Carol Rosegg
"Now your eyes are feeling heavy. You want to sleep, don't you?" That's the question posed by child psychiatrist Martin Dysart (Richard Griffiths) as he hypnotizes his 17-year-old patient Alan Strang (Daniel Radcliffe) in the current revival of Peter Shaffer's 1973 play Equus. But in that moment I could have sworn Griffiths was speaking directly to me. It was also the only point where I felt that any of the performers in this tedious, overwrought production were actually in the same room as the audience.
Equus is a relentlessly heavy and self-serious play, and even Shaffer, in a program note, admits that its dated fascination with psychiatric techniques made him reluctant to authorize "large scale" revivals. Then along came Harry Potter and, presumably, a truckload of money, and here we are on Broadway after a smash run in London. Don't get me wrong—Radcliffe is commendably fearless and his performance gives equal weight to Strang's creepiness and wounded humanity. But he's no Peter Firth, who created the role and starred in the film adaption. And no matter how much Radcliffe and company bleat and bellow (or how much Griffiths monotonously drones on), there's no getting around the fact that Shaffer was right to resist reviving it.
It's more dissertation than drama, and it needs transcendent performances to elevate it from a theatrical lecture on religion, sexual repression and psychiatry. This cast has done great work elsewhere, but they seem ill served by Thea Sharrock's direction. There's a lot of shrill yelling, with Carolyn McCormick, who plays Alan's mother, the whiniest offender. And I'm sorry, but the buff dancers with the sliver equine heads and horse hoof stripper heels? More cheesy than haunting. Of course, the incessantly coughing audience was satisfied just to see their movie stars in person, rising for a ridiculous standing ovation when Radcliffe took his bow. Outside the theater, police penned in hundreds of autograph-seeking geeks. It took half an avenue block to finally escape the hype.





So did you like it or not?
Certainly everyone who attends a play is entitled to his/her own opinion, but I could not simply read this article without saying how much I disagree. I found the entire production incredibly well done, and while I did not see Peter Firth on stage, I did see him in the film adaptation and I thought Daniel Radcliffe was much better in the role. As for the dancers, I thought their "impersonation" of live horses was incredibly realistic. It's really a shame this reviewer couldn't enjoy this production as I did ... he surely missed a treat.
I saw the original 1973 production in London (Peter Firth and Alec McGowan directed by John Dexter at the Old Vic, no less) and I recall it as a striking piece of theatre: elegantly written, skillfully plotted, beautifully acted, and visually striking. (From the reviews, I gather that some elements of Dexter's production, including the silver horse heads and the "chorus" with metal shoes, have been adapted for the current production.)
But I never expected it to enter anyone's canon of works worthy of repeated revival over 35 years. The plot is distinctly mechanical, and I've always considered abreaction -- the psychological technique of inducing a patient to re-live a past experience -- as a lazy dramatist's way out. But if this creaky-but-chic vehicle brings pleasure to new audiences, advances the careers of talented actors, and opens the way for two American stars to appear in London, who am I to protest?
personally, i loved it.
I agree with Matthews I was at the opening in 1973.
Why bother now,in the age of Zoloft & Paxil?
I think we still had a few then in real on
the couch Psychoanalysis.Peter Firth made the agony
of wishing or turning into a horse quite true.