Monday, August 14, 2006

Reactions to A Nude Daniel Radcliffe

In a past post I mentioned that 17 year-old Harry Potter film star Daniel Radcliffe would be performing next March in Equus.

As I understand it, Equus is a play about psychology in which a young boy who blinds six horses with a metal spike.

The posting of this promted a variety of comments, some of those in refrence to the nude scene that Daniel would exhibit in the play:

"Animal abuse, naked teenage boys,sexual ectstasy..... in a stage play? Bleah. I guess that's why my uncultured heathen self has always preferred sunny musicals at the theater" --elasticwaistbandlady

"Equus is one of the worst plays I have ever seen. The writing and plot is muddled in a psychologyly disturbed actions of a boy who pokes out the eyes of a horse with an ice pick. If you're going to be nude in a play, at least make it a good play." --kimberly ann

"I'm disappointed in Harry Potter." --Sheri Ann

"I have read that there are several different versions of the play Equus and that there are versions where the character does not do the scenes nude. I haven't heard which version he is doing, but hopefully he will choose to do it clothed. I would hope that he would consider his image and the children that look up to him. " --Allison

"I agree with Allison... hopefully he will choose the clothed version for image's sake. I was disturbed to read about this last week - so much for the innocence of little Harry Potter." -- Grete

"Equus is by no stretch of the imagination a perfect play, but its writer, Peter Shaffer (who also wrote Amadeus) was certainly doing some truly bright things in the film: like discuss how each of us are fallen and broken and want to be healed. The boy's relationship with the horse is shocking because he believes it is his relationship with God. I agree that Shaffer's choices with sexuality were designed more to arouse than to provoke to thought, but I wouldn't count this move by Radcliffe as another Blue Room. " --Will

One of the things that Grete and Allison mentioned was that they hoped Daniel Radcliffe would perform the sexual horse scene with clothes on...

Well how about this quote?

"All the other actors who have played the part have done that, so for me not to do it wouldn't really be playing the part. It would be a watered down version. It wouldn't be the same. I'll be incredibly nervous, but I think, 'It's in the script; it's got to be done'. I'm terrified, but excited." --Daniel Radcliffe, as reported in the Herald Sun and reported on mugglenet.com

Thanks Allison for e-mailing me this information and keeping up with all things Harry Potter.

Related Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted by Picasa

45 comments:

elasticwaistbandlady said...

Well, let's just hope for Daniel's sake that the theater is properly heated. A cold draft could possibly dash his big hopes for transition to leading man roles. Shrinkage is never good.

Jay said...

People can be so prurient. You know what? Nudity? Yeah, it's just a naked body. So relax. And acting? Well, it's just pretend. Make believe.

Paula said...

Hee hee!

I have done some acting. I have never been asked to perform nude (should I be offended?), but I think I might if the part desparately called for it. Looks like Daniel is trying to be taken seriously as an actor, not just a movie star--those things are completely different, believe me! I just hope his acting is up to the challenge. Any dope can take their clothes off.

Martha Elaine Belden said...

i'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, and while i have to say i was somewhat taken aback when i read your first post about his involvement in this play, the more i consider it, the more i have to say... let the boy do his thing.

he's an actor, and i imagine he's having to fight pretty hard to escape the little boy wizard image and move on to other roles. i personally would never act in the nude, and i wouldn't feel comfortable attending a play with a scene (or a storyline, for that matter) such as this... but i respect him for taking the chance.

and for everyone concerned about daniel ruining childrens' image of harry potter... seriously... what parent would allow their child to see a play like this anyway?? i can assure you, MOST harry potter fans will never see or even be aware of this play.

Martha Elaine Belden said...

p.s. i didn't mean this as a rebuttal to you or anything... i realize you didn't really express positive or negative feeling about his part in the play. i was more reacting to people's reactions to you.

just wanted to clarify :)

Scott Roche said...

To the people who said that they were disappointed in HP and worried about his "image" and the children that "look up to him" this kid is playingf a character... in a movie... HP is not real. He retains any "innocence" he has as a cahracter.

