Iconic Films

2 for 1 tickets to Singin' In The Rain, this coming Monday. Book now

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

Skip Navigation

From The Times

February 28, 2007

Equus

Benedict Nightingale at the Gielgud

What do you think of Daniel Radcliffe's performance? Have your say at the foot of this review

OK, it was exactly what all that prurient hype promised. For his theatrical debut last night, 17-year-old Daniel Radcliffe was brave enough to perform the denouement of Equus without wearing so much as the specs that are his Potter insignia. Like a zillion other actors since the censor’s exit 40 years ago, he stripped off, though this time for a sex-scene that proved as abortive as any puritan could wish.

But unless you’re a sad voyeur, as much in need of psychiatric help as that horse-lover and horse-mutilator, Radcliffe’s Alan Strang, you’ll be more interested in two questions. Is the boy wizard enough of a wizard boy to merit a place onstage beside Richard Griffiths? And how does Peter Shaffer’s play stand up 34 years after its premiere?

The first answer is that Radcliffe proves an assured actor and makes a perfectly able equimaniac. He can do aggression and pain, and, oddly, is lacking only in the sense of magic and wonder the part demands. The second is that, though gripping and theatrically skilful, Equus is at root dated, pretentious and even a bit pernicious, much like the 1960s guru who clearly influenced Shaffer. Is the “normality” that the late R.D. Laing hated really so inferior to the obsessive “passion” of a troubled boy sent to a mental hospital after blinding the six horses he worshipped?

The play is a detective story, but with a shrink as Poirot or Morse. Why did a harmless-seeming boy commit an atrocity that many English people would rate as barely better than serial murder? What did Alan finally see behind those big, glaring eyes? A magnificent but reproachful Pegasus accoutred with a bridle instead of wings; sexual challenge as embodied by the girl who tries unsuccessfully to seduce him; an authoritarian father; or the suffering Christ as worshipped by his ultra-devout mum? All, probably; but the clues clunkily dropped throughout the play suggest mainly the last two.

All this is sleuthed out by Griffiths’s Dr Dysart, who comes across as wry, dry, world-weary, melancholy: a self-professed pagan as bitterly aware of his own insufficiencies as Shaffer’s Salieri when confronted with Mozart in Amadeus. And here’s where the play gets suspect. Can you think of anything worse than “taking away someone’s worship?” asks the self-hating Dysart of Jenny Agutter as a kindly, concerned magistrate. But the answer is, yes you can, especially when a deeply troubled boy is on the couch.

Paedophiles worship children and robbers worship money, but that’s no reason to regard their “cure” as a sellout.

Still, Thea Sharrock’s production combines to good theatrical effect with John Napier’s simple design, an arc of black pillars and shadowy horse-stalls with plain cubes between them. The switches of past and present, narrative and event, are managed with effortless fluency. The supporting characters, though (that heavy socialist dad with a weakness for porn!) far from subtle, are decently enough played. The horses, actors with golden heads and hooves, look terrific. And Radcliffe has only one obvious weakness.

His Alan is pale, vulnerable, defensive, surprisingly tough; but he’s supposed also to find an exhilaration bordering on religious ecstasy in the company and, especially, the secret riding of horses. This, Radcliffe misses. Yet I can’t wholly regret his failure, because it makes an enjoyable play just a bit less morally meretricious.

Box office: 0870-950 0915

i have to say, of all the plays i have seen, this has to top them all. my congratulations go out to Peter Shaffer, who not only picked a stellar cast, but also for approaching John Napier to redesign the set and, of course, those amazing horse head sculptures. It was hard to believe that there were really humans underneath those metal masks, their movement was so fluid, so strong and muscular. I must also touch upon the point of a naked Daniel Radcliffe. Although i have to admit, i, like many others found some perverse indulgence in seeing such a good looking man naked, and that is one of the reasons i went to see 'the wizard boy' become 'a grown (and should i say handsome) man' in the play. But half hour into the play i lost all sense of sitting in a theatre with the audience and instead was transported to a place where all your emotions are bought to the surface, and trying to push them back down is like trying to stuff a duvet into a pizza box. Three words : GO SEE IT.

