Harry Potter's Penis
Last year the star of the Harry Potter movies, Daniel Radcliffe, took to the stage in London for a revival of Peter Shaffer’s wonderful play Equus. He was 17. The show packed ‘em in. Not surprising, I guess, since Mr. Radcliffe played the role that required a spot of nudity and I understand the bleachers were filled with bevies of pre and post-pubescent Muggle girls who somehow beat out the hordes of pedophiles of London society vying for the same on-stage seats.
Seriously, though, let us get real here. The one and only reason behind this revival, no matter how good it might have been, was Harry Potter's penis.
Equus was first performed at the Old Vic in London in 1973 and starred Alec McCowen in the lead role of Martin Dysart, a psychiatrist probing the motivations behind the sensational story (based on fact) of the blinding of six horses by a stable boy, Alan Strang. The role of the boy was taken on by Peter Firth, who continued on to the Broadway production in 1975 and the film in 1977. Equus won the Tony for best play in 1975. Anyway, Dysart is a tour de force role and was much sought after, and played by, some high powered A-list actors, including Anthony Hopkins, Richard Burton, Anthony Perkins (and even Leonard Nimoy). The role of Strang was, and is, a supporting role sensationalized by his brief nude scene.
Now comes Mr. Radcliffe with his pants down and, suddenly, the entire focus of the play changes. This includes the publicity for it and Equus becomes a play about full frontal nudity and the interest shifts to purient. Although I'm not a prude; honestly I'm not, I have always thought on-stage (and on-screen for that matter) nudity is gratuitous. This includes well-known theatrical endeavors like Hair and Wit. I'm not saying the sight of pubic hair is a turn-off; I'm just saying it creates an element I don't think is usually intended; that is, vulnerability becomes salacious and frankly, in my opinion, not at all necessary.
The role of the psychiatrist Dysart, played by Richard Griffiths (yes, Uncle Vernon in the Potter movies), is on stage much of the time but is now merely a man-in-waiting for our chance to get a glance at Harry Potter’s dangling participle. Doesn’t this seem a bit skewed to you? Well, it does to me and I won’t be laying out the bucks for this exposure next September when Harry Potter’s penis makes its debut on Broadway.
Seriously, though, let us get real here. The one and only reason behind this revival, no matter how good it might have been, was Harry Potter's penis.
Equus was first performed at the Old Vic in London in 1973 and starred Alec McCowen in the lead role of Martin Dysart, a psychiatrist probing the motivations behind the sensational story (based on fact) of the blinding of six horses by a stable boy, Alan Strang. The role of the boy was taken on by Peter Firth, who continued on to the Broadway production in 1975 and the film in 1977. Equus won the Tony for best play in 1975. Anyway, Dysart is a tour de force role and was much sought after, and played by, some high powered A-list actors, including Anthony Hopkins, Richard Burton, Anthony Perkins (and even Leonard Nimoy). The role of Strang was, and is, a supporting role sensationalized by his brief nude scene.
Now comes Mr. Radcliffe with his pants down and, suddenly, the entire focus of the play changes. This includes the publicity for it and Equus becomes a play about full frontal nudity and the interest shifts to purient. Although I'm not a prude; honestly I'm not, I have always thought on-stage (and on-screen for that matter) nudity is gratuitous. This includes well-known theatrical endeavors like Hair and Wit. I'm not saying the sight of pubic hair is a turn-off; I'm just saying it creates an element I don't think is usually intended; that is, vulnerability becomes salacious and frankly, in my opinion, not at all necessary.
The role of the psychiatrist Dysart, played by Richard Griffiths (yes, Uncle Vernon in the Potter movies), is on stage much of the time but is now merely a man-in-waiting for our chance to get a glance at Harry Potter’s dangling participle. Doesn’t this seem a bit skewed to you? Well, it does to me and I won’t be laying out the bucks for this exposure next September when Harry Potter’s penis makes its debut on Broadway.
2 Comments:
I can't help but wonder how this post would read if it was Uncle Vernon's penis that was exposed....hmmm.
Harrumph, I think I’m being called a hypocrite here. Point taken, Mr. or Ms. Anon (whatsamatta, chicken to identify yourself?), even though my answer is no; but your question proves my contention. Going to see a play for the wrong reason, even though you might be attracted to the right penis, does a disservice to the play. I stick by my point; nudity on stage is gratuitous unless it is meant to titillate within the framework of the play. Even then I question it.
Post a Comment
<< Home