When my friend told me it was a play about a naked man who fell in love with a horse, of course, i laughed and thought it was wierd, but that's because yeah, it sounded wierd, but f you really look at it, it's almost phenomenal *--*
I just watched this in my College English class, and I was very disturbed by it. It is not that I did not like it, I just think the horse scene at the end might have been to much. Great acting by Richard Burton and everybody else. I was just waiting to see Jill naked because she was hot.
@BusterBunker Good to know you have your priorities straight.
You might want to ask why Strang blinds the horse, and perhaps more importantly what the horse represents to him. Maybe then you can decide whether you think there was a purpose behind such a disturbing scene and whether or not you think it was an action that was in character. In understanding a screenplay or stageplay - particularly for examination purposes - getting to the heart of the characters is absolutely imperative.
@ChocolateFrogPrince All of the story is described and driven by action and inaction - what the characters do and say - and behind all of that are needs, wants and motivations. What is it that each action or speech or exchange is intended to achieve? What does each character desire as the intended outcome? Do they get that? These don't have to be conscious either. Many things are subconscious and the best writers understand this about people which is why the best drama is so 3 dimensional.
@ChocolateFrogPrince You don't have to like something to appreciate it. Let's be honest, Equus is not a likeable story. It is supposed to be profoundly and deeply shocking. It examines some fo the darkest urges and impulses of a mind that does not conform to our accepted norms. To really grasp that, and to understand what the playwright intended you may have to think completely outside your comfort zone. That's no bad thing.
@ChocolateFrogPrince The broader and more open your mind the more likely you are to see things. Don't be frightened to look further and don't be led or limited by the prevailing thoughts and opinions of your peer group. Really ask the questions: What does this person need/want from this? What is their objective? What are they trying to achieve? And, most importantly, WHY? Then decide what that says about them.
It's just movie. To start, we went over the movie very thoroughly in class. In the end, Dr. Dysart took a passion away from Alan. Dr. Dysart's life was boring and his marriage was not good. Dr. Dysart envied Alan's life. With all due respect, I found the particular horse scene at the end of the movie disturbing. In the stage play, it's not like that at all. Alan worshiped the horses because of the suffering they endured for humans like Jesus.
@BusterBunker You could say"it's just a..." about anything. However you are missing one important point. The movie was adapted for screen by the original playwright and he worked in close proximity with the director so the vision was never compromised. There is a fundamental difference between what is achievable on screen and on stage. On stage productions must use imagery for the horse scene.
@ChocolateFrogPrince For one thing as it is impossible to achieve that level of graphic mutilation on stage with animals. Even having an animal on stage especially one the size of a horse is impractical. To then impart any kind of illusionary sfx to even a highly trained animal of any size is beyond most companies' budget, scope and ability. Some directors choose to heavily cut that scene for practicality's sake. The alternative is not to stage the play.
Respond to this video... There are many other things you must take into account when examining any production and how different directors and actors choose to interpret them in different media is hugely important. However, having a piece on film written by the original playwright and directed by someone who is working together with that writer is significant. Unless the stageplay you saw was similarly blessed then the original vision must take precedence.
Respond to this video... It is my experience that those who use the phrase "with respect" mean anything but. So while I appreciate your Clift Notes interpretations of Strang's and Dysart's intentions, you might wasnt to think a little deeper before you start throwing a "well actually..." attitude around.
@ChocolateFrogPrince You might also consider that someone someone who has both professional and academic experience of examining and interpreting productions for stage and screen taking the time to offer you a little advice might not appreciate being addressed in such a discourteous fashion. Manners cost nothing, and the safety of a keyboard is in no way an excuse for using bad ones I'll discuss and debate with anyone but I won't brook rudeness. .
@ChocolateFrogPrince With respect, your classroom examination and interpretation of Dysart and Strang is limited and very narrow in scope and horizon. Their motivations and driving impulses are far more complex than you have expressed, and the graphic nature of the mutilation scene is necessary to properly illustrate the depth of Strang's psychosis, his internal conflicts, his darkest facets. It is supposed to horrify, shock and repulse, but it does so with real meaning and not just for effect.
@ChocolateFrogPrince Your job as an academic is to decide why this scene was presented as it is and to understand it's aims and focus. Your personal preferences, likes and dislikes are completely immaterial UNLESS you are specifically asked for them.
Consider this. Your disgust was exactly what the writer and director intened.
Hello. I was simply going to give gratitude for your posting this video with a description that asserts a true intelligence about the subject as well a bit of humour I found placed not so far beneath the surface that rises & points to an unarguable truth. Now - after reading these comments & your responses - I believe you deserve to be commended for the same illumination & humour as well as a patience that I certainly couldn't call upon. Thank you for more than I originally expected. Sincerely.
@ChocolateFrogPrince I should also point out that the more i read on messageboards and forums the more i am reminded of something uttered by Rory Gilmore I paraphrase:
"I have been googling... it has not always been a pleasant journey. People are freaks."[sic]
@dustymew because exploring the darker side of the human psyche is just as important as kittens and rainbows and dull derivative teen angst dramas with too many fangs, too few clothes, and absolutely no attention to silly little details like plot, theme, structure, characterisation or a script.
@ChocolateFrogPrince human psyche? no. a story of a boy who likes to have sex with horses, and dig out eyeballs is not a story with 'plot theme, structure, characterisation or script', its just plain messed up. the fact that some nutjob a long time ago said 'hmm..I want to write a book about some mentally child who has relations with a horse' is sad. I'm not even sure this is a play! Its some dark twisted humor that certain people 'enjoy'. This stuff? is just plain disgusting.
@dustymew its not about having sex with a horse, all it's about is the psychiatrist finding out that he wishes he had a passion in life as strong as the boy has for horses. I'm pretty sure you've never read this haha
I watched the movie, and I aint gonna like it is the WEIRDEST horse movie I had ever seen in my life, there were definetly scenes in which I said "What the HELL am I watching?!?!" but a weird movie isnt nessicarily a bad one.It really delves deep inside how religious upbrining,confusion and animal fascination can affect the human psyche. If it wasnt for a few innapropriate scenes, I'd say this movie would be PERFECT for a psychology class.
@ChocolateFrogPrince Its just that the movie has sex in it and I don't think that teens (even 18 year olds) would be able to handle it without making sex jokes. and I'm talking about psychology being a high school elective class.
@fraroc Well it wasn't written or produced for immature prepubescents or highschoolers with pretensions to Freud and Jung.
Perhaps those who cannot handle it without making sex jokes should limit themselves to Seseme Street till they bloody well grow up and the rest should embrace the challenge of understanding and interpreting something a bit more troublesome than playground romantic angst
@ChocolateFrogPrince All I got to say is, I watched the movie. And I viewed it not as a beastiality/smut film, it was a deep psycological drama And I liked and appreciated it.
@alexko1164825Agreed. Present Hollwood is in a creative ditch. They ruin all the classic films (some not even classic) with horrid remakes. The studios are run by brainless frat boys.
I find this to be rather ridiculous. It seems designed to shock, and will go to absurd lengths to achieve that effect. Mom's a religious fanatic, Dad isn't, and from this conflict we're to believe that the kid would turn into a raving psychotic, substituting horse love for Jesus love and sexual love. I would like to see the Monty Python version or the Woody Allen version, if there is one.
I should imagine so. Bear in mind it is over 30 years old so you may not find it on the shelf in your local blockbuster, but I'm sure that, if you were to ask, they could order it. It's still widely circulated
Such mixed feelings on this....I love this film and in terms of acting it's definitely superior to a lot of the stage casts. But you really lose something in such a realistic translation, especially the real horses-- the surrealism of the stage version is very much a part of its power.
It's a different way of telling the same story. Stage and screen must differ, and I would agree that in a less graphic and more stylised stage interpretation you are forced to do far more of the work yourself, but, and it's a big but, it's a rare opportunity to see such a huge array of talent directed by such an illuminary with the cooperation and input of the writer. It's common to debate the "writer's intentions" but there can't be many arguments when the evidence is staring one in the face.
Bear in mind also the era which made the film far less graphic than it might have been and be grateful no one has considered a blasted remake. God forbid they should ever butcher this as they did Pelham, 3:10 to Yuma, or Rear Window.
Given the content of modern horror flicks such as the Saw franchise and the widespread crossover of pornography into mainstream - from "performers such as Tera Patrick and Traci Lords being brought into mainstream TV and film and regular actors performing explicit material [Intimacy, 9Songs and Brown Bunny spring to mind] I'd beg to differ.
We only think of the seventies as the "anything goes" decade because they were breaking the mould.
Back then people queued around the block to see deep throat. Now people like Paris Hilton turn it into a career.
If someone with real imagination took on Equus today the far more lenient censorship laws would allow for the kinds of things that would make audiences gasp, gag or both. Peronally I'd like to see it done in such a way that audiences would leave unable to sleep for weeks.
Sir Peter Shaffer was appalled by the stabbing scene, saying that Lumet directed it like the shower scene in Psycho. No way would a modern remake have so much full frontal male nudity either.
Since neither Shaffer not Lumet would be likely to be involved, the point is moot. As for the nudity issue, once again I refer you to examples such as 9 Songs, Intimacy and Brown Bunny. If a mainstream film can show a man being felated, showing him in a flacid state is no big deal. The recent Cohen comedy Bruno had a long scene involving a manicured member. Then there's Walk Hard, Forgetting Sarah Marshal and Superbad, to name just a few more.
Without wishing to be rude, your notions regardng nudity are based on 1980's cinematic values that don't really hold up today, and your points regarding shaffer and lumet, while relevant to the original, would likely not apply to any modern remake.
Oh, God, I wanted to watch this film for such a long time! Quite interesting. But I'm looking for theatrical versions even more...
I heard that even McCowen and Anthony Hopkins played the same role as Burton on stage in the '70s, right?
And making all this fuss about Daniel Radcliffe...He wasn't the only one to play Strang nowadays. Randy Harrison did the same, in 2004. And I've heard only good critics.
Alec McCowen and Peter Firth were in the original London production in 1973, then it transferred to Broadway with Firth and Anthony Hopkins in 1974. Anthony Perkins and Tom Hulce took over. Richard Burton played Dysart on Broadway in 1976, his first stage role in 12 years.
It was based on a real incident in Yorkshire in the late 1960s. Did you watch the film? Many people believed it was an allegory for homosexuality, since the playwright Sir Peter Shaffer is gay in real life.
Jesadaporn, here's the story line : A psychiatrist (Richard Burton) investigates the savage blinding of six horses with a metal spike in a stable in Hampshire, England. The atrocity was committed by an unassuming seventeen-year-old stable boy named Alan Strang (Peter Firth), the only son of an opinionated but inwardly-timid father (Colin Blakely) and a genteel, religious mother (Joan Plowright). As Dysart exposes the truths behind the boy's demons, he finds himself face-to-face with his own.
Thanks for posting this. I don't think people have forgotten about the film. Those who don't know of it only have to Google it. This may be the definitive version for some people. For me, stage productions & films are like 2 separate art forms, so I agree it's kinda hard to try and compare the two and say one is better than the other. Some people may like the stage version with Firth more--When you see something live, it's just so different from watching something on a film screen.
Not to mention, in accordance with ChocolteFrogPrince's arguments, both Firth and Burton did appear in these roles on stage... I think they pretty much win... sorry...
Thwe film was made in 1977 and was a joint prodction by the play's writer who adapted his work for the screen, and a director acknowledged as one of the best of all time. The film won several awards and Richard Burton - playing Dysart - was Oscar nominate.
Please stop commening until you actually know what you are talking about.
And you have no maners and less education. This film predated te stage productions you have seen by twenty years. and since they are the product of the original writer, I don't think any more need be said.
Firstly you say that Peter Firth is too old to play Alan Strang, but yo have either forgotten, chosen to ignore, or are completey unaware of the fact that Peter Shaffer - who adapted the screenplay from his own original work - and Sidney Lumet - who directed the flm - worked very closely together and made decisions jointly with regards casting.I would venture to suggest that the author of a work is far more able to judge who is right for a part given that it is his vision.
Secondly, not only have I seen both productions and both actors, I've worked in theatre and film production for more than 20 years, and I'm fairly certain I know what I am talking about. This is Shafr's screenplay of his own stage work. Firth was his choice of actor to play Strang.
Radclife was cast in the revival because he bought the Harry Potter following with him. They wanted a vehicle for him that would give him acting credentials. Allen was cast for not dissimilar reasons.
Whilst I appreciate that you have an opinion, since the original casing met with the approval of the writer of both play and film it would appear that, rather than have the arrogance to suppose that you know better than the author, you might revise your own opinions in respect of that man's work, and intent and accept that the casting of the 2007/8 play revivals was not a reflection of the author's vision, but in all likelihood a financil and strategic move by the producers.
I found both Radcliffe and Allen lacking on several levels, and while that will suurely invite a chorus of scorn from fans of boy wizards, the Sherrif of Nottingham and bad pop muzak, it doesn't alter the fact that neither of those boys is strong enough yet to carry of the depth and complxity of a character like Strang.
They both still swim in emotionally shallow waters.
i don't think you can compare and film to a play, they are so different. i saw the alfie allen last night whilst i was at work, the play was INCREDIBLE! and i have to say, and play is a lot more powerful than any film version could be!
