Friday, September 25, 2015
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child Split Into Two Parts
The Mary Sue: J.K. Rowling announced on Twitter that Cursed Child is so epic, that the play will have two parts! The Cursed Child twitter reports that the two parts will play consecutive days in a week, or possibly on the same day. Jack Thorne, a BAFTA winning writer, is a big fan of the decision
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I don't know how to feel about this. I, like almost every person my age, read Harry Potter (in less than a month, thank you very much), and saw all the movies. And I am only slightly embarrassed to say that it felt pretty close to losing a friend when I closed the 7th book. But, none of this means that I am necessarily ready for more. Do I hope that these new characters, and development to the old ones are just as great, of course. But historically, things that pick up 5 or 10 years after they were meant to be finished don't live up to the expectation of their predecessors. I think everyone HOPES that the new Star Wars is gonna be great, but no one is necessarily expecting it. My middle school self is psyched to see this through, but my college self is nervous, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
My knee jerk reaction is that I don’t like the idea of making the play two parts, but, I know that most of that reaction is simply me thinking, “But that isn’t how it is done!” Afterall, I can’t think of a single two part play, though I can think of plays that have sequels. However, those plays tell a complete story within each play, having the next play be a continuation of that story, or at least that is how it tends to be as far as I have seen. I took a look at the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child website, and they say that part one will be a matinee and part two would be the same evening, though it could be seen across two days. For that situation, it almost seems like it is functionally one long play with a very long intermission, or a play split into two days if that works better for a given audience member. I could see that working, and presumably it would be done similarly if the show tours. I guess I will have to wait and see what people seem to think once the show opens. It could be good, it could end up feeling long. On one hand, it loses some of the immersive quality of the play, on the other hand it gives the audience more time to wonder what happens next. I hope that they make the tickets less expensive so it doesn’t cost the same as two tickets for a typical show of that quality would. I’d imagine they’d be able to given that the tech overlap between the shows would be very high, cutting down that cost to closer to the cost of one show than of two, but I also might be completely wrong about that assumption. Other than the accessibility issue, which the article mentions, I think my reason for feeling like this isn’t a good idea is just that it isn’t typically done, and that isn’t a good reason to not do something. For all I know, this could be a really interesting set up for a play, and end up becoming common.
So my initial reaction to this news was money. It makes complete sense to divide this show into two parts from a finical aspect (similar sets, similar set, etc.). On the other hand from an audience member's perspective, it makes absolutely no sense to do so, other than to develop character. The issue we have here that I don't think the producers have thought out very well is the time in between performances. In movies that are split into two, you can sit down and play them back to back. It doesn't often feel right but you can still do it. This does not apply to theatre in the least bit. No matte how they end up organizing it. People will have to leave space in between parts, automatically creating a divide, let alone an intermission. I fear for this show because of an underestimation of the necessity of continuity, something I think that we overlook too often.
JK is a talented writer, even beyond the Harry Potter novels, as she achieved high acclaim, even under her pseudonym Robert Gailbraith. This play split to me initially read as a money grab, however, with evidence, sucha as her pseudonym, perhaps Rowling is just trying to tell her story in the best way possible.
I too was (and am) and ardent Harry Potter fan, so I cannot lie and say this isn't the least bit exciting to me. However, knowing that Rowling is such a talented writer, part of me wants her to move on, despite please from crazed Harry Potter fans worldwide. She isn't limited to that character and those stories. I would love to see her with another success, like the Harry Potter novels, even though I don't think any other children's fiction, or story for that matter could rival the phenomenon surrounding Potter.
While Harry Potter is one of the most central parts of my childhood (and my adulthood, let's be honest), and I am not sure how much I'm going to like that there is a new story out there, my biggest issue is the fact that the play is split into two. I'm sure they will find a way to justify these two parts, but the fact of the matter is that they are making the opportunity to experience the entirety of the story almost completely impossible. When I am able to see a Broadway show, it is because I have the time and the money to see ONE broadway show. I am shocked to hear that the producers would make what is going to be such a popular story for all ages so inaccessible to families with limited time and/or money. My mom is a single mom who works 7 days per week. Do you think that if I lived in London, even with my extreme love for Harry Potter, I'd be able to negotiate two shows in one weekend, or in one day? This is just a ridiculous ploy for money which upsets me because Harry Potter should always be about the story, the love of the story, and giving the story to others.
What an interesting article! Harry Potter the play going all, Angels in America full day event style? I would really like to experience this, not only because I'm a huge fan of Harry Potter, but because I think it's an interesting way to make sure you take time in telling the story. I think the director is right in being worried, however, that it will keep audiences from being able to experience the whole project. I have other questions about doing a show like this, however. Are there the same production teams for both shows? Do the separate shows require a different set, or does it happen in different locations? What does that do to their ability to rehearse both? It almost definitely has to be the same actors, so how do they give them a break when they need it? This would be such an interesting challenge for a Stage Manager and for the run crew, to keep so much between two separate full length shows straight. I wonder how this effected their timeline and if they're still set to open when they originally planned. I have so many questions!
