Friday, September 26, 2008
Uncloaked Potter Blinds Horses in `Equus' Revival
Bloomberg.com: Arts and Culture: "Some plays read well but play poorly; ``Equus,'' specious as literature, is nevertheless dazzling theater. Now Peter Shaffer's 1973 drama rides again on Broadway, in a production starring Daniel Radcliffe, filmdom's Harry Potter, and Richard Griffiths, aka Uncle Vernon and star of ``The History Boys.'' It is a gripping spectacle but not a substantial one."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This show and this article demonstrate how our culture and country are so affected by nudity onstage. yes it can be done, and yes people probably won't run out of the theatre, but it is obviously such a big deal. every article and thing said about this production emphasizes the nudity, when it is just one apspect of the show. and when people watch nudity onstage, they are distracted and don't even focus on what is really happening.
I agree with peter. Although I found that this article on the show mentioned more infrequently the nudity in the show, it's still very american how every article about the show needs to mention the nudity. This summer I worked with a French sound designer and a group of Spanish actors. The Spanish group's show featured a bit of nudity and they didn't even bother telling us. Later when I asked why she didn't mention it to us she asked me why it mattered. Talking about Equus to the French sound designer, he was also surprised by the reaction it was getting here. He said if it makes the show better then why is anyone complaining? Nudity can be an aspect of a show just like costume can be. however if it is the defining characteristic of the show then maybe that says more about the quality of the show than anything else.
I hate to be repeating what Peter and Elize already touched on, but when I was reading the article all that was running through my head was how focused and shocked we are on this show because of nudity. When you ask someone about this production of Equus, almost always the first thing they mention is a naked Radcliffe onstage. Its somewhat disconcerting, because its almost as if the nudity takes away from the art because everyone is so "aware" or shocked by it. It might just be a subconcious American ideal, that nudity is not public, perhaps why this show began in Europe, seeing as though nudity and sexuality is accepted in a very different way that in America.
I was excited for this to make it back to broadway; but, it's unfortunate that it doesn't seem live up to the artistry that Peter Shaffer created in the script.
This is one of my favorite shows, and I probably will try and see it if it's out for a while. I just wish people would put more attention on the story's content, and not the nudity. It is for this reason why I don't think I've seen a decent production of the show.
I agree with Andrew. I believe that if we look back even just on the blogs on this site, there is more said about the nudity in the show than the show itself. Although, according to Ball, nudity is a “theatrical moment”, it cannot support an entire show and thus the artistry with which Shaffer creates this amazing story is lost because of someone famous taking his clothes off.
Post a Comment