Apparently, he’s going to star in a play in which he has a nude scene. Ok. Whatever. I’m not bothered by this.
What I am wondering about is why he’s wearing all that makeup? I’m assuming this photo was taken at a movie premier or something along those lines… What’s with the makeup, Daniel?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/07/28/potter.nude.reut/index.html
He’s 17. My guess would be acne.
“Daniel Radcliffe will star as a psychologically disturbed stable boy.”
Well, which is he? Disturbed or stable? :dubious:
That’s un-freakin’-nerving.
He’s wearing base. And powder. And eyeshadow. And ROUGE. And freakin’ LIPGLOSS.
Daniel Radcliffe does Tammy Faye?
Harry Potter does Equus is possibly the funniest thing I’ve heard in my life, and the clown makeup just adds that extra ‘oog’.
It looks like stage makeup to me.
To star in Equus is quite a role, if he pulls it off it will really be a credit to be proud of. Not an easy or safe choice for a young popular star but it could boost his acting credibility a lot if he does well with it.
Well, I can see a bit of concealer/foundation/powder to hide zits, but all that blush and lipstick? He looks like a two-bit whore.
Ah well. I doubt I’ll ever know the answer. It just struck me as a bit odd.
Upon preview: I’m glad I’m not the only one squicked out by all the makeup.
Yes it does. And to see him like that when he’s not performing is weird. I assume that stage actors wash their faces after the show’s over.
Being fairly uncultured, I have never heard of Equus, but it sounds as though he’ll be able to successfully leave behind the Harry Potter role if he pulls off his new part well. Wouldn’t it suck to be typecast at such an early stage of your career?
I wonder what Hermione and Ron will do next.
I only see base and rouge. I’d guess the base is to hide his acne, and the rouge to make him look less like a corpse. It doesn’t work that well, though. Must be the lighting.
It is definitely stage makeup, which is necessarily somewhat exaggerated since it has to look right from a great distance.
Perhaps this is a good forum to ask what you folk think of his acting. My answer is “not much”, but I know I’m not a good judge, not being a Harry Potter fan and just having watched the first movie and parts of the second. (I only made it through the first book entirely too). anyway, would be interested in other opinions on his acting ability.
It’s been years since I saw the film version of Equus. Can anyone explain what was going on?
I remember that the stableboy liked to frolic nude with the horses and then one day he blinded six of them with a metal spike. Was this ever explained in either the play or movie? Was he doing something sexual with the horse? And wasn’t there a girl involved somewhere?
Allen, the boy, created his own type of religion where he worshipped horses. When he was going to have sex with the girl, he noticed the horses in the stable watching. He became ashamed and blinded them. There’s a lot more, like how he grew up with a deeply religious mother and atheist father, but that’s pretty much the gist of it.
It looks like stage makeup but the Harry Potter standee behind him looks like a premier or something. I think it is just really over done and the flash lights are really harsh.
It actually doesn’t look like he’s wearing all that much–I agree with the bit about the harsh lighting. He’s really really pale by nature, if that helps.
Also, good for him–I hope he makes it. crosses fingers
As you wish.
I think he does fine, but not outstanding, as Harry Potter. But for some reason I can see him doing a great job in this Equus role. I can picture him playing crazy. I guess we’ll see in the next Harry Potter movie, where Harry becomes a bonafide lunatic.
Unless the Equus producers just wanted a ‘name’ and don’t care if he can pull it off (knowing producers, this isn’t unlikely), I hope he had to have some sort of audition with the director to prove he could deliver the goods. He’s still young, and as long as he keeps challenging himself - and meeting those challenges by improving his skills - he could turn out to be a very fine actor. Talent isn’t (necessarily) inborn. It takes work and practice.
And what about the article saying they aren’t sure if Radcliffe can continue playing Harry for the rest of the series, presuming they make #6 & #7? At this point, the main actors in the series are ingrained in fans’ minds, and changing actors for the last couple of movies would be a mistake, I think. As far as age, they are all getting into their upper teens. Rupert Grint (Ron) has already played 14 when he was 17 and did fine, so I don’t think Radcliffe playing 16-17 while he’s 18-20 would be a big issue.
I’ve performed on stage and if you saw me close up, I’d be wearing a lot of makeup too. It’s all so it can be seen from the very back of the audience. I think they just caught him in a bad shot.
Yeah - That’s stage makeup, and if the photo wasn’t taken when he was actively on stage, then it was just after he’d left it.
geez people - if he’d taken to wearing that much makeup around town, don’t you think the headline would’ve read
HARRY POTTER: Goes From Casting Spells to Turning Tricks!
or something similarly salacious?
That’s not the Harry Potter star I want doing nude scenes.
Yeah, I’m with the others about stage makeup - on women at premiers you expect it, but not on the guys. But they kinda have to, because there WILL be pictures being taken, it IS a public appearance, and they have an image to maintain. They just caught a really bad close-up there.
~Tasha