Jump to content


Equus: First Peview Review


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

#11 World Traveler

World Traveler

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 17 February 2007 - 12:51 PM

Is it possible for the original poster to change the title of his thread to simply "Equus Reviews"?  That way there is a thread for all the reviews -- would that satisfy everyone?   rolleyes.gif

#12 Haz

Haz

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1264 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:14 PM

QUOTE(Parsley @ Feb 16 2007, 11:30 PM) View Post
I went to this with a sense of trepidation. I am not a fan of Peter Shaffer (especially after the terrible revival of Royal Hunt at the NT last year). I certainly am no advocator of the Daniel Radcliffe fan-base either (can the boy actually act?). Richard Griffiths usually leaves me cold too.


what did prompt you to go then?

i must say, i think the advertising image for the posters etc is really powerful..

whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should

http://curtain-up.blogspot.com/

#13 Guest_achilles_*

Guest_achilles_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2007 - 06:32 PM

QUOTE(Haz @ Feb 17 2007, 01:14 PM) View Post
what did prompt you to go then?

i must say, i think the advertising image for the posters etc is really powerful..



How are the horses? And how's will Kemp? Over the years I have seen the horses naked, or in a jockstrap or head to hoof in black, even saw them in black with a tail. Usually they have the red ribbons for that scene. Contrary to an earlier posting I love seeing actors as  animals. A lie that tells the truth!

#14 QuincyMD

QuincyMD

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Posted 17 February 2007 - 07:13 PM

As someone who was also there last night:

There are some problems that need to be ironed out, apparently they over ran by 25 minutes and boy did it show during the first act and up in the gods some of the dialogue was inaudible but overall it was very promising for a first public performance.

I've never seen a Harry Potter film and thought young Mr Radcliffe was quite good, it takes some guts at 17 to simulate sex in front of 1000 people whilst the pair of you are naked and Richard Griffiths seemed elated with him at the end.
Which way did he go McGill?

#15 Rhincewind

Rhincewind

    Newbie

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 17 February 2007 - 07:31 PM

QUOTE(achilles @ Feb 17 2007, 06:32 PM) View Post
How are the horses? And how's will Kemp? Over the years I have seen the horses naked, or in a jockstrap or head to hoof in black, even saw them in black with a tail. Usually they have the red ribbons for that scene. Contrary to an earlier posting I love seeing actors as  animals. A lie that tells the truth!


The Daily Mail have a fuzzy picture of Will Kemp on their website.
Daily Mail

#16 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2007 - 07:34 PM

when I can't even be bothered to register I won't be starting a new thread about my review of the second preview but perhaps I should as I want to know what those who are familiar with the play understand the doctor's words to be - I'm not sure if this is a spoiler or not so I'll just put ******POSSIBLE SPOILER****** here and those who want the play to unfold before their eyes and ears please do not read on. At the end the doctor (Richard Griffiths is btw superb - his delivery of his words I found very very sincere - a fine actor) goes on about passion (forgive me if I get this wrong as I was on a stage seat and his voice was at times - mostly when I just got the back and top of his head - was too soft to hear. Does Peter Shaffer mean for his character to say that passion is lost with age or just with his younger character? ie he will ride his scooter... his car but it won't be the same... even when he is eventually with a woman? Does he mean the same for himself - as he isn't happy either? Do you feel the characters are hopeless now? One with his slight mental imbalance and the other with his mental overbundance? Back to the production - the stage seats are so high - they took some getting used to. They are about 15-20 feet above the stage, higher than the dress circle. You have to lean forward to see the stage - if you lean back you cannot see the stage. The second row is 10 feet higher up still and both are the same price 39.50. I thought Daniel R. did an admirable job considering his age - he has extremely strong stage presence (very striking facial features). The support (as above) were wonderful but, for me, Richard Griffiths was the best. I believed him 100% and although I did not see him in History Boys think he must have more than deserved every praise sent his way.

