Harry Potter in the buff

April 10, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Much is being made of the fact that actor Daniel Radcliffe (you know him as Harry Potter) will be appearing nude in the upcoming Broadway production of “Equus,” recreating the role he played to acclaim and box office success in London.

It’s difficult not to admire Radcliffe’s willingness to stretch — and expose himself — in this challenging part. (For those unfamiliar, “Equus” concerns the crisis of faith of a psychiatrist trying to determine why a troubled young man blinded six horses with a steel spike.)

In the original 1970s Broadway run of the show, a succession of big name actors — Anthony Hopkins, Richard Burton, Anthony Perkins, Leonard Nimoy — played the doc, while his patient was played by unknowns. As such, there was less attention to the full monty written into the play.

On paper, this seems like a self-defeating idea for Radcliffe. How will it be possible not to think about the actor instead of the character when he’s out there in the altogether? Surely the experience of seeing a well-known actor in the part will be very different than seeing a relatively anonymous one (such as the “Equus” original Peter Firth).

So do you suspect most of the audience at “Equus” will be there for entirely the wrong reasons?

When does nudity work on stage? When doesn’t it? 

Those who frequent the Phoenix Theatre or Theatre on the Square have seen their share of (mostly male) bare bodies, so feel free to chime in with your thoughts.
  • I think Radcliffe is stretching his dramatic chops by performing this role in Equus! Has anyone seen this drama? It is an AMAZINGLY DRAMATIC role that any young actor (willing to show his all) would dream of playing. I do, however, think that many audience members will attend the production mainly to see him in the buff. Producers aren't stupid. ;oD
  • We saw his performance on stage in London and it was superb; never thought about Harry Potter at all
  • If Radcliffe being in the cast is getting this wonderful play revived on Broadway, great! I just hope that people who go to see it for him are going to see him stretch as an actor -- not to see his privates.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.