Harry Potter Actor Taking It All Off On London Stage

New Posts

southcitymom

southcitymom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
16,021
Reaction score
82
Website
www.janicefahy.com
17-year-old Dan Radcliffe, star of the Harry Potter movies, will be stretching his wings a bit this February as he stars on the London stage in a production of Equus.

The play, which originally opened in London's National Theatre in 1973, centers on 17-year-old Alan Strang (Radcliffe) who seemingly without provocation blinds six horses with a metal spike in a stable in Hampshire. Psychiatrist Martin Dysart is sent in to investigate what prompted Alan to commit the atrocity, but in the process, begins to question his own integrity and what constitutes "normal."

Several scenes require the Radcliffe to be fully nude on stage.

For some beautiful (yet very un-Harry Potterish) promotional pics of Radcliffe in Equus, visit the news section of his site at

http://www.danradcliffe.co.uk/

Some fans of the J.K. Rowling boy wizard series are up in arms by his decision to take on this role. I applaud him. It's a tough, provocative role which will surely stretch him as an actor.

Hope the inevitable backlash isn't too tough on him. He seems like a very centered young man. Equus is an amazing play.
 
What is the age of consent in London since he is 17? Im sure its more flexible over their with sexuality and nudity than in the U.S. I have no say one way or the other with this, I just hope he doesnt regret his decision in the future. Although most stars dont go down in ratings with nudity but moral values may change for him throughout the years.
 
Ewww! Sorry, but I haven't looked at the recent pics of Radcliffe yet so maybe he's changed.

I think the horses won't mind going blind.
:p
 
Taximom said:
Ewww! Sorry, but I haven't looked at the recent pics of Radcliffe yet so maybe he's changed.

I think the horses won't mind going blind.
:p
Click to expand...
LOL! He actually looks really good in the pics. They are definitely more comfortable with nudity in Europe.
 
You must look at the pics before you speak - he has definitely been in the gym - those are some pretty abs. Dan is NOT a little boy any more - in ANY way. He doesn't look a THING like Harry in this role....and that's a good thing. He's successfully changing his whole look for this more adult dramatic role.

The play is awesome and he will do nothing but get more and better parts because of it. He is trying to transition between being a child actor and an actor - and if casting directors see this I think the transition is a done deal. It's genius - he wants a career after "Hogwarts" and he is taking steps to make the public see him as more than Harry Potter. He is so well known for the role it will take something "stunning" like this to break him out of that mold.

He is an attractive young MAN in this part. I predict the audiences and critic's reviews are going to go insane for him.

Interesting that in this country 13 yr old (soon) Dakota Fanning cannot ACT LIKE she is being raped on a closed set without being blasted and Dan Radcliffe (17) can go totally nude in a play with an audience and the Brits are totally cool about it. We here in the US need to grow up - we are so puritanical about things like nudity. Where are the protests and televangelists screaming that the play is nothing more than a homosexual or gay pedophiles dream?

I think young Mr Radcliffe is going to do just fine in the acting field for a long time.
 
I see no correlation between being nude on stage and pretending to go through something as awful as being raped.

I would have no problem if Dakota Fanning wanted to act on Broadway (wherever) nude. She could even pretend to be raped at that age. I just think 13 yrs is too young to be portraying something like that.

Call me an old fuddy-duddy if you want!

There's another thread for the Dakota argument, by the way. My comments about Dakota will be there, not here, after this posts.
 
FlowerChild said:
You must look at the pics before you speak - he has definitely been in the gym - those are some pretty abs. Dan is NOT a little boy any more - in ANY way. He doesn't look a THING like Harry in this role....and that's a good thing. He's successfully changing his whole look for this more adult dramatic role.

The play is awesome and he will do nothing but get more and better parts because of it. He is trying to transition between being a child actor and an actor - and if casting directors see this I think the transition is a done deal. It's genius - he wants a career after "Hogwarts" and he is taking steps to make the public see him as more than Harry Potter. He is so well known for the role it will take something "stunning" like this to break him out of that mold.

He is an attractive young MAN in this part. I predict the audiences and critic's reviews are going to go insane for him.

Interesting that in this country 13 yr old (soon) Dakota Fanning cannot ACT LIKE she is being raped on a closed set without being blasted and Dan Radcliffe (17) can go totally nude in a play with an audience and the Brits are totally cool about it. We here in the US need to grow up - we are so puritanical about things like nudity. Where are the protests and televangelists screaming that the play is nothing more than a homosexual or gay pedophiles dream?

I think young Mr Radcliffe is going to do just fine in the acting field for a long time.
Click to expand...
First of all, I had to take a look at the pics, because from your description of him, I was basically expecting to see some manly, buff Adonis -- LOL, but he's still very much too "little boyish" for MY tastes. But hey, to each his own.:p

Anyway, I think you're wrong about the people being against the Dakota Fanning movie based on nudity--at least in my case it's about the graphic portrayal of a little 12 year old (she's 12) being violently raped. The controversy is about the rape. That and being nude in a play are on the opposite ends of the spectrum--totally different. Also, I agree with everyone else that says 12 is waaaaay different 17. Entirely different.

I suppose you would get the pedophiles and people protesting if he was a 12 year old boy being the subject of a violent rape---but that isn't the case, is it? It's such an easy argument to say that people are against the Dakota Fanning simply because they are too "puritanical" about nudity---a nude body doesn't have squat to do with it.
 
I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter books. The movies aren't as good, but they are still a lot of fun and I do feel like I have watched Daniel "grow up" in the process of watching them.

