Yet another Equus review

[jd1980]

Posted: 11/25/08 at 5:47pm

Hello All,

I'm new here, so I hope its appropriate for me to make a new thread here.
I know a lot of people have reviewed Equus in the past but I just saw Equus on Broadway and my previous reference was the 1977 film adaptation. So I thought I would give my thoughts in the form of a comparison.

What they did better than the movie:
- Griffiths' Dysart is better than Burton's. Yes, I said it. He just is a better actor.
- I went into the play expecting to see Harry Potter playing Strang and what I found pleasantly surprising was that by about 15 minutes in, I found I stoped thinking of him as Harry and started to think of him as Alan. In terms of the film, I actually think overall Radcliffe is more real as Strang than Firth was in the film.
- Anna Camp was a pleasant surprise too, I went in thinking there was no way she could bring in the same gravitas as Aggutter did in the film but I think she held up well. I also like her voice, she has a very likable quality to her speaking voice.
- Finnally, the very best thing they did better was the horses as actors. I think if they ever do another filmed interpretation of the play they should do it in the style of the movie "Oklahoma" and film the theater play rather than making a movie with real horses

A few points of criticism:
1. In certain parts me, and the people in my section couldn't hear Griffiths. He simply was talking too low at times.
2. I see what they were going for with the stage design, but at time I found myself wishing that it could have been staged on a more traditional "audience up front" type theater.
3. Forgive the crudeness on this point, but why was Miss. Camp shown to be completely shaved? She is supposed to be older than Strang and the script even references his surprise as ther body. If it was her personal preference, I think they should have dug up a merkin for her, to keep consistent with the script.
4. Please, please, someone, ban teenage girls from the sidewalks after the play. Everyone had to fight there way through a hoard of screaming, crying teen girls who were waiting for Radcliffes interview. lol

Let me know what you you guys think.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 11/25/08 at 6:26pm

I also questioned the reason for Camp's...hygienic...preferences. Especially given the line "you're hairy."

[dramamama611]

Posted: 11/25/08 at 7:50pm

yes....I found that an annoying moment as well. Women/girls simply did not shave/wax/what-have-you then.

[jd1980]

Posted: 11/25/08 at 8:00pm

to be honest it was quite shocking because the lighting was so bright that it made it quite obvious that she was like totally totally bald. i dont understand why they didnt just omit the line in the script or give her a little wig. at first i thought well maybe shes blonde and im not seeing right, but some of the people up front said that shes full on shaved. did you all notice that to? i thought i might have seen wrong. lol

[jd1980]

Posted: 11/26/08 at 12:21am

oh one other thing i forgot to mention was, when the "you're hairy" part was said, there was audible laughter, since it was so clearly stupid to leave that line in when there wasnt a hair on her body south of her eyebrows. im surprised really becaues the director is usually a stickler for complete accuracy. hence the full run through on the first day of practice.

[MusicAndPassion]

Posted: 11/26/08 at 1:45am

I find it a little upsetting that you compare this production to the film. The play was written for the stage, incorporating elements of Greek drama into it. The film is a sub-par adaptation of the stage production. You can't capture the essence of the characters, plot (especially with actors playing the horses on stage) in the film. The play was also written to have actors playing the horses. Obviously the film would have portrayed that terribly, which I believe makes the film lose a lot of authenticity and a lot of the play's meaning. All those become radiant on the stage and enhance the performance.

That being said, I find the Griffiths is an amazing actor, but terribly miscasted in the role. He's simply too old for the role. The audience is not shocked to find he's in a love-less marriage. The audience isn't moved to feel sorry for such a pitiful man. By the end of the play the audience feels sorry for Alan and feels slightly bad for Dysart.

Please don't get me wrong. Richard Griffiths is a terrific actor, and his chemistry with Mr. Radcliffe is great. You can see they share a great bond between each other. However he's just not write for the role. I really wish I could have seen somebody with Griffiths' stage talents, but in shape and 10 years younger.

And as for the "hairy" comment. It would be uncommon for females in the 70s to have shaved their pubic hair, however Jill, who appears to be obviously well practiced and interested in sex, may fit the persona of someone who does shave. Alan, having seen his first unclothed female and hour before in the film, may be overwhelmed by the fact a naked female is actually standing before him that anything can slip out of his mouth. It whould have made more sense to have her keep her pubic hair, but it really doesn't matter. It's irrelevant to the plot and I found that most people who went to see "the naked scene" focus on that rather than how brilliant (yet dated) the play is. And from the mezzanine you couldn't even tell who was hairier than who.


Please pardon any grammatical errors. Thanks! Updated On: 11/26/08 at 01:45 AM

[jd1980]

Posted: 11/26/08 at 3:58pm

you really think griffiths was miscast? i thought it was really good casting. i think his voice was perfect for the role.
as for your assesment of why anna shaves, thats a really good point, i never really thought of her as a "loose" type of girl though, to me she seems to be sexual but not a floosy. and as for the ability to see "whos hairy and whos not" i propbably wouldnt have taken too much notice, if a. it hadnt been so bright durring that scene that it was obvious, and b. if the random guy next to me, who i didnt even know, didnt elbow me and go (and i quote) "dude shes completly shaved". lol i still think the "you're hairy" line could have been omitted, or made more accurate by changing it to "you have no hair" which would have conveyed the same adolescent facination and curiousity, but kept accurate with her own physical appearance.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 11/27/08 at 2:18am

The film is really terrible and one of Richard Burton's poorest performances. It's also far too literal. And teh pacing is deadly.

[jd1980]

Posted: 11/27/08 at 10:59pm

i wasnt around for the movie when it came out, but i rented it when i saw all the focus on the play when radcliffe joined the cast a few years ago, and i was very disapointed in burtons performace. and in the film overall.
by the way, if anyones interested in a little gossip, i just heard from a source that i consider reliable (i work on broadway in a small capacity) that the "hair below" was actually an issue that came up durring preproduction, camp wanted shaved, sharrock wanted natural, radcliffe said it should be camps decision, end of story. of course this is all hearsay and you can take that or leave it, but if its true it think that was nice of daniel.