Equus
Why the crap am I still awake? I don't know! Let's write a review.
The Actin'
For my part (and I assume I was not alone in this), I wanted to see Equus because I wanted to see if Daniel Radcliffe could act. While I would still like to see him in a role that requires emoting through something other than shouting, it is my opinion that he can, in fact, act. The thing I paid the most attention to was how he connected to the other actors. He went from being this blinky kid in a wizard costume to being a young actor that can make and sustain meaningful eye contact. It was great to see emotion and thought present in his expressions, even in his body language. Plus, the kid has no fear. He really gave himself completely to the role. Yer a wizzurd, Harry!
Richard Griffiths was great, but there's really no surprise there. I wasn't blown away, but that's because my expectations were already quite high. He was definitely one of the most genuine presences on stage.
Kate Mulgrew was at times enjoyable and at other times annoyingly over the top. It felt a bit like she was trying to get too much out of what was a pretty sparse role.
Critics rave about Anna Camp, Radcliffe's on stage love interest, but I wasn't that enthusiastic about her performance. I may have just been thrown by her accent, though. She was charming, and she had the guts to be naked with Naked Radcliffe on stage, so bully for her.
Lorenzo Pisoni, despite having very little face time, gave a great performance, as did the other horses. (The horses were played by male dancers, more on that later).
Carolyn McCormick played Radcliffe's mom. She was another one that I thought hammed it up. I really think it was in the accents. A lot of the New York cast adopted the same sort of American British accent that, to my knowledge, doesn't exist in Britain.
I may be biased in my assessment here, but I thought the most successful faux Briton was T. Ryder Smith, who played Radcliffe's father. I say "biased", because Smith is non other than the voice of Baron Ünderbheit from Venture Bros.! Even if his accent wasn't spot on, I thought he was excellent. Probably my favorite performance of the afternoon.
The horses, as I mentioned, were represented by male dancers. They were pretty awesome.
Oh, and lest I forget Graeme Malcolm, who was basically perfect for his very small role.
The Story
Here's the thing...I think Equus as a play, in terms of story and character, is a bit..."eh". It's no secret that the play is founded on shaky and outdated psychological theories. But I had less a problem with that and more a problem with the structure of the play. I craved more interaction between characters, instead of monologueing at eachother. There was a lot of expository dialogue instead of actually showing things to the audience. Griffith's unsatisfying marriage, for example, is related entirely through his talks with Mulgrew, as we never see his wife or their interactions. Even with someone as capable as Griffiths, I found it tedious. Plus, at over 2 hours, it felt a bit long. The actual narrative doesn't occupy much time.
The Design
I loved the minimalist design at work in the play. Costumes were simple and effective, set design was brilliantly stripped down but adaptable. The set consisted of a semicircular enclosure surrounding a movable platform, on which there were four rectangular blocks, which the cast were able to manipulate into chairs, beds, what have you. It was so basic that it could essentially become whatever you needed it to become. Another nice touch was an additional two balcony of seats situated over the stage, evoking a surgical theatre or even a panel of heavenly judges. The lighting and smoke machines were sometimes dealt out with a heavy hand, but it was also some of the most exciting stuff that happened, so I didn't mind. Whenever I tired of monologues, there was usually something else on stage worth studying and admiring.
AND THAT'S IT!
The Actin'
For my part (and I assume I was not alone in this), I wanted to see Equus because I wanted to see if Daniel Radcliffe could act. While I would still like to see him in a role that requires emoting through something other than shouting, it is my opinion that he can, in fact, act. The thing I paid the most attention to was how he connected to the other actors. He went from being this blinky kid in a wizard costume to being a young actor that can make and sustain meaningful eye contact. It was great to see emotion and thought present in his expressions, even in his body language. Plus, the kid has no fear. He really gave himself completely to the role. Yer a wizzurd, Harry!
Richard Griffiths was great, but there's really no surprise there. I wasn't blown away, but that's because my expectations were already quite high. He was definitely one of the most genuine presences on stage.
Kate Mulgrew was at times enjoyable and at other times annoyingly over the top. It felt a bit like she was trying to get too much out of what was a pretty sparse role.
Critics rave about Anna Camp, Radcliffe's on stage love interest, but I wasn't that enthusiastic about her performance. I may have just been thrown by her accent, though. She was charming, and she had the guts to be naked with Naked Radcliffe on stage, so bully for her.
Lorenzo Pisoni, despite having very little face time, gave a great performance, as did the other horses. (The horses were played by male dancers, more on that later).
Carolyn McCormick played Radcliffe's mom. She was another one that I thought hammed it up. I really think it was in the accents. A lot of the New York cast adopted the same sort of American British accent that, to my knowledge, doesn't exist in Britain.
I may be biased in my assessment here, but I thought the most successful faux Briton was T. Ryder Smith, who played Radcliffe's father. I say "biased", because Smith is non other than the voice of Baron Ünderbheit from Venture Bros.! Even if his accent wasn't spot on, I thought he was excellent. Probably my favorite performance of the afternoon.
The horses, as I mentioned, were represented by male dancers. They were pretty awesome.
Oh, and lest I forget Graeme Malcolm, who was basically perfect for his very small role.
The Story
Here's the thing...I think Equus as a play, in terms of story and character, is a bit..."eh". It's no secret that the play is founded on shaky and outdated psychological theories. But I had less a problem with that and more a problem with the structure of the play. I craved more interaction between characters, instead of monologueing at eachother. There was a lot of expository dialogue instead of actually showing things to the audience. Griffith's unsatisfying marriage, for example, is related entirely through his talks with Mulgrew, as we never see his wife or their interactions. Even with someone as capable as Griffiths, I found it tedious. Plus, at over 2 hours, it felt a bit long. The actual narrative doesn't occupy much time.
The Design
I loved the minimalist design at work in the play. Costumes were simple and effective, set design was brilliantly stripped down but adaptable. The set consisted of a semicircular enclosure surrounding a movable platform, on which there were four rectangular blocks, which the cast were able to manipulate into chairs, beds, what have you. It was so basic that it could essentially become whatever you needed it to become. Another nice touch was an additional two balcony of seats situated over the stage, evoking a surgical theatre or even a panel of heavenly judges. The lighting and smoke machines were sometimes dealt out with a heavy hand, but it was also some of the most exciting stuff that happened, so I didn't mind. Whenever I tired of monologues, there was usually something else on stage worth studying and admiring.
AND THAT'S IT!