I think choosing to do stage work after having done so much movie work is very bold of him. This part in particular is a tough part to play - nudity or no nudity. It's great that he is stretching himself so rigorously as an actor. I hope he has a long, interesting career.
 
julianne said:
.....It's such an easy argument to say that people are against the Dakota Fanning simply because they are too "puritanical" about nudity---a nude body doesn't have squat to do with it.
Click to expand...
You know my thoughts on Houndog, so I won't rehash them here, but I agree 100% with the above statement.
 
Harry nude?? Excuse me while I heave---Anyway, why would he be in such a depressing play?--Oh I know, to show he is an"adult" actor----This play has been around for at least 30 years--It's called "Equus"---Richard Burton played the shrink part on Broadway
 
southcitymom said:
You know my thoughts on Houndog, so I won't rehash them here, but I agree 100% with the above statement.
Click to expand...
I DEFINITELY know your thoughts on Hounddog, scm, LOL, and I appreciate them, as they are articulate and I have learned things from you & your point of view--Our point of views are completely opposite from one another on this (and a coupla other things), but honestly, I suspect from your posts that you & I would agree on more topics than not.

My views on nudity, however, are anything but puritanical. I don't have any problems with nudity---there JUST bodies, we've all got one, and I really fail to see what is so "shocking" about nudity----I just think the rape scene is a totally different element not anywhere akin to nudity.

LOL, I just looked back at the beginning of the thread because I was gonna apologize to the original poster for hijacking the thread, but your the OP--LOL
 
FlowerChild said:
You must look at the pics before you speak - he has definitely been in the gym - those are some pretty abs. Dan is NOT a little boy any more - in ANY way. He doesn't look a THING like Harry in this role....and that's a good thing. He's successfully changing his whole look for this more adult dramatic role.

The play is awesome and he will do nothing but get more and better parts because of it. He is trying to transition between being a child actor and an actor - and if casting directors see this I think the transition is a done deal. It's genius - he wants a career after "Hogwarts" and he is taking steps to make the public see him as more than Harry Potter. He is so well known for the role it will take something "stunning" like this to break him out of that mold.

He is an attractive young MAN in this part. I predict the audiences and critic's reviews are going to go insane for him.

Interesting that in this country 13 yr old (soon) Dakota Fanning cannot ACT LIKE she is being raped on a closed set without being blasted and Dan Radcliffe (17) can go totally nude in a play with an audience and the Brits are totally cool about it. We here in the US need to grow up - we are so puritanical about things like nudity. Where are the protests and televangelists screaming that the play is nothing more than a homosexual or gay pedophiles dream?

I think young Mr Radcliffe is going to do just fine in the acting field for a long time.
Click to expand...
I also would not be proud of being something "brits are totally cool about it" as they are also fine with a child molestor highly well known and loved by the community -roman polanski:sick:
 
hasn't this kid been sleeping iwth some lady who is like 27+ for a few years now? or am i crazy?
 
Autumn2004 said:
I also would not be proud of being something "brits are totally cool about it" as they are also fine with a child molestor highly well known and loved by the community -roman polanski:sick:
Click to expand...
Woody Allen.
 
pedinurse said:
hasn't this kid been sleeping iwth some lady who is like 27+ for a few years now? or am i crazy?
Click to expand...
For a while there was a rumor that he was dating a 23-year-old hair stylist, but apparently that is not true.
 
narlacat said:
Woody Allen.
Click to expand...
I thought Soon Yi was 21 or 22 when the photos were found and the relationship was made public. Hard to compare that to Roman Polanski. IMO
 
julianne said:
I DEFINITELY know your thoughts on Hounddog, scm, LOL, and I appreciate them, as they are articulate and I have learned things from you & your point of view--Our point of views are completely opposite from one another on this (and a coupla other things), but honestly, I suspect from your posts that you & I would agree on more topics than not.

My views on nudity, however, are anything but puritanical. I don't have any problems with nudity---there JUST bodies, we've all got one, and I really fail to see what is so "shocking" about nudity----I just think the rape scene is a totally different element not anywhere akin to nudity.

LOL, I just looked back at the beginning of the thread because I was gonna apologize to the original poster for hijacking the thread, but your the OP--LOL
Click to expand...
LOL, Julianne - we are both passionate and vocal about our viewpoints and that makes us more alike than not, I suspect! :blowkiss:

Yes, I don't think Fanning in Houndog can really be compared to Radcliffe in Equus - apples to oranges in my opinion.

Equus does however have a sexual element. There is a stable lovescene b/w Radcliffe and a female character. Also, there is a simulated sex act while a nude Radcliffe rides a horse.

Much of the outcry against Radcliffe's choice to do this play is from parents of young Potter fans who feel he has a responsibility to not sully the Potter character. It's funny to me because several key adult actors in the Potter films (almost all of the actors are British) have done plenty of films with nudity pre-Potter.
 
southcitymom said:
LOL, Julianne - we are both passionate and vocal about our viewpoints and that makes us more alike than not, I suspect! :blowkiss:

Yes, I don't think Fanning in Houndog can really be compared to Potter in Equus - apples to oranges in my opinion.

Equus does however have a sexual element. There is a stable lovescene b/w Radcliffe and a female character. Also, there is a simulated sex act while a nude Radcliffe rides a horse.

Much of the outcry against Radcliffe's choice to do this play is from parents of young Potter fans who feel he has a responsibility to not sully the Potter character. It's funny to me because several key adult actors in the Potter films (almost all of the actors are British) have done plenty of films with nudity pre-Potter.
Click to expand...
Good heavens, I won't tell you where my mind went when I read "stable lovescene"! :eek: Glad I wasn't skimming this comment! lol

(I also wanted to add that I still think Woody Allen is creepy.)
 
I'm sorry but to me he is still just harry potter! lol :waitasec:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 3,905 (members: 135, guests: 3,770)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
3,770
Total visitors
3,905
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,684
Messages
17,957,448
Members
228,586
Latest member
chingona361
Back
Top