My thoughts on EQUUS

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/20/08 at 8:09pm

Daniel Radcliffe makes the most successful screen-to-stage transfer I've ever seen. He ignites an otherwise unexciting production of EQUUS - absolutely astounding.

And the rest of the cast (well, most) is as good as he. I find it hard to single people out, but my particular favorites were Kate Mulgrew and T. Ryder Smith. I heart Anna Camp, even though her British accent is as good as a high school students.

I couldn't tell if it was Richard Griffiths who sucked all the tension out of the play, or if there wasn't any to begin with. The whole production is just so genuine and safe. He's very...grandfatherly, not at all intimdating or even interesting. But he commands the stage, despite not taking any risks.

One wonders if Thea Sharrock's stagnant staging is due to Griffiths' girth. He's certainly less rotund since his brillant performance in HISTORY BOYS, but he still has problems getting around (and John Napier's mumu costume does nothing to hide it).

There are only 2 points when the production comes alive - the end of the first act, in a breathtaking tableau of fog and mist and Radcliffe/Lorenzo Pisoni, and the last 20 minutes, from the scene in the movie theater. This is due in part to the delicious chemistry between Radcliffe and Camp, whose work I've been a champion of since THE SCENE at 2nd Stage.

Perhaps it's the play that's not very interesting. It's very verbose - verbose to the point of no return. A lot of rambling by Dr. Dysart - some monologues that say a lot about the character, others that say nothing. A lot of '70s pop-psychology that even Peter Shaffer says in a note in the program, is probably dated, but we have it in our power to have it in our power look past it.

John Napier's designs are fine - The seats on the stage make the set look like a Roman amphitheater, yet there's no real purpose for that. I loved David Hershey's lighting.

This production actually isn't sold out - I figured it would be. In the mezz, there were at least 3 full rows of empty seats. Can't figure out why they haven't implemented some kind of rush policy. I moved from 2nd to last row to one of the side boxes for an excellent view of the stage.

And for all you voyeurs who are wondering - he's small and manscaped; she's shaved. Kinda defeats the purpose of when Alan says to her "you're hairy." (Unless I heard that wrong.)

Updated On: 9/23/08 at 08:09 PM

[perfectliar]

Posted: 9/20/08 at 8:31pm

I completely agree with the wordiness of the play... I thought the same thing the first time I read it, but I am very much looking forward to seeing EQUUS staged for the first time next Saturday.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/20/08 at 8:36pm

Oh, and for the record, not 1 cell phone went off. I've never in my entire life seen a more attentive audience.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/20/08 at 9:51pm

Bump

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 9/20/08 at 9:58pm

Thanks for the review Yankee- I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment. The final moments of each act are enthralling due to Radcliffe's work. And I think the lack of tension is from Griffiths' choice of playing Martin as completely introspective. He never seems to really connect with any of the other characters.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/20/08 at 11:03pm

He's much too caring about Alan than figuring out his own problems. No internal conflict.
Updated On: 9/20/08 at 11:03 PM

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 12:57am

I actually really enjoyed both performances (Radcliffe and Griffiths). I thought Griffiths brought such great realism and honesty to the role. I just found him captivating to watch. I didn't care for Mulgrew though. Exactly what did you see in her performance? I thought she was acting on a different level. When compared to Griffith's ultra realism, I felt she was overacting quite a bit, and had a weird put-on accent. I enjoyed the show though, and I found the play captivating. I really enjoyed the last 20 mins as well, and the use of the space was wonderful. I'm not quite sure what the point of the on-stage seating was? Perhaps to make Alan feel like he's being watched all the time? I don't know.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 8:36am

See, that's the dichotomy. Is anything in the play supposed to be ultra-realistic? Is Mulgrew too broad, or is Griffith's performance not broad enough? I found Mulgrew to be on par with the performances of all the other actors - and it was Griffiths who didn't stand out. He didn't have that fire in his belly.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 8:53am

I wonder... I think it would change the entire dynamic of the play if you cast an extraordinarily sexy but slightly scary man of about fifty (playing age at least) as Dysart. A Gary Oldman, or an Alan Rickman (or if you want to break away from Harry Potter ALL together, a Tim Roth). I would be very interested in seeing that. I think it could work. Does it sound like a silly idea?

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 9:02am

Part of Griffiths' problem is that he's so overweight that THAT answers all the questions of Dysart's personal life. Of course he doesn't have sex with his wife - it's a health hazard. There are no questions.

With someone like Alan Rickman playing the part, it opens it up to a number of questions - is Dysart gay, etc.?
Updated On: 9/21/08 at 09:02 AM

[Jason7]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 9:20am

"I wonder... I think it would change the entire dynamic of the play if you cast an extraordinarily sexy but slightly scary man of about fifty (playing age at least) as Dysart. A Gary Oldman, or an Alan Rickman (or if you want to break away from Harry Potter ALL together, a Tim Roth). I would be very interested in seeing that. I think it could work. Does it sound like a silly idea?"

I'm not sure about sexy, but I read somewhere that the American producers wanted Robin Williams to play Dysart and that he was interested in doing it but Sharrock, Radcliffe and Griffiths had made a pact between themselves during the West End run that they would all do the Broadway production or none of them would.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 9:25am

That's quite sweet. And apparently effective!

I don't necessarily want a different Dysart for this production though, just wondering how it'd play generally. Simon Callow certainly was more... effective as Dysart, but it still wasn't so very surprising when he admitted he doesn't have sex with his wife anymore. Just... from a different slant to Griffiths...

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 10:31am

I think having a younger/more sexual Dysart would have opened up whole new levels in the play. I'd have loved to see Oldman or a Rickman take- I personally think the scenes would have much more sexually charged.

RentBoy- I agree about Mulgrew not matching Griffiths. I would have liked to see them on the same level. But, yes, her accent was awful...

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 11:01am

The original Alan, Peter Firth, with two of his Dysarts: Leonard Nimoy and Anthony Perkins:

[Jon]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 11:46am

I saw the original National Tour with Ken Howard. I think having a tall, handsome, and very virile Dysart, who towered over Alan, added a lot to the dynamic of their relationship.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 12:31pm

Daaamn! You can TELL it was the '70s! XD

[Little-Lotte]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 12:47pm

"I wonder... I think it would change the entire dynamic of the play if you cast an extraordinarily sexy but slightly scary man of about fifty (playing age at least) as Dysart. A Gary Oldman, or an Alan Rickman (or if you want to break away from Harry Potter ALL together, a Tim Roth). I would be very interested in seeing that. I think it could work. Does it sound like a silly idea? "

Oh man, Gary Oldman NEEDS to get back onstage again! I'm sorry that man is just brilliant and I would kill to see him perform live. He's my all-time favorite actor and it would just be a dream to see him on Broadway.

Funny you mention Tim Roth because he was actually the original choice for Snape but turned it down I think. It seems like everyone has been involved with the Potter Franchise in some way.

[Weez]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 12:50pm

He turned it down for PLANET OF THE APES of all things! I'm still bitter, he'd've been an awesome Snape. Rickman is just too obvious, don't you think?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 12:51pm

I think it worked with Griffith because he was so nonchalant towards Alan that it drove him crazy, and therefore, it made sense then that Alan eventually become comfortable enough around him to divulge information. And I felt like Mulgrew was holding so much tension in her body, and I just wanted her to shake herself off and become comfortable in her body, but hey, maybe that's a character choice.

[broadwayjim42]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 3:27pm

As I posted elsewhere, I thought Mulgrew walked in from another play. Everyone else was on one performance level and here she was out in left field somewhere all on her own.

[chrysler99]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 4:40pm

I agree. I also thought that Kate Mulgrew was acting in a different play from everyone else. it worked sometimes, but mostly she was just jarringly different.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 5:57pm

As I said, I thought it was Griffiths who was in a different play.

[JeaniusIsMe]

Posted: 9/21/08 at 6:38pm

It seemed to me like Mulgrew was brimming with energy (at some times, maybe too much), while Griffiths was pulled back and reserved. When watching, whenever Mulgrew would be in a scene it would really jar me b/c I'd gotten lulled by Griffiths energy.

But for me, it didn't make the play any less powerful- I just wish they would all get on the same page, whatever page that may be.

[MiracleElixir]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 2:34am

I totally understand the complaints about wordiness -- ever since I read the play years ago, its talkiness has stuck out to me -- but I was never bored for an instant. I think there's so many interpretations and different thematic entry points, that almost every line of dialogue has some sort of visceral effect on you (i.e.: me). I know at $125, multiple viewings isn't an option for most of us, but this play -- perhaps more than any other -- really, really benefits from repeat experiences, whether seeing the play more than once, reading the text, reading interpretations or seeing the film. It's one that's impact may not fully hit you initially or might come off lacking if the wordiness allows you to tune out or your eyes to glaze over. The closing moments of Acts I & II are the most visual, visceral and haunting, so they're the ones that linger most in the memory and wake up audience members who have begun to drift, but if you actually absorb the dialogue, there's so much there to tantalize.

As for Griffith's planet-esque appearance getting in the way of the character: while I agree a more sexual figure would add a whole other level to Dysart, I don't think the fact that he'd have trouble lifting himself on top of his wife during sex completely rules out other deficiencies/complications.

And Mulgrew didn't *annoy* me per se, but she did seem to be hamming it up, and I was frustrated that my audience applauded her exit after a particularly forced blustery moment that seemed as if she was channeling Edward Hibbert. Just out of place in a production of this sort.

Updated On: 9/23/08 at 02:34 AM

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 9/23/08 at 8:05am

Thank you, Yankeefan007. That was a great, honest review. I hope to be able to see this October (if I get to the City.)