Jump to content


Equus review


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

#1 Guest_SyncMaster_*

Guest_SyncMaster_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2007 - 06:02 PM

Seeing as the last review thread seems to have been derailed, I thought I would be best to start a new one for my review.


I was impressed with not only the production, but with the decorum of the audience. (I admit that I was fearful that fans of Daniel Radcliffe might be less interested in the play than in seeing him live and in person – I was pleased that it was the play that was the focus, not the actor.)

The cast is, overall, terrific. Richard Griffiths is simply one of the best actors of his generation, and he and Radcliffe play well off of one another. Will Kemp is phenomenal (I’ve thought that since Swan Lake in 1999 and I was impressed with Julie Christie (especially considering her major credit is Holby City, which isn’t exactly fine art).

Daniel Radcliffe did an admirable job. His character, Alan Strang, is a complex, messy role to play. However, in my opinion, it’s Richard Griffith’s role that is central in the play – Dysart is the character who forces the audience to consider the value of normalcy versus that of passion. It’s Alan who represents the passion, and Dysart who has to struggle with the moral question of destroying it. His role, however, is difficult – so much anger, so much fear, so much passion. It was a lovely performance.

#2 Guest_Rosebud_*

Guest_Rosebud_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2007 - 06:38 PM

Who derailed the last thread? Is something going on? I've been invited by the producers tonight. Hope they've got something fun in store for me.

#3 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2007 - 06:46 PM

I'm not so sure it is "normalcy versus that of passion". We also have to remember that Alan commited a crime, he hurt animals in a vicious way. That may be a result of heightened emotion but it is not something to be coveted. The type of 'passion' that hurts another person, animal etc is not right. We can have passion in our lives without hurting others. Pure passion like when he rode the horses originally. Somewhere along the line, for him, it got twisted. Whereas the doctor's passion was not as overt but it was there nonetheless - it was there in his work to which he was evidently commited. He shouldn't have questioned that he never had passion, he did, but not in the way he saw it in the disturbed teenager. The doctor envied the way Alan was with the horses - comparing it to how he was with his wife. Therein lay his biggest mistake. We must never compare ourselves with others. For there will always be someone 'better off' or 'worse off'. Look at the acting. Richard Griffiths was amazing. His passion for acting or his mountains of lines for his delivery was massive. Daniel barked a lot of his lines as his character was angry but does that make his acting more passionate? No it was just louder and more effusive but not deeper.

#4 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 February 2007 - 10:16 PM

NT

#5 Out In The Sticks

Out In The Sticks

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Musical Theatre, watching and performing (amateur).....

Posted 21 February 2007 - 04:44 PM

Sounds as though Daniels doing alright though, I am pleased for him. He was the only thing in the HP movies I liked.

#6 Lynette

Lynette

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5142 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 21 February 2007 - 05:25 PM

Delighted for DR; I thought he was a bit wooden in the moives post little boyhood. But sad to see that the movie backers are worried about his image now. Don't they understand ACTING at all?

#7 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2007 - 08:27 PM

Daniel R has nothing to worry about imo re Harry Potter. If he wants to continue playing him I reckon he will. To try to change him now with only two more films left is to me inconceivable. If anything this should boost his popularity. Not only wass he the infamous boy magician he is now quite a 'hearthrob'.

#8 Jan Brock

Jan Brock

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2756 posts

Posted 22 February 2007 - 09:14 AM

Why so many threads about Equus ? A rhetorical question because I already know. Same reason there were so many about History Boys.

#9 Guest_alexedin_*

Guest_alexedin_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2007 - 09:46 AM

pot, kettle, brock

#10 Jan Brock

Jan Brock

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2756 posts

Posted 22 February 2007 - 01:46 PM

But I haven't started any threads on Equus, or History Boys. What are you on about ? I'm trying to think what topic I have started lots of thread on - Michael Billington I suppose, but I don't fancy him so that can't be it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users