses, do they?

[reteva.livejournal.com]

I'll be shot for saying this, I know, but I've honestly never felt that the Harry Potter stories provided that much room for deeply emotional performances. They're entertaining, but they aren't all that much. (Both my mother and my best friend, whom you met last week, will probably give me all kinds of hell for saying that.) I can't help it. I just don't get the fad.

So, yes, Daniel Radcliffe did very well. In this play, there is a scene where a certain situation causes his character, seventeen-year-old Alan Strang, to become completely unhinged. At that time he blinds six horses in a frenzied attack. In the scene, Radcliffe is completely naked. He's also very mobile, leading to a whole lot of exposure. There are no props until the end when he collapses, in extremely convincing hysterics, into the arms of his psychiatrist--who covers him with a blanket.

The horses were played by men, who wore platform shoes that were designed to look like horses' hooves. They also wore these kind of crystal horse-skull headdresses. And they were adept at performing horse movements. (I suspect these men were mainly dancers.)

I was very impressed with Radcliffe in this. I think he can develop into something, and it's clear that he intends to. He has no plan, whatsoever, of staying Harry Potter forever. I hope he makes something of himself. Good actors are always a treat, ne?

[triomakesmehot.livejournal.com]

I've always thought Dan was a phenomenal actor, particularly considering his age when he started, but he has been beyond brilliant in Equus. The man does not shy away from a challenge and is, I believe, determined to always be just a little better than he was the day before. I'm sure he was nervous as hell the first few times doing Equus, just because it was with a live audience rather than on film where you could do retakes if you messed up, but when you add doing the nude scene of top of that, you really have to give him credit for being someone who takes his work seriously.

I love the Potter series, books and films ... but even I have to agree with reteve that they don't provide much room for giving a deeply emotional performance. In Equus, Dan meets every challenge. He can switch from hostility to child-like innocence in the blink of an eye, or from a shy and hesitant teenager to menacing madman.

The nudity is, to use your words "blatantly visible" and is absolutely essential to showing the true vulnerability of the character at that point in the play. His emotional state is stripped bare to the psychiatrist, just as his body is bare to the audience. I read somewhere that Dan had said he thought it was easier to play the scene nude than it would be with clothes on because he felt the character's vulnerability so much more naked than he did dressed during rehearsals. I didn't understand that until I'd seen the play, but now it makes complete sense to me.

Seriously, if you have not seen this play and there is any way possible that you can, GO. You will be overwhelmed with Dan's talent, and the quality of the play in general (although I do see the point about the psychiatrist feeling just a little bit too sorry for himself).

lordameth

[dawnkj63.livejournal.com]

I see reteva has already answered your questions, but I wanted to add my two cents. I've seen the play...twice, in fact, it was my first Broadway play. Radcliffe is phenomenally good in the role of Alan Strang. Although I believe he has grown as an actor with each subsequent Potter film, his performance on Broadway is simply spectacular! I could not believe my eyes. Equus opened in late September (the 25th or 26th, I think) and has been seen by literally thousands of people and similarly reviewed. So it surprises me that you do not know that 1) real horses are not used and 2) the nudity is blatant...not blocked by any props or stage element. He and his female costar are bared for all to see, but it comes at such a pivotal and emotional moment in the play that it is the LAST thing you will be focusing on. He is a talented actor who remains eager to learn and dedicated to his craft. As of this post, he has yet to miss a performance (that's 8 shows a week) which I find very impressive.
Dan recently said he hopes the Broadway community will be a part of his life forever and I hope I'll be there to see him when he takes to the stage again.