Who is Neville Longbottom, and Why Should I Care? A Potter Newbie on That Broadway Show

My family and I traveled to New York for one night in March to see the Cursed Child in previews. We loved the play, all seven hours of it. You’ve probably never seen a more excited and animated group of adults at supper during the break between Parts 1 and 2, discussing what we’d just seen with full on gestures and voices. The Cursed Child’s audience was overwhelmingly enthusiastic and some were literally fantastic—-all ages and nationalities, all proclivities and all four Hogwarts houses amply represented. But one woman in our row kept asking her seat mate inane and irritating questions that proved beyond question she’d never read a single book in the series, never watched even one of the movies and certainly had not bothered to read the play or any synopsis of it. Our judgment was indignant and unanimous: she didn’t deserve to be there! The little boy in the next row who fell asleep clutching his wand, exhausted from casting excited spells, did. The Cursed Child play is clearly not for everyone. Theatergoers who disdain Harry Potter as a mere pop culture phenomenon should leave the seats for those of us who love him.

I have long admired Elisabeth Vincentelli's as a theater critic. I am grateful for this one. For one, I cannot afford the ticket prices. I was planning to do the of ticket lottery thing. I may still, but this takes the pressure off if I do not make it. I write plays myself, and love what I have heard about the special effects. I did read most of the series, but kinda got over it before the last book. I have seen and enjoyed all the films. But I can understand some one being bored and not interested in the whole thing. I do mean to try and see Travesties, so good to hear that is top notch. I do not understand why so many commenters are upset or annoyed that this reviewer was never taken with this story or characters and was pretty much bored with the production. I am glad so many people have gotten so much from Harry Potter, but isn't grand we are not all alike? Think how boring that would be.

Read this review in the Sunday Times, and it also irritated me. I bought tickets back in October and just saw the plays a couple weeks ago. While I am the most critical person one may ever meet in their life, I found the whole experience immensely enjoyable. I was giddy with excitement, and the plays did not let this 30 something fan down. It didn't just have "magic" on the stage, but examined deeper issues of what family means, and the effect of PTSD on those relationships. At worst, it did feel like the most expensive version of fan fiction, but I would go see it again. I don't understand the nay-saying except that it's "popular" and that's not allowed. But seriously - comparisons to Spongebob Squarepants??! (For the record, I also saw Angels in America, "real" theatre and also enjoyed that experience).

I don't understand the target audience for this article. Should you spend $400 on already-impossible-to-get Harry Potter tickets if you weren't interested in spending $50 to get the 7 books or even $65 for the 8 DVDs? I mean of course not. But who was really asking that question?

Who is Elisabeth Vincentelli and why should I care? I tried to read the review but got bored and somewhat irritated after the first few paragraphs. There was too much about Elisabeth, which I'm sure she finds fascinating, and possibly her family and friends pretend to be interested, but they are most likely just faking it to avoid hurting her feelings. I was disappointed by this review and hope she'll do better in the future, but I'm not going to go out of my way to read her efforts. I've read other reviews over the years and many of them were much better than this one. John Simon's reviews were a lot more annoying than this, so there's that.

I have read the seven Harry Potter books at least twice. I have also read the text of the play, “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” and I am hoping to see it on Broadway. I have always been impressed by the depth of the stories as well as the delightful creativity of J.K. Rowling in bringing them to life. The films are remarkable as well in their adherence to the plot. The fact that the books have sold 500 million copies and been widely translated suggests the reviewer has made a serious error in judgment regarding the Harry Potter. With regard to the depths that J.K. Rowling plumbs with these stories, I was confirmed in my evaluation when the Episcopal press published, “Teaching Faith with Harry Potter”, by Patricia Lyons. J.K. Rowling is a brilliant and scholarly author. Obviously, one does not need to be a believer to enjoy the books, but it reinforces the fact that the stories should not be dsimissed offhand. Readers who are interested can check out the book at https://www.churchpublishing.org/teachingfaithwithharrypotter Jeanne

Why send someone with an antipathy for the genre to review the show? This feeds into the reputation that many have of New Yorkers as people who think they define culture, when in fact they do not participate in it. I was not impressed by this review, or the reviewer.

I read all seven "Potter" books and enjoyed them. But "Cursed Child" is an unforgivable waste of time and money. Longer than "Angels In America," with absolutely nothing to say. Yes, there's some magic onstage, but not so frequent that it can keep an eight-year-old engaged for SIX hours. Anybody who read the first book already knows the ending. Apparently, this show exists solely to separate parents from the contents of their wallets, preferably while kids watch. The real question is: How much was Ben Brantley bribed to call this malarkey "enthralling?" If Times' reviewers Walter Kerr or Brooks Atkinson were alive, this non-play would have been rightfully crucified and shipped back to London. I dread to see the fallout, when the young generation growing up with this shallowness, thinking that it's brilliant, takes charge of the American theater. "I wrote a play that's SEVEN hours long! That must make it more 'enthralling' than 'Harry Potter!'"