Bravo for this young man taking a risk and staying true to the part. Equus is an excellent play. Of course it's only as good as its cast/director.

Scott Roche said...

Man I can't type.

Dale said...

These comments make a lot more sense to me than the initial ones did.

JavierAG said...

Yes, let the guy do what he has to do, he's not Harry friggin Potter.

Mindy McAdams said...

I saw Equus on Broadway in the late '70s, when the psychologist (not the naked boy) was played by Leonard Nimoy. There was a naked young man, yes. And the deal is that he spiked out the eyes of some horses (for a deep psychological reason, of course).

The plot is sort of comic-bookish -- simple, trite. But the play was awesome, because the tension and drama escalated to such a level that during the crucial action near the end, the audience sat on the edge of the seats, gasping.

Now, not all productions of the same play are equally good. The way the horses were done (they were men, and no, they were NOT wearing horse suits!) in the version I saw was fabulous and really added a lot to the emotion and power. When I saw it, it didn't titilate anyone that the young man was naked. It's part of the story.

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with Allison, Daniel Radcliffe is one of the best actors i´ve ever seen, and i wouldn´t want him to loose that image we, or al least I have from him, the image of an actor who is professional, who is good not only in acting, but with the needing people, in fact, a perfect person who does not care of fame, but cares for himself, his image, and most of all, the people that surrounds him, i would really like him to do the non-naked version, so he can conserve that image, Dan, I admire you, I and millions of girls who are expecting to see you as a role model, please don´t dissapoint us. best wishes, Irma

Anonymous said...

I have seen the play, Equus, twice. It is a very intense psycho-drama. Nudity is absolutely necessary to express Strang's vulnerablity and sexual confusion and to create the almost breathless audience tension that makes this play what it is. Nudity, in and of itself, especially in pursuit of legitimate art, which this play most definitely is, should not disappoint anyone. The role is anything but pornographic. Actor, Peter Firth (Amistad, Hunt for Red October), appeared completely naked in the movie, Equus (1977 with Richard Burton) and movie virtually launched Firth's career.

Mollywobbles said...

I'm a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, and as a result of that, I'm a fan of Daniel Radcliffe's, as well as practically every other person who has appeared in the films.

While I am a bit concerned that some people will not be able to separate Dan's role in Harry Potter from his role as Alan Strang in Equus, one truly has nothing to do with the other! I hope Harry Potter fans won't abandon the remaining films out of a misguided objection to Dan taking on the part in Equus. As for the parents who are concerned about Daniel appearing nude, if they are doing their jobs as parents, the most their kids will SEE are articles about the performance. They won't actually be in the audience to see "Harry Potter strip off his wizarding robes," and I'll be truly shocked if anyone manages to get an actual video of it out on the internet. (I guess you can photo shop anything these days...but that could be done even if he wasn't doing Equus).

As for Equus itself, I have tickets and I'm very much looking forward to going. Admittedly my initial interest in going was to see Daniel - NOT to see him naked, but to see him in person, doing what he does best, which is acting. (He's bloody gorgeous, so yes,the nudity was a bonus).

Another bonus is that Richard Griffiths is in the play as well.

Besides Equus, I am also going to see David Bradley in The Caretaker, Maggie Smith in Lady from Dubuque, Miriam Margoyles in Wicked, Jason Isaacs in Dumb Waiter, Zoe Wannamaker in The Rose Tattoo, and if it ever gets off the "postponed" list, Fiona Shaw in "Readings". Notice a pattern here? If anything, the Potter series has expanded my appreciation of the performing arts to include going to live stage performances, and not just the movies.

Back to for Equus, I wasn't familiar with it at all when I heard Dan was in it, so I did my homework. I read various online commentaries on the original stage performance and on the film, then I bought a copy of the book (play) and a DVD of the film version.

Until reading it and watching the film, I couldn't understand comments by people who said you could see the play/film and not have the nudity be your primary focus. But now it makes sense, because you are so caught up in the psychology and emotion that the lack of clothing is nothing more than a costume change to match the tone of that point in the plot. I didn't see before how nudity could be "absolutely essential to the plot" when other people said that, but now that I've seen the film, I think the lack of nudity in certain scenes would be like having the groom wear a clown costume in a wedding scene.

