The Naked Truth
Daniel Radcliffe takes it all off on Broadway. Does anyone care?
You'd expect a lot of parents to get on their high horse about Daniel Radcliffe's role in the Broadway revival of "Equus," which opens this week. How could the actor who plays Harry Potter—hero to millions of young, impressionable children—get naked onstage, and in such a fiercely disturbing vehicle? Radcliffe plays Alan Strang, a disturbed young man who, when the play opens, has been sent to a psychiatric ward because he blinded six horses with a poker. In the play's climactic scene, Strang's doctor contrives to get the young man to re-enact the brutal act, which starts with an explicit sex scene and ends, after about 10 minutes of running hysterically around the stage, with the horses. Radcliffe does the entire scene nude. Naturally, photos of Radcliffe hit the Internet soon after the show opened in New York, with the headline WHO WANTS TO SEE DANIEL RADCLIFFE NAKED? But the funny thing is: no one really seems to care. There have been no complaints, no protests or boycotts. Or even much commotion at all.
What happened to nudity? The Internet, which has made pornography as accessible and ordinary as a rerun of "I Love Lucy," is obviously a supporting player in this scenario, but you could make the argument that this moment is years in the making, with each flash of flesh diminishing our fascination. "Equus" is actually the second major stage revival this year, after "Hair," which when it debuted in 1968 was the first Broadway show feature nudity. In 1970, censors tried to ban the hippie-love musical in Massachusetts, until the Supreme Court overruled them—but this year, parents giddily took their tweens to performances in Central Park. You could argue that the last time nudity became a cause célèbre was when Janet Jackson's breast made a surprise appearance at the 2004 Super Bowl. "The Britney Spears generation walks around with exposed midriffs and amplified breasts," says the social critic and feminist Camille Paglia. "Who cares?! Being surrounded by plasticized Barbie dolls, nudity does not have the slightest meaning whatsoever."
It didn't used to be this way. While nudity and celluloid go hand in hand—one of the first major motion picture that showed a woman fully naked was the 1914 silent film "Inspiration"—Hollywood was for a long time afraid of threatening American values. If the movie industry was labeled religiously bankrupt, box-office receipts would flounder, particularly among members of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1915, five years before Prohibition, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of MutualFilm Corporationv. Industrial Commission ofOhio that films weren't a form of expression protected under the First Amendment. Hollywood didn't want to be subject to local censors, so it established its own set of rules: the Hays Code, launched in 1934, which predated today's more lenient MPAA ratings system. Among its edicts: "Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette."
Nudity abroad was another question. For a generation of repressed men in the 1950s, Bridget Bardot represented uninhibited sexuality, appearing topless in a series of movies that were imported domestically in elite art-house theaters. At around the same time, a series of Supreme Court cases slowly began to reverse Ohio—chief among them, 1951 ruling over an Italian film called "The Miracle," which showed a nude woman. The launch of Playboy magazine coincided with this shift in popular opinion, and a star was born out of a 1953 pinup named Marilyn Monroe. But it wasn't until 1960 that American audiences were titillated with the invitation to join a woman in the shower. The movie was "Psycho," and the actress in question was Janet Leigh. Alfred Hitchcock employed a body double, and the camera only shot at the naval, the shoulder, the back—the forbidden silhouette. It was enough to inspire shrieks, and a revolution. The female figure had come out from behind the curtain.
In the '70s , the MPAA tried to monitor explicit nudity by introducing the X rating. But by 1972, the X-rated "Deep Throat" had so infiltrated popular culture, it became the nickname of the mysterious Watergate informant. Suddenly, you couldn't find a reason for people not to get naked. In 1974, a streaker crashed the Oscars. Horror movies targeted to high-school boys, such as 1976's "Carrie" with Sissy Spacek, invented excuses for babes to strip down. The '80s became the "Porky's" decade. Sharon Stone owes her career to the scene in "Basic Instinct" where she slowly uncrosses her legs and it's clear that she forgot her undies.
TV didn't want to be left behind, so in 1993 "NYPD Blue" was the first series to shoot its female stars from the chest up and its male stars from the bottom down. And there were lots of bottoms, most famously the one belonging to portly Dennis Franz. (David Caruso's nude scene in the pilot caused such a stir, that some local stations never aired it.) "Titanic," the 1998 Oscar winner, went on to become the highest grossing film of all time—with the classic scene where Leonardo DiCaprio paints Kate Winslet topless. It wasn't the first PG-13 movie to show a woman's breasts, but it was the most popular.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: rlobn @ 09/26/2008 5:56:40 PM
Comment: A few misguided parents may have objected. The evidence is quite conclusive, prudery is harmful and it is especially harmful to children. The differences are not small. Try comparing outcomes for teenagers in the USA with say Denmark or The Netherlands. Pregnancy and abortion both about ten times higher. young people become sexually active about 6 months to a year younger. STDs much more common. For example Gonorrhea about 70 times more likely. Attitudes that have that effect can only be described as child abuse.
Posted By: westwingpotus @ 09/26/2008 4:48:54 PM
Comment: I realize that the media today has to make news when there isn't any news, but actually writing an article about the fact that there isn't any news is a first. Ramin Setoodeh has managed to make himself simply look out touch. (Honest to God Newsweek, where did you get this guy? A cave?)
Think about it, he's managed to churn out an entire article about a NON-issue in the theatre and poses a question to which the answer has been "No", for 40+ years. Where has he been? Did he miss the non-issue that was "Take me Out" (or a dozen other shows I could name just in the last 20 years) What's next, a expose on the fact that no one cares seems to care that women were given the right to vote? LOL Going to the theater tends to take more planning and effort than wandering into your multiplex at the mall and theater patrons tend to be better educated about the productions they see. They want, expect, and accept more from theatre and always have.
As for Radcliffe, I understand that he gives a very nice turn in this role, although I haven't had the opportunity to see it yet. (I have ticket for December) Sure, there are always going to be the few freaky HP fan that can't make the distinction between character and actor. But in reality, one only has to go to the multitude of harry potter fan boards to see overwhelming support for this young man and his endeavors to grow as an actor. JK Rowling has seen Equus and you're not going to get anyone who is much more protective of Harry Potter than that, and her fans to their credit, take their cue from her.
Ramin, obviously you had a deadline and yet, had nothing to write about. But when you have nothing to say, it really is best that you just remain silent, you look less foolish that way. But I guess I can look forward to your next article telling me the sky may be blue, but no one seems to care.
Posted By: Fabrisse @ 09/26/2008 3:52:38 PM
Comment: You obviously didn't check out the internet discussions at Harry Potter websites from when the original announcement was made before he appeared in this play in London.
There was a great deal of outrage, particularly among parents, about his choice to expand his range as an actor by performing in Equus. The sense of betrayal floored me. Those of us without children saw a young man taking control of his career by choosing a classic play that hadn't had a major revival. This was not the most common reaction.
Combined with the delay on the sixth movie, this may harm the Harry Potter franchise. It certainly will if all the people who were so vociferous about keeping their children away from the movie because Radcliffe betrayed the character actually do so.
I hope it won't. I'm trying to get tickets for later in the run because I want to see Equus, and I want to see whether Radcliffe has as much promise as a stage actor as he does on screen.