Synopsis In a Hampshire stable, a youth blinds six horses with a metal spike. Convicted of this appalling crime, seventeen-year-old Alan Strang is sent to a secure psychiatric hospital. Martin Dysart, the child psychiatrist assigned to him, begins to probe Alan s past in an attempt to understand his motives. Initially the boy is silent and uncooperative, but as Dysart digs deeper, he begins to win Alan s trust and the truth gradually emerges. Finally, as Alan struggles to be free of his demons, he must relive the events of that terrible night. Inspired by a true story, Peter Shaffer's unique psychological thriller explores the complex relationships between worship, myth and sexuality. Equus contains strong language, adult themes and nudity. The play won both the Tony Award and New York Critics Circle Award for Best New Play in 1977.
Wild horses, I thought, wouldn’t drag me to Equus all over again, and I was hardly gagging to see Harry Potter star Richard Griffiths with his kit off (though I might have misconstrued the soft porn publicity on that one). As it turns out, this is a highly impressive revival of Peter Shaffer’s 1973 passion play (last seen seven years ago at the Salisbury Playhouse), with suddenly renewed homoerotic overtones, that proves an ideal stage debut for the other Harry Potter star, 17 year-old Daniel Radcliffe.
Radcliffe plays Alan Strang, a weirdly wired young man who has been referred to the psychiatrist Martin Dysart (Griffiths) after blinding six horses in a stable with a metal spike. He is tremendous – taut, composed, glinting with a kind of malicious glee and absolutely spot-on in charting a progress from childhood to the lost innocence of growing up. Shaffer first heard of the story from his friend and neighbour James Mossman, the television journalist currently celebrated in The Reporter at the National Theatre. Shaffer’s twist was to make the act of mutilation one of frustration and rejection after failing to find a satisfactory physical expression with the young stable girl, Jill (Joanna Christie), who seduces him after a night out in Winchester.
I had forgotten that, on that outing, Alan sees his father (Jonathan Cullen), a printer by trade and a repressive armchair socialist, forever railing against the evils of television, emerging from the same cinema and sex film as he and Jill. The subsequent sex scene of their own, and the final sequence of the play, leading to the mutilation, is touchingly and beautifully played by the two young actors in the buff. The tragedy, as Dysart himself realises, is that his job is to take Alan off his horse and put him on a scooter en route to “normality” in suburbia.
For the play is a metaphor of denial in our everyday life, the price we pay for being good citizens. Alan’s religion of the horse is pagan and destructive. Dysart, in a great speech superbly delivered by Griffiths, marvels at the boy’s capacity to run wild in a Hampshire field while he parcels up his enthusiasm for the classical world in Peloponnesian package tours and his collection of art books; Dysart is also enduring a dead marriage. Strang’s parents – his mother (Gabrielle Reidy) is a flaky teacher whose Bible-thumping badly backfires - are similarly emotionally hamstrung.
Thea Sharrock’s production is notably well acted, even by Jenny Agutter (who played the stable girl in Sidney Lumet’s unsatisfactory film version) in the thankless, underwritten role of the magistrate who refers Alan to Dysart. Will Kemp, one of Matthew Bourne’s leading dancers, is an elegant horseman on the beach, where the six-year-old Alan first discovers his passion, and also Nugget, the main horse in the stable. Nugget and the other five, as in the original John Dexter production, are clad in chestnut brown costumes and fitted out in wonderful skeletal horse heads and built-up metal hooves like the cothurni in Greek tragedy.
I seem to remember more “horse” action before, but it must have just been the impression they made. Napier was Dexter’s designer, and he has reproduced the bull ring effect by this time floating the onstage spectators in two wrap-around circles that complement the Gielgud’s interior architecture. Lighting maestro David Hersey provides a cloud of smoke-filled nirvana for Radcliffe’s exhilarating expeditions to the other side of unbridled adolescent expression. A marvellous evening.
