Jump to content

Equus: First Peview Review

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
103 replies to this topic

#101 QuincyMD


    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 01 March 2007 - 12:20 PM

QUOTE(Ian @ Mar 1 2007, 11:06 AM) View Post
Ooooh ! Interesting ! The system has censored the V word!!  wink.gif

...and it's only come up as 4 stars so what is the word : vile? vent? vice?
Which way did he go McGill?

#102 Jaybee



  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 01 March 2007 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE(Guest_James_* @ Feb 17 2007, 09:35 PM) View Post
Daniel Radcliffe... he was disinteresting to watch and was very stiff.


Sounds promising

(I am SO immature)

#103 Guest_Skylight_*

  • Guests

Posted 05 March 2007 - 07:18 PM

QUOTE(Guest @ Feb 27 2007, 02:13 PM) View Post
Does she have 'connections'?

Peter Hall was the man who kick started Sharrock's career if I recall correctly.  And of course she's an Oxbridge toff.  wink.gif

#104 canmark


    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

Posted 06 March 2007 - 04:53 PM

I had not seen Equus (the play or film) before this past Saturday, but had read the play and had certain preconceived notions. There is an extensive introduction and stage directions, and given that John Napier was designing this production (as the original), one had a certain sense of things.

What I found was that while the talky nature of the play works to an extent on the page, it doesn't always work on the stage (it didn't help that the understudy playing Dysart was reading from the script). I felt that when the play showed us, rather than told us, it was more effective. The recreation of that fateful 'date' between Alan and Jill and the intense scene as Alan is tormented by the all-seeing horses, is great. Whereas some of the dialogues between Dysart and and the magistrate, wherein the main themes are put forth, didn't always work for me.

The look of the production was effective, although the lighting at times seemed off (it seemed at times the spotlights were off and the actors were speaking from shadows).

As for the performances, I found Daniel Radcliffe to be acceptable, although at times his monotonic protestations seemed like Harry Potter admonishing Malfoy. His voice and his overall presence lacked colour, which, given the dark, shadowy look of the production, made things seem cold, and the emotions seem distant. One was a mere observer of Alan's pain; one couldn't feel it oneself.

Jenny Agutter was similarly cold and monotonic. But I did like Joanna Christie as Jill. I felt she really captured her character, an eager girl, somewhat of a free (sexual) spirit, but also a decent sort. I thought it was quite a naturalistic peformance in a production that strived to be more stark and symbolic.

And that seems to be my issue with the production. Too cold. Couldn't really feel the eroticism between Alan and Nugget. Couldn't feel the sexual tension between Alan and Jill. Couldn't feel Dysart's yearning for a return to more primative ritual, more spiritual eroticism. And perhaps that's also a flaw in the play itself: it's a bit too cold and analytical a treatment for its themes.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users