the horses in EQUUS

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/1/08 at 10:14pm

i posted about this before, but searched and couldn't find the thread, perhaps it was removed?!??!

Anyhow, after reading some reviews about the horses in EQUUS, i'm sorta interested in seeing them only. Never cared much for the play (have to agree with some reviews that it seems particularly dated and pretentious now), though the acting company is intriguing. So many things to see in NYC, including mucho NEW things (what with NYMF and all).

Is the organic "equine" choreography/staging worth the price of admission alone? any thoughts?

[flaemmchen]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 5:23am

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.

[Weez]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 8:09am

I thought the horses were incredible, but this is still a character-based play, so as much as I completely adored them, I'd say it'd be stupid to drop $100 JUST to see the horses.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 11:06am

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.

[Jon]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 11:12am

I'm amused that this time around, the horses are apparantly bare chested. In the original, they wore brown velour warm-up suits - very 1970's. The homoerotic element of the show was not so blatant.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 11:17am

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.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 12:25pm

Like a sequence I once saw in a Danny LaRoux show in London.

[SingingCats]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 1:09pm

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!

[Weez]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 2:38pm

I think the tight tops are less about homoeroticism and more about... equoeroticism, or wherever you'd like to go with that. By keeping the humanity of the actors on display and dressing finely honed dancer bodies in skintight tops, it's more than likely that the audience will, on some level, find the horses attractive. But we know - for the intents and purposes of the play - that they're horses, so it's all a little skewed. Yes, it's about going "LOOK AT THIS MAN! YOU MAY - NAY, SHOULD - FIND HIM DREAMY!", but not in a gay way, in a... horsey way.

[winston89]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:00pm

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.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:25pm

hey, thanks for the viewpoints, really appreciated. i'm a fan of unconventional blocking and staging, and see examples whenever i can, but these sections (despite the generally good reviews) sound fairly standard.

Maybe they'll tape the show for a special, or it will end up at Lincoln Center archives, and i can take a gander that way. There is always so much to see in NYC (and i don't even try for serious music or museums/arts exhibits anymore when i can get there, just dance and opera and theatre) that i really like to think carefully.

i know i won't be seeing the tickets at half-price booth, so there you have it.

Thanks again, everybody.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:32pm

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.

[Anakela]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 3:53pm

i know i won't be seeing the tickets at half-price booth, so there you have it.

fyi EQUUS has absolutely been at tkts. I don't know that it's up there *daily* or anything, but it's been up there.

[Adam Chris]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:23pm

"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.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:36pm

The horses were really cool in my opinion. Definitely one of the things I enjoyed most about it. There was one point in act one where they were doing what has been described as "an odd form of vogue-ing." But it's combined with ambient sound effects, the sound of their hooves clashing on the ground, and horse breathing. Kinda creepy. And I thought the light up eyes added a very eerie element to the horses, as well as aiding the blinding sequence. I found nothing cheesy about the blinding. There were a couple of the horses that made it look a bit choreographed, but it was overall kind of disturbing and chaotic. I loved the horses.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:36pm

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.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 4:37pm

that is a really interesting point....about whether the horses could be staged with women as well as men. Or does that interfere with the whole "normal" intimate relationship Alan begins with the girlfriend (is her name Linda?).

i think the male muscalature as substitute for actual horses is something about the primal power that Alan senses in them, and wants to connect with...which can also be traced in some adolescent girl's fascination with horses and riding. The grooming of the horses, while not strictly sexual, can certainly be sensual and erotic. As can the riding, of course. Perhaps that's why women-as-Equus-equine-substitutes has not caught on yet...through god knows in this fitness culture there are women whose physiques can suggest primal power as well.

and ADAM CHRIS i know you're just joshing, but i'll admit to a fascination with strong male bodies, particularly when engaged in very artistic and abstracted expression....or even just stripping.

thanx for the heads-up on TKTS, i will watch for it there (i always leave a few slots for happenstance with that outlet). i just assumed with Radcliffe's presence, the show was nearly sold out for the run.

Updated On: 10/2/08 at 04:37 PM

[Weez]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 6:01pm

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. ^_^

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 6:12pm

it'd be interesting to check out on IBDB how many horses transferred transatlantically....if any.

[Weez]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 6:57pm

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).

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 10/2/08 at 7:05pm

from IBDB:

Collin Baja Horse
Anna Camp Jill Mason
Tyrone Jackson Horse
Spencer Liff Horse
Graeme Malcolm Harry Dalton
Carolyn McCormick Dora Strang
Adesola Osakalumi Horse
Lorenzo Pisoni Young Horseman/Nugget
Sandra Shipley Nurse
T. Ryder Smith Frank Strang
Marc Spaulding Horse

so i was wrong, the girl friend is named Jill, not Linda. i don't recall "Young Horseman" but if it's a minor character in the stable scenes, it would make sense that Alan would associate him with the primal draw there. Nice twist. i hope it shows up at TKTS while i'm there. i love Kate Mulgrew (forgot she was in it) and T Ryder Smith.