"Cursed Child" has always been exactly what I expected - and that's both a wonderful and a...meh...thing.
Warning: Spoilers Ahead (Though, in all fairness, the show has been out for years and the published script almost longer...)
To sum it up:
GO FOR THE TECH!
In the early 2000's (just after "Wicked" opened) there was a huge backlash against "spectacle" on Broadway. Disney's "Little Mermaid" infamously made headlines when, in response to said spectacle criticism, they announced that when their show opened there would be "No water and no wires." The theater world was intrigued and excited. Ironically it was this dull, lackluster "Little Mermaid" that made the theater world rethink: "Actually we'd really love some water and wires...maybe spectacle isn't such a bad thing after all..."
The problem with spectacle isn't spectacle itself. It's with two sometimes adjacent things: 1.) Spectacle for spectacle's sake and 2.) No substance to back it up.
It's no secret that "Cursed Child" elevates "spectacle" and "tech" to the level of high art. There are moments in the show that feel like an immersive 3-D museum worthy artistic experience and it is truly stunning. It's no wonder the illusion team is back with "Stranger Things" - another show where the tech and spectacle are the primary reasons to go. It's the kind of thing that Teller (of Penn and Teller) always dreamed of - magic as part of narrative drama, used to speak to the heart. There is a moment at the end of act two that, despite knowing exactly how it worked, despite being able to host a lecture on the incredibly advanced technically crafted elements at play, TERRIFIED me (in a good way.) When was the last time anyone can actually say they were SCARED in the theater? Stephen Sondheim notoriously wrote "Sweeney Todd" partially as a thought experiment to see if you could scare a contemporary theatrical audience. Let me tell you, emphatically, you can!
Indeed, there are some illusions in the show (often not the ones you expect) that are so complex, and, frankly, dangerous that I'm honestly stunned they're able to be performed without serious issue eight shows a week. Another notorious resident of the Lyric Theater, "Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark" had similar and, in some cases, not as complex technical elements - and we all remember how that turned out for the cast members who were a part of them. Clearly the "Cursed Child" illusion team knows what they're doing - not just in execution but in safety. They have revolutionized what is achievable in the theater. The illusion work is perfectly partnered with the movement direction that (again, in a good way) often makes us feel that we are watching a dance piece. Talk about using the vocabularies at your disposal to tell a story! The truth is, the Brits are WAY ahead of the U.S. in terms of revolutions in theatrical storytelling techniques and vocabulary (or, honestly, trusting that a return to traditional techniques is sometimes the most magical thing you can do): the magical partnered lifts in "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime" (that were performed by actors, not dancers), the extended, almost completely physical opening of the National Theatre's "Frankenstein", even the staging of the School Song in "Matilda: the Musical" - none of which, I think, would have ever happened with an American team - not because Americans are unable to create in that way, but because theater in the U.S. is commercial in a way that it's not in the UK. In the U.S. everything is so massively expensive that experimentation is not generally encouraged when you're dealing with a multi million dollar project, whereas in the UK the arts receive government subsidization so the future of a project or a production entity is not completely reliant on ticket sales and extraordinarily long runs. Ironically, the kind of theater pieces that in recent years has most frequently generated long running, massive hit commercial shows have been the ones where "massive commercial success" hasn't (usually) been the #1 priority in it's creation.
The issue with "Cursed Child" has always been the story. It's not AWFUL (no amount of great tech and illusions would be able to save that) but, honestly, it's barely over the line.
The story is a sequel to the "Harry Potter" series, written by Jack Thorne, but with original story by Thorne and J. K. Rowling. Based on the giant misses with the plot of the "Harry Potter" prequel series "Fantastic Beasts" most have begun to assume that Rowling's ability to tell a stolid story within the "Harry Potter" universe has...faded (that's not entirely fair...she has never been the sole author on subsequent "Harry Potter" projects, nor without strong studio oversight, and she has been working in a medium (mainly dramatic writing) which is not her comfort zone...)
I heard that someone once said: "The 'Harry Potter' books are mysteries disguised as fantasy...'Cursed Child' is a time travel story disguised as a 'Harry Potter' book" and I couldn't agree more. The plot is at once painfully simple and painfully complex (I'll stick to the simple version...)
