Reviewing: Harry Potter and the Cursed Child
Although I imagine this would be a blast to see performed live, reading it on its own merit as a follow-up to the seven books we came to know and love feels somewhat disappointing.
In some ways, this book had Avengers: Endgame vibes in the sense that the element of time travel was used to move through the ‘greatest hits’ of the franchise – revisiting old familiar characters and occasionally casting them in a new light. I have a feeling that the entrance of Snape, Dumbledore, or McGonagall would be met with applause from a live audience in much the same way that a guest star walking onto a sitcom would. On one hand, that’s fun to see these characters again. On the other hand, these moments feel more like fan service than narrative excellence. It’s like we can’t let the characters go – which is evidenced at the very least by the existence of the play in the first place. I’m not saying it was a wrong call to make commercially – it’s the kind of thing that gets people in seats. I’m just saying I don’t know if it was the right narrative decision.
What I do think was a good call was focusing a story on the relationship of Albus and Scorpius, the sons of Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy, respectively. I wrote in my review of The Deathly Hallows that I was a bit unsatisfied with the way Draco’s arc was resolved – and this play certainly gives more of a happy ending to the Malfoy family. I also thought it was brilliant putting Albus in Slytherin. Slytherin has an obviously evil stigma surrounding it, which ultimately has to be challenged if the house system at Hogwarts is to have any merit at all. If Slytherin is the ‘evil house’, then why have it at all? There has to be more to it than just a collection of villains, and this play unpacks that idea a little bit. I really appreciated that.
The idea that Voldemort had a child is eyebrow-raising to say the least, foreshadowing Star Wars’ Emperor Palpatine’s surprise descendant three years after this play’s publication. The play itself raises skepticism about the idea, although it eventually does seem that Voldemort did indeed have offspring. I get why this was done – it keeps the antagonist rooted in the world of the books, and helps the play feel like a natural follow-up to what preceded it. At the same time, I also can’t help but feel like it makes the play similarly feel like an afterthought. Doesn’t the existence of this daughter challenge our understanding of Voldemort and diminish Harry’s victory in The Deathly Hallows?
Moreover, I thought Time Turners (the magical tool for time travel in the Wizarding World) weren’t capable of altering history. Whereas Avengers Endgame treats time travel as the visiting and creation of alternate realities, it was my recollection that in The Prisoner of Azkaban the alteration of historical events wasn’t possible. After all, when Harry and his friends used the Time Turner, they didn’t re-write anything – they only added. Here, we see a much looser interpretation of time travel. People alter minor elements of history as well as major without ever creating paradoxes. It was a little difficult to follow on paper – although I wonder if it would’ve been easier to understand on stage.
I will definitely say that a fan of the original Harry Potter books does not need to read this in order to be a ‘true fan’ or to understand the full story. All the same, those who are desperate to go back to Hogwarts one more time are in for a treat.
Comments