I know I said before that Equus and Harry Potter have nothing to do with each other, and truly they don't, but I did see a similarity in that the Strang character in Equus is sort of a lost and tortured soul, fighting demons he can't really see, and that does remind me a bit of Radcliffe's character in the Potter films. In Potter, he's fighting a different kind of demon, but he has the "lost and tortured soul" bit going on from having his parents murdered when he was a baby and growing up with relatives who hated him, then gradually watching those he's come to care most about be cut down by an enemy that it's up to him to stop.

I personally think if Daniel has the guts to go on stage naked (and obviously he does), he could not have made a better choice of a performance to showcase his acting talent, his ability to be something beyond "The Boy Who Lived," and his seriousness about his profession (not many 17 year olds could do this without blushing, laughing or bolting off the stage).

To borrow a phrase from Harry's pal, Ron Weasley, I think Daniel's decision to do Equus was "Bloody Brilliant!" And I hope he gets rave reviews!!!

Anonymous said...

Please Dont Do This!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Twink said...

i dont care how well he acts... or how bad the playwrite is... hes got one hell of a hot body! i'd go see it for that alone...

x_angel_in_blue_x said...

OMG just seen Radcliffe's photos for this new play! I totally agree with twinks, he is sooo hot! I don't go to the theatre as such, but I'd hope the story was good. Even if it isnt, I'd shag him!

Brian said...

Good for him. I can't get over how FREAKED out people get over a body. More power to him to have the guts to play a part that asks him to be nude... there's nothing wrong with it and as long as he feels comfortable, it's all good. We should all have the courage!

dacoroman said...

Dear People. We are not living anymore in the Middle Age. I really do believe that who's afaid of nudity is basically afraid of his/her own nudity. Let the boy do the play and stop being judgemental. We're born naked. If God would wanted us different we should have been born with clothes on. Love yourself People

Anonymous said...

I luff nakkie daniel. Yayyyyy! Good for him. I'm proud. And he's absolutely stunning.

Anonymous said...

personally, i'm disgusted. The boy is 17 years old. to bear all on stage in public like that is absolutely mortifying- to him, I hope- as well as to his fans who up until now have considered him to be a role model. This is why moral standards have sunk so low. It's the actors and celebrities who don't seem to see the bigger picture and understand that once they decide to be entertainers of ANY kind they have an obligation and responsibility to their fans- especially young entertainers, who generally draw younger fans. I salute the parents who are outraged, even though I have no children of my own, because they at least know boundaries where entertainers don't. I personally wouldn't know what to tell my kid who wondered why it was that Harry Potter suddenly developed a fetish for horses and stripped down in front of hundreds of people to climax on stage and embarass himself at the meager age of 17 when most actors his age would opt to star in less sexually radical but more preferably conservative chick flicks. Shame on you, Daniel Radcliff, and any entertainers out there like you.

Dorian said...

I am a bit disturbed that people would like to stereotype Daniel to youth type roles and chick flicks. He is a fantastic actor, going back to his earlier BBC days he has show his skill form a VERY young age. To take on a role such as Equus is just proving once again how amazingly talented he truely is, not to mention the maturity level it does take to do a nude scene. Though some parents may be upset about this with the whole Harry Potter thing, he is an ACTOR!! If he wants a career beyond his teens let him do the roles he chooses! My hat off to him. I have nothing but respect for him.

Anonymous said...

Equus is a terribly difficult and intense play. I think we need to remind ourselves that Daniel is taking on an increadible challange in playing this role. It can easily be put in the same category as a Hamlet or King Lear. To attempt something this tough at age 17 strikes me as one of the gutsiest things possible.

If he truely puts himself into the role as deeply as I think he can, it will tear him up deeply emotionally. This is the kind of role that can rip your soul to shreds. I wish him the best of luck.

Anonymous said...

