Promiscuous Boy: Harry Potter takes it all off
#1
Daniel Radcliffe, the iconic face of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, will be stripping eight times a week. In the first major revival of Peter Shaffer's Equus since its Tony Award-winning run in 1975, Radcliffe will play a psychologically disturbed stable boy who gouges the eyes of the horses he tends after a sexual encounter. The controversial play opens on Feb. 27 at London's Gielgud Theater, but the Equus promotional photos are already causing a stir.

The photos, first released by the UK's Evening Standard, offer viewers a taste of graphic content and leave little to the imagination. One photo shows Radcliffe in jeans and co-star Joanna Christie clad only in black underwear. Others show a fully nude Radcliffe with a flawless white horse, though they are tastefully cropped. The play's content, which includes full nudity and simulated sex acts, is dividing Harry Potter fans.

Read the rest here.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#2
:jawdrop: Oh my!! It sounds so ........naughty! :book: Wink
Reply
#3
Liriodendron Wrote::jawdrop: Oh my!! It sounds so ........naughty! :book: Wink

Why do I think that when you use the term "naughty" your ears perk up and you start hunting for online photos? :wicked:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#4
It's Radcliffe's life, and can do what he wishes with it, but I wonder why he would do such a thing in the middle of his HP career.
Reply
#5
Arcadia Wrote:It's Radcliffe's life, and can do what he wishes with it, but I wonder why he would do such a thing in the middle of his HP career.

Concerns of typecasting come to mind. He's already attached to The Half-Blood Prince, so unless he becomes a Paris Hilton type figure in real life, it's likely he'll round out the series no matter what. He may also want to break with his Harry persona as a means of finding his own acting career, or establishing himself with the ability to play something other than wholesome, upstanding but mostly underage.

That's not to say that I condone his choice. The subject matter is more than a little disturbing, not the least of which is his Fully Monty.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#6
I can certainly understand Daniel's desire to seperate himself from his squeaky-clean Harry Potter image to keep from being typecast and to prove he can do more. Look at Sean Bean: nearly every film I've seen him in, he's played a bad guy (except Equilibrium, but he died ten minutes into that one, didn't he). I must say his choosing that role in Equus is, IMO, a very extreme way to go. He's still quite young for something that graphic (although I wouldn't condone it had an older person been cast). And calling him young has now made me feel old.... :anxious:

Still, it won't keep me from watching HP. And I do hope that he and the rest of the kids in the HP cast stick around for the rest of the movies; they've already finished five, it would be a shame if any of them left with only two more to go.
Reply
#7
That's.... disturbing. I had a hard enough time watching the bath tub scene in GoF! LOL

Going against typecast is understandable, and I can see why he might feel the need to go in such an extreme opposite direction. But still... eye gouging? Full Monty? Sex acts? Confusedo: I'll pass.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#8
GamgeeFest Wrote:That's.... disturbing. I had a hard enough time watching the bath tub scene in GoF! LOL
... and I had successfully blocked that from my memory until you dredged it back up to the surface. Confusedcare:

You're right, though; I find it disturbing, too.
Reply
#9
As had I, except that I watched all four HP movies again while I was sick this weekend. I cringe every time that scene comes on. If it weren't for Myrtle, I'd skip the whole thing! Wink
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#10
Put me down as amazed any of it matters.

To me, an actor is a workman in a role. What they do in each role stands alone. I pay almost no attention to the names of people who play some character; it is the work I watch. I know they are people with lives apart from the film/tv show/play, but I don't care.

I don't pay any attention at all to news of any actor's personel life. I don't care if they are against wearing fur, eating meat, or that they support a particular political cause or candidate, and am amazed that some run for office and are elected because of "fame". They are no more {nor less} deserving of respect for their opinions than the camera operator or the set designer, and all the others whose work comes together to produce the final product. Their personel lives, marriages, and problems are not interesting to me, nor do I think any role they play should reflect their own life, nor limit their choice to other roles they are offered or accept.

Some people's work in film manages to impress me enough that if I read they are in another project, I will consider going to see it after exploring the content. But I am very choosy as to what I bother to view, so the presence of an actor isn't crucial. I don't, for example, watch 'horror' films nor any with extreme and pointless violence or gore. Gratutious sex is a real turn off, too, as is abuse of animals.