I put off going to see this because of my dislike of the recent revival of Royal Hunt of the Sun at the NT, because of mixed reviews and because of all the hype about the casting of Daniel Radcliffe. Still, something was telling me to give it a go and it only had 10 performances to go, so I did so yesterday on impulse. Inside the theatre my heart sank when I saw all those cameras and mobile phones and young DR fans. I took a stage seat, which is more of a stage gallery really, and though there are some visibility and audibility issues, it's a fascinating new experience. Unlike Royal Hunt, which should be timeless but had dated, Equus hasn't dated at all. Thea Sharrock / John Napier's staging is terrific; the scenes with the horse are breathtaking. Richard Griffiths again communicates with an audience as few others can and this play suits that talent. As for Mr Radcliffe, well I think it was a very brave move to take this on but he was right to as it has established him as a very talented stage actor who we'll see a lot more of. Though I'm too old to still be around in his prime, I'm glad I was there at the beginning. You realise the onstage chemistry between him and Griffiths comes from their offstage chemistry as they leave the stage arm-in-arm sharing a joke like the best of friends. And the audience? No mobile rings, no flashes and rapt attention - how wonderful to be proved wrong and to see a new young audience having a thrilling night of first class drama. Justification in itself. - Gareth James
02 Jun 07
Now that all the fuss about you know who and his you know what has died down, it was a good time to see Equus as it comes near to the end of it's run. Although Peter Shaffer's quasi-mystical psycho-babble is occasionally tiresome, particularly Dysart's closing speech, Thea Sharrock's production is rarely less than gripping. The reason for Alan Strang's blinding of the horses may turn out to be surprisingly mundane, but the scene itself is superbly staged to shattering effect. Richrd Griffiths is excellent as always and it is nice to sense that he is enjoying himself as that has not always been the case. Daniel Radcliffe is exceptional and it is extraordinary that this is his stage debut. All the hype ensured that Equus would be one of the theatrical events of the year but where it really maters, on the stage itself, it deserves to be. - David Baxter
31 May 07
Absolutely riveting. Visually simple, but gorgeous, especially the way in which the metallic horse heads attract the eye in a mainly dark set. The two central protagonists work together excellently, creating a real feeling of tension and powerful resolution. The supporting cast all make the most of their more limited roles. Transcends the rather unsubtle promotion, don't let that put you off, this is an experience not to be missed. - tadpole
21 Apr 07
Stunning, not only for Peter Shaffer's extraordinary story but also for the performances by the two main protagonists, Richard Griffith (this man can do no wrong) and Daniel Radcliffe who, as the disturbed boy at the centre of this play, is a revelation. I saw the very first preview and it could have been running for a month the performances were so perfect. At the curtain call Mr Radcliffe looked genuinely stunned by the spontaneous reaction of the audience who stood and cheered them both. A compliment they were certainly worthy of. The West End is an even brighter place at the moment for this stunning production. - rds
23 Mar 07
FIRST NIGHT REVIEW: On Tuesday, my best-who works for Cameron Mackintosh phoned to say he had a spare ticket for the first night of Equus starring Daniel Radcliffe, and the majestic Richard Griffiths who, it only occurred to me much later, had played his Uncle Vernon in the first couple of films.
Fearing Peter Shaffer's dusty old tract might have been re-worked for commercial consumption as 'Harry Potter and the Blinding of Nags' I hesitated just long enough to speculate that this was the hottest ticket in the West End, and ran to the dry cleaners for my suit trousers.
It was electric. Radcliffe is astonishing in that as a film actor he has the stage technique to speak clearly and unmiked in a 1500-seat three-tier West End theatre, and either he has natural stage talent or took Thea Shorrock's direction intravenously because he's wholly convincing as Alan Strang and in the masturbatory climax to the first act, or in the ballet in which he blinds the horses he simply owned the stage.
A lot of reviewers took a swipe at the producers by asking why a paean to Laing's psychiatric theorising is really deserving of a revival, but as a vehicle to exorcise the ghost of Harry Potter from the corpus delicti of Daniel Radcliffe, I can't think of a better excuse for dragging it down from the shelf for 16 weeks. And I bet it goes to Broadway too.
R D Laing. He's out of favour now, but he did a lot to demystify mental illness and drag it in public perception out of the strait jacket and electric shock era.
Laing was an off-road explorer in a time when Freud was the only cartographer and Peter Shaffer was giving his pathfinder views a sympathetic airing about the same time Tennessee Williams was still in grand guignol mode railing against giving his heroines lobotomies.
I do think all Laing's stuff about the insane having mystical insights into the nature of life that the wholly rational are missing is a bit over-selective. I think all sorts of people have incisive insights into the futility of mundane diurnal existence. It's just a coincidence that we're actually mad too.
You can't leave this arena without a comment on the physical actor. He's lean and highly toned, in a way simply not visible under the Hogwarts robes and whilst the nudity is entirely natural and within the context of the play, you are entitled to a Mrs Henderson moment in which you ponder - who knew Harry Potter was Jewish ??
I think I was more shocked to see him smoking, than with his cock out.
Actually, and I had to look this up, Daniel Jacob Radcliffe is a child of mixed religious parentage, but clearly his mother had the final say when it came to the snip.
The bars were heaving during the intervals, and not entirely with celebrity, although I did spot Bob Geldof but up where we were sitting the best on offer was Cilla Black, who I think was smiling - surgery seems to have triangulated her features, and Gail from Coronation Street who is as attractive and elegant as her character is frumpy and naff.
