If I’m Any Judge of Horse Flesh

I saw EQUUS as a teenager on the fuzzy black & white TV in my bedroom — but I think I maybe also recorded it on VHS, so I saw it more than once. But hadn’t looked at it for a long time.

I’ve said that Sidney Lumet, in regarding himself as a good all-rounder rather than an auteur of fixed identity, was short-changing himself as a specialist — his great films are New York crime films. But I have to add in his weird British period — I don’t know how to account for it, but I think possibly he realised that David V. Picker at United Artists’ UK branch was a very nice man to work for. “Here’s the money, we’ll see you at the premier,” was his philosophy. So Lumet made a bunch of films in Britain, or on foreign soil but about British subjects (THE HILL). THE OFFENCE, THE HILL, and THE DEADLY AFFAIR are still crime movies, though, as is EQUUS, a kind of detective story of psychology.

As a kid, the film helped get me interested in Lumet, and also Peter Shaffer, and I learned that PS’ brother had also written films I enjoyed, notably THE WICKER MAN. Probably I was particularly interested because of the sexual content, which is funny because EQUUS is mainly going to be sexy for you if you’re into boys or horses, but it does have a naked Jenny Agutter, and that was not to be sneezed at.

But I was aware of a powerful atmosphere of SOMETHING that wasn’t just sexual — there’s the shocking act of violence at the heart of the film, the mystery behind that, the labyrinth of the human mind, and also — the hushed tone between snatches of Richard Rodney Bennett’s sonorous score; the tricksy transitions between past and present, enabled by cunning staging and John Victor Smith’s graceful cutting; Richard Burton’s voice of honeyed gravel; Peter Firth’s physical acting (the way he opens doors only a crack and slides through sideways!); Oswald Morris’s cinematography, with its bold night shooting, an early variant on the X-Files approach (stick a huge blueish light up high and call it the moon — in this case, let’s let it cause camera flare also, because why not?) — these things combine and collide to create a genuinely poetic, mesmeric effect.

(Really sorry to discover today that John Victor Smith died when I wasn’t looking. Back when I interviewed Richard Lester, his collaborator on THE KNACK, HELP!, THE THREE MUSKETEERS etc, I was told he was ill and there would be no way to interview him, but now I see his suffering ended in 2019.)

Shaffer has boldly retained the psychologist’s monologues, or some of them — filmed in a single day because Burton had a bad back and disliked sitting at a desk. You could say he hasn’t finished rewriting his play as a screenplay. Certainly in AMADEUS he would make sure Salieri, in Dick Smith’s wonderful old age makeup, would have someone to talk to besides the camera. But I love the bold mash-up of forms here. Since this isn’t a play and the actors aren’t actually present, maybe you need an actor with an extra-large quantity of presence to fix the audience with a beady eye, in which case Burton is your man.

EQUUS seems banished to some neglected musty corner of the Lumet oeuvre, and Lumet’s oeuvre itself today feels slightly sidelined. But not only are Shaffer’s themes fundamental — he and his shrink-protag piece together the mosaic of events that form the young prisoner’s pathology/passion, but are powerless to explain WHY these fragments stuck together in this way — incidents that might have bounced harmlessly off the psychic hide of another person — but I think EQUUS is a fundamentally cinematic work of quiet brilliance, from the blocking of its dialogue scenes to the linking of scene to scene in visual and narrative terms, a work fundamental to Lumet’s movie-making.

EQUUS stars Alec Leamas; Joseph Andrews; Dr. Watson; Aunt Lucinda Spiderwick; R.S.M. Wilson; Eleanor of Aquitaine; Nurse Alex Price; Linda Loman; Erik Kriegler; and Junior Mammoth.

7 Responses to “If I’m Any Judge of Horse Flesh”

  1. For the record, THE OFFENCE is the only one of those films on which Lumet would have worked with my friend David Picker. THE HILL and THE DEADLY AFFAIR were for MGM and Columbia, respectively; and by the time Lumet made EQUUS, David was long gone from UA, having been replaced by Mike Medavoy. Also, David was based in the New York office of UA, although he made frequent trips to the UK for TOM JONES, A HARD DAY’S NIGHT, and the James Bond series, among others. But I can testify that he was indeed a very nice man to work for!