The show starts right where the films (and books) end - with Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley's youngest son Albus Severus Potter about to go off to Hogwarts, terrified that he'll be sorted into Slytherin. Harry reassures him (including telling him that the Sorting Hat will take his preference into account...). From there, Albus becomes best friends with Scorpius - who is none other than the son of Harry's school rival, Draco Malfoy. Scorpius Malfoy and Albus Potter bond instantly. Albus is all but traumatized by having such a famous dad for a father (WHY exactly he is so negatively impacted we never really learn and it is one of the huge missteps of the show... other than feeling like he has to live up to a famous father...what exactly is the problem so huge that Albus goes so far off the rails?) On the flip side, Scorpius has had to deal with not only having an all but reviled father and a sordid family history, but the fact that he is shy and a bit socially awkward. Both Albus and Scorpius are sorted into, shock! Slytherin! (Apparently the Sorting Hat DIDN'T take Albus's preference into account...) And from there they are teased at school, have awkward relationships with their parents and ultimately decide that the way to fix all of their problems is to steal a time turner and go back to remedy one of Harry's "mistakes" - Cedric Diggory being killed. Only, their plan doesn't go very well. They decide that getting Cedric disqualified from the Triwizard Tournament and bullied is a great plan. But apparently, in this universe, Cedric is so, well, unlike the Cedric we know that one round of teasing causes him to become a death eater, murder Neville Longbottom, and allow Voldemort to take control of the Wizarding World. Along the way Albus and Scorpius become enmeshed with a young woman named Delphi - who turns out to be Voldemort's long lost daughter intent on bringing him back. The older characters we love from the original series now try to keep the two young rapscallions under control while also running the Ministry of Magic.
The idea of dealing with the next generation is a good one - especially when exploring how the past (namely Harry's past) affects his (and his kids) present and future . The most engrossing moments of the show plot-wise are when the kids are learning how much they have unknowingly been effected for the better because of events that happen before they were born, and when Harry, the child who never had a father and has spent his life wishing for one, has to grapple with how to now be a father himself. One plot line that's incredibly impactful is when Scorpius finds himself in an alternate future where Voldemort won, and now Scorpius, by virtue of being a Malfoy, is the top dog at Hogwarts. Things that used to "other" him are now celebrated. For shy, bullied Scorpius this is incredible - until he finds out that this version of himself is apparently terribly evil. Watching him realize that he WANTS to be the person he is - shy and awkward, but GOOD, no matter the cost, is a great character arc. Likewise watching Harry's introspection, his changing relationships with his enemies (namely Draco), and some hard talks with a portrait of Dumbledore.
Notice who I didn't mention there? The supposed main character - Albus Potter. The truth is, (I'll speak for myself,) I just don't really like Albus. I don't know what he's so miserable about! Yes, I get always being in your father's shadow, but Albus does nothing but mope, whine and complain - when he's not making rash, dangerous decisions that aren't "saving the world" as his father did, but rather building up his ego and trying to "one up" his father under the guise of "righting a wrong". (He really wants to save Cedric, but not everyone who died at the battle of Hogwarts? Not his grandparents? Not Snape? Not... (you get the point. Let's be real - he wants to save Cedric because Cedric's father is still INCREDIBLY angry at Harry, blaming him for Cedric's death, and Albus is more than happy to jump on the bandwagon of anyone who hates his dad.)) The thing about Harry is that, in the original books, his instincts were pretty much always right, and the stakes were always high. Albus just comes across as, well, a somewhat bratty teen who really needs to get the "keys to the car taken away." His instincts are pretty much always wrong and, until he royally messes things up, the stakes are nonexistent. (Also, why is Albus frequently in a Gryffindor colored jumper when the fact that he's in Slytherin is a major plot point? Not that that's the most important thing...)
Hermione, Ron and Ginny are WOEFULLY underused as characters and, while Hermione at least gets to be the Minister of Magic, Ginny is done as dirty as the movies did her and relegated to nothing more than the sweet, supportive wife. Sure, she can help out in a group battle and stop her husband from dueling with Draco, but remove her from the plot and basically nothing would change.
This is the new, condensed version of the show - originally it was two full evenings ("Part 1" and "Part 2" respectively) which is now just one evening. I think it was a smart change. Most of the things that got cut, frankly, NEEDED to get cut - including a subplot involving Hermione and Harry cheating on their spouses with each other and having (I believe Ginny), knocked out for a lot of the story after being put under a curse. NO ONE wants Harry and Hermione cheating on Ron and Ginny, especially since it has nothing to do with the story. The one thing I did miss was the fully conversation between Delphi and, well, I won't give that one away, right at the end of the show. Trimming some things also majorly reduced (but certainly didn't get rid of) the queer baiting in the relationship between Scorpius and Albus - namely through a love triangle that used to be much more pronounced between them and Delphi (or, rather, I should say a love...square? As they're pretty clearly in love with each other...) There is a moment later on regarding Scorpius and Rose Granger Weasley that, though they do give a subtle line to Scorpius where he asks Albus, basically, if there's any reason he SHOULDN'T pursue Rose...but right now it feels like the show is trying to have both the Albus/Scorpius relationship and a hint at a kind of second generation Hermione/Draco romance for all the Dramione shippers... (not to mention the more overt nod to this ship in one of Draco's lines to Hermione.)
The time travel plot seems to be the center of the show as an excuse to bring us well-loved (or hated) canonically deceased characters. Seeing them doesn't make up for the frustrating plot. I'd far prefer to see what really happens when the Wizarding World has to pick up the pieces of Voldemort's influence and get back to "business as usual." How could the kind of fascism Voldemort represented rise again? What happens to the next generation when there's no "big bad" for them to take on?