There was a lot of free champagne and I have to confess that Fiona Phillips from GMTV, a woman I have often derided as a total moron, kindly picked me up when I fell over someone's umbrella. It won't make me watch her crap show, but she was rather sweet. John H www.blowstar.blogspot.com - John Holt
14 Mar 07
Isnt it strange that almost every show has a superfine critic who rambles on and on and on and never likes anything they see? - s
02 Mar 07
A superb night at the theatre. Both leads were excellent and it was a provocative and moving experience. Highly recommended. - Emma Douglas
02 Mar 07
I saw this play on the first night of previews (don't like to be told what to think). I didn't know quite what to expect, as I didn't think much of Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, and walked out on Shaffer's "Royal Hunt of the Sun". But I do like horses, think Richard Griffiths is a great actor (in every sense of the word...) and I am a great fan of Will Kemp, so I decided to give it a try. I was very impressed. I thought the cast was great, except for Jenny Agutter who acted as if she was reading the script on stage for the first time. But the play was gripping and the rest of the actors did great justice to their roles. Griffiths was magnificent with his nail-biting nervous mannerisms. Joanna Christie was beautiful, with just the right sexiness to carry off her seductress role without being over the top. Daniel Radcliffe was the real surprise - I found his casting to be perfect: no longer a boy, not yet a man. And, the boy/man can act. He fully deserved the standing ovation he got (which he obviously wasn't expecting and didn't quite know what to do with). It was not an easy part for such a young actor, and he managed a convincing Alan Strang who was every bit as emotionally engaging as Griffiths Dysart. The horses were wonderful, and Will Kemp was great as the horseman and the horse (and brilliant when both at the same time!). All in all a very satisfying and thought provoking play well acted. - samitay
01 Mar 07
Not being a Harry Potter fan, I was scarcely aware of who Daniel Radcliffe was, but I was soon enlightened by the enthusiasm of the unusually young audience (mostly female) which surrounded me in the grand circle on Monday. They behaved, for the most part, very well, but it was plain that they had been lured into the theatre by the promise of Radcliffe in the buff, and, from the gasps and oohs which greeted his apperance, I assumed they were not disappointed. His acting was good, but I did not feel that he was really engaging with the role. I was lured to the play by the presence of Richard Griffiths who is now, finally, being recognised as the truly great actor he is. He gave a performance as Dysart of riveting and moving power, and fully deserved the cheers which greeted him at the end. The weakness of the production is in the performance of Jenny Agutter, who so underplayed as to be practically anonymous. The staging was brilliant; the depiction of the horses a stroke of genius. The play itself has worn far better than the same writer's 'Royal hunt of the sun', and has contemporary relevance in many fields: the value of psychotherapy, the generation gap, the influence of TV, etc. One small gripe: it was often difficult to hear the actors, and I'm not sure whether this was due to poor projection or difficult acoustics. - sc
01 Mar 07
From the middle of the Upper Circle, or Grand Tier, or whatever they call it there, it was in the end a disappointing evening.
The stand-out moments were the three stable scenes - in many ways, the entire production is sacrificed to these three scenes. Radcliffe is frighteningly competent, the more so when you consider his age; but these are big scenes, acted big, presented big - and it's the telling details of the surrounding drama that failed for me. Whether a fault of direction or performance, I felt ignored sitting upstairs - they were presenting to the stalls, and we struggled to hear, and the vocal work lacked depth, lacked old-fashioned projection. Griffiths didn't engage me at all, and I had a difficult time staying with the intellectual elements of the show, simply out of struggling through the terribly dead-pan speaking. These surrounding scenes are surely essential to the play, without them it becomes just a sensational story, but in this performance they seem skated-over, not understood, not explained. Like listening to a poor lecturer;
It's a profoundly difficult part to act, I would say, in Griffith's defence: to communicate that ennui and yet remain engaging and demanding attention. For whatever reason, he managed only to make me feel bored, not to communicate his boredom whilst keeping me engaged.
The set was annoying - the nature of it's sacrificing everything for the stable scenes (spotting a common theme here?) gave the actors too much space to cover in making their entrances,and I don't think that issue had been properly engaged with by the director. Likewise the four blocks that had to serve as seats, tables, beds, or whatever, seemed cumbersome and restricting, the cast regularly being required to turn them around, over, stand them up, reorganise them with little sense of coherence or point. I couldn't help thinking that a designer not reprising one of his greatest hits might have brought more to an new production. Never go back?
I came out really wishing I'd seen it from downstairs, and that surely is a fault of the show - whether it be direction, performance or design. - Ed Clarke
Originally opened 27Dec 1906 as The Hicks Theatre. Formerly The Globe, renamed in 1994 in part in tribute to Sam Wanamaker, so that his dream of a new Shakespeare Globe would be the only Globe in London. 983 seats. Society of London Theatre member. In 1999 Delfont Mackintosh Theatres Limited acquired the freehold of the Queen s and the Gielgud Theatres from Christ s Hospital, Horsham. The lease of the Gielgud Theatre will revert back from Really Useful Theatres to Delfont Mackintosh Theatres in March 2006 after which there are plans to refurbish both venues and to build a 500-seat theatre, The Sondheim, above the Queen s. This will be the first new theatre in Shaftesbury Avenue since 1931.
Whatsonstage.com - Discount London theatre tickets, theatre news and reviews, Theatre videos, Theatre discussion, National Theatre Listings. Covering London's West End, all of Theatreland and all UK theatre. The best
for London Theatre Ticket Discounts.