So, knowing the project being discussed has animal abuse and lots of graphic sex would prevent me from being interested; and who plays the role is of no interest. And watching the remaining HP offerings would have no effect on knowing an actor from the HP franchise did this other project. Who cares? Why does it matter?

The books have managed to handle Harry's first awareness of girls and that awkward stage when the girls are more interested in the boys than vice-versa rather well. The first dates were well done, too. The more recent ventures into more serious romance {Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermionie} much less so; I knew Ginny was Harry's girl from the time she first saw him at the train station in Sorcorer's Stone, and considered Hermionie Ron's girl from the get-go too; but the realization of these romantic ties in Book Six were not {to me} especially well done. Which is why many were so upset about each story line, IMO.

But the bathtub scene? Well written in the book. The movie scene was ....... O.K. Harry was supposed to be embarassed, even though Myrtle is a ghost, not a live girl. Myrtle was shown as interested in Harry in Chamber of Secrets, after all; offering as she did to share her toilet with his ghost, should he die. Such a sweet girl, Myrtle! Harry's reaction was ....... priceless. Very fitting. They could not have done the scene if Myrtle wasn't a ghost, not in a kiddies' film.

As for this other project, my reaction is, Who Cares? This actor person is not Harry Potter. He is an actor person who has a whole other life of his own, and if he wants a career as an actor, he will in time portray many other people. That he first came into our notice when he played Harry Potter has no releveance to what he does elsewhere. Either he does Harry well, or not. To me, he was always a little too cute to be the Harry of the book, skinny Harry of the very unruly hair and knobbly knees; but JKR was satisified, and it is her vision that mattered.

Put me down for thinking the same core set of actors should finish the last films, if possible. And that other roles any may have before or after are of no matter. But if any choose not to go on and finish the series, then, the person choosen to play the role should be judged on the basis of how well they do it, not on the basis of any other role they have played, nor yet of how the other actor played it. None of them are the 'real person' from the book, the books are fiction.
Reply
#11
Hello, DarqAli, most of what you say is true, why should we care what Daniel Radcliffe does with his life away from Harry Potter. He is not HP in real life, he is Dan Radcliffe. When I heard he was doing Equus, I was rather surprised, because I had heard about this play back int he 70's. Remebering it was about the mutilation of horses, and that it had nude scenes in it. It confused me as to which part he was to play, until I found out he was to play the character of the boy who does the damage. I read several reviews on his preview perfomance and everyone of them says he was very good, made his cues, and stopped on his marks. Like you say, he may be doing this to give himself some space after HP is done. Give himself a resume of sorts as to what he can do. I think Dan is going to be one those versitile actors who will be able to do any role with the same vigor and vitality for many years to come!!

As for the roles in HP, I, like many people hope all of the main characters are played the ones who originated them. The only one people have a problem with is Dumbledore, because of the death of Richard Harris. I think his replacement(Gambon) has done an admirable job, considering.
I kind of liked that scene in the GOF, with Harry and Myrtle. I remember giggling when he scrambled to cover himself up. Of course, it wouldn't have worked if she wasn't a ghost.
Take care, Tigercat...
Reply
#12
Darq Ali Wrote:Put me down as amazed any of it matters.

To me, an actor is a workman in a role. What they do in each role stands alone. I pay almost no attention to the names of people who play some character; it is the work I watch. I know they are people with lives apart from the film/tv show/play, but I don't care.

That may be to you. To others, it doesn't work quite that way.

You might, or might not, recall The Monkees, and their schism-departure movie Head which nearly killed their careers.

There's also the unfortunate case of George Reeves who portrayed Superman for a time on television. A fictionalized, though reasonably accurate to the known facts of Reeves' life and sudden death reflect the frustration and anger he felt over being typecast.

Carrie Fisher and Mark Hammil have struggled for years to remove themselves from their iconic Star Wars personas. Fisher's body of work, quite varied and impressive in itself, still doesn't remove her from her primary role. In an episode of "Ellen" there was even a joke in it, where Fisher, addresses Ellen Degeneres who is acting as an extra, but upstaging Fisher. Fisher says something to the effect, "Just ignore me. It's easy, pretend you're my agent." For her cameo role in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, one of the conditions of her portrayal was that there be no mention of Star Wars or her character Princess Leia at any time.