Sara, Walsall, UK

I went to see Equus in april and i must say that i was amazed by Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills. I love going to the theatre and when i got the chance to go and see Equus i immediatley toke it. I'm glad that i did because i was captivated by his acting. I hope that many people enjoy this play as i did because Daniel Radcliffe can act outside of his Harry Potter role. I'm a big fa of the Harry Potter films and now i can truely appreciate his acting skills.

Samantha, Hayes, Middlesex

I went to see this play and yes, i must say that this is one role that can surely shake Daniel Radcliffe off his Potter role. It was finely acted with a great array of supporting actors. There was too much brouhaha about Daniel taking his kit off but then again, the play was powerful enough to make it an integral part of the show. Daniel Radcliffe is perfect for the role of Alan Strang. Jenny Agutter looked so lovely after all these years. Richard Griffiths was larger than life literally and figuratively. Bravo to all of them.

mikey, london, england

I loved this play, its the first play I've seen at the theatre.
I thought it was excellent, Daniel Radcliffe played the part excellently. Such good acting skills and to get your kit off on stage has to make you nervous even if you are an actor and it is expected of your part to do it.

Laura, Royston , UK

I am a fan of Dan Radcliffe, and i think he has done an amazing job with this play, and stepping out from his usual HP character to let fans know he's just trying to grow as an actor. I think this is a good move so that for the future he dosn't have just HP on his resume. I am still a big fan and i will see every last one of is other Hp films. Go Dan go.

Kaddene Deacon , Brantford, On, Canada

I went to see this production and although I enjoyed it I think the reviewer is spot on. Daniel Radcliffe was rather good but he did lack a little magic.

He needs to work more on developing his vocal skills and also at the moment he lacks charisma and presence.

There are other actors of his age who would have been more suitable but because he's a name he was chosen.

Young people are often to star struck to notice the finer points and just give credit because of who they are rather than how well they suit a role. I feel it needed a more experienced theatre actor to give the role the extra spark it needed.

julia , london ,

I think it is unfair not to give Daniel Radcliffe ANY credit in thi astonishing play. How can you judge an actor who has only been viewed s harry potter, soft and still growing up??? He has improved his acting incredibly since his last Harry Potter Film. He is nearly 18 and it takes mighty confidence to perform the way he did. Richard Griffiths was superb, He wasso natural and didnt bother with the whole "REAL ACTING". He acted like he was speaking fro the spot. this play has been a classic for a long time. and i think it is unfair to scrutinise a 17 year old who has been stripping off infront of hundreds of people every night!!

Erin Large, Bray, co. Dublin, Ireland

i'm 13 and this was the best play i have ever seen!
i had no idea it was so comlpex. i would love to see it again. i think daniel did a great job. H e must have some guts to go out there and go naked.
i think the must disturbing scene was when he was in his bedroom worshiping the photo of the horse his dad gave. i was thinking. did he make up the chant or read it somewhere or....?
i thought it was weird but i loved it and will never forget it

hannah, southampton, england

How old do you have to be to see the play ?

jenny , blackpool, uk

Why are the English so termined to slag off their own talent? I just read this pompus review of Radcliffe's performance and was saddened that yet another bright young British star is being picked apart and critisised so ruthlessly by the media. No wonder so many pack thier bags, get a fake tan and move to L.A! Its a kind of small minded- jelously that is also used against Billie Piper. I thought Radcliffe's performace was brave, intelligent and mature beyond his years. Lets give young British actors the credit they are long over due.

Lauren, London, England

Personally, I believe Daniel Radcliffe did a fantastic job. I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, so naturally I immediatley got tickets to see Equus. I was very satified with his performance. It is a big change from anything he has done before, and it was a brave move. I think he pulled it off. I disagree with the person saying no one should go due to giggling. Throughout, the audience was completely silent. I saw many teenagers attending, and not one sound as he did the sex scene. It was excellent. Well done Daniel.

Sarah, London, England

I think some of the review you are giving Daniel Radcliffe is quite unfair seeing he's only 17. Most adult actors still lack the skill they need but they carry on anyway. I applaud this young man for stepping out from behind the curtains of Hp, to do this. We judge too harshly and too quickly, he's trying to establish him self as an actor so let him give it a go. If at 30, he hasn't don't ant thing worthy then by all means have your say. You are all looking for an A+ but it's not all the time you will get that. With age come knowledge and experience and to me he's still young, and have years to go.

Clover , Brantford, On, Canada

hello to all
i went to watch thispla,all of two weeks ago, it was the most excting productions i had ever experianced, I am 16 years old but never so much as heard a snigger amongst other youngter thearte goers.
Radcliff was perfect for the part, and as i had myself acted in the play as nugget, i was very observative ofthe person who was to play young Alan.
Although I was at the back of the Guilgud thearte I was ableto see clearly from every body movement possible.
The pain ofstrang was captured wonderfully and I give my full praise to Radcliff foreverything that he achieved.

Ashleigh Gibb, Oxford, England

I have never taken any news paper critic or any other critics word about anything seriously. Wonder why, but we won't go there. This play was great Daniel Radcliffe can sit back now a know if he ends his film career, theatre will also embrace him and make him. Everyone involved in this play should take a bow.
Critics only give thier own personal opions about the films and plays that we all watch, but at the end of today it's down to the publics opinion.

Margaret, london, england

As someone who has watch this play, I find entertaining to read a few comments here of poeple who has NOT watch this play and make opinions about it, go watch it and then make your own conclutions, but I have to agree with most of the critics that have praised Daniel for his excellent performance in this play, he has show that he can go more than the Harry Potter movies, he is sure going on a great path and now he will be looks as a mature actor and not as a childrens movie actor.

Theresa, Candem/London, England

Although the new production is impressive and generally well acted, the most moving part of the evening is the curtain call when Daniel Radcliffe tentatively approaches the footlights and Richard Griffiths, because of his girth, walks equally nervously to centre stage in a meeting of fellow performers, one a seasoned pro, the other a newcomer, but both meeting in the middle and graciously accepting an astounding ovation. It brings a tear to the eye.

michael darvell, London , UK

30 years ago when I was Radcliffe's age I noted in my diary that 'Equus' isn't half as clever as its author thinks it is. I doubt if it's changed (no, once was enough, thanks), but the times have. Can anyone connected with the revival explain why they thought a play assuring us that violence to others is a Good Thing so long as its perpetrator believes in something - anything - vaguely supernatural is just what we need now?

L, oxford, uk

I'm surprised so many earlier comments are from people who feel qualified to judge this production without having seen it! I know much of the publicity has been based on the persona of Harry Potter but the featured actor on stage is a Daniel Radcliffe a couple of years older than when he filmed the last released HP movie. Mr Nightingale's review is the least enthusiastic of the reviews from the serious papers, and several previous postings seem to take delight in hoping the play's 'star' would fall. Having seen this production at a late preview, I can happily report that Mr Radciffe acquits himself splendidly in this major role for someone so young, and with Mr Griffiths forms an acting partnership made in heaven (if not Hogwarts). The fans in the audience behaved, and responded at curtain fall with the enthusiasm deserved by a thrilling theatrical experience. The play may be psycho-lite (as it always was) but it has a heart and a vitality which is deeply satisfying.

Mikey, London, UK

I have to agree that Radcliffe is just an ‘ok’ actor. Although the Harry Potter movies are for children they have a very serious messages that Radcliffe has failed to protray. He is very brave to attempt such a play but perhaps he should be spending his time more usefully and get acting lessons.

I haven’t seen the play so I feel guilty for judging him harshly but I read enough reviews to get a impression that he is lacking once again.

