Harry Potter and the . . . .

[rmthunter]

I can't do it. You'll have to find the end of that title at the end of my own post. I'm really surprised this story hasn't shown up here:

Daniel Radcliffe, known to millions as Harry Potter, is now doing a stage production of Peter Shaffer's Equus in London -- including the nude scenes.

What's interesting is the publicity photos the producer is releasing. They're -- ahem . . . very interesting. Smart marketing move -- any bets on how long it's going to be sold out?

Frankly, I have to hand it to Radcliffe to have the guts to undertake this role at his age. It looks as though he's going to be doing a lot of different things, which seems very wise if he expects to have any sort of career post-Potter.

[pippadaisy[$]]

We did. Maybe we kept it in the women's forum.

[rmthunter]

I think you must have, because I haven't been able to find it.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

pippadaisy said

We did. Maybe we kept it in the women's forum.

??? we did? I didn't see it - unless it was part of one of the HP book threads, which I haven't bothered with.

But Daniel Radcliff is lookin' mighty fine in those posters...

[pippadaisy[$]]

He's what? 17? ACK!

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Consider it an objective view from someone who has never seen or read anything Harry Potter and does not know the actor's age. You have to admit, he does have a good six-pack.

[Joubert[$]]

Yes, 17. Britain's wealthiest teenager. Worth = 23 million pounds or $45.2 million USD

[theworm[$]]

Harry isn't getting naked on stage. Daniel is. So what? You shouldn't be taking your kids to a show where a naked man is frolicking with a horse. I think its a smart move for Daniel who doesn't want to spend the rest of his life as Harry.
And MJ's right. He may be young, but he's nice to look at.

[pippadaisy[$]]

He's still a 17 year old kid. Ick.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Well Christ, Pippa, I didn't say I wanted to jump his bones and have hot sex with him, I said he's nice to look at. Hell, the poses make him look a lot like our EA Norm, and it's not like he's holding a big sign that says "I am 17 years old." What's the offical eligibility age for saying someone looks good? 18? 21? 25?

[theworm[$]]

I think that Dakota Fanning is adorable and nice to look at. 17 can be nice to look at but I'm not interested. Especially since he seems to like to frolic with horses. Not attractive at any age.

[hadassahchana[$]]

We did discuss it in this thread..

And yes, he's nice to look at, and Equus isn't. So much, anyhow.

[hadassahchana[$]]

Oops, I forgot to add- Bob, do you think he has the stuff to play that role? That would be hard for any age actor, IMO, to pull that off.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Equus trivia:

wikipedia and other sites said

Goran Visnjic got his start in acting when he was 12, with a part in a Croatian stage production of Equus. He received a standing ovation.

who knew?

[hadassahchana[$]]

12???

Um, do I need to reread Equus? Because if I am remembering it correctly, my 13 year old does not need to see/read it/act in it.

Cindy with a bigass stick up there

[rmthunter]

hadassahchana said

Oops, I forgot to add- Bob, do you think he has the stuff to play that role? That would be hard for any age actor, IMO, to pull that off.

I have no idea, if by "stuff" you mean depth and range. The actor is not required to be drop-dead gorgeous, clothed or not, but he's got to have intensity; as I recall, there's not much room for broad histrionics, but the power has to come through. (Cut me some slack here -- I saw the play 30 years ago.) Not having seen any of the Potter movies, I have no idea if Radcliffe has the stuff.

No, I would not recommend it for anyone under about 16. They're just not going to get it, I don't think.

As a poster boy for teen-age sex, however, Radcliffe has the stuff. (In Illinois, 17 is the age of consent. smirk*)

And frankly, if I didn't point it out before, the publicists for that production are obviously banking on two things: Harry Potter and sex. Not necessarily in that order. (I'm sorry, but posing him with the horse that way is just too much. Can you say "blatant"?)

* I don't consider 17 to be automatically out of the running -- too many variables. Exhausting, maybe, but not disqualified out of hand, even if they are not much more than hormones and energy.

On second thought. . . .

[pippadaisy[$]]

Don't forget I have kids... one of whom is a Harry Potter fan. I can't separate the two. 17 is ick in my book. 17 AND Harry Potter? Gives me the shakes.

My rule book at this point is anything that ends in "teen" is off-limits.

[rmthunter]

OK -- it's the difference between looking and doing. He is certainly nice to look at, but if Daniel Radcliffe came up to me and said "Hi, there, sailor," I honestly don't know how I'd react. Probably something along the line of "You've got to be kidding." I don't have any particular bias against dating much younger men, but there are limits beyond which it's just ridiculous.

I mean, there's age difference, and then there's generation gap.

[theworm[$]]

Pip - I hear you and I understand, I really do.
At my age, 21 is ick - even 25, but let's face it - we talk about teens being sexual beings. They have bodies of adults and you can look at a young man or woman and think they're beautiful. Nothing sexual about that. Radcliffe is nice to look at. If I even thought of a relationship - shoot me.

[wivabef]

I would see it. And not to get a gander at a naked boy. But because I think Radcliff is a good actor and Equus is a great play. I didn't look through, but who's playing the Psychiatrist?

[emeleel]

Oh, that's where it gets really good - "Uncle Vernon" is the psych.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

???