Clearly, in each case (and many others) actors would like to be seperated from their famous character-roles, but the public often doesn't make the distinction. That can break an actor's career faster than appearing in Gigli. Leonard Nimoy was so tired of his Spock persona that his first autobiography was titled I Am Not Spock (1977). He would later recant that with a second book called I Am Spock (1995), but initially he considered it as explained by William Shatner's famous rant on Saturday Night Live, "It was just this thing that we did for money!"

It's unfortunate, but there it is. Actors should be aware of these kinds of concerns, and many are. Consider Jim Carrey, and his very meticulous selection of characters that gravitated further and further from the roles that made him famous. Robin Williams and Will Smith have both done some similar career pathing, carefully selecting roles that reflect their skills, rather than the persona that gave them fame.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#13
As may be.

Some of the names you mention are familiar, but I have not seen most of the films {TV?} you mention. I am far more of a reader. To me, this is simply a non-problem.

I will have to admit, the average intelligence of the human populace impresses me less and less.

As for the actor persons: I agree they have their own concerns. One is that many think they should be worth more for their work than the average working man, that they are "due" great fortune for their efforts. Another is that they seek what they later complain about. If Leonard N. achieves great fame and popularity as the character "Spock", he can hardly complain that he is is famous for playing a popular role. [Do you want 'success' or don't you?] Perhaps we should caution actors to "be careful what they wish for". If you desire to become famous for a role you make popular, you have to live with the results. And realize, that it may limit your future; and so, don't purchase a zillion dollar mansion, but rather, live modestly so your earnings will enable you to live.

Again, as for me, I find the whole thing more than a little silly. I understand the actors are just humans who have a whole life apart from the role I see them portray in any given work. I have no problem confusing the fiction with the human, nor do I give any import to them because I think their work is good, in any other way. I won't vote for who they endorse, nor stop eating my chosen diet, or join any cause or church they champion, because they are 'famous'. Its just silly.

I have not found the HP movies particularly "good" in telling Harry's story, anyway. The boy who plays Harry isn't as skinny nor geeky as Harry is described, nor is his hair unruly enough, nor Hermionie's bushy enough for that matter. JKR would have better held out for a studio which wanted to do HP as a TV series, taking all the time in the world to tell Harry's story faithfully, rather than the scant outline sketch they manage in the film-pr-book method they are trying.

I have no trouble not confusing the actor with Harry Potter of the book. I wish him well. If his 'fans' are put off because he plays some other role in adult theatre on stage, they haven't got much sense. And he is well to put such so-called fans behind him, and move on to those who will appreciate his talent, if he is serious about an acting career.

But it should not matter. He should have enough wealth to go on to do whatever else his mind can desire, and leave acting behind, if the public is so silly as to think he can play Harry Potter, or no one. If he blows his earnings so he has to worry about a future, I don't feel sorry for him. He's had a good break very early in life. He can deal with 'fame'.
Reply
#14
Darq Ali Wrote:Again, as for me, I find the whole thing more than a little silly. I understand the actors are just humans who have a whole life apart from the role I see them portray in any given work. I have no problem confusing the fiction with the human, nor do I give any import to them because I think their work is good, in any other way. I won't vote for who they endorse, nor stop eating my chosen diet, or join any cause or church they champion, because they are 'famous'. Its just silly.

To you, perhaps. To others, not so much. To Daniel Radcliffe, least of all.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#15
I saw some of it on the TV, I thought it looked good, and by the VIP's that were there all gave said it was good too, I don't see what the fuss is. It's not like he's doing a Britney
Shorey for England!
Reading fans


RoCk On SnOw PaTrOl

- Kwik Silva 44
Reply
#16
That is a point.

When a public person such as an actor or a sports figure, idolized especially by the young, acts out in public in very inappropriate ways, that I do think matters.

These people seek fame and the fortune that follows their public careers. They are therefore obligated to set a standard in their public behavior that in in keeping with the adulation heaped upon them by young fans. Sadly, today, most find a "bad" image better than a "good" one.

