Daniel Radcliffe | London | News | Photography | Theatre

Daniel Radcliffe Equus Promos

Equus1 Equus2

Two months after the release of the charged Equus poster, 17-year-old Daniel Radcliffe has galloped further from his Harry Potter image with a set of salacious promo photos for the West End production.

Considering Radcliffe's age, the photos have sent shock waves out to some loyal Potter fans, although the play's producer David Pugh, had an entirely different reaction: "There was no hesitancy about taking his clothes off - he has a confidence in his own appearance. With the performances that I've witnessed, when that boy takes his shirt off, Harry Potter has flown out of Hogwarts for good. We had never seen Dan with clothes off before. We all went 'wow!'."

You may have missed...
Harry Potter's Daniel Radcliffe, Naked in Equus [tr]

Click to enlarge. One more after the jump...

Equus3 Equus4

Equus5

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. What's Rowling's last book called? "Harry Potter and the Treasure Trail of Doom"?

    Posted by: 24play | Jan 30, 2007 11:11:41 AM


  2. OMG!! Does it make me a pervo to like (really really) those pics? How old is he again?

    Posted by: shane | Jan 30, 2007 11:15:45 AM


  3. Obviously, he no longer wants to be Harry Potter. He's a man now.

    Posted by: JoeInSF | Jan 30, 2007 11:22:52 AM


  4. SHOCK! SCANDAL! HORROR! (or, "Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Treasure Trail?")

    OK, so this bit crystalized a realization in my head and here it is: the meme that the Blogosphere is the long heralded "new way" back to the "old way" of in-depth reporting, speaking truth to power, evading the corporate owner/structure, etc., etc., etc., is complete crap.

    The false outrage, the titillating headlines, the salacious images...all here, 24/7.

    While I doubt that London -- with its 16-year-old age of consent -- is having a complete and utter Lolita moment around these posters, I can be assured that Americans will, and are, right here.

    I am so tired of this lazy and predictable positioning -- I mean, where in the coverage is there any evidence at all that anyone is shocked beyond: 1) parents of a 9-year-old who is probably too young to graps the plot, let alone the appropriate nudity, in the play and 2) the producer who realized that Radcliffe had a nicer body than they thought (he looks garden variety Brit to me -- kinda "muscley/twinky").

    As for the people wondering why Radcliffe's parents would allow him to pose for the posters, all i can say is: 1) because he's of age, 2) because it's entirely appropriate to the play, 3) because he's a successful young actor appearing in one of the better plays of the modern age and they are probably damn proud of him.

    Hardly the stuff of "shock waves."

    Flame me if you like, but I'm beginning to think there's nowhere to turn where I won't be told I'm shocked and scandalized -- and god damn if I don't resent it.

    Posted by: Becks07 | Jan 30, 2007 11:25:49 AM


  5. I'm not sure whether to whinney or woof.

    Posted by: Rascal | Jan 30, 2007 11:29:26 AM


  6. I'm more relieved for the kid that he won't be an awkward looking adult as most grown-up child stars become, and he's eager to move beyond his claim to fame. Kudos to him for taking charge of his career.

    Posted by: burnssuit | Jan 30, 2007 11:32:13 AM


  7. Rascal,

    You get the prize for funniest one-liner on a blog! Congrats. (I did both.)

    Posted by: Jim | Jan 30, 2007 11:39:46 AM


  8. Mark Foley's favorite play!

    Posted by: anon | Jan 30, 2007 11:40:14 AM


  9. ...and suddenly there is a surge of internet hits and Harry Potter rentals from Republican senate offices...

    Posted by: Cory | Jan 30, 2007 11:47:17 AM


  10. I don't know what the problem is. Do fans of Harry Potter not know that the character has a penis?

    Posted by: Patrick | Jan 30, 2007 11:49:34 AM


  11. ... and I have tickets to see this in April! Can't wait...

    Posted by: Richard | Jan 30, 2007 11:53:23 AM


  12. I don't see what's shocking about it. He's posing by a horsey. Big whoop! lol

    And if I'm being a little picky, I'd say that he exhudes no sexuality..or anything at all. Just a blank. I actually wish he was more playful, or less stoik, but he seems kinda repressed which is surprising for an actor his age.

    ps I hope my comments did not ruin it for everyone..again.

