REVIEW: Equus
- Posted on February 28, 2007 11:05 AM
- 5 comments
There's no escaping Daniel Radcliffe's 'magic wand' at the moment. There's mention of it all over the West End - and admit it, you're more than just a tad intrigued aren't you? When I was offered a seat 'on stage' I couldn't resist. Why all the fuss?
I was never overly concerned with the finer details of former Harry Potter star, Daniel Radcliffe's anatomy (honestly!). I was however, intrigued about the dark storyline and massive jump from tales of wizardry and magic to the challenge of live theatre. Sure, the towering black imagery or Radcliffe's toned torso against the silhouette of a horse's spooky face sparked my fair share of curiosity. If you've walked anywhere near central London recently, you'll know what I mean.
As far as West End plays go, Equus is a marketing goldmine. Think about it, you take a former child superstar, his pudgy ageing sidekick and a cracking plot and roll it into one. Strip the two beautiful young actors down to their birthday suits, add a touch of sex and unsettling themes involving horses and bestiality and you've got a success right? Wrong.
The impressive thing about Equus is the fact that no amount of marketing, star factor or willy waving ever guaranteed an enjoyable night at the theatre. Stellar acting was the real key, and the Equus cast hit that theatre world hammer directly on the head.
Peter Shaffer's 1973 play tells the story of a teenage boy with an unsettling physical obsession with horses. After a shocking incident in which Alan Strang (Radcliffe) blinds six horses with a spike, he is sent to child psychiatrist, Martin Dysart. This is where the play begins; Psychiatrist, (Richard Griffiths) stands alone on a dark and smoky stage, sewing the seeds of curiosity in the audience. Why did he do it? Was it his heavily religious mother, his protective and overbearing father or his own guilty pleasures?
Such a collection of deep and unsettling undercurrents can be draining for both cast and audience. Director Thea Sharrock remains true to the original production and simplicity in the prop department is the key. Four black boxes, black stable doors and a revolving stage are all that is needed to support the powerful performances on show. The reason we're sitting amongst the 'gods' above the stage itself is a recreation of the original seating arrangements. Amongst the black backdrop and dark themes, the actors illuminate the stage.
From the outset, Richard Griffiths sends my heart racing towards my chest; he's a big man and one can't help but fear for his own ticker. Size aside, the man is a master of the stage... with a presence that goes far beyond body mass. The confusion and curiosity of his character is as evident as our own.
The chemistry between Radcliffe and Griffiths is mesmerising to watch. They worked together during the filming of JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the trust between them is obvious. Our view from up above not only gives us a view of the top of their heads, but also a rare positioning behind the action. When Alan paces the stage in rage and fear we glimpsed the moments when actors are usually spared the prying eyes of the audience. Falling out of character just isn't an option... and the entire cast delivers. Joanna Christie (Alan's 'girlfriend') shows particularly impressive steel during the naked scene.
The real victims (and heroes) are the horses. Played by strapping young men in brown attire and metal masks, they tower above the cast on their metal horseshoes. Anyone who has a love of horses will appreciate the subtle gestures and movements typical of the gentle and devoted beasts. I haven't seen such attention to detail since Matthew Bourne's all male dance cast mimicked the swans in Swan Lake. It is the blank eyes and harsh metal horse heads that stay with us as we leave the theatre - not the simulated sex and nudity.
I can only imagine how distracting it must be for the rest of the audience to see sixty-odd people perched above the stage, readjusting their aching backs every five minutes. There may be something novel about walking backstage during interval but trust me, the standard full frontal view would suffice. Back aches aside, Daniel Radcliffe has come of age... it seems the real magic has only just begun.
Equus is showing at the Gielgud Theatre.
Have you seen Equus? Do you agree with our review? Tell us what you thought in out comments section.
Comments (5)
Elinor
I saw the matinee performance of Equuus this afternoon, unfortunately Richard Griffiths was unable to go onstage ,and his role was understudied - fair enough, in the west end this happens a lot, however his understudy, Colin Haugh, clearly did not know the part and for the majority of the performance read from a script - I find this utterly unacceptable in a west end show and it completely detracted from the play as a whole. Actors are paid to take on an understudy role and to merely read from the text is appalling - we had paid to see a performance of the play and simply didn't get one - there was no barely no attempt to disguise the fact he was reading from the script, which utterly detracted from any scene in which he was involved. I have seen Equus a couple of times and think it is a remarkable piece of writing, the performance I saw this afternooon left me cold. Daniel Radcliffe may have struggled from the lack of any sort of performance from Colin Haugh, I don't know - but there was no depth to the emotions of Alan Strang whatsoever. All I can say is that this was supposed to be a professional production, in which you would expect an understudy to perform a role to a professional standard -an actor reading the text from the script isn't that and as a result the performance as a whole was poor.
Posted on March 4, 2007 12:03 AM
Paul
I wouldn't blame the understudy...If he was reading from the script then he clearly WASN'T a paid understudy, but had been drafted in at the last minute. Hiring actors to learn a whole part on the offchance that they might be needed is very expensive, and most theatre companies don't bother. Perhaps they should, but it really isn't the actors fault.
Posted on March 9, 2007 1:45 PM
sue
I saw the same performance when Richard Griffiths was unable to perform and Colin Haugh was billed as his understudy. He had learnt the first two speeches and then on had to read it.For his own professional pride you would have thought that he would have bothered to learn the whole script. I agree that, having seen the production a number of times, that much was lost as a result. I also felt that Daniel Radcliffe stuggled with the complexity of the part. I never once believed he could have committed the crime which is the backdrop to the piece.
This understudy was also in the cast, so has attended rehearsals and therefore there is absolutely no excuse that he didn't have an intimate knowledge of the play. The role he plays is very small. He has masses of time backstage to learn. We were initially disappointed to discover that Richard Griffiths was not playing. These things happen in live theatre. What a missed opportunity for the understudy. This could have been his moment.
Posted on March 14, 2007 7:06 PM
jabber
hello i am a iranian i lovemr daniel radcliffe and i want send for he a cd of her image
but i dont have post addres
Posted on March 14, 2007 11:32 PM
karo
it's not cool how u r making fun of them just b/c they don't know their part surely you have been in a play and know the pressure!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on May 29, 2007 7:27 PM
Post a comment
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seatwaveblogs.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/466