#17 Blue

Blue

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 17 February 2007 - 08:18 PM

Well done Dan and thanks to the people who have posted their comments.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this performed as I have only ever seen the film version.

#18 Guest_Guest_James_*_*

Guest_Guest_James_*_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2007 - 09:35 PM

I was at the first preview of the show and i feel i have to comment!!

Absolutely amazingly staged and well interpreted by Thea Sharrock. She has done such a good job of a wonderful play!!!

Richard Griffiths was on magnificent form. He is a fabulous actor and is completely leagues above eveoryone else in the show purely beacuse he has that star quality where an audience is compelled to watch. What he offers as an actor is something that cannot be created- you either have it or you don't. He conveys this role brilliantly and you really feel for him by the end. He 's magnificent.

Daniel Radcliffe. Ok. I don't want to sound pessimistic but i'm going to be honest because i feel he should be treated the same as every other West End performer and actor. He nlays the part but thats all. For me he was disinteresting to watch and was very stiff. He was average but i wasn't blown away. It angers me that people are saying he's 17 and has so much courage etc...it's his job. The end of Act One was very commanding and engaging but will he be able to continue- his voice already seems to be straining!!! He was far better in Act 2 because it is better for the part and also he warmed up. I don't want to sound miserable or like a jealous old fool but i'm offering my opinions. He was average and nothing was really awe inspiring.

John Napier's desgin was very inventive and suited the piece to a tee. His horses were fabulous and collaborating with the director i had a real feel for Greek Tragedy and the messages that this conveyed as a theatrical form really worked for me.

This was a brilliant evening with great ensemble support and will, i'm sure, continue to get better over the run!

#19 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 February 2007 - 10:23 PM

Interesting, because I thought all the contrary, I found the scenes with Radcliffe far more interesting that the scenes without him. He has something special that draws your attention to the character he is playing and it's so believable. I was very surprised this was his stage debut, because he looked like an experienced stage actor, in all aspects.
He easily moves between past and present scenes, playing perfectly all the differents moods this difficult character experiences.
I treat him the same as every other West End performer and actor, if I would have seen a play where such a young actor without stage experience gives such a professional, emotive and impressive performance with such a complex character, I would have been equally impressed.
And don't forget this was just the first preview.

The only bad thing about the play:  you will want to see it again and again and again!

#20 Guest_John_*

Guest_John_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:05 AM

The front row stage seats are top price

example from Delfont Mackintosh website

Ticket Equus (Saturday 03-Mar-2007 14:30)
Stage Seats AA21-AA21 1 GBP 51.00

QUOTE(Guest @ Feb 17 2007, 07:34 PM) View Post
when I can't even be bothered to register I won't be starting a new thread about my review of the second preview but perhaps I should as I want to know what those who are familiar with the play understand the doctor's words to be - I'm not sure if this is a spoiler or not so I'll just put ******POSSIBLE SPOILER****** here and those who want the play to unfold before their eyes and ears please do not read on. At the end the doctor (Richard Griffiths is btw superb - his delivery of his words I found very very sincere - a fine actor) goes on about passion (forgive me if I get this wrong as I was on a stage seat and his voice was at times - mostly when I just got the back and top of his head - was too soft to hear. Does Peter Shaffer mean for his character to say that passion is lost with age or just with his younger character? ie he will ride his scooter... his car but it won't be the same... even when he is eventually with a woman? Does he mean the same for himself - as he isn't happy either? Do you feel the characters are hopeless now? One with his slight mental imbalance and the other with his mental overbundance? Back to the production - the stage seats are so high - they took some getting used to. They are about 15-20 feet above the stage, higher than the dress circle. You have to lean forward to see the stage - if you lean back you cannot see the stage. The second row is 10 feet higher up still and both are the same price 39.50. I thought Daniel R. did an admirable job considering his age - he has extremely strong stage presence (very striking facial features). The support (as above) were wonderful but, for me, Richard Griffiths was the best. I believed him 100% and although I did not see him in History Boys think he must have more than deserved every praise sent his way.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users