What? Really?

Famously, the Harry Potter movies star Daniel Radcliffe. A recent production of Equus, also stars Daniel Radcliffe. Now, Harry Potter is a mild-mannered magician, a story designed for the pre-teen/teen set while Equus is the story of a mentally disturbed stable worker. Aside from both characters being British and around the same age, they have very little in common. So, why would Daniel Radcliffe, who has found tremendous fame in the role of Harry, take on a role that required him to portray a character as far from Harry as possible?

For this entry, rather than reflect on the story of Equus, I'll be rambling about why an actor would take on such a dramatically different role, especially while still in the midst of his mild-mannered fame. Clearly, Equus is a psychoanalysts dream case, but would someone like Freud think of an actor's choice to star in that particular role.

Of course, there are the commonly stated ideas. He wants to show his range as an actor. He's trying to avoid being type cast. He feels animosity towards the Harry Potter role. And maybe all those things are true, but why Equus? Why choose a role so far removed from common, "polite", society?

OK, so maybe I really can't answer the question I'm posing here. As I write, I realize that maybe I'd have to be a psychoanalyst to answer the question. Does the choice reflect back to some sort of actor issue, needing to be the center of attention? Is it a simple late teen rebellious move to go against the grain? Does he just want to prove that you never know what to expect from him? But seriously, even though Radcliffe received rave reviews, it really seems like a totally crazy career choice. Maybe it's just me, but what WOULD Freud think?