Monday, July 14, 2025

The Cursed Child is probably the least interesting of the main characters in his titular play

Disclaimer: J.K. Rowling is a trash person. 
 
I saw Harry Potter and the Cursed Child in London in 2016. It was still in previews, a couple months before the script was published. This was a few days before the Brexit vote. I saw it again on Broadway, on February 29, 2020. I'm hoping that I saw it again this weekend isn't a portent. Or maybe that I saw the one-play version will bode better for me?
 
Here's my initial reaction, from 2016 (I held off on my thoughts until it officially opened for review by the press): 
So, as stated when I saw this a month ago, I really enjoyed the play. As some of these [reviews] say, the actual stagecraft was more impressive than the plot. The story itself was enjoyable (though I had a problem with one BIG plot point and one thing that contradicted the books).
 
It seems that the reviews largely ignore Harry's plot. In fairness, the action of the play revolves around Albus, Harry's son, but Harry's journey of dealing with what he went through at Hogwarts is present throughout the two plays. Those are the sections of the plays that I can't wait to read. There are loads of articles of "I grew up with Harry Potter" about kids who grew up reading him--and he was their contemporary. But now the man on stage is mine; we're the same age, and it's fascinating seeing him at that stage of life, dealing with his past and the traumas therein but also dealing with parenthood and a job full of paperwork.
 
The play will be interesting to read, and I imagine people won't enjoy the script as much as audiences enjoy the play. The stagecraft, as mentioned, is fantastic, and there's a lot of staging that was just so cool--and I don't mean the magic stuff. The movement of the actors was SO good. There were large chunks that were totally extraneous but really neat to watch, basically just of people moving around. (I was like, "I don't need 5 minutes of transition from Platform 9 3/4 to Hogwarts, but it's neat to watch, so...never mind.")
 
I do have to second whichever review(s?) highlighted Scorpius. He's a well-drawn, nuanced character who is probably better formed than any of the other new characters.
 
In some ways, I do wish it had been a book. We're missing a lot, and not just by not knowing what people are thinking, but by missing the throwaway exposition about random characters. There's more about the world of Harry Potter in 2016 that I want to know.

Do I remember what plot points I had issues with? I do not. (I think it had something to do with Delphi's plan.) Anyway, this still pretty much stands. I was concerned that the move from two plays to one would mean losing a lot of those scenes of movement, but happily those bits are still in there. It's just very cool to watch; the effects and tricks are fantastic.

John Skelley and Emmet Smith as Harry and Albus Potter. Photo by Matthew Murphy.
Watching it, I didn't notice specific things missing, but I found myself thinking that there was more Harry in the original version. In a helpful rundown of the changes made, I found I was right. The two-play version, which is still playing in London, has a bunch of flashbacks from Harry's childhood as well as more scenes of adult Harry having nightmares. Which is a bummer, because as noted above, I really liked getting to know adult Harry and seeing how his incredibly traumatic childhood and adolescence affected him in adulthood. There are some other scenes about the adults that are missing, which is a shame, but I can't blame playwright Jack Thorne for wanting to focus on the titular cursed child.

The other change that I noticed was how they tweaked the relationship of Albus and Scorpius. It wasn't huge--just some adjusted language, mostly--but their relationship went from one where you could interpret it as romantic or not to one that is pretty clearly romantic, but in a way that makes complete sense for two adolescent boys. I thought that change was really well done.

Scorpius remains probably the most interesting character in the show. I thought that actor Aidan Close played it a bit too broadly and it bothered me, but when I mentioned it to my Bonus Sister, who I went with, she said she really liked it--he was such a contrast to the completely buttoned-up Draco, which was a fantastic observation.

Overall, Cursed Child remain an amazing show to experience. I totally understand people not wanting to see the show because they don't want to support Rowling; that's completely fair. Also, the story itself is a bit weak. But still, actually seeing it live is a great time. (I will say that I'd probably recommend doing so on Broadway, where there's a dedicated theater, which means that some effects are more immersive than what can be done in a touring production.)

No comments: