2021 EDIT: It's been a long overdue change of mind, but I'm finally, confidently able to determine that, yeah, 'The Cursed Child' is garbage fanfiction, that isn't well written. Based on all evidence, JKR barely had anything to do with it. I now agree with nearly every negative review out there. This "canon" (hell no) 'Harry Potter' sequel play is hideously sexist, heteronormative, dry, and it makes absolutely no sense. For these and a variety of other reasons, I can no longer give it the benefit of the doubt. It's bad.
I should have redone this review ages ago, seeing as I removed 'The Cursed Child' from my bookshelf ages ago, knowing even then that it is not fit to lick the boots of the only seven 'Harry Potter' books.
I'm keeping my old review up, however, because even for three stars all of the negative criticism I gave the play is still valid. I regret saying that it isn't in fact bad, and that no one really acts out of character (they do, all of them).
Final Score: 2/5
Original Review:
Harry Potter Reviews
Book 8: 'The Cursed Child - Parts One and Two'
We're back with my 'Harry Potter' reviews! This one will be different from the previous entries, not least because it isn't a book but a play. The whole story can be read in a whole day-off. I won't begin with a synopsis, just general thoughts. Brief but hopefully significant, like 'The Cursed Child' itself attempts to be.
And really, it had A LOT to live up to, as a supposed sequel to the seventh and then-final chapter in one of the most famous and beloved book franchises in the world. Harry's adventures were meant to end nearly ten years ago, with the last film adaptations then sending their own final farewell to a universal phenomenon and its millions of devoted and (mostly) satisfied fans. To put out another story now - compiled by two other writers and in a different format, but still canon - seemed unnecessary, especially since J.K Rowling has gone out of her way to distance herself from 'Harry Potter' over the years as an author who doesn't need to keep coming back to the old and is trying new horizons. She had moved on, and so had the majority of her fans, for that matter, including yours truly. I will always have the merchandise and the happy memories. And of course it's not like Ms Rowling is strapped for cash, either.
The big question is: Did we really want an eighth instalment? An original stage play of 'Harry Potter' is new and exciting, but to distribute the script like another novel as well? Adapting to a new medium, could it still, regardless of hype and our modern cynicism, live up to the quality we know from Ms Rowling's previous works? Will it be worth it all?
'The Cursed Child' is here. High hopes and expectations were inevitable, even among the skeptics. And predictably, once fans had finally gotten their hands on a copy after months of pre-ordering and waiting, many were disappointed. Baffled, even. 'The Deathly Hallows' wasn't so controversial upon its release.
I'd deliberately avoided reading any reviews - positive and negative - of the play before reading the thing myself, so as to be able to easily gather and form my own thoughts and feeling towards it. But without further ado, I shall now share my opinion of 'Harry Potter and the Cursed Child - Parts One and Two', spoiler-free:
Some of its heated criticisms are understandable. There are more than a few places that reminded me of fanfiction, the limited cast of characters are not developed enough beyond their designated roles - with very flat and forgettable extras - and the dialogue and interactions between characters are a little forced, with tacked-on messages.
Then there's the time travel plot... yeah, a bit too ambitious even for 'Harry Potter'. It makes the story shoot itself in the foot quite a lot. Well-written time travel stories are hard to find, because practically all of them, no matter how meticulously thought out, will leave something out of consideration, out of the equation, out of the loop. Something slips out of the cracks, and plot holes grow deeper. 'The Cursed Child' does treat its time-turning events in a passable way, helped by an always-debated-yet-never-explored-in-universe-before concept: Why not use a Time Turner when it could in fact solve every problem in the entirety of 'Harry Potter'? How many are there? How far back can one go back in time? Why is one never used again after 'The Prisoner of Azkaban'?
If the reader can look past the ridiculous fanfiction-type narrative of including time travel to begin with, I'm sure they'll flow with it. Though there are still plot holes, and many other elements that require readers to suspend their disbelief to the moon.
Indeed for a fantasy series, 'Harry Potter' was always brilliantly-written enough to make you believe in its rich, vast world and how it functions. In 'The Cursed Child', due to the restrictions of its stage play format, Harry's magical world suddenly seems small. And just like a play it is dialogue-heavy; more talking and less doing, and I found I easily forgot who's doing what and why. In this regard, consistency does suffer a teensy little bit. The Hogwarts scenes are glanced over (I guess the reader is expected to know about this world already, so hardly any descriptions are needed), and other iconic locations like the Forbidden Forest only appear in one scene and are barely mentioned again afterwards. Intended to be acted on a stage means that the assemble of great and colourful characters is reduced in number, and many are given only bit parts if they are not absolutely vital to the story, a little confused as said story is.
