Just wondering how come he's only 17 and yet he's doing full nudity. Why isn't his age a legal issue? Or it doesn't matter because it is a work of art?
2007-02-01 14:10:02 · 18 answers · asked by ? 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
It is a play, not a movie.
Please refrain from posting opinions about his career choices.
2007-02-01 14:43:12 · update #1
Also in the paly there is a sexual scene (maybe more than one) with his co-star.
2007-02-03 09:47:45 · update #2
He's only a few months shy of his 18th birthday. Perhaps the rules are different in England, where he's performing Equus, right?
I remember back in the 1970s when Jodie Foster at 15 was playing a 12-year-old prostitute in the film Taxi Driver. She underwent a series of psychiatric tests to make sure she was psychologically mature enough to handle the role. Her 20-year-old sister was her body double for the nude scenes. (Of course, it was a movie, not live theater.)
2007-02-01 14:20:51 · answer #1 · answered by MNL_1221 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that the British had any legislation that actually used the word pornography until the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This did move the age to 18, but I think this applies only to a printed or recorded format. I think as long as the play is not recorded in any part and definitely not distributed there is not a problem. We have to remember that US laws do not apply in London.
This is not considered indecent because it is not intended to offend. This is only my opinion and how I understand what I read. It may also be the reason they have publicized and let people know before they came to the play that he was nude.
2007-02-09 07:47:34 · answer #2 · answered by lee b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The age of consent in the UK is 16, so it's perfectly legal for Daniel to play the part of Alan Strang in Equus. I'm not aware of any plans to move the production outside of London in the future, but if they were to do it in the US, he'd couldn't do it until after he turns 18 in July.
Although the play does involve nudity for Daniel's character, and that of the female actress who plays the part of Jill (Joanna Christie), it's all in the context of a phychiatrist attempting to unravel the mystery behind Alan's emotional disturbance, which ultimately resulted in his blinding several horses with a hoof pick.
I'm a huge fan of the Potter series myself, and I have read where many fans (and their parents) are outraged by Daniel's decision to do this play (takes away from his wholesome boy-wizard/save the world image). But Harry Potter is not playing the part of Alan Strang, so Harry's "image" is still in tact. Frankly, if Warner Bros. reacts to Equus by recasting Harry in the final two movies, I think they will lose far more viewers than they will because of Dan starring in Equus. I guarantee they will lose one!
As for Daniel, and all the parents who are upset that their child's role model is about to perform in the nude, #1 those parents should realize it is THEIR job, and not Daniel's, to set a proper example for their children, and #2, they should be pleased if their kids do see him as a role model because not many 17 year olds today have the courage to take on such a challenging role, or the self-discipline and sense of purpose to work as hard as he does in the pursuit of a career he oobviously loves.
Personally, I couldn't be more proud of Daniel if he were my own son, and yes, I am old enough to be his mother.
If you want to know more about the play itself, visit www.equustheplay.com.
2007-02-07 07:46:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is of legal age in the country of England.
In the first place he is only appearing on stage in brief scenes as totally naked. To those of the religious right and prudes of nudity this not a sexual act. So do not acquaint nudity on stage with something sexual.
2007-02-02 05:14:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. I guess it's just a matter of decision. If he wanted to do it, then he could. I don't see why Daniel did it either, though. It's full on inappropriate. He just lost four or five Harry fans! Not many, but he still lost some, and that's a bit of an issue!
2007-02-01 14:16:19 · answer #5 · answered by sPrInG LiLY 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if things are just different in England or what, but that's not something that I would want to see. A lot of children love the Harry Potter series and I just don't think that this play is a very good idea. I think he will lose the respect from a lot of his fans.
2007-02-01 14:27:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it's an issue because of the fact that he can now be labled as an icon for the younger peeps. He is Harry Potter and that is an image that will probably be with him for a while. My friend's aunt's son saw that and he freaked out.
2007-02-09 10:18:37 · answer #7 · answered by Shorty 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that the law does need a parential lisence and a signature from his parents most probably but i am sure he has it since he is an actor and a good one. besides, being an actor includes nudity etc etc..in this case, i thought about it too and i think that he took the ok from his parents and thats how this play got performing lisence
2007-02-08 04:08:31 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's probably because the "quality" of the play is known. If it were a new and controversial play - you might be hearing a big fuss over it.
2007-02-01 14:15:14 · answer #9 · answered by fdm215 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe his parents signed a release.
I'll say one thing: he's got a very buff body for a 17 year old.
2007-02-01 14:16:19 · answer #10 · answered by Juanitaville 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