[HPFGU-OTChatter] Equus

[P. Alexis Nguyen]

potioncat:
> The writer stated that Daniel R did an adequate job, but his fame
> pulled attention to his character and away from the therapist.
> According to the review the therapist, not the young man, is the real
> main character of the play. The reviewer also said Richard Griffiths
> did an outstanding job.

Hm.  Looks like the reviewer isn't taking a few things into
consideration.  One, that the therapist is the real main character is
a matter of opinion - I think he's a more interesting and complex
character, but the entire play revolves around Alan Strang and his
history with the horses, and that is, for better or worse, the core
story.  The better story, to be sure, is found below that first layer,
but from the way things were written (though, admittedly, I don't know
what the dramaturg did as far as cutting down things and helping keep
the core store alive), the therapist character is more quiet in
comparison to the Alan Strang story.  (In fact, pretty much ever
summary I've ever read of Equus doesn't mention the therapist at all
except as a "facilitating" character.)  Moreover, that "first layer"
of the play is so overwhelming that, in presenting a play for an
audience that may have never heard of this play or only know it in
passing, I can totally agree with the choice to not over-emphasize the
therapist role.

I mean, as much as I agree with the reviewer that the real main
character of the play is the therapist, I would never go into a play
with that bias in my head.  At that point, without an amazing
dramaturg to help things along, the play is inevitably going to
disappoint and not ever reference the "real main character" as
important as Alan Strang.

Anyway, my two cents.  Seems like the reviewer was seeing half what
was happening and half what he wanted the play to portray - poor
choice for a reviewer.

~Ali