Gothamist: Opinionist: Equus

west side Michael

Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:06:52 -0500

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.

allie25

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:36:54 -0500

personally, i loved it.

matthews

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:36:12 -0500

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?

Carol61

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:46:01 -0500

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.

MissMeowy

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:02:31 -0500

So did you like it or not?