The boy is only 17 years old! In some parts of the world, this is called kidde porn. I predict that 10 years from now, nobody will care anymore about Daniel Radcliffe. He will be remembered as a weird kid who couldn't be satisfied making millions as Harry Potter. Can anybody say Macaulay Culkin?

Anonymous said...

Daniel Radcliffe isn't that fantastic an actor. He's also only 17. This play is nothing but a 17 year old bad actor with no clothes on. Brill-o...

Anonymous said...

I just had a reaction to some of the people who say that Daniel Radcliffe shouldn't be doing this... I think that its great that he's doing this! It is ART, and I think it's great that he wants to move behind his pop culture image as Harry Potter; don't get me wrong, I love the movies but I also don't think he should be pigeonholed away into being forever known as "the boy wizard." It's not as if he doesn't know what he could possibly do to his image, there's no way he could have no clue. So he is obviously wanting to move beyond the realm of the actors who have famous parts and make good money and go into the realm of those that make truly good art. I agree with the earlier comment that he really has some guts to be doing this, and I applaud him for taking on such a role and defying the people who criticize him, the ones who obviously don't want him to be anything more than a boy wizard. Let the boy move on! Besides, it's the human form nude... what is so disgusting or mortifying about it? The human form is beautiful and sacred, and the people in Europe have a much better appreciation of the human form as art rather than as pornography as we do here in the states. Stop being prude! I say, good luck to him in the role and i hope it goes well for him!

Anonymous said...

oops, i just realized i said he should move behind his pop culture image... but i meant to say BEYOND his pop culture image.

Anonymous said...

He's an actor. He can't be Harry Potter forever. He's growing up, as the photos illustrate, and moving on to other photos. 17 means kiddie porn? Please. Will it not be kiddie porn in one year when he hits the magic number 18?

Let the man do his job and be a good actor. It is unrealistic to expect him to always play roles that fit in with everyone's ideal of Harry Potter.

So many post about demanding he doesn't do this naked. Yet, if someone tried to tell them how to live their lives they would be furious. He is not obligated to be anyone's rolemodel. He didn't sign a contract to do that. And if you let your children see these photos, that's your own fault. He's not required to edit his life so that you don't have to supervise your kids.

Get over it. He grew up.

kathryn said...

I am a fifteen year old girl, and I am not condoning this because "it's Harry Potter - naked!!"

I say, let him go. I think what people fail to realise in child stars is that they are very often NOT CHILDREN. For someone of Daniel's magnitude, is it not hard enough to have to say things suitable for twelve year olds, dress suitably for twelve year olds, be seen in places suitable for twelve year olds and associate with twelve year old friendly people without the world FORGETTING THAT YOU ARE SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE? This is how he has lived his whole life since Harry Potter, and he's old enough now that he can start shedding that image and start being a real 17 year old. There has to be some leeway, and this isn't the only instance of growing up going on now.

Take the phenomenally successful High School Musical. The ages of the stars in the film was about 16, whilst their real ages range between 18 and 25. The movie is for the tween audience (8 - 13). American parents kicked up a fuss when, on the 40 city US tour of the High School Musical concert, the costumes the female leads were wearing were considered too mature for their nine-year-old Disney addicts. These girls eat, sleep and breathe twelve year old humour. They make music for them, star in shows for them, dress for them and work for them. When they are 18 and 22 respectively, who is to stop them from AT LEAST WEARING WHAT THEY WANT ON STAGE?

I'm sure Daniel Radcliffe did not go into acting to become solely known as Harry Potter. He's an actor, not "The Boy Who Lived". Equus, in my opinion, is an amazing play that reveals a dark side to human nature, and an even bleaker facet of the teenage psyche. It's compelling, disturbing and powerful material, and if he can handle it, why shouldn't he? In reference to the nudity, one of Equus's main themes is sexuality, whether it be with horses or not, and true sexuality = nudity. He's worked hard on that body, and if nothing else, deserves to reap the rewards. This could allow him to drink, smoke, have sex and party the way everyone else his age is doing.

Finally, to all those parents who say their children might see this, it's your fault if you let them, and consider it unsuitable, and Daniel Radcliffe doesn't exist solely to create a shining example for your kids,so that you don't have to. He's human too, and has just as much a right NOT to be a role model to the tweens of the world as you do.

He's taking a huge risk in doing this, and is likely to know that it will make or break his future career. This is a brave move, and he should be applauded, not attacked for leaping into the unknown.

P.S. He was never that good a Harry Potter (whose situations seem to outshine Harry's personality) anyway, but who really could be? In truth, the character is good but not gripping. I just reckon JK Rowling has a funny idea of what a teenager generally acts like...

Katherine said...

I totally and completely agree with alomst everygthing Kathryn said. He cannot be Harry Potter forever. I say at 17 it would almost be expected of him to move beyond that image. He is an actor. If he were to forever be known as the skinny bespectacled wizard, he would get nowhere in his acting career. If actors did not expand their horizons, they would just be another movie star. And yes, there is a difference. John Wayne was a movie star, he always played the good guy. If Daniel pulls this off, he will be a true actor.

However, Kathryn stated that sexuality = nudity. I find fault in that statement. Sexuality is more than just being naked. It is a beautiful, wonderful gift God gave us. It is part of us as humans. It is as good as any art. If Daniel wants to be a part of that art, I say go for it. I have nothing but respect for him. Good luck.

Katherine said...

Also, as a 14-year-old girl, I have to admit, Daniel is built. I give him props on his new bod that I certainly didn't see in Harry Potter.

Anonymous said...

I'm a theatre major and I've seen a lot of plays. There are some roles better played in the nude, because that is how the playwrite wrote it and how the director envisioned it. I say, if he's comfortable enough with his own body to do that in front of an audience, then good for him. Daniel is trying to make a name for himself(other than Harry Potter), not try to make himself a porn star. So everyone that is freaking out about a naked male body on a 17-year-old ACTOR...chill out!!

Anonymous said...

i don't know what most of you are afraid of. sure, children love harry potter but if you're a good parent you won't let your kids see this play, right? i find radcliffe's choice in this role to be interesting and am personally excited to see the play. i live in the U.S. and am flying halfway across the world to see it. i'm not very into the new body he's made for himself, but it's harry potter NAKED. now how can you pass that up?

Anonymous said...

Reading some of these comments has just made me laugh. it's the 21st century for god's sake. Personally, I think Daniel Radcliffe was crap in all the Harry Potter films. I know he's young but still, I don't rate him. I do have the upmost respect for him though. If he can pull off this role in Equus he'll have opened up a whole new set of boundaries for him to break through. Who cares if he's nude?!?! That is what the play requires. At Drama college students are often required to do whole classes in the nude. It's part of the actors world, being comfortable with one's body. Daniel looks amazing and if he can do the acting side of things I say good on him for shunning all the stupid comments people have said about him. Good luck, Dan!

Cylee said...

I'm an actor and I love posing nude. Do it Daniel! I might even go to watch your preformance.

Matt said...

Equus is a fantastic script about the pscyhology of a young man. The show is artful, and the nudity in it exists for a reason. It's an artistic choice on behalf of directors and actors.

Daniel's choice to be in this show is not a Godforsaken mistake that he'll regret in years - it's a job that he's using to develop himself as a young performer. The last things on his mind should be the "children who look up to him" and the overprotective mommies who think that human bodies are offensive. (I mean obviously if someone has a body it is because there is obscene sexual content involved. Obviously!)

Even if children do look up to him... so fricking what? They'll all decide that they need to.. start taking off their clothes in public? They'll stop liking him? They'll start thinking about him as a human being and not a witch? Let the guy do his job.

M.

Deb said...

But why does he have to be /nude/ ? I don't understand it at all...

Mephy said...

From what I have been reading both from interviews of Daniel Radcliffe and from commentaries of the play, it seems like if the nudity issue is entirely justified. Radcliffe stated in one of his interviews that since it (the nudity) was in the script, he felt it was necessary. Later he also stated that being nude actually helped him achieve the vulnerability described. Thus I somehow find myself astonished at the fact that people are able to feel horrified at the fact that Radcliffe will be naked on stage.

Somehow there is a problem here. Either they don't understand the concept of modern theatre (and therefore of 'Equus'). Or they don't quite grasp the concept of acting.

Modern theatre (or modern dance for that matter) often incorporate nudity to shock, to drive a point in. It is never for pure pornographic reasons. Therefore when Radcliffe 'bares all' in March 07, it will be to emphasize Strang's characterisic vulnerability and not simply to show off his physique.

Now some people seem to be unaware that no matter how much they may wish it, Radcliffe is not Harry Potter. He happens to be a 17 year old actor who had the dubious honour of becoming the face of an icon. His role in 'Equus', I believe, shows Radcliffe's determination to seperate himself from Harry Potter in the eyes of his older fans. I must admit that I admire his move since Strang is not an easy character - I mean he is completely psychotic and madness, or barely controlled madness, is never easy to act.

I say 'Good Luck' because he will need it. But I also say 'Bravo' because he deserves it. It seems that the round faced boy we all learned to love back in 2001 is really starting to grow up.

Anonymous said...

Why is everyone bashing this poor young man for wanting to break out of his "Harry Potter" role? All of these over critical mothers here keep crying that it'll destroy the image young children and teens have for him... well guess what, this probably isn't a play that you're eleven year old daughter should be seeing anyway, so what's the big deal?

Why should young Radcliffe, or any of the other talented actors/actresses in this series be condemned to a life of only being remembered as 'those cute little child actors in that wonderful Harry Potter series that my family loves so much' for the rest of their lives?

We've seen so many child stars get dismissed from the industry as they grew older simply because of the stigma that child actors are so often stereotyped with because of their previous ootsy-cutesy roles. Directors and producers tend to shy away from these kids-grown-adults because they, too, also realize that the general public will no doubt be too narrow minded to be able to accept these actors in new, inspiring roles that could undoubtedly rejump their careers... and so alas, many are never even given the chance to shine again in what they love doing the most - acting!

I don't even watch these movies, but I've seen how much all of the characters have grown and matured throughout the past few years... why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same in real life? Who are you to judge this actor for trying to break out in new roles and try something creative? How many times have you tried to change your image, personal goals, and beliefs in your lifetime? Were you ever ridiculed for it? If so, (which we all are at some point) then you definately shouldn't be judging him.

Let the man, yes, I said man, (because despite all your attempts to keep your beloved Harry Potter the tiny, cute, cuddly, and innocent boy we've all grown to love,) do what he wants. He's old enough to make his own career decisions. He has officially grown up, (to every weeping mother's dismay) whether you like it or not.

So let your kids read the books, and if your kids are teens, let them oogle over his magazine covers. And if you don't think it's appropriate for your kids to see their fantasy idol in the buff, then don't fricken show it to them! And if they do see it, or even pictures of it, maybe their nostalgic images of their 'Hogwart Hero' may be dampered a little. Guess what, that's called 'growing up.' Everyone goes through it, and realizes that maybe the person they admire most in life isn't as perfect as they once thought. It's called reality. It happens.

But maybe not... who's to say that this won't boost the sales of the books? From what I've seen of the pictures, Daniel has nothing to be ashamed of. He's an amazing actor who was lucky enough to retain his good looks and grow out of his boyish goofiness. Hell, after seeing these, I may even go out and get the books! (insert joke here).

Everyone has to grow up sometime, people. Didn't your mom ever teach you that your little hamsters and kittens won't stay little forever? He's going to make mistakes, lose some teeny-bobber idol worshipers along the way, and actually have a life. Maybe we should all get one too and let this stupid issue rest. It's really not that big of a deal.

Just my two cents.

Ali said...

I'm 13 year old girl, and a big fan of the harry potter series. I think the back lash that Daniel radcliffe is recieving from you people is absolutely disgusting. So what if he is 17? It's a very intense and psychological play. It's a classic and if you cut out the nude scene it would'nt be same would it? Someone had to play it and i think they could'nt have found a better person. Daniel is'nt going to be able to play harry potter for ever is he? It's just a bit of skin so get over it and you worry about hes simulating a sex scene so he's not actually having sex on stage is he? I think you should just leave the poor boy alone (or should I say man judging by the pictures)and let him do the play your not his parents are you? If you lot disagree with it so much don't see the play then simple as that. Personally i would see it if i was old enough.

Alex said...

JESUS open your minds! Innocent little Harry Potter? HE GREW UP! he's an adult who wants a career of value. you're dooming him to a lifetime of being tied to a children's series if you look at it this way. Equus in an intense but incredible show. The nudity is used to psychologically disturb you to the point that you confront your own psyche, it is not gratuitous masturbation. Radcliffe has no responsibilities to your children and Shaffer has no responsibilities to make art 'comfortable'. that's not the purpose! it's exciting and pulsating and honest and mind-bending. get lives.

Therese said...

Statements such as, 'I'm ashamed of Harry Potter,' and 'He's giving our children a bad example', show that the people making them don't see Daniel Radcliffe as an individual who can make his own choices, but as a character who must sacrifice his own personality so as to be a role model for young children. Daniel Radcliffe is not Harry Potter. Harry Potter is a fictitious character, and Daniel shouldn't have to put up with parents telling him that he is 'a bad role model'. Parents are reponsible for what their children watch. It's not up to the actors to act only roles that are suitable for children, it's up to parents to ensure that their children are only allowed to watch suitable programs.

Anonymous said...

huh?
Well i dont see why he needs to be nude on stage. there are plenty of other plays that are far more well known. How can you try to be taken seriously when you know half the people like the peformance because of your body? it makes no sense.

And to the people who say it is part of the ART, well thats sort of crazy because if no one cares about that other than the artistic symbolizm, then why would there be anyone upset?
Clearly people today are a little more refined than those who wrote the plays and know how to express themes without using nudity.

Furthermore, Dan knows that he could have picked a different play.
YOU THINK HE DID THIS BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE FOR THE THEATER? BECAUSE HE WANTS TO SHOW EVERYONE HE IS A MAN, AND READY FOR MATURE ROLES? NO.

His acting sort of blows anyways.
If he wasnt everyones image of HP no one would know him.

Anyways people who are so stupid as to not go to the HP films, well, lets just say that HP is too great of a story to miss out on.

Would anyone regret loving star wars if you were told Chewbaka had a sex scene in some play? Would he not then be everyones fav character? Its a dishonor to JKR if anyone misses a movie. Come ON.
I wouldnt care if he got fired, but i realize its too late.

Personally I think Dan knows too and thats his reason, to show he can play other roles. And thats fine. But just not theater performance of a nude scene.
Do a really good Romeo or better yet, forget theater and make a comedy.

I would perfer if he stuck with HP.

They better stick directly to the storyline in HP6.

Anonymous said...

I also agree with Terese.

Dan is not HP.
Dan is a bad actor who looks like HP, and should be treated so.

But no one should not see the movies. How does that help?

Thats like saying, Im not gonna participate in the 4th of July cuz fireworks are made in China, a communist country. Besides the fact that its unreasonable, because that is such a far stretch, its a waste because the majority of HP fans will see the Movies anyways without knowing or caring, so the few that boycott really just miss out, making a meaningless statement.

Oh and I almost forgot.
WWJD if he were Dan.
if he were the viewers of the play.
if he was a HP fan (no doubt he is)

cheerleader10 said...

WTF??????? (what the french toast)


why does dan want to put the movies behind him and the horse in front??????
omg ewwwwwwwww he got it on with a horse

wonder what the babies will look like!!!!! lol
did he use a condom??

Anonymous said...

I was just surfing around and ran across this page- I read some of the posts here. One comment...

Is it really worth time to even worry about what an actor is doing? its F***ing acting! It's not reality. Who cares, if you want to, see it. If you like it, recommend it. But why waste space with this talking about it?

As for those who think kids look up to Harry Potter, this guy is NOT Harry Potter. Parents who don't help the children learn the diffrerence between reality and fantasy should be worried about THAT and not that an actor takes his clothes off.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...