I got into an intresting dicussion with some people on another board over this topic but I was curious what all of you thought.
I'm a theater person so I love plays, musicals, and etc. I also happen to like Harry Potter. I have been following how many accolades Daniel Radcliff and his fellow cast memebers recived for their performance of "Equus". Apprently Radciff is being heralded over how well he performed in the West End production.
Starting in September or October, they are going to be performing it on broadway.
If you don't know what the play about is (C&P from wikipedia)
Equus is a play by Peter Shaffer written in 1973, telling the story of a psychiatrist who attempts to treat a young man who has a pathological religious/sexual fascination with horses.
Currently there is a big stink about how 13 year old girl are driving their parents mad to go see this, quite frankly, twisted play just to see Daniel Radcliff in the buff.
The theater has put a restriction that only people over 16 'should' be allowed to see the play.
The points of the dicussion:
1)How old do you think someone should be in order to see this play?
2) In what way would you define how mature some one must be to see this play?
3) Would you take your son/daughter/niece/nephew/younger relative to see it ?
4) Lastly, Should someone as idolized as Radcliff be allowed to perform in such a twisted play?
What are your thoughts on the matter?
1)How old do you think someone should be in order to see this play?
In all honesty, it is my opinion that it would and should depend upon the maturity level of the child in question.
2) In what way would you define how mature some one must be to see this play?
Personal choice really, My daughter (12) might be mature enough to handle it, but her borther on the other hand (14) would not be. He still giggles when you say "Boobies".
3) Would you take your son/daughter/niece/nephew/younger relative to see it ?
See previous two answers
4) Lastly, Should someone as idolized as Radcliff be allowed to perform in such a twisted play?
You're dealing with a situation where this actor was probably cast because the producer though his name recognition would bring in more patrons. In this case, that would be right. How many people went to see Grease on Broadway because Deborah Gibson was playing the part of Rizzo?
If you think the only reason the child in question wants to go is to see him get naked, then they're too young. Plain and simple. If by some shance the child understands the nature of the play, and wants to see it because its portrayal of an intense story, thats soemthing else. However, most kids, even if they do understand the menaing of the play, probably wouldn't enjoy it.
Quote from: Hoowil on August 07, 2008, 02:37:31 PM
However, most kids, even if they do understand the menaing of the play, probably wouldn't enjoy it.
Mainly because they are too focused on him getting naked.
Dear lord. xD We had a huuuge discussion on this play in my guild on Gaia. My thought is, I'd see it for the play, not Daniel Radcliffe's dangly bits. Honestly, the kid is still 12 in my mind.
Maybe there should be an entry test. Something like this:
"Why do you want to see this play?"
A. Because it has a very interesting, complex storyline, and I like that in a play.
B. LOL DANGLY BITS!
C. There's a play? O.O
I'm with PurpleDragon, though. As far as kids go, it really does depend on the maturity of the child involved. I'd really be more concerned about how much of the story they'd -really- understand.
It would depend on the child and why they would want to see the play. But because of most teens maturity level that would probably eliminate anyone under 16 for me anyway.
Quote from: PurpleDragon on August 07, 2008, 12:00:27 PM
You're dealing with a situation where this actor was probably cast because the producer though his name recognition would bring in more patrons. In this case, that would be right. How many people went to see Grease on Broadway because Deborah Gibson was playing the part of Rizzo?
Actually, I think its important to keep in mind that Daniel Radcliff is an adult and its his choice. From what I've read, he took the part hoping to avoid his "Harry Potter Heart Throb" image. Both he and Rupert Grint seemed to have settled on acting as their future occupation and both have been taking roles in smaller, independent films. When he first took on the role in Equus in England (over a year ago), it wasn't garnering too much attention other than Radcliff was going to appear naked in it. However, I guess it was big smash there, not just because of that but apparently because it was a very good production of the play (I can't comment, I haven't seen it). This lead to it opening on Broadway.
Adult - yes, he can make his own choice. Personally, I find the play far to disturbing to see, much less take anyone to. I would never, ever take my underage - or even teenage daughter to see it. Images from having to do select readings from scenes of this play in college are still branded - badly - in my mind. I do not like the play and I have been involved in theatre for over 30 years.
No, no, and no. Dangly bits or fully clothed, it's not a "go see them because they are in it" type of play.
Capt Marga
I feel it's near impossible to really know a childs maturity level, I include the two I live with! We place age limits to make the decision for us and give teeth to our "no", can't say I disagree with that.
To me the question is what impact will missing the "dangly bits" have on a child that is mature enough to deal with it?...prob not much. Then ask what impact seeing the "dangly bits" would have on a child who is not mature?...
Sticking with the age limit set by the theatre has very little impact on a childs life, seems appropriate to me.