As for this young actor: If he finds the problems associated with choosing acting as a career too problematic, he can quit and do something else. Again I say, as much as he has already earned, if he behaves sensibly, he need never work again, anyway. To me it is a non-issue. If it isn't to him, then it is his to deal with. But he will be a fool if he lets 'the public' control his career choices. At his age, he is far better off with an adult mentor to listen to, and that might be someone not in the entertainment field; and his own head, of course. His choices should be his own and for reasons of his personel integrity.

As for doing what he does for "success" ........ lots of people ruin their lives trying to ride that dragon.
Reply
#17
Darq Ali Wrote:When a public person such as an actor or a sports figure, idolized especially by the young, acts out in public in very inappropriate ways, that I do think matters.

Or is it the fault of the parents for not properly realistically grounding their children? Or the fault of the media for building the figure up? Or the fault of the sponsors, for giving more air time to the figure to make more money? Or the fault of society for idolizing them?

Quote:These people seek fame and the fortune that follows their public careers.

They do? Every time huh? I thought some of them just found joy in doing what comes naturally for them, as much as any other artist? Some of them found their “public career” as a calling, a path to their own personal happiness, perhaps the happiness of others?

Quote:They are therefore obligated to set a standard in their public behavior that in in keeping with the adulation heaped upon them by young fans.

Are we just obligating the ones who are seeking "fame and fortune that follows their public careers"? And if so, how can we possible hold them to that obligation, unless they aren't specifically seeking to become role-models. Or rather, if they are seeking to become role-models, how do we hold them to that when they fail? And what role-model should they seek? Radical Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, or Radical Liberal like Milton Friedman, or is there some other standard by which all role-models must live up to? A religious bar? An ethical bar?

And if they fail to become public figures, does that remove them from said obligation? Is, say, a B-list actor less obligated than an A-list-er? What about athletes? Is there a sliding scale by which David Beckham and his millions per year is more obligated than Michellie Jones or Normann Stadler?

Quote:Sadly, today, most find a "bad" image better than a "good" one.

Really? Can you cite some statistics on this? I'd love to see your sources for this observation.

Quote:As for this young actor: If he finds the problems associated with choosing acting as a career too problematic, he can quit and do something else.

So, I'm confused. Do you think this particular role will be "problematic" for Radcliffe or not? Or do you see his choice of this role as a symptom of said problems?

Quote:Again I say, as much as he has already earned, if he behaves sensibly, he need never work again, anyway.

Not working, or not having a career is a way of generally not (love those double negatives) having a very rewarding life. Sure, he can pick that, but it appears the boy wants to be an actor. I think we ought to critique him based on his acting, his choices and so forth. Anyone who isn’t interested in him as an actor doesn’t need to comment if they don’t want.

Quote:To me it is a non-issue.

As I've said already, to you it may be a non-issue. To others, including Radcliffe, it clearly isn't as I think this latest choice reflects.

Quote:But he will be a fool if he lets 'the public' control his career choices.

Good point. He chooses a career as an entertainer, but he shouldn't pay any attention to what the public thinks of his entertaining, what makes him viable to the stage and screen. . . . Or did I miss some part of the logic there?

Quote:As for doing what he does for "success" ........ lots of people ruin their lives trying to ride that dragon.

Do tell! Let's have some examples here of those that have ruined their lives while pursuing a dream of being an actor, or, heck, any kind of artist. After we've done that, let's make certain we compare it to those who haven't ruined their lives in similar pursuits. Pumpkins to pumpkins as we might say. And when we’ve put all those up against the semi-successful to the successful, let’s have the stats to prove that “lots” have, and only a few haven’t.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#18
Reply
#19
Darq Ali Wrote:All of the above; there is plenty of blame to go around.

Then why did you lay the blame solely on the "public person" to begin with?

Quote:Actors are humans, and thus, individuals; their motives vary. I would never say otherwise.

That's an interesting contradiction given your original statement of the all-encompassing "These people . . ."

Quote:I agree that actors are artists . . . [snip]

I have no idea how this is a response to my original statement. Seems like you are agreeing with me.

Quote:No. Put me down as a believer in personel freedom, and " the old fashioned concept of community standards. [snip]

First, you missed my point, but that ok. Second, this argument conflicts with your following argument where you start out saying, "Community standards will vary with the community."