When I first picked up a copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I was very lost. I had recently begun the sixth grade and quickly discovered how alone I was in a school of 1,800 kids whose main purpose in life was to look and act and dress and think exactly like one another. I felt at that time as if I would never belong anywhere in the world. It was terrifying. I didn't know where to turn. And then I started reading. I devoured the books, read them under my desk, carried them everywhere I went and never left them out of my sight. Harry, Ron, and Hermione became the friends I needed, and those friends led to more as I discovered the joy of literature and the endless supply of characters and worlds into which I could escape. More so, my devotion to the books I was so attached to and the writing and speaking skills I gained because of them showed my teachers and parents what I was capable of. Thus, even when my peers ignored me, the adults in my life were on my side. I survived middle school by reading, and it all started with Harry. His story will always have a life within the hearts of J. K. Rowling's readers, and as a theatre artist I look to this play as a serendipitous convergence of the two worlds which have made me who I am. I have a strong feeling that the worldwide scope of this fan base will help very much in quickly expanding the availability of this new material, and cannot wait to see what the future holds for this venture. Because of Harry, I have nothing but optimism.
I love the idea of a Harry Potter play! The books were my childhood I read them so much. I’m very interested to see what the play will even be about because I know it isn't simply a Harry Potter prequel, and, like the article says, it is a story that no one knows yet. I am leery because of the whole two parts because how will they even decide when to stop the performance so that you can see it another day? What happens if the plays aren’t showed on consecutive days or you can't see it on consecutive days? Theatre tickets to one show are already really expensive, so how will it work buying two tickets to see essentially one show? Will people come? My guess is yes, of course they will come, it’s Harry Potter. Ever since the last movie came out we have been devouring every new scrap of information from JK Rowling with the release of Pottermore and the news about the movies Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.I certainly hope these plays do well and don't feel like they just have an extremely awkwardly long intermission that makes watching it a drag. One of the great things about watching movies at home is you get to decide when the bathroom breaks, food breaks, and nap breaks take place so you can either marathon a series all in a row, or watch it over a long time, or even skip to your favorite parts. But with theatre there is no pausing or coming back a different day. The commitment is much greater, and I just hope it works out well enough that there might be a way for me to see it without flying out to London.
It makes complete sense to me that a play about Harry Potter would be split into two. It's a little hard to remember now, but Harry Potter was practically iconoclastic for children's literature, purely because of its length. JK Rowling basically re-defined a genre, and she was able to do so because of her focus on character development and the way she created a fully developed world in which the narrative takes place, rather than simply focusing on the narrative and creating world details as they fit within it. Because of these goals, I can completely understand why a single 2.5 hour play would seem too rushed to truly capture the things that made Harry Potter so radical and cherished when it was written. Marian Zimmerman does it in her Odyssey, Kushner does it in Angels in America so there is a precedent set for setting up a theatrical narrative in this way.
Ok. I get that there is precedent for split plays, and I get that this is a highly influential series of books which means a lot to a lot of people (myself included), but reading this fills me with anxiety. Harry Potter was such a huge part of my life, and the idea of it on stage is fascinating, but I can't help but feel that movie rules are being applied to the theatre genre, and that disaster is in the air. Here's an example. How will they do magic? Will they fly? Will the show be high tech or low tech? In a true theatrical creation, this might be a low tech show (a la Peter and the Starcatcher) where magic is implied and left to the audience to imagine. Personally I think a low tech version of Harry Potter is exactly right for a book that relied so much on the imagination of children. It could be magical, so to speak. The issue is that I fear the commercial aspects of the piece will drive the piece into expensive special effects mode, much more along the lines of The Lord of the Rings musical, or any of the slick, over produced magic-driven pieces (Aladdin, Mary Poppins) that have graced commercial stages. Harry Potter is better than that, but I worry that his producers won't be. This could be an excellent piece of art, but it has all the ingredients to be turned into a cash cow.
When I first heard their was going to be more Harry Potter in the form of live theater I was confused. I am a big supporter of once something ends its over; when a show hits closing night, when the curtain falls the story ends too. I have not heard anything about the story line of this, and the article didn't add any light. From what I've read I am really only thinking that this is just another big push for money making. I had hoped the goal would be to bring people who are not normally theater goers to bring them to see a show, however it is currently only scheduled to go up in one place for a fairly short run, in now two parts. The two parts seems very ridicules to me, how much more money do they want to suck out of an audience? Even movies that are released in two parts seems extreme. However, as a kid who grew up with the books, and loves theater I am interested in the show, probably not seeing it, but I want to know what they do with the story and how the designers are going to overcome so many hurdles to create the magic of Harry Potter on stage.
Post a Comment