Well it's different media for one thing, and a different era for another. Cast, ccrew and director are different also. But shaffer's play is intact - don't forget he wrote the screenplay as well and won an oscar for the adaptation - so it does bear some comparison. I was unconvinced by Radcliffe and I am not a fan of Alfie Allen. They have a tough act to follow in Peter Firth, and, to my mind, neither is in that class. And Callow? Great actor on form, but he hams up too often for my tatste.
In all honesty I think the film blows both these incarnations of the stage play away. It's a matter of preference of course, but even in a work that is obviously from the 70s, Richard Burton is absolutely stellar.
the movie showed us through images and sounds a beautiful truth which people did not dare to say in words!
TheStalli0nrider 2 months ago
@TheStalli0nrider Beautiful...?
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 months ago
When my friend told me it was a play about a naked man who fell in love with a horse, of course, i laughed and thought it was wierd, but that's because yeah, it sounded wierd, but f you really look at it, it's almost phenomenal *--*
ILoveBlackMetal100 2 months ago
@ILoveBlackMetal100 To be fair it's about a little more than that....
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince i know, i was talking about the play, the whole thing.
ILoveBlackMetal100 2 months ago
@ILoveBlackMetal100 Yep. Me too.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince well everyone has their own opinions
ILoveBlackMetal100 2 months ago
@ILoveBlackMetal100 And occasionally one of them has validity
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince correct
ILoveBlackMetal100 2 months ago
@ILoveBlackMetal100 Usually
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 months ago
Was Sarah Jessica Parker nominated for anything for this amazing performance.
poopmastaunlimited 3 months ago
@poopmastaunlimited haha, sorry, i couldn't see what i was tiping.. and yes i suck at English, i'm from amsterdam...
irdghlzeiurghlui 2 months ago
oke, wait..... sooo he loves a nonn excisting horce? 0_o
irdghlzeiurghlui 3 months ago
@irdghlzeiurghlui Please tell me that English is not your first language.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
I just watched this in my College English class, and I was very disturbed by it. It is not that I did not like it, I just think the horse scene at the end might have been to much. Great acting by Richard Burton and everybody else. I was just waiting to see Jill naked because she was hot.
BusterBunker 3 months ago
@BusterBunker Good to know you have your priorities straight.
You might want to ask why Strang blinds the horse, and perhaps more importantly what the horse represents to him. Maybe then you can decide whether you think there was a purpose behind such a disturbing scene and whether or not you think it was an action that was in character. In understanding a screenplay or stageplay - particularly for examination purposes - getting to the heart of the characters is absolutely imperative.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince All of the story is described and driven by action and inaction - what the characters do and say - and behind all of that are needs, wants and motivations. What is it that each action or speech or exchange is intended to achieve? What does each character desire as the intended outcome? Do they get that? These don't have to be conscious either. Many things are subconscious and the best writers understand this about people which is why the best drama is so 3 dimensional.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince You don't have to like something to appreciate it. Let's be honest, Equus is not a likeable story. It is supposed to be profoundly and deeply shocking. It examines some fo the darkest urges and impulses of a mind that does not conform to our accepted norms. To really grasp that, and to understand what the playwright intended you may have to think completely outside your comfort zone. That's no bad thing.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince The broader and more open your mind the more likely you are to see things. Don't be frightened to look further and don't be led or limited by the prevailing thoughts and opinions of your peer group. Really ask the questions: What does this person need/want from this? What is their objective? What are they trying to achieve? And, most importantly, WHY? Then decide what that says about them.
Good luck with your course.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
It's just movie. To start, we went over the movie very thoroughly in class. In the end, Dr. Dysart took a passion away from Alan. Dr. Dysart's life was boring and his marriage was not good. Dr. Dysart envied Alan's life. With all due respect, I found the particular horse scene at the end of the movie disturbing. In the stage play, it's not like that at all. Alan worshiped the horses because of the suffering they endured for humans like Jesus.
BusterBunker 3 months ago
@BusterBunker You could say"it's just a..." about anything. However you are missing one important point. The movie was adapted for screen by the original playwright and he worked in close proximity with the director so the vision was never compromised. There is a fundamental difference between what is achievable on screen and on stage. On stage productions must use imagery for the horse scene.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince For one thing as it is impossible to achieve that level of graphic mutilation on stage with animals. Even having an animal on stage especially one the size of a horse is impractical. To then impart any kind of illusionary sfx to even a highly trained animal of any size is beyond most companies' budget, scope and ability. Some directors choose to heavily cut that scene for practicality's sake. The alternative is not to stage the play.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
Respond to this video... There are many other things you must take into account when examining any production and how different directors and actors choose to interpret them in different media is hugely important. However, having a piece on film written by the original playwright and directed by someone who is working together with that writer is significant. Unless the stageplay you saw was similarly blessed then the original vision must take precedence.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
Respond to this video... It is my experience that those who use the phrase "with respect" mean anything but. So while I appreciate your Clift Notes interpretations of Strang's and Dysart's intentions, you might wasnt to think a little deeper before you start throwing a "well actually..." attitude around.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince You might also consider that someone someone who has both professional and academic experience of examining and interpreting productions for stage and screen taking the time to offer you a little advice might not appreciate being addressed in such a discourteous fashion. Manners cost nothing, and the safety of a keyboard is in no way an excuse for using bad ones I'll discuss and debate with anyone but I won't brook rudeness. .
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince With respect, your classroom examination and interpretation of Dysart and Strang is limited and very narrow in scope and horizon. Their motivations and driving impulses are far more complex than you have expressed, and the graphic nature of the mutilation scene is necessary to properly illustrate the depth of Strang's psychosis, his internal conflicts, his darkest facets. It is supposed to horrify, shock and repulse, but it does so with real meaning and not just for effect.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince Your job as an academic is to decide why this scene was presented as it is and to understand it's aims and focus. Your personal preferences, likes and dislikes are completely immaterial UNLESS you are specifically asked for them.
Consider this. Your disgust was exactly what the writer and director intened.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 months ago
Hello. I was simply going to give gratitude for your posting this video with a description that asserts a true intelligence about the subject as well a bit of humour I found placed not so far beneath the surface that rises & points to an unarguable truth. Now - after reading these comments & your responses - I believe you deserve to be commended for the same illumination & humour as well as a patience that I certainly couldn't call upon. Thank you for more than I originally expected. Sincerely.
777elfe777 6 months ago
@777elfe777 You're very welcome
ChocolateFrogPrince 6 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince I should also point out that the more i read on messageboards and forums the more i am reminded of something uttered by Rory Gilmore I paraphrase:
"I have been googling... it has not always been a pleasant journey. People are freaks."[sic]
ChocolateFrogPrince 6 months ago
why in hell would someone want to make a movie like this?!
dustymew 6 months ago
@dustymew because exploring the darker side of the human psyche is just as important as kittens and rainbows and dull derivative teen angst dramas with too many fangs, too few clothes, and absolutely no attention to silly little details like plot, theme, structure, characterisation or a script.
ChocolateFrogPrince 6 months ago 2
@ChocolateFrogPrince human psyche? no. a story of a boy who likes to have sex with horses, and dig out eyeballs is not a story with 'plot theme, structure, characterisation or script', its just plain messed up. the fact that some nutjob a long time ago said 'hmm..I want to write a book about some mentally child who has relations with a horse' is sad. I'm not even sure this is a play! Its some dark twisted humor that certain people 'enjoy'. This stuff? is just plain disgusting.
dustymew 6 months ago
@dustymew Wow. That's really profound. It changed my life. I'm going to have to think about that for a really long long long long long long long
ChocolateFrogPrince 6 months ago
@dustymew its not about having sex with a horse, all it's about is the psychiatrist finding out that he wishes he had a passion in life as strong as the boy has for horses. I'm pretty sure you've never read this haha
MrCmurphy2994 5 months ago
I watched the movie, and I aint gonna like it is the WEIRDEST horse movie I had ever seen in my life, there were definetly scenes in which I said "What the HELL am I watching?!?!" but a weird movie isnt nessicarily a bad one.It really delves deep inside how religious upbrining,confusion and animal fascination can affect the human psyche. If it wasnt for a few innapropriate scenes, I'd say this movie would be PERFECT for a psychology class.
fraroc 7 months ago
@fraroc Given the scope of human depravity what exactly qualifies as "inappropriate" for a psychological study of a malformed psyche?
And try not to forget, there are no jokes in the mental health field. Only ink blots, hand puppets and inflatable anger bats
ChocolateFrogPrince 7 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince Its just that the movie has sex in it and I don't think that teens (even 18 year olds) would be able to handle it without making sex jokes. and I'm talking about psychology being a high school elective class.
fraroc 7 months ago
@fraroc Well it wasn't written or produced for immature prepubescents or highschoolers with pretensions to Freud and Jung.