Also, Harry Potter is a terrible father. I know that's his arc and it contributes to his development as an orphan-turned-adult, but it could have been handled a whole lot better, in my opinion. He's light-years better than how the Dursleys raised him, for sure. However, it seems that in his time making teenage Albus Severus feel isolated and worthless, he forgets his other kids exist (James Jnr and Lily Jnr contribute nothing and disappear after the first few scenes, though James' supposed popularity - and positive reflection of his famous father - does contrast with Albus' inferiority complex and anxiety over not living up to Harry's name). As a side note, I hate troubled father and son bond plots with a passion, as they're so overdone and contribute to the same stubbornly-cemented, male-centered stories we've heard millions of times.
But I didn't dislike 'The Cursed Child'. True, it's not up to par with the gloriously-written and planned-out books of the past, but there are still good parts in it. Stuff to like.
I thought the humorous moments and dialogue very funny. A few scenes, like in Hermione Granger's Ministry office and her security flying books of death, are very creative. Hermione is the Minister of Magic and it's fantastic, almost making me forgive how the female cast is mostly ignored, fridged, stereotyped or otherwise underutilized. Almost.
New character Scorpius Malfoy, son of Draco Malfoy, is the best written in the play. He shows he has much dimension to his personality - a loner, a snarker, but one of the most positive influences to everyone around him, and he's secretly book smart. His sarcastic and witty streak is a relief from Albus' sourness and self-pity, and the straight man to the worst ideas of the teenage second son of The Boy Who Lived - involving skipping Hogwarts (from the top of the freaking Express train!), breaking and entering into the Ministry, and travelling back through time (all of which is accomplished a little too easily). Scorpius' good heart rubs off on his father as well, who is surprisingly well developed and a key player towards the climax. Sympathetic antiheroes are a specialty of Ms Rowling's, aren't they?
I have an inkling that the authors intended a certain subtext to the relationship between Albus and Scorpius. Their close friendship, with all its dramatic ups and downs, is one of the highlights of 'The Cursed Child', and it's wonderful to see an unabashedly loving bond between two teenage boys. In the end they both reserve a leaning towards girls, disappointingly. It's a shame, because in the past few years children's media has become more accepting of queer characters. We've come a long way since Dumbledore's outing by Ms Rowling.
There's a big twist towards the end that I didn't see coming. Shocking, yet it is foreshadowed throughout parts of the play, though maybe a big reason why no one would see it coming is because it is so ludicrous and fanfiction-y. On the other hand, it does provide a myriad of interpretations of who exactly the titular cursed child is, and what that could even mean...
Plus, the emotional investment in the story is there, as in the old books. Some interactions, mostly in Part Two, are very touching, such as those between Harry and Dumbledore's portrait in a couple of scenes. There are many scenes with just Harry and Ginny, and it's nice to see how far in their relationship they've come as a married team and parents to magical children. Ron is goofy and lovable even as a husband and father, and he and Hermione get their moments as well; bringing to light their differences and oddball pairing, but their love is there, existing beyond time (their daughter Rose is criminally underused, however - why couldn't she have hung out with Albus and Scorpius more, becoming part of the new trio? Son Hugo is MIA). Those moments stuck with me the most.
Nobody really acts out of character. Despite its flaws, the heartfelt, light glimpses of nostalgia - just seeing these characters again and how they're coping as adults - make 'The Cursed Child' worth it to me, Hogwarts and all.
After finishing 'The Cursed Child', I felt happy to have visited the magical world again after all these years, and the overtly awkward and confusing parts of it fit into place better in my head - all coming together towards that rushed but sad and hopeful climax. Nowhere close to perfection, but it'll do.
And the Hogwarts Express Trolley lady is awesome.
I didn't expect 'The Cursed Child' to be as good as the 'Harry Potter' books of the past, and maybe that's helped me to give it a fair review. I'm sure I could talk about others things, like its themes of nature-vs-nurture, moving on from grief, and how prejudices can remain even in the best of us, but I won't bore you any longer.
I did say this review was going to be brief, didn't I? Botched that up quickly.
But J.K. Rowling's latest expedition into the 'Harry Potter' world, a continuation of a story she had worked hard to write in seven parts for so many years, and which had brought her fame and fortune, is not a failure. Not really. In my opinion, many of its shortcomings are the result of its creative freedom being restricted by a play format, and are due, perhaps, to the hand of the other two authors, John Tiffany and Jack Thorne, or Ms Rowling was rushing things a bit.
I don't know. I don't care. Either way it's 'Harry Potter', and I can't dislike it. Like it or hate it, I don't think 'The Cursed Child' is bad. The quality is fine for the most part, and like a good parent I can look past the faults (and still point them out to help with improvement) and recognise - embrace - what it tries to do right, even in the face of impossibly high standards and cynicism. Admirable, wanted and not worthless, as a poor child of any background and lineage deserves to be.
Harry Potter Book (Play) 8:
Final Score: 3/5
No comments:
Post a Comment