by Jon Grilz

Created on: January 31, 2007   Last Updated: May 09, 2007

Daniel Radcliffe, who obtained international celebrity thanks to his title role in the Harry Potter movies, has created a stir in international news due to his performance in his stage performance of Equus; though it isn't his performance that is garnering so much attention as much as the fact that he bares all with full frontal nudity in the play itself.

Considered to be one of the most significant English-language plays of the last 30 years, Equus is the story of 17 year old Alan Strang (played by Radcliffe) who is brought to a mental health facility for treatment by psychiatrist Dr. Martin Dysart (played by Richard Griffiths). Strang's crime that provoked his placement in the facility was blinding six horses with a metal spike. The story itself is a journey of introspection as Dysart beings to doubt himself as a person and a professional. An intensely psychological play leaves the audience more towards speculation than anything else.

However, it is not the nature of the play that is causing critics to cringe as much as the fact that the well-known child star that has grown up on the silver screen before audiences of millions has matured to the point that he seems to wish to distance himself from the type-casting role of the beloved boy-wizard. And it is in this conflict between the adult themes of Equus and the young focus audiences of both the book and movie that has created a stir amongst parents and theatre goers.

While the conflict is obvious and the association between the two is unfortunate, the fact is that the two are completely different subjects. While the Harry Potter movies have garnered a great deal of publicity and even more money to say that Radcliffe is not allowed to express himself professionally is to force a type-cast on a maturing and potentially talented actor.

Parents that feel that the adult themes of Equus are unsuitable and even profane should do the most rudimentary thing that they can possibly do and not go see the play. If Radcliffe were in a movie that depicted the same actions the argument could be stronger, but this is legitimate theatre and a critically acclaimed production. The nature of the nudity and the overall tones of the play are a necessity that create a dark and disturbing world of possibilities and reflections not only about the characters but also all those in attendance of the performances. To draw a parallel between the two roles is foolish and selfish.

In fact, the only reason that this is an issue at all is because people are making it an issue to begin with. Drawing the fact that Radcliffe participates in full nudity in a play that is being staged on another continent is creating buzz about something that would have otherwise gone unnoticed and accepted. The only criticism of the play itself should be the performances and not who is starring in it, because it is irrelevant. Just because Radcliffe gained his fame thanks to the Harry Potter franchise doesn't mean that he needs to remain subservient to its audience. If the producers, writers and directors of the movies are accepting of the bold move then we should be, too.

The bottom line: if you don't wan to see Harry Potter/Daniel Radcliffe naked, then don't go see it and just let it be. If you are so obsessed with what you think that your children will think when they here about the play, look to yourself first for bringing their attention to it. Do you really think that the average pre-teen or even teenage movie-goer is interested in seeing Equus to being with, or are you just looking for something to get up in arms about?

Learn more about this author, Jon Grilz.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.