EQUUS

There's a lot of press out there right now, a lot of talk, both from people in the business and your average joes, about this play. And I think that was inevitable, given the unbelievable popularity of Harry Potter, whom- as we all know- is portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe in the movie adaptations of the books. Therefore, anything that he does live (ie theatre) is going to get a lot of attention, and you add full-scale nudity to that, you've got an international phenomenon.

I knew it would be a good show, it's been around for awhile, what with the original theatre production, and the film adaptation that followed (which I would now like to see). So this current production is a revival, really. And it's an extremely compelling story. The story of the boy and his obsession with horses, his religion really, might at first glance appear to be at the heart of the matter, and there's no doubt it is darkly gripping. However, the play is actually about the personal and professional identity crisis of the psychiatrist who is treating the boy. And perhaps since I am a therapist myself, his struggle may have touched me at a deeper level than the average audience member. But regardless, the play is his story told within the context of this one boy's treatment. I think one of the reasons I shyed away from mental health as an occupational therapist is because the world is not black and white. Right and wrong are not absolutes, and I find it all too easy to step into other people's shoes, blurring the lines. While it can be a skill, a gift even, to be able to understand someone else's perspective, it can also be a curse--because it's difficult to know your own mind, and stand your ground when you need to think of yourself first. Anywho, this psychiatrist who is treating the boy-Alan Strang- is experiencing a big, big blurring of the lines. Essentially, he realizes that he is doing "ultimate things", he is changing people through his therapy, his treatments. And he wonders whether he has the right to do that, and more poignantly, is what he is doing "right"? Does he really know what he is doing? He is actually jealous of Alan, because he has never known the kind of passion that the boy has experienced, and his treatment is essentially ripping this passion out of the boy so that he can lead a "normal" life...

As I said, it's a gripping play.

But back to the Harry Potter issue...a few weeks ago, one of the papers was quoting Daniel Radcliffe, who was doing publicity interviews for the show. And he was talking about how they didn't yet know if he could pull it off. He said something to the effect of "If I can pull it off--and we don't yet know if I can...." Well, I can tell you that he can, and he does. Anyone who says otherwise either hasn't seen the show themselves, doesn't appreciate art, or just hates him because they hate Harry Potter. There's been a bit of a backlash from parents and schools, attacking him for not being a good role model, but the nudity is central to the play, and I'm not sure that anything less than this could have demonstrated as clearly that he should not be typecast, and he will be a talented actor. Within minutes of his stage entrance, you have stopped thinking of him as Harry Potter. Yes, he smokes a fag on stage, yes, he does strip down to his birthday suit (so does his female counterpart, but for some reason no one thinks that's a big deal) and stays that way for a good 10-15 minutes. I will admit that there is some room for him to grow into the role. For as serious a subject matter as the play explores, there are a lot of laughs, and sometime during the first 10 minutes when the audience was enjoying a good laugh at one of Richard Griffith's lines (he plays the psychiatrist), Daniel himself almost broke into a smile/laugh and had to rush into his next lines to keep from breaking character. But he really does breathe life into the role, and I think it's pretty obvious that should he continue to make savvy career choices that promote his growth as an actor, he will be able to continue to reinvent himself throughout his career, and not just be pigeon-holed as the Potter boy. The play is still only in the previews actually at the moment, with it's official opening night on 27 February. Hopefully he'll be over his jitters by then, though the only time in which they were in evidence at all during the performance I saw was when he came out to take his bows with the cast (the play ends shortly after the nude scene), looked a little bit shaky, took some deep breaths, and leaned into Richard Griffith's hug for support (Richard Griffiths was in three of the Harry Potter movies with Daniel). That was the only evidence that this was a 17-year-old boy who had willingly made himself as vulnerable as a human can possibly be in front of hundreds of people.

As I started to say somewhere up in there, when I walked into the theatre, I knew it would be a good show... but I was definitely apprehensive about whether I would walk out thinking Daniel Radcliffe's performance had made the story go flat. I'm happy to say that it's an excellent production, can only get better with time, and if it does move to Broadway (according to the press they're trying to make this happen for after Radcliffe wraps filming on the next Harry Potter film), you should definitely go see it.