There is a lot of telling, not showing. We hear a lot about how Albus's older siblings are so different from him - but we never even really see them onstage...we hear a lot about important emotional things that happen (a humiliating incident led Cedric Diggory to become a death eater?) but we never see it (and that would be an interesting scene to see. Not to mention alternate reality Cedric coming face to face with Scorpius - the boy who affected the entire course of his life.) There are also a lot of plot holes with the time turner plot...but I won't get into all of those.
One thing I do appreciate about the story (probably necessitated by the fact that the characters we love are now grown-up,) is that this isn't a world where the adults are idiots and the kids are the only ones with any sense (as is often the case in the original stories). The adults here know what's what and, with the exception of Albus thinking up a way to get a message to his father across time, the day is saved by the adults (even in time travel to the past and alternate presents). And even if the kids had been the main ones to get everyone out of the mess...it's a horrific mess that they caused in the first place. In the original series, every time Harry, Ron and Hermione were the instigators of trouble, the trouble was pretty minor and "kid-ish" (crashing Arthur Weasley's car into the Whomping Willow comes to mind.) The BIG trouble (Buckbeak, Serius Black, the break-in at the ministry, Quirrel trying to get the stone, and on and on) was always a "this is bigger than me" situation the trio FOUND themselves in and were forced to rise to the occasion to fix. "Cursed Child" feels a bit like if Harry had called the Ministry to report Buckbeak hurting Draco...and then realized "oops, my bad!" and spent the entire last third of "Prisoner of Azkaban" trying to save Buckbeak...then ultimately being rewarded for his courage, good heart and quick thinking.
The play also relies quite heavily on folks already intimately knowing the "Harry Potter" series - not just knowing it, but having strong associations with, and feelings for characters and incidents before the show starts. There is a "Harry Potter" synopsis in the playbill, and there is a decent amount of exposition...but I really don't think Scorpius's two line exchange to Snape about Lily Potter (Sr.) would make much sense if you weren't instantly imagining Alan Rickman's "Always..." the moment the word "Lily" is said in Snape's presence. That's not necessarily a major problem (there's no way they could summarize the "Harry Potter" plot, and it's a safe bet everyone DOES know the story already), but the moments when it feels more like fan service than storytelling can land a little oddly.
The performances are fantastic - most notably from Matthew James Thomas (who, let's be real, is the protagonist even though he's not supposed to be.) Daniel Fredrick (Ron) and Eleasha Gamble (Hermione) have a hard job and succeed brilliantly - not hard in that they have much character development, but, again, back to the tech, because of the technical mastery they display. There are times when they're performing multiple scenes in a row as different versions of their characters (Thomas does as well.) For example, an epic scene in the first act when the three of them must play both "themselves" and three other people disguised as them via polyjuice potion. Tom Stephens is an excellent Draco Malfoy - beautifully bridging the gap between the boorish bully he used to be and the "sadder but wiser" (and far more good) person he's become. Erik Christopher Peterson is wonderful as Scorpius and the ensemble is top notch - both en masse and in their numerous individual characters. (Special props must go to Allie Re who plays both Moaning Myrtle and Harry's mother Lily - you would never believe the same person played both roles.) I am a bit confused by the casting of Delphi, age wise... it's a significant plot point that, while she is young enough to form a love triangle with Albus and Scorpius, she is repeatedly said to be too old to pass as a student at Hogwarts. That dichotomy is, in and of itself, odd... (Albus and Scorpius age from around 11-14/15 in the show...Delphi has to be at least 19/20 from the get go...so...huh?) But the actors playing all three roles look to be the same age. It just...sort of takes you out of the story when ages are a significant plot point...
Director John Tiffany has achieved something extraordinary and is clearly the captain of a well oiled ship.
The costumes are excellent and do a great job at paying homage to the costume design (Katrina Lindsay) we've come to associate with the franchise while still being new and unique, the set design (Christine Jones) is surprising in all the right ways, and seems simple while being, decidedly, not... the video designs (Finn Ross and Ash J. Woodward) are second to none - subtle and incredibly effective. The lighting design (Neil Austin) works it's own brilliant magic and allows the illusions to work in the first place, and the original music and sound design (by Imogen Heap and Gareth Fry respectively) is extraordinary.
While it is easy to assume that the Cursed Child of the title is Albus, I think the real Cursed Child here is Harry...and the interesting question of the show is what happens when the Cursed Child is no longer a child? I wish the technical aspects of the show (and the cast for that matter) had a story that was worthy of them. But, regardless, this is a show well worth going to see.
Hunter Reed
HARRY POTTER AND THE CURSED CHILD is currently running at The Lyric Theatre on Broadway
Comments
Post a Comment