Perhaps those who cannot handle it without making sex jokes should limit themselves to Seseme Street till they bloody well grow up and the rest should embrace the challenge of understanding and interpreting something a bit more troublesome than playground romantic angst
ChocolateFrogPrince 7 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince All I got to say is, I watched the movie. And I viewed it not as a beastiality/smut film, it was a deep psycological drama And I liked and appreciated it.
fraroc 7 months ago
@fraroc Which rather beggars the question "What is your point?"
ChocolateFrogPrince 6 months ago
I'm probably the only Homestuck fan laughing my ass off with this.
RandomKPluver 8 months ago
where's harry potter?
cheaterbaki 8 months ago
@cheaterbaki Where he belongs?
ChocolateFrogPrince 8 months ago 6
Maybe he's just looking for a STABLE relationship ;) Hell to the yeah!
pitfa1 10 months ago 26
@pitfa1 *snigger*
ChocolateFrogPrince 10 months ago
@ChocolateFrogPrince in the description it says daniel radcliffe
cheaterbaki 8 months ago
@cheaterbaki Wow. Comprehension not big at your school, no?
I should go back and have a re-read if I were you...
ChocolateFrogPrince 8 months ago
@alexko1164825Agreed. Present Hollwood is in a creative ditch. They ruin all the classic films (some not even classic) with horrid remakes. The studios are run by brainless frat boys.
KellyGreen5555 11 months ago
I still marvel that Richard Dreyfuss won the Best Actor Oscar for The Goodbye Girl in 1977.
It should've been a battle between Richard Burton in Equus and John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. The Academy rarely gets it right.
KellyGreen5555 11 months ago
@RichardElden Oh, okay. Now it's all clear to me.
goback3spaces 11 months ago
I find this to be rather ridiculous. It seems designed to shock, and will go to absurd lengths to achieve that effect. Mom's a religious fanatic, Dad isn't, and from this conflict we're to believe that the kid would turn into a raving psychotic, substituting horse love for Jesus love and sexual love. I would like to see the Monty Python version or the Woody Allen version, if there is one.
goback3spaces 11 months ago
O_o
rubinoos1 1 year ago
Did he have an orgasm from riding the horse naked??
Bec66425 1 year ago
weird......
StaroftheSea136 1 year ago
@StrictlyForADULTS It's pretty funny that he died early.
JuanMacready 1 year ago
A remake might be more successful than the original.
JuanMacready 2 years ago
Marlon Brando would have been better as Dysart.
FrankClanton 2 years ago 3
I won't lie, I just watched this vid and I'm curious. Is this movie in circulation? Can I rent/but it from somewhere else besides Amazon?
darkb4lightt 2 years ago
I should imagine so. Bear in mind it is over 30 years old so you may not find it on the shelf in your local blockbuster, but I'm sure that, if you were to ask, they could order it. It's still widely circulated
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
Such mixed feelings on this....I love this film and in terms of acting it's definitely superior to a lot of the stage casts. But you really lose something in such a realistic translation, especially the real horses-- the surrealism of the stage version is very much a part of its power.
Seiran79 2 years ago
It's a different way of telling the same story. Stage and screen must differ, and I would agree that in a less graphic and more stylised stage interpretation you are forced to do far more of the work yourself, but, and it's a big but, it's a rare opportunity to see such a huge array of talent directed by such an illuminary with the cooperation and input of the writer. It's common to debate the "writer's intentions" but there can't be many arguments when the evidence is staring one in the face.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
Bear in mind also the era which made the film far less graphic than it might have been and be grateful no one has considered a blasted remake. God forbid they should ever butcher this as they did Pelham, 3:10 to Yuma, or Rear Window.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
Actually any remake today would be far less graphic because the 1970s was the "anthing goes" decade.
FrankClanton 2 years ago
You think?
Given the content of modern horror flicks such as the Saw franchise and the widespread crossover of pornography into mainstream - from "performers such as Tera Patrick and Traci Lords being brought into mainstream TV and film and regular actors performing explicit material [Intimacy, 9Songs and Brown Bunny spring to mind] I'd beg to differ.
We only think of the seventies as the "anything goes" decade because they were breaking the mould.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
Back then people queued around the block to see deep throat. Now people like Paris Hilton turn it into a career.
If someone with real imagination took on Equus today the far more lenient censorship laws would allow for the kinds of things that would make audiences gasp, gag or both. Peronally I'd like to see it done in such a way that audiences would leave unable to sleep for weeks.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
Sir Peter Shaffer was appalled by the stabbing scene, saying that Lumet directed it like the shower scene in Psycho. No way would a modern remake have so much full frontal male nudity either.
FrankClanton 2 years ago
Since neither Shaffer not Lumet would be likely to be involved, the point is moot. As for the nudity issue, once again I refer you to examples such as 9 Songs, Intimacy and Brown Bunny. If a mainstream film can show a man being felated, showing him in a flacid state is no big deal. The recent Cohen comedy Bruno had a long scene involving a manicured member. Then there's Walk Hard, Forgetting Sarah Marshal and Superbad, to name just a few more.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
Without wishing to be rude, your notions regardng nudity are based on 1980's cinematic values that don't really hold up today, and your points regarding shaffer and lumet, while relevant to the original, would likely not apply to any modern remake.
ChocolateFrogPrince 2 years ago
I absolutely love this film - Firth is amazing in the role.
sadbaby01 2 years ago 25
Yes he should have won the Oscar.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago 2
Oh, God, I wanted to watch this film for such a long time! Quite interesting. But I'm looking for theatrical versions even more...
I heard that even McCowen and Anthony Hopkins played the same role as Burton on stage in the '70s, right?
And making all this fuss about Daniel Radcliffe...He wasn't the only one to play Strang nowadays. Randy Harrison did the same, in 2004. And I've heard only good critics.
Mmh, another version I'd like to check.
robinhaze 2 years ago
Alec McCowen and Peter Firth were in the original London production in 1973, then it transferred to Broadway with Firth and Anthony Hopkins in 1974. Anthony Perkins and Tom Hulce took over. Richard Burton played Dysart on Broadway in 1976, his first stage role in 12 years.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
Comment removed
robinhaze 2 years ago
He killed himself.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
All the money didn't save him from an early death.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
No, it was his problem. Burton was a wooden film actor from The Robe onwards.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
Truly the King of Overacting.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
The movie is notable for the nudity.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
It was based on a real incident in Yorkshire in the late 1960s. Did you watch the film? Many people believed it was an allegory for homosexuality, since the playwright Sir Peter Shaffer is gay in real life.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
How do you mean?
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
I want a horse really bad after seeing this film!!!!!!!
clock655321 2 years ago
The attraction to horses was an allegory for homosexuality. The playwright Sir Peter Shaffer is gay.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
im confused very confused he feel in love with a horse and basically had sex with it.
I am very disturbed. Very.
iluvits 2 years ago 29
He rode the horse until he ejaculated.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
I'll bet you'll be even more disturbed when you discover he likes to stab the horses eyes before he molests them.
Oh yes.
TheEssence12 2 years ago
He stabs the horses in the eyes so that they cannot see him when he lies with a woman.
Equus1965 2 years ago
He stabs the horses in the eyes because they witnessed his humiliation.
DIsillusionedCupOTea 2 years ago
OMG!
iluvits 2 years ago
@iluvits no he does not have sex with the horse-see the film
121avp 1 year ago
The fact that this advert was made in the 1970''s just adds to the creepiness!
patmold 2 years ago
The 1970s were the "anything goes" era.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
is the actor who plays alan from fame?
hipEhannah 2 years ago
He's probably best known now as Sir Harry Pearce in the BBC series Spooks.
PeterFirthFan 2 years ago
i don't really know the line story of this movie. could someone please tell me the story is?
Jesadaporn 2 years ago
Jesadaporn, here's the story line : A psychiatrist (Richard Burton) investigates the savage blinding of six horses with a metal spike in a stable in Hampshire, England. The atrocity was committed by an unassuming seventeen-year-old stable boy named Alan Strang (Peter Firth), the only son of an opinionated but inwardly-timid father (Colin Blakely) and a genteel, religious mother (Joan Plowright). As Dysart exposes the truths behind the boy's demons, he finds himself face-to-face with his own.
hegstad9 2 years ago
but the guy is sexually attracted to horses. O.o fyi.
CaliforniaBlonde000 2 years ago
This is great. One of my favorite films and works of fiction in general.
Hildegarde25 3 years ago 4
i cannot find this movie anywhere. saw the play, but its not oon in london anymore, and i must have read it a million times.
1aura12 3 years ago 2
You can get it from amazon.
