Hari Putar--NAKED!
The Good Nurse dragged me to a Broadway show on Friday night. Thankfully it was not a musical, because I don't have enough Valium so survive that.
Anyway, the show was (and still is) "Equus." Written in 1973, it is the story of a young man who has all sorts of unusual relationships with horses. I don't mean in a physical sense, but rather an emotional sense.
Aside from the knowledge that Daniel Radcliffe, star of the Harry Potter movies, would appear without clothes, I knew very little about this show. Let me say now that the enjoyment of the writing exceeded the ability of the performers and I was pleased and delighted with such a wonderful work.
I suspect the main draw for this play will be a naked Harry Potter. I also suspect that after watching the show, many will continue to discuss the psychological quirks that the writer so skillfully captured more than they discuss the novelty of a teen star in the buff. Because it is a dark psychological thriller that lingers in the mind. Oh, and we can't forget the comedic lines the author included at just the right places.
The Good Nurse would consider me remiss if I did not include this tidbit: Radcliffe's endowment is average, but he has low hangers.
Anyway, the show was (and still is) "Equus." Written in 1973, it is the story of a young man who has all sorts of unusual relationships with horses. I don't mean in a physical sense, but rather an emotional sense.
Aside from the knowledge that Daniel Radcliffe, star of the Harry Potter movies, would appear without clothes, I knew very little about this show. Let me say now that the enjoyment of the writing exceeded the ability of the performers and I was pleased and delighted with such a wonderful work.
I suspect the main draw for this play will be a naked Harry Potter. I also suspect that after watching the show, many will continue to discuss the psychological quirks that the writer so skillfully captured more than they discuss the novelty of a teen star in the buff. Because it is a dark psychological thriller that lingers in the mind. Oh, and we can't forget the comedic lines the author included at just the right places.
The Good Nurse would consider me remiss if I did not include this tidbit: Radcliffe's endowment is average, but he has low hangers.
posted by Michael Vernon at Monday, September 15, 2008
2 Comments:
Good you liked Peter Shaffer's writting, because you and your pretentious witting could learn a lot from him. You write thinking you are witty while you show you are not.
Just because the only thing you knew about one of the most famous XX century plays is what the sensationalist media write, it doesn't mean the rest of the world is so blind.
If instead of paying so much attention to the actors' bodies you would have attended to their performance you'll have seen all the actors are great, specially Griffiths and Radcliffe, who are both Tony award worthy for this play.
You tell very little about yourself saying you went to see a play just knowing someone gets naked in it, it tells the reason why you went to see it in the first place. And then you judge other people because they do the same...
"I suspect the main draw for this play will be a naked Harry Potter."
Of course you suspect that, because that's exactly what you did!
"a teen star in the buff"
Yes, he is a teen, just like his character is supposed to be, it's senseless you try to use the word 'teen' to understimate an actors's work. Just because most teen actors are most worried about parties than acting it doesn't mean you should judge them all for that standard. Because like Radcliffe proves, at least there is one who cares more about acting than what this closed minded world could opinate without having the slightest idea of what they are talking about.
'Star': that's just a media thing, which again you try to use to understimate a legit actor.
'Buff': if you really saw the play you would know he does much more than showing his body, he plays one of the most complex roles in theatre history.
Just because you care too much about what tabloids write it doesn't mean the actors don't do an excellent work, which you understimates so much writting things like "Hari Putar".
You think is witty, it's stupid.
You are not insulting him, or the play, you are insutling yourself writting things like that.
You have had the priviledge to see such an amazing play, and you can only tittle your experience like that?
That title is shouting: "Hi! I think I'm witty, but actually I don't understand even my 5 years old cousin could have thought about that immature line, and since I'm not 5 years old I'm supposed to be at least a little more intelligent".
If you can not pay even that little respect to actors who have worked so much to make this play possible, people who are giving all of them, body and soul, to give Shaffer's words life... then I'm not surprised you can not appreciate their wonderful work.
And you say you liked Shaffer's writting but I'm sure you didn't even understand half of it, if you can not even tell the difference between what's tabloid rubbish and what's a real actor who is just doing his work.
To say actors like Griffiths didn't have "the ability" for this play... I wonder what are you comparing it with, because I sure want to go and see those plays who exceed Tony awards performances.
"Oh, and we can't forget the comedic lines the author included at just the right places."
LOL. You understimate the actors' work and then you give them all the credit without even realizing it... the comedy is NOT part of the original play, these ACTORS, not the writer, included it in this version.
This is what happens when you go to see a play just having read about it in People, or at least you could have informed yourself a little more after seeing it, before jumping into so many conclusions and wrtting them in such a conceited way.
Doctor: clearly, many of my references (including the post title) are over your head, so I am sympathetic to your fallacious statements. And if this post represents your ability to interpret or communicate, I am thankful that you are not my physician, if you are in fact a doctor of that sort. I regret posting this response in public, but you did not provide an email so that I might privately enlighten you regardig your incorrect assumptions.
Post a Comment
<< Home