  2. So nice to see love for EQUUS, my favorite Lumet movie. Also, the only work he does not mention in his book MAKING MOVIES–he at least name checks every other film he made.

    Shaffer wanted him to do the film (the men were friends), but hated the results. For his part, Lumet disagreed with what he perceived as Shaffer’s hostility toward psychoanalysis, which he (Lumet) thought could be very valuable to people.

    So instead of Lumet complementing a script with his mise en scene (his standard practice), and not challenging it or its worldview (NETWORK’s misogyny is Chayefsky’s and not Lumet’s, as is that of THE VERDICT, which belongs to its writer, David Mamet), Lumet’s mise en scene (unique in his work) challenges Shaffer’s script. Lumet’s Dysart is not Shaffer’s tragic hero grappling with the loss of the old gods, but a repressed homosexual who doesn’t see the repressed homosexual youth who has been brought to him. Dysart cannot explain why the fragments stick together as they do, since Shaffer will not allow the fragments to cohere, since to do so would expose the queer heart at the center of his play.

    Shaffer’s Dysart will take away the passion that fuels Alan Strang, just as he has purged himself of it. When Dysart says that a doctor cannot create passion, but only destroy it, that is Shaffer’s blindness speaking (and where Lumet strongly disagreed with him). Dysart denies his desires, and he will “cure” Alan by teaching him to deny his.

    Instead of the mournful final tableau of the stage version, Lumet gives the viewer a close-up of Burton in full madness, lamenting that the bit will never come out of his mouth, but Lumet is not having any of Dysart’s self-pity. This is the fruit of repression.

    Despite the 2007 Harry Potter production that slavishly reproduced John Dexter’s original staging, newer stagings have brought out the queer side of the text, and followed the lead of Lumet’s brilliant take.

  3. Thanks, Jack, for the corrections and insights!

    Lumet’s efforts complicate the film rather than subverting it completely, I’d say. He’s too sensitive an interpreter to completely upturn its meaning, but Eileen Atkins’ character, as foil to Burton’s, makes a humanist case and a pro-therapy case that’s hard to discount: as she says, there IS something called sanity and something called happiness and having them is better than not having them.

    I find this Shaffer-Lumet tension electric!

    I had a vague recollection that there was nothing about the film in Lumet’s book, but my copy is at work so I couldn’t check.

  4. “Lumet’s efforts complicate the film rather than subverting it completely”

    A beautiful way to put it. Usually a director subverts (as in contravenes) a script with his mise en scene. Here, Lumet subverts through extension, revealing what its author tried to hide.

    Next time I watch the film, I will keep in mind your take on Hesther. I have seen her as in love with Dysart, and an enabler of his denial of his queerness.

    “I find this Shaffer-Lumet tension electric!”

    Agreed. I wish Lumet had been in tension with his scripts more often.

  5. I’ve never seen Equus, but I found your post to be fascinating. I’m not positive if I want to see it, but I’m certainly curious about it now. And I’m sorry you didn’t get the chance to interview Smith.

    — Karen

  6. David Melville Wingrove Says:

    I played a horse in a production of EQUUS many moons ago. An actor had dropped out and my friend who was directing was desperate. The whole cast was onstage for the whole play, which meant I had to sit through every line of it multiple times. Is that why I’ve never seen the film?

    The play’s queerness seems to me more blatant than latent. In her ghastly memoirs, the ever sensitive and progressive Julia Phillips writes of seeing EQUUS on Broadway and calls it “a godawful load of f****t shit.” As for the conflicting attitudes towards psychoanalysis, Schaffer was British and Lumet was American. Like most Brits of my generation, I was raised to see psychoanalysis as utterly taboo and “the sort of thing Americans do.”

  7. Lumet may have come to feel, afterwards, that he shouldn’t have taken the job if he couldn’t agree with the meaning of the script. He loved movie-making and not infrequently took on jobs that weren’t likely to make outstanding films, but this may be the only time he took on a film he disagreed with in a central way.

    It’s weird that he could go along with Chayefsky’s misogyny for the sake of argument, but not Shaffer’s anti-analysis stance. Always revealing, the different lines we draw. An actor cast in Gangs of New York refused to say the line “You Hibernian bastard!” because he was a likelong Hibs football team supporter. And yet, if cast as a racist, surely he’d have been OK saying the N word as part of his character.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.