ObamaRules4Ever 3 years ago 6
yes ive bought this version from amazon.
bradshawvincent 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this. I don't think people have forgotten about the film. Those who don't know of it only have to Google it. This may be the definitive version for some people. For me, stage productions & films are like 2 separate art forms, so I agree it's kinda hard to try and compare the two and say one is better than the other. Some people may like the stage version with Firth more--When you see something live, it's just so different from watching something on a film screen.
leftygohome 3 years ago 4
Great picture is excellent
ferchopaztek 3 years ago
damn this movie is really disturbing! Great performances by Burton, and Firth. Outstanding direction by Lumet. Great writing, and a haunting score.
CrzyJ1984 3 years ago 3
is this a masterpiece?------anyone could help me to find movies like this?
daniellevandekamp 3 years ago
Mr.Firth had been a regular on the ABC TV kids
comedy show"Here Comes The Double Deckers".
143AC 3 years ago
Not to mention, in accordance with ChocolteFrogPrince's arguments, both Firth and Burton did appear in these roles on stage... I think they pretty much win... sorry...
AnnieDelfman 3 years ago 3
"remaded"
popejimbobiii 3 years ago
great picture - perfect perfomances by Burton, Firth, Plowright & Agutter.
Thanks for posting
DoctorSapperstein 3 years ago
Thwe film was made in 1977 and was a joint prodction by the play's writer who adapted his work for the screen, and a director acknowledged as one of the best of all time. The film won several awards and Richard Burton - playing Dysart - was Oscar nominate.
Please stop commening until you actually know what you are talking about.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 years ago
And you have no maners and less education. This film predated te stage productions you have seen by twenty years. and since they are the product of the original writer, I don't think any more need be said.
I should pipe down now if I were you.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 years ago
A couple of points.
Firstly you say that Peter Firth is too old to play Alan Strang, but yo have either forgotten, chosen to ignore, or are completey unaware of the fact that Peter Shaffer - who adapted the screenplay from his own original work - and Sidney Lumet - who directed the flm - worked very closely together and made decisions jointly with regards casting.I would venture to suggest that the author of a work is far more able to judge who is right for a part given that it is his vision.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 years ago
Secondly, not only have I seen both productions and both actors, I've worked in theatre and film production for more than 20 years, and I'm fairly certain I know what I am talking about. This is Shafr's screenplay of his own stage work. Firth was his choice of actor to play Strang.
Radclife was cast in the revival because he bought the Harry Potter following with him. They wanted a vehicle for him that would give him acting credentials. Allen was cast for not dissimilar reasons.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 years ago
Whilst I appreciate that you have an opinion, since the original casing met with the approval of the writer of both play and film it would appear that, rather than have the arrogance to suppose that you know better than the author, you might revise your own opinions in respect of that man's work, and intent and accept that the casting of the 2007/8 play revivals was not a reflection of the author's vision, but in all likelihood a financil and strategic move by the producers.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 years ago
I found both Radcliffe and Allen lacking on several levels, and while that will suurely invite a chorus of scorn from fans of boy wizards, the Sherrif of Nottingham and bad pop muzak, it doesn't alter the fact that neither of those boys is strong enough yet to carry of the depth and complxity of a character like Strang.
They both still swim in emotionally shallow waters.
ChocolateFrogPrince 3 years ago
Oh how bloody kinky!! lol
ojmccaf1963 3 years ago
i don't think you can compare and film to a play, they are so different. i saw the alfie allen last night whilst i was at work, the play was INCREDIBLE! and i have to say, and play is a lot more powerful than any film version could be!
bananatramp 4 years ago
Well it's different media for one thing, and a different era for another. Cast, ccrew and director are different also. But shaffer's play is intact - don't forget he wrote the screenplay as well and won an oscar for the adaptation - so it does bear some comparison. I was unconvinced by Radcliffe and I am not a fan of Alfie Allen. They have a tough act to follow in Peter Firth, and, to my mind, neither is in that class. And Callow? Great actor on form, but he hams up too often for my tatste.
ChocolateFrogPrince 4 years ago
In all honesty I think the film blows both these incarnations of the stage play away. It's a matter of preference of course, but even in a work that is obviously from the 70s, Richard Burton is absolutely stellar.
ChocolateFrogPrince 4 years ago
Haven't seen movie, but saw play with alfie allen and simon callow last week. it was fantastic! both actors were brilliant. bravo!
sussexlass 4 years ago
That's one opinon. Another is that Alfie Allen is completely overrated and utterly miscast. SC carries him the entire play.
This film is psychologically frightening.
themuddyfoxx 4 years ago 3
Top movie
TegsInvictus 4 years ago 2