the horses in EQUUS

I really loved the production as a whole, so, of course, I'd encourage anyone to see it for any reason! But from an unbiased standpoint, the equine moments, particularly at the end of both acts, are absolutely chilling and worthy of being seen. I don't know if I'd feel comfortable paying full price just for that, but I'd definitely see it.

---

Is it still like animal night at Chippendale's? The whole biz in the play of hugging of semi-clad, musclebound men always makes me giggle, no matter how affecting the performance.

---

They're not barechested; still in the form-fitting brown outfits.

I liked the horses well enough (though I find the play, as a whole, a bit simple-minded).

BUT, the sort of blind-horse ballet at the end--the only time they really seemed overly choreographed--made me giggle. The blinding itself was well done and upsetting, actually. But when they converge into the post-blinding bit at the end, it seemed, well, silly.

There were a few moments where the horses came off a little cheesy, and the light-up eyes were a little weird. But the show was really great as a whole!

I mean paying full price just to see the horses in the play seems a bit strange for me. It would be like saying that you liked one particular dance section of a musical and paying full price just to see that dance section not because you want to actually see the rest of the show.

---

Weez, I take your point, but there's really no way that you can have a naked boy caressing the muscled chest of a male dancer and not get a gay vibe from it. Especially since, as you point out, it is a sexualized moment. And it's not even as though some of the horses are played by women.

"Anyhow, after reading some reviews about the horses in EQUUS, i'm sorta interested in seeing them only."

Wow - it really does seem like you like horses.
If the original poster goes to the show I hope no actual blinding will happen.

:)

I'm just messin' with you, TxTwoStep.

I thought the horses were remarkably effective (except for the scene I mentioned abovce). It should be silly but, by and large, it isn't.

I can come up with an array of reasons why the horses almost have to be male.

- Nugget was described as a male horse, ergo he'd look odd if he definitely had a feminine physique.

- At the very least, Nugget and Nugget's understudy are going to have to carry Alan around so should be strong, and women aren't generally renowned for their ability to carry young men around on their shoulders.

- Horses are big powerful beasts. It helps if they can all give off the illusion of strength. I'm probably setting the feminist movement back to the '50s, but women *aren't* physically strong in the same way that men are. We can have monthly cramps and squeeze watermelons through tiny holes with nary a whimper (kinda XD), but we don't have those lovely big broad shoulders.

- Theatre audiences are stereotypically (and I'm not talking in a fact-based way; just the stereotype) women and gay men. When trying to present horses as sexy, why wouldn't you use fine young men to appeal to as much of your stereotypical audience as possible?

- It's a very male play. There's, what, four female characters, and not one of them is really more than a tertiary character role. Shaffer wants that dynamic, so play to it, don't throw any mares in.

- Hell, maybe Shaffer wanted male horses FOR the gay vibe. I just see the homoeroticism as VERY much secondary to the equoeroticism and believe the horses are played as they are to appeal to the audience rather than to give them vibes so much. I absolutely see your point, Reg, and I hope I'm not giving the impression of saying "OMG YOU'RE WRONG" or whatever. I just really do feel that any homoeroticism is secondary. :)

Although on the recent UK tour, the understudy Jill/nurse was also a horse. But then, you do try and condense down the casting as much as possible for a tour; all fine young men in the West End though. ^_^

---

I'm pretty sure none of them did. Who's got a Playbill handy? I know you don't have Will Kemp (Nugget). The others were Joel Corpuz, Jami Reid-Quarrell, Greig Coke, Temujin Gill, and Jonathan Readwin (who also understudied Alan).

---