[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Warning: Adults Only - Dan Radcliffe - Full

[P. Alexis Nguyen]

Tonks_op:
> As to his acting in this role, I don't think it was a good idea this
> early in his career and with the Harry Potter role still running. I
> am surprised that there wasn't something in his contract with WB
> against it.
<<SNIP>>
> Sounds like a teenage
> rebellion to me. Had to get past the 'goodly two shoes' image. But
> overall I don't think that it was a good idea at this time. I am not
> opposed to the play, just the timing.

Ali:

I know I'm snipping Tonks_op's post, but it mainly is just because it
happens to be one that addresses my question: why are there so
[seemingly] many opposed to Dan playing the role of Alan Strang in
Equus?

I don't buy the teenage rebellion bit since that's more indicative of
young Hollywood starlets posing nude in Playboy or Maxim to shake
their youthful image.  Equus is an immensely powerful play, and one
might call Alan Strang the role of a lifetime.  Choosing to do a play
of such intense emotions and proven literary value seems just like a
good move for any actor to make.  Moreover, one could argue that,
since the HP movies are so immensely popular, Dan should be making the
best of his fame and accepting such wonderful roles since he may never
get offered a second chance like this.  As for Dan being a minor,
well, the main character of Equus is only 17 yrs old. :)

(And don't get me wrong.  I never did like Equus much, was always just
too disturbed by it.  However, it is a play of immense value, and I
always feel a need to defend it.)

As for the wackos?  Well, the kids could've jumped naked into a
private pool area, and that still would've given fuel to said crazies.
 I think that their cause is, for them, already etched in stone, and
they probably would've found a way to make anything look bad.

Anyway, perhaps somebody can clarify their position for me.  I'm not
opposed to said position, just trying to understand it.

~Ali