Quote:And that is how the public enforces their standards. Ask the Dixie Chicks.

You mean the group who's album blasting at their fair-weather fans Not Ready To Make Nice debuted at #1 when released? The same album that sold a half-million copies in its first week (second best for the year in the genre) and has, to date, gone five-times platinum? This same group who are the only female group to ever have three albums debut at #1, who then went on to win Grammys for Album of the Year, Song of the Year, Record of the Year, Best Country Album, and Best Country Performance?

This group?

Yeah, I'm sure they really feel reined in by the public enforcement of arbitrary standards.

Quote:I pretty much think there is one standard of decent behavior, and it should apply to all of us.

So first you say that there are "community standards" then you say that "Community standards will vary with the community." Now you're saying, "there is one standard of decent behavior."

Should I color you contradictory again?

Quote:99% of all stastics are made up on the spot, including this one.

So what you're saying is that you don't actually know that "most find a "bad" image better than a "good" one." That you just used the term "most" erroneously in trying to make your point. Good, glad to know that.

Quote:I will say only that I know a whole lot of people who read tabloid filth, which is essentially trash, and very few who read the kind of magazines I select {National Geographic, Smithsonian, Archaelogy, Science, to name but a handful}.

Well, let's start out by saying that I have no idea what reading one magazine or newspaper has to do with whether or not actors, artists and public personalities choose "a 'bad' image" over a good one.

But hey, I'm up for it. What you're saying then is that you don't consider the 8.5 million readers of National Geographic, the 215,000 subscribers to Archeology (I'm assuming the magazine sponsored by the Archeological Institute of America) and the 6.9 million subscribers to the Smithsonian Magazine are just "a few". Is that right?

Quote:That some fans will "disapprove" would be neither here nor there, to me in his position.

If you say so. I still say, even if it doesn't matter to you, that it matters, for all the reasons I've listed above to all the people I've already stated.

Quote:As for being interested in this person: Again, I find it odd that people care what he does.

Which is clearly why you don't understand my argument.

Quote:Then why did he seek this role, and accept it when offered? If it were an issue to him, I would think rather he would not have taken the job.

You've missed my point, once again, entirely. I said that Radcliffe's selection of this role was for very specific reasons. I said that he cared about this selection and that there were those who would also care about this selection (for or against).

Quote:Artists never have an easy time . . . [snip]

I have no idea what these comments have to do with Radcliffe and his fans.

Quote:As for other examples, see the tabloids of the suicidal and anexroic celebs and so forth.

None of this proves your position, or shows me that "lots of people ruin their lives trying to ride that dragon." Seems like your arguments are either contradictory or don't have any support.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#20
Marlyn Monroe. Pete Rose. Francis Farmer. Whoever that rap guy who got shot and killed was; and the other one who is in prison for murder. The lady who just publiclly shaved her head. River Pheonix, who died of drugs. John Belushi. Ye gods, I am terrible with names and I can keep listing them.

People who live 'public lives' in careers in performance are often very self destructive. Or so it seems to me. But then, my knowledge of such matters comes because I can't filter it out. Perhpas most of them are just as sane and normal and happy and healthy as the rest of us but I don't know it.

More specific comments later when I have time.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Actor Leslie Phillips, voice of Harry Potter Sorting Hat, dies aged 98 Michael 1 62 November 10th, 2022, 05:18 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Harry Potter vs Encanto badlands 3 380 March 2nd, 2022, 01:06 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter exhibit badlands 0 276 February 20th, 2022, 09:43 PM
Last Post: badlands
  Slavery in Harry Potter badlands 1 355 February 7th, 2022, 09:33 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Is Harry Potter really Moaning Myrtle? badlands 3 364 February 6th, 2022, 04:12 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter game badlands 2 1,032 March 14th, 2021, 11:18 PM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Harry Potter bar badlands 3 676 February 5th, 2021, 03:59 PM
Last Post: Michael
  HBO Harry Potter reboot badlands 1 546 January 31st, 2021, 12:24 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Harry Potter theories badlands 10 1,388 November 5th, 2018, 12:17 PM
Last Post: august
  Did Harry Potter die? badlands 3 778 November 5th, 2018, 12:12 PM
Last Post: august

Forum Jump: