Looks like Harry Potter is growing up. He has said that he needed to shock the world to get the image of good Harry Potter out of everyone's minds and he has decided to do a play in which he is nude for a scene. The controversy is just beginning I am sure. The play opens in London this month.

http://www.theatre.com/photos/3005734.jpg

I hope one of our London friends will capture some more detailed photos and post them for inspection :9

Had the same thought myself. Wonder if they will confiscate people's camera cellphones at the door?

When Peter Firth took it all off in the original Broadway production he greatly enlarged the circle of his fans and increased their enthusiasm for his talent. The mental image is with me yet, without benefit of cell phone cameras. Besides that, he gave a riveting performance. I hope Radcliff is in all ways just as gifted.

>When Peter Firth took it all off in the original Broadway

>production

Jealous of you! I saw a touring production with some other actor (can't remember who) and was bowled over by the whole thing.

If you saw the film, how would you compare Firth's performance there to on stage?

The movie struck me as ok but nothing like the impact of live drama. Especially the erotic charge of his interaction with the big male horse-mimes in the play (use of literal horses in the movie, though necessary I suppose, nonetheless lost this poetry, even risked making his come-ons to the horses a bit ludicrous). I saw the play at age 17, and the kid's worshiping of those mimes was one of those moments when I realized there was no question about my orientation.

The dimensional gifts you reference were of course duly noted.

>I hope one of our London friends will capture some more detailed photos and post them for inspection :9

Well, I'm not from London but I did see a stunning fake that's worthy of posting.

Never posted a pix on this site before so I'm not sure how to do it. But, here's a link if someone else can figure out how do it.

http://www.hunkvideoonline.com/forums/attachment.php?id=638

Enjoy! }(

>>When Peter Firth took it all off in the original

>Broadway

>>production

>

>Jealous of you! I saw a touring production with some other

>actor (can't remember who) and was bowled over by the whole

>thing.

>

>If you saw the film, how would you compare Firth's performance

>there to on stage?

>

>The movie struck me as ok but nothing like the impact of live

>drama. Especially the erotic charge of his interaction with

>the big male horse-mimes in the play (use of literal horses in

>the movie, though necessary I suppose, nonetheless lost this

>poetry, even risked making his come-ons to the horses a bit

>ludicrous). I saw the play at age 17, and the kid's worshiping

>of those mimes was one of those moments when I realized there

>was no question about my orientation.

>

>The dimensional gifts you reference were of course duly

>noted.

Never did see the movie because I had been knocked out by the stagecraft that went into the live production, and didn't want to set myself up for a disappointment. From everything I heard subsequently, I was right.

I cannot imagine much controversy regarding Daniel Radcliff's nude scene in Equus. London theatre is accustomed to just about anything. Furthermore though the nude scene was shocking and controversal when the play was first presented today it is just another oh hum

I've always wanted to be blasé, but I've always been too dewy-eyed to make it work.

In any case, the point wasn't about the controversy the nudity might stir up among theatregoers at large, about whom who cares. It was about the emotions it might awaken in my susceptible bosom and ( am I presumptuous? ) in Adam Smith's.

>In any case, the point wasn't about the controversy the nudity

>might stir up among theatregoers at large, about whom who

>cares. It was about the emotions it might awaken in my

>susceptible bosom and ( am I presumptuous? ) in Adam

>Smith's.

Not presumptuous in the least. The online all-but-the-pubes shots of Mr Radcliffe have me hot and bothered for more. And, a bit more seriously, hoping that he can pull off (sorry) the role.

As for controversy, (a) exactly as you say above, and ( to epigonos, the controversy is not among theatre-goers but rather the Potter rabble. About whom one cares, if possible, even less.

>

>a bit more seriously, hoping that he can pull off (sorry) the

>role.

Groan.

The flesh is weak, you know.

Here's a new shot of his butt.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_0...ffe_468x577.jpg

>Here's a new shot of his butt.

>

>http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_0...ffe_468x577.jpg

>

>

Ummm.... can you ask him to lean a bit more forward please. :9

I know, I can be such a slut. }(

>I know, I can be such a slut. }(

Yeah, that makes you really stand out from the rest of us.

Meanwhile, I'm grateful for anything you post on the subject. Is there any intelligence on whether anybody tried to talk him into turning around?

>Is there any intelligence on whether anybody tried to talk him into turning around?

Is this what you're looking for? }(

>

>Is this what you're looking for? }(

YES! It's a sight to warm the heart of my cockles, in which I'm sure I'm not alone.

Thank you, you sweet man.

>Thank you, you sweet man.

In spades! Furthermore - Author! Author!

That is to say, Source! Source! Wherever did you lay hands on this?

As it were. }(

>... Source! Source! Wherever did you lay hands on this?

This picture appeared very briefly on another site before it was quickly pulled. (Thank goodness I had saved a copy. }( )

The original poster indicated the picture was a fake. But, IMHO, if it is a fake it is a damn good one.

Here's another pix from last night's opening that is real.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/02_0...MAT_468x396.jpg

>

>This picture appeared very briefly on another site before it

>was quickly pulled. (Thank goodness I had saved a copy. }( )

Well, then, all of us who appreciate the photographer's art owe you thanks for your presence of mind and fast reflexes.

>The original poster indicated the picture was a fake. But,

>IMHO, if it is a fake it is a damn good one.

>

>Here's another pix from last night's opening that is real.

I'll stick with the other one.

Oh fuck. I guess that explains why I love you so much. Including you Harry Potter. It's not just your wand, Harry, although I would be good to that wand as to no others. I see moons tonight. Let us know, Harry, if you are ever interested in your wand as muich as the moons.

To dot the final i and cross the last t on this subject, Radcliffe got an enviable personal review from The Guardian focusing on his performance, specifically dismissing the "prurient press speculation about Harry Potter's private parts". See www.guardian.co.uk/guardian, click on Arts then on Theatre reviews.

Could it be? The dick seen round the world a fake? My own close inspection sees minor dissimilarities. The drool on the screen in no way foiled the hawk-like eye.

See for yourselves:

http://www.gaysexblog.net

Could it be? The dick seen round the world a fake? My own close inspection sees minor dissimilarities. The drool on the screen in no way foiled the hawk-like eye.

On the Other Message Forum, the (apparently now banned) poster RockHard described doing some forensics on the purported Radcliffe pic you referenced: namely, pulling it into Photoshop, enlarging it, and thus detecting several rows of blurred pixels just where the join would be between Radcliffe's lower abdomen and another model's privates. I have not troubled to check his work, but FWIW I believe RockHard about this.

In any event, next year we dwellers on this side of the Great Water can see for ourselves.

http://www.ticketnews.com/Radcliffe-Coming...Broadway0090507