Megan, Anderson, USA

Mr Fernandez! Are you suggesting Daniel is/has a shrimp?!

But seriously, I do believe they've been careful about letting in kids, and I read somewhere there was no giggling ("you could hear a pin drop"). You'll find quite a lot of Harry Potter fans are quite mature, actually.

Starling, Lancaster,

I, too, thought Radcliffe was just "okay", partly, I suppose, because I have no means of judging how well 17-year-old actors would normally perform in this role. Still, over all, I enjoyed the play enormously and it was a good night out.

Roger, London,

i saw the original many years ago but not the latest production. The main lesson i still remember was that no matter how outlandish an action, there is always an explanation. each step in the 'descent' to that condition is not only explicable but also can appear logical. This may help in responding humanely to those of us who display faults of a more unusual or extreme nature as well as the rest of us who are just have 'normal' weaknesses.

RICHARD GARRY, LONDON, UK

Those who seek to draw blindingly obvious parallels in Radcliffe's Equus performance with those of Harry Potter are missing the point. Radcliffe is attempting to diversify and show that he is not simply forever a boy magician. I applaud his timely and bold new career move.

Christopher Wilhelm, Anchorage, Alaska

I haven't seen the play, nor have I read or seen any but the first Harry Potter; however, I applaud Radcliffe for his bravery. Even if the performance is subpar, he's young enough to grow as an actor and apparently realizes something radical like this is needed to have an adult career. (Too many child actors can't make the transition).

Personally, I can't stand Equus nor do I think I'd enjoy the adolescent giggles of his fans (all equipped with 100x spotting scopes to better understand the dialogue, I'm sure!)

M. Fernandez, San Francisco,

Passion - that's what this play is supposed to be about: The fear of it by some, the inability to control it by others, the loss and mourning of it by others still, and finally, the havoc suppressing it can cause in someone's life. Yet this director veers cast and design away from that tragic core, opting for pop performances focused more for laughs, on a set as bare as the direction. In spite of the considerable talent of the cast, the result is an "acceptable" but mercilessly bland experience. Mr. Schaffer's play could've once again shaken the bones of a jaded audience, reminding us of how fragile we are even today. Ironically, this recent version falls victim to the very thing Mr. Schaffer illustrates: In a misguided desire to be acceptable, we ignore, avoid or deny our passions to our own peril.

Conrad, Northridge, California, USA

What a sanctimonious review! When Benedict Nightingale strips naked and treads the boards I will take him seriously. He just couldn't be man enough to give Daniel Radcliffe his obviously well deserved kudos. As someone who has ditrected this play three times, his pathetic journalistic attempt to diminish Shaffer's theatrical genius says more about Nightingale than his grudging review.

Murray McGibbon, Bloomington, IN, USA

Radcliffe did not only make an excellent choice by choosing to do the play, but also he did an excellent job becoming Alan. The dark and twisted side of Alan came out through Daniel perfectly. It was euphoric to see him step outside of his safety zone and play something entirely different from Harry Potter and himself. Anything else wrong with the play, was the directors fault. Not Daniels.

Allie, Lexington,

This is not at all a negative review. It points out weaknesses, and it points out strengths. One would expect a bit of conservatism, and a restrained tone, from the Times. Fair enough. It says enough good things about DR to constitute a solid review, amazing enough when you consider the courage, the risk and the general gravity of doing what he did. From the stage to the movies is a fairly easy move, and many have done it. From movies to the legitimate theater, however, is damned hard, and Radcliffe carried it off well enough.

George Wilson, Chicago, USA

Well finally a critic who can stand back and see a play for what it is, and not for what its horrendous publicity machine has tried to imprint on all our minds (for weeks without number in the lead-up).
Totally agree. Radcliffe as far as I am concerned was 'OK' and that was about it.
He came across as a person playing a role and not as the character - the secret of all good actors is the ability to become the person, here Radcliffe missed the jump.

Jo, Henley-On-Thames,