We were also in the audience on Friday night, and the understudy's performance was a disgrace. Prompted twice, once at the start of each act, he took refuge in his written copy of the script - and then delivered several key speeches so poorly it seemed as if he didn't even understand what he was reading. Quite shameful.

But... and it's a big but... the play itself was a triumph overall. I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan, so wasn't hyped about Daniel Radcliffe in the way other audience members seemed to be. But for a 17-year old to carry such a tricky, powerful play when the other main actor is inept is a truly remarkable achievement. Radcliffe was remarkable; the staging is stunning; the whole evening made a huge impact.

Jon, North-East England,

I went on Friday when Richard Griffiths was unable to preform and wish I could go back to see him preform. I loved the play though even though the understudy had to read the script. I dont think that ruined the play at all.

I loved my seat, I was so close to the stage that I could see the viens in his arms!

If I could I would buy another ticket and watch it all again. Great job guys!

Hannah Davis, London, England

I can only echo the thoughts of Christine and Michael. For the part of a key character in the play to be read verbatim from a script is inexcusable. What little credit there was for the performance goes to the other actors who clearly did what they could to salvage a ridiculously amateurish performance - Such a lack of professionalism and competence is certainly not what one would expect when paying out in excess of £50 a ticket. - most disappointing.

Melissa, London,

I similarly attended on Saturday night and was most disappointed to find that Richard Griffiths had been replaced by an understudy. That said however I, like others, am prepared to accept that these things do occasionally happen and when they do, they are unavoidable. What one does not accept is that the said understudy would spend most of the performance reading from the script and even then manage to mess up his lines. What little credit there was for the performance goes to the other actors who clearly did what they could to salvage a ridiculously amateurish performance - Such a lack of professionalism and competence spoiled the show and is certainly not what one would expect when paying out in excess of £50 a ticket- most disappointing.

Melissa, London,

Joanna Christie was also naked for a few minutes which was nice.

Sarah, Leicester,

I agree totally with Christine LLoyd form Nottingham. I also went on Friday. I can accept that Richard Griffiths was ill. These things happen. But I am left with a deep sense of disappointed having also paid £50 plus expenses (total over £100) for what I anticipated would be a special experience. Reading the script was not acceptable, and it spoilt the performance.

michael, Suffolk, UK

Went on Friday 2nd March. Richard Griffiths ill. Got to grips with this disappointment and assumed the 'understudy' would be an actor up to the task and was disgusted when he read the entire part from the script. I had paid £50.00 for this. Although the rest of the cast were superb this performance was relegated to the ranks of amateur theatre. I would contest the use of the word 'understudy' . I had always thought this meant someone capable of taking on the role if required to do so. I think everyone who attended that evening should be given the opportunity to see the play again with either with Richard Griffiths in the role or someone who is able to give a comparable performance.

Christine Lloyd, Northampton, England

i havent yet been to see the play, but i do so want to go! im getting tickets for the production some time in the next few weeks! i was 8 when the first harry potter movie came out and i thought that he was a great actor then and that hes a tremendously good actor now. im sure that he will carry the part in the play with tremendous strength and do it justice! you go Daniel!
x x

stephanie, lawrence hill, bristol, uk

I took my son, aged 17 and an 'A' LeveljTheatre Studies student, to the performance on Saturday. I saw the original production with Peter Firth as the boy,when I was about 21 years and it made a large impact on me then, I was interested to see if the play still had the same impact now and how my son felt about it.. I must say that I thought the whole play wonderful. It moved me enormously and I thought Richard Griffiths magnificent. as Dysart. I was also very impressed with Daniel Radcliff, the part of Strang requires acting about experiences often beyond the age of a 17yr old and I thought he carried the part with enormous confidence and credit. My son came also thought the play 'really good' and commented on the level of trust there must have been between the cast and particulaly between Radcliff and Griffiths. He wants to go again!

penny, Ware, Herts, uk

I think it's time to replace Ben Hoyles as your "Arts Reporter". What a pointless revue, liitle comment on the excellent acting by the entire ensemble, especially Griffiths and Radcliffe. He seems more focused on actors climbing through windows and inaccurate statements like "...ten minute sex scene." That's something I didn't see, I did see a 4 minute nude scene that was essential for the credibility of the piece. Perhaps Mr Hoyles has become too cynical for his own good.

Congratulations to everyone concerned with this long overdue production of Equus, it was absorbing from start to finish and Mr Hoyles please try and understand that this has nothing to do with Harry Potter and everything to do with a young actor performing a difficult piece that has surely laid the foundations for a long and succesful stage career that will benefit all of us in the years to come.

Chris Andrews, Birmingham, England

Keep in mind that Dan auditioned for the role when he was only 15. To impress a playwrite who really didn't want to put on the play, it must have been an outstanding audition. And to Marie in Hanover, who said '...dumb enough to believe is was about talent and not money', I point out that 'celebrity' will only take you so far. The first week or two the curiousity seekers will come, but if the actors and the adaptation are not up to par, then the greatest celebrities in the world can't keep the play open. To make this work, Dan has to deliver, and from what I've heard, he definitly does that. If Dan and the producers were counting on 'celebrity' alone to carry the play then they are extremely bad businessmen. I have always said that even if Dan is only 'OK' in this part, he will grow tremendously as an actor from the experience, so from Dan's perspective, it is a 'win/win' situation. Can't wait for the opening night reviews.

Steve, Minnesota, USA

I saw the play on Saturday night, and was totally blown away by it. I thought Daniel Radcliffe and the rest of the cast were brilliant. The nudity in the play was nothing compared to the superb acting. I came out feeling exhilerated. Well done to everyone involved.

Linda England, Kedington, United Kingdom

And why are you trying so hard to convince us that they didn't cast Dan because he is the best for the role? So just because he is famous you have to be negative.
Shaffer didn't let anyone to make a revival of Equus in the West End since 30 years ago, he didn't think he could see an actor who could play Alan Strang so well. So if he let them do the play after 30 years it is because Daniel Radcliffe is very talented and he can play the character very well. I applaud him because he chose to work hard and play the most interesting and complex character a young stage actor can play. If some ignorant people can not see more than nudity, it's their problem. People can quote whatever they want, but the true is that Potter fans are more mature and know more about this play than what people want to believe.

John S, London, UK

Well Maria, Hanover why put on a play that's gonna flop, it's just as much a risk to everyone else as it is for Daniel and Simon from Reading, did you see it? Are you as hostile about Radcliffe as you sounded before the performance?

Julia, London, UK

Why is everyone trying so hard to convince us that they didn't cast Dan because of who he is? There is an old saying: methinks they doth protest too much. It's obvious the minute Daniel Radcliffe walked on stage they saw dollar signs in their eyes. Not to say young Daniel can't and won't pull it off, but I'm tired of them trying to act like the general public is dumb enough to believe it was about talent and not money. Stop telling us and maybe, just maybe, it will be believed.

Marie, Hanover,

When a boy who used to symbolize everything that is 'still' good and moral left in the entertainment industry, allows himself to be dragged in the mud and enslaved by the old formulas like 'sex sells' you know the world has gone further down the drain. Long live immorality!

Jeannie, Taipei,

Love the play, I went to the second preview, I am not a fan of the Harry Potter kids, I love Richard as a peformer, he is just great, but after watching this play, I found Radcliffe a very good actor, and I may go and watch a few of those Harry Potter movies.

Theresa, Candem?London, England

I've seen the play & didn't go just to see Dan naked on stage. I actually read the play & enjoyed it. Dan & all the cast are briliant, just needed a little tightening of some scenes but have to say that it was just a brilliant play.

I hope the critics look past the fact that Dan is Harry Potter & give him credit for what he is doing on the stage. Granted if he has a bad night they should report, but please enough with the headlines that he's naked - there is so much to this play that seven minutes of seeing naked bodies on stage.

Josephine, London, UK