EQUUS - Entertaining but lacks tension

[Gigi5]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:13pm

No doubt I will be in the minority, but I felt a bit disappointed after seeing Equus. It was extremely entertaining and kept my attention during the entire play, but I wanted to be blown away by sheer brilliance and I wasn’t. For me, the main weakness in the play is that there is no tension between Alan and Martin. I attribute this to Richard Griffiths being miscast. Daniel Radcliffe makes a fantastic Broadway debut. His Alan is intense and obsessive, full of nervous energy with battles raging within himself. Griffiths' Martin, on the other hand, comes off as being very easygoing, compassionate and grandfatherly. *SPOILER*

It came as absolutely no surprise to me when Alan guessed that Martin no longer slept with his wife. Griffiths' Martin reminds me of Santa Claus. Can you really imagine Santa Claus having sex with anyone?! I envision that scene in the original production as being much more revelatory of Martin's deep pain and sorrow. Here, it felt so matter-of-fact, it really detracted from the power of the scene.

I enjoyed Griffiths' performance in The History Boys, and I think he is a fine actor, but this role just doesn't seem to fit him. Martin's character needs to display a mixture of compassion, shrewdness and sharp intellect that would allow the audience to believe that he is insightful enough to trick and outsmart Alan into revealing his innermost secrets. I could see Liam Neeson or Patrick Stewart as being a better match for Radcliffe's Alan.

I would love to hear from members who have seen other productions of this play. Are the dynamics between Alan and Martin different?

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:16pm

Totally agree with you. He also sucks all the sexual energy out of the play. What I wouldn't give to have Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman. Your picks are excellent also.

[Gigi5]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:49pm

Well put - "Sucks all the sexual energy out of the play"

It also occurred to me that there might have been an underlying spark between Martin and Hesther Saloman if played by the right actors. The fact that Martin would reveal personal aspects of his marriage to Hesther and discuss with her his envy of Alan's passion makes me think that there might be some unspoken feelings there. I loved Kate Mulgrew's take on Hesther by the way, and have always found her gravelly voice to be quite sexy.

I also thought of Alan Rickman for the role of Martin, but his drollness might make Martin seem insincere. Perhaps I just haven’t seen him play this type of character before.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:49pm

Simon Callow was - in crude terms - much less of a bonerkill that Griffiths. Or to put it in less crude terms, there was much more sexual energy in the tour of this production that had Simon Callow in the role of Dysart. Griffiths is superb, but you're right, there's nothing especially revelatory about his character with regards to certain things when really there should be.

Updated On: 9/17/08 at 01:49 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 2:00pm

Gabriel Byrne

Griffiths is a fine actor. He's totally miscast here. And its a real detriment to the production I think.

[Gigi5]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 2:16pm

I saw Gabriel Byrne in A Moon for the Misbegotten and thought he and Cherry Jones were electrifying, especially in the climatic scene at the end. What a stunning production! And Byrne did an excellent job playing the tortured soul. I did not see Camelot at Lincoln Center, but I heard he received poor reviews. Perhaps it was another example of miscasting. It would be great to see him on stage again in a role that requires no singing.

[Calvin]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 2:22pm

I saw it last night, and Gigi, I think you nailed exactly the problem I had with the whole production.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 2:57pm

Gigi...thanks for your post! If I go again (saw it in London) I will probably see what you are saying. First time I saw it I was not familiar with what was going to happen so I probably missed some of the things you are specifically talking about.

lol at Santa Claus remark...I don't want to picture either Mr Griffith or his character being sexual.

I was glad I saw the play, that I flew to London to see it and was rivited the entire time. Probably my biggest disappointment was with the audience comments as we were leaving. Most of the mothers who brought their teenage daughters were too interested to hear if their daughter saw Daniel's penis rather than talk to them about what the show was about. Found that disturbing and a sad thought about why people were there.

I went because I like Daniel, wanted to see if he could make the leap of faith switch to from "Harry" and to offer support. I believe he did it!

[musicals2]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 2:52pm

I saw it the other night and I agree. I also saw it with Richard Burton playing the role of the Doctor in 1976. Mr. Burton was very good, and he brought more energey to the role than Mr. Griffith. In the current Equus, Daniel Radcliffe's role stands out more, and I found myself more absorbed in his role. It still is an absorbing play, and I would recommend it to anyone who loves the theater.

[Mamie]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 3:04pm

I have somewhat hazy recollections of seeing it with Anthony Hopkins before that. My memory tells me it was the way you describe it. I can see why I'm having difficulty seeing Mr. Griffith in it. It's been a long time and I'm afraid I've forgotten a lot of details, but the emotion - and tension - of the piece stays with you.

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 3:07pm

The more I've thought about it, the more I've decided that there defnitely was something off with the chemistry of the cast in this. And after reading the comments, I'm inclined to agree with you all about Griffiths. He's a wonderful actor, but his scenes- particularly with Mulgrew- seemed to be lacking something. At first I thought it was Mulgrew who seemed so full of life- a marked contrast to Griffiths, but it certainly seems as if it was more a poor choice by Griffiths in constructing the character as too introspective.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 3:22pm

I feel like with this play the audience should be on the brink of an orgasm right along with Alan, and seeing Griffiths sitting there watching everything just makes you go "Eeeeshhh...."

[Scarlett2]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 5:31pm

We saw this revival in London and came away with the same impression of Richard Griffiths. My husband had seen it with Anthony Perkins on Broadway and felt this revival lacked the tension, torment and sexuality that was so riveting in the original production. I think Griffiths is way too affable , almost like he's just the narrator rather than the central character. I think it's his role that drives the message of the play as he unravels Alan's story and his own inner anguish is revealed, but I wasn't really drawn in by him. And as many of you said, the sexual tension that's meant to be flying all over the place isn't there at all.
We have tickets this again this fall. I thought Daniel Radcliffe was very good, actually, and we enjoyed the play. It's just that it was disappointing in all the ways people have mentioned here.

[uncageg]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 5:35pm

My friend saw it last night and enjoyed Griffith's performance. he said while the sexual tension was not really there, you felt genuinely sorry for his character.

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 6:13pm

uncageg- I did feel sorry for his character, but there was just so little passion in his performance that I didn't feel as if the revelations he makes about his life really carried much weight.

[luke-h***]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 7:19pm

I managed to catch this production of tour in the UK with Alfie Allen and Simon Callow. It seems like this play relies entirely on sexual tension throughout, and if Richard Griffiths sucks it out of the play as you all have mentioned then I see the problem lol! Simon Callow was just phenomenal and so was Alfie Allen, I really can't imagine Daniel Radcliffe being better than Allen...Weez you've seen them both, who was better? Or anyone else who caught them both for taht matter...?

[Weez]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 7:34pm

I genuinely found Radcliffe and Allen about the same. Radcliffe was a slightly angrier Alan (hurhur, Alan XD), but I didn't think there was much between them, qualitywise.

And just as the West End Dysart wasn't as good as the tour Dysart, the tour Jill was not a PATCH on the West End Jill. I hope your Broadway Jill is less hearty and more impish.