    Posted by: Da | Jan 30, 2007 12:09:01 PM


  13. I hardly see anything salacious about the photos above. The only gross indecency going on is more likely the audience members that go to see such a complex play simply to see Mr. Radcliff in the nude. For chrissakes, you'd think this play was the new Lolita or something. It's over 30 years old!

    That being said, Daniel Radcliff has indeed matured into a beautiful young man with the brilliant sense to take on a role that will absolutely, make no mistake, propel him into future roles and guarantee his career longevity. I wonder, does GB have any more Daniels to show us? Three's a charm, you know.

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Jan 30, 2007 12:09:12 PM


  14. To Becks07: Hear! Hear!

    And, due to the lack of typos in your spot on comment, I hereby elect you my official spokesperson.

    I think Mr. Radcliffe looks beautiful, and I'm thankful for any and all advertising featuring the objects of my desire.

    Regarding nudity and life, I think we have the question bass-ackwards. The real question is how appropriate is clothing to a given situation? Nudity is as natural, clothing is anything but. I don't give two hoots about how appropriate the nudity is to the play, I'm in it for the tits.

    I'd end my boycott of air travel to cross the pond and hit it, a lot.

    Posted by: Randy Devil | Jan 30, 2007 12:12:39 PM


  15. To DA:

    'Equus' is about an insane kid who blinds six horses with a metal spike. 'playful' or 'less stoic' wouldn't make sense.

    Posted by: David | Jan 30, 2007 12:20:51 PM


  16. David, he's not showing me crazy either so I dunno...

    Posted by: Da | Jan 30, 2007 12:23:28 PM


  17. Thank you Becks07. I wish Americans would stop assuming that everywhere in the world is run according to US laws.

    In the UK anyone can have sex (gay or otherwise) at 16 and drink alcohol at 18. Okay? Get over it, Yanks.

    Posted by: John C | Jan 30, 2007 12:25:42 PM


  18. Wouldn't Hairy Potter be more like it -- tehe, tehe

    Awfully modelly and clean for a deranged stable boy? Where is all the hot horse shit and mud that would have made these soulless made-up photos way too pretty??

    We need Herb Ritts back, yes we do! DB

    Posted by: David B. | Jan 30, 2007 12:37:34 PM


  19. He looks great. Nothing pervy about it. He is, after all, 17 years old...

    Posted by: Brian | Jan 30, 2007 12:41:38 PM


  20. Radcliffe also had a very funny role playing against type on last week's episode of HBO's "Extras". Ends up sharing his condom with Dame Diana Rigg. Talented guy and clearly trying to bust out of the HP mold.

    Posted by: nato | Jan 30, 2007 12:44:05 PM


  21. This is a GENIUS professional move on Radcliffe's part.

    Doing something this sexually edgy, artistically solid and dark is the only way to progress from child star to respected adult actor.

    Sometimes people take it too far and do porn which of course, is harder to balance out professionally in the end, but Radcliffe has made an inspired choice.

    Now, we'll just have to wait and see if his stage acting is any less wooden and repressed as his screen acting. Although, it might be difficult to ascertain amid the shrieking of his young teenaged fan base and their secretly aroused mothers though. Still, I'd pay to see it. Those photos are stunning.

    Posted by: Matt | Jan 30, 2007 1:00:17 PM


  22. Damn! YUM!

    Posted by: Johnny | Jan 30, 2007 1:10:47 PM


  23. I'd stick it in his hairy pooter any day.

    Posted by: D. R. H. | Jan 30, 2007 1:18:16 PM


  24. The only thing that bothers me about these shots is the awesomely bad photoshop job to get rid of the harness that he's clearly holding in two of the shots.

    Posted by: Cully | Jan 30, 2007 1:45:42 PM


  25. "The only thing that bothers me about these shots is the awesomely bad photoshop job to get rid of the harness that he's clearly holding in two of the shots."

    Dude this afterall Harry Potter we're talking about - the harness is invisible - duh : )

    Posted by: Giovanni | Jan 30, 2007 1:51:00 PM


  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Gay Couple Becomes First to Register as Married in Jerusalem« «