The writer's review touts his banality. I will explain mine. J.K. Rowling wrote children's books and I could not understand why my girlfriend, an RN and a lawyer, was captivated by these "children's books." A lawyer also, I read more history than novels. Upon my return from Kuwait, a year long deployment with my National Guard unit, I finally sat down to read the set of Harry Potter novels that she sent to me. Words are inadequate to describe the rapture of being swept away into and by the world of Harry Potter created by Rowling. The brilliance of Rowling as a writer was proven in spades by her "non-Harry Potter" novels that she has written post Hogwarts. The enjoyment of the world of Harry Potter is almost religious. Either one believes or one does not. Those who deny the brilliance of the Harry Potter saga deserve and have earned their fate as trolls among us. I will always be thankful that the long gone girlfriend shared her love of Harry Potter with me. One of my favorite gifts to those I love is a copy of the Harry Potter set from Foyles Bookstore, Charing Cross, London. The arrival of a set of these books via the Royal Mail is magical. Yes, I do believe in the magic spun by J.K. Rowling. Children's novels? Balderdash! Who is Neville Longbottom? He killed Voldemort. He was the possible alternative Harry Potter who came through at the end, the toothy boy who grew into a handsome man. Thus, according to the gospel of J.K.Rowling. Believe or be heathen.

If I had only watched half of the first movie, I might not have become a Potter fan either. Sending someone with contempt for the series who was nevertheless "excited" to see the play, was your first mistake. This is a children's story, for goodness sake. Someone who is already a culture snob was surely predisposed to dislike it. I have no idea if the play is clunky or not. But I don't need someone tossing around tidbits that he doesn't understand (spoilers included) as its authority.

I did not read all the Potter books but I did see all the films. I love magic and transformation. And I love theater that makes creative use of the medium. I haven't seen the films in years. I had no problem following this play and was totally enchanted. And those who read the play and were disappointed I think you need to see this magical production.

Wow, the comments are full of people who sound like they believe everyone should intimately know a play before they walk in to the theatre. Do you know how many families blindly book tickets to plays in New York? Or, what about when you wait in line at TKTS, and just have to pick something that's available? So much of the theatre-going experience is trying something new and going in completely unprepared for what's about to unfold. The sixteen-year olds who sat in front of me at Three Tall Women didn't need to know much about American Modernism or the legacy of Glenda Jackson to experience a terrific show. For me, it's too bad to heard that Cursed Child is not for everyone, and I think it's absurd to fault a writer for not being an insider.

The problem is not that this writer was unfamiliar with the Potter cannon. It's a worthwhile question whether the play stands on its own without knowing the entire 7-book/8-film backstory. I am a little disappointed at the idea that the play's creators have made something that relies too heavily on all of that foreknowledge, because there will likely be some in the audience who are not intimately familiar with the entire Potter-verse. The same valid question is applied to the other plays in the article. Do you need to catch all of the references to enjoy the play? The problem here is that the reviewer clearly just doesn't like Harry Potter. Never even bothered to pick up a single book and stopped halfway through the first film? How could she ever expect to get anything out of the play? It would be like someone saying "I walked out halfway through the first Star Wars movie back in 1977 because it was boring and stupid. But don't get me wrong, I like some science fiction, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Day the Earth Stood Still, so I thought maybe I'd dig Star Wars Episode 8. But it was boring and stupid, too." If one dislikes the entire world in which the play takes place, it is of little relevance whether one will catch a reference to Bellatrix Lestrange. Other reviewers not intimately familiar with Potter lore have enjoyed the play, because apparently they were more open to the good things the play has to offer. I would not be dissuaded by this particular Scrooge.

I read and loved all seven books, saw all the movies and enjoyed most of them. I picked up a published copy of the Cursed Child script last year, and was massively disappointed. Time travel was plot point, carefully used at the very end, in Prisoner of Azkaban. It actually underlined how relatively dark the book was (especially compared to the first two)--the only "fix" was going back in time and even then, it meant a major character went unredeemed for a crime he didn't commit. That book was when I fell in love with the series. The first two were fun, quick reads (even for an 11-year-old). The third was so much richer because Harry and co. couldn't solve everything and their heroism was unknown. The constant back and forth travel of Cursed Child was ridiculous and cheap. It felt like bad fan fiction. I could never get into the story because I constantly had to remember details of books that yes, I read many times but years ago. I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, maybe on stage it improves, but I can't find any positive reviews from anyone other than wide-eyed fans who refuse to see any fault with the (good but not imperfect) book series. I moved recently. I packed and hauled all seven large Harry Potter hardcovers to my new apartment. Cursed Child went in the donation pile.

This review by a person uniquely unlikely to appreciate the play reminds me of nothing so much as a review I once read of a pulled-pork BBQ palace in which the unimpressed reviewer, bafflingly, had failed to try the famous BBQ and had ordered shrimp instead.

I can't imagine a more pointless article. Was it written simply because the author wanted to use the word heptalogy? Why would someone write a play related to a book series and not draw from things in the series that it assumes the audience knows? On the other hand, why would you go to a performance on the nth installment of a series without seeing the first n-1? Why did I bother reading this and why did the NYT bother publishing it?

My interest in the Potter series was nicely closed out with the final book. Milking it with follow-ups didn't work for me. Ms. Rowling offer the world a spectacular tale and I thank her for it. I''m 81 years-old.

So this "critic" doesn't like Harry Potter and didn't like the cultural references in Travesties. Could someone please tell me why she was assigned to write up these plays? There's no real critique of the theatricality of the productions. It's just her incessant whining that the subject matter of three current plays is beneath her. Thanks for taking all the magic out of my anticipation of seeing the Cursed Child. Silencio!

I can’t imagine why anyone who is not just unfamiliar with the Potter books but openly hostile to them would imagine they had any possibility of enjoying this production. Its certainly an unusual choice to mount a huge expensive theatrical production as a sequel to a popular series of books and movies, but it IS a sequel. Why would someone unfamiliar with seven previous stories have any reason to see it? What a silly review.

Couple of questions that occur: 1. Why spend all that time and money to see a show you have no interest in? 2. How can you claim to be a "critic" educated in the arts in 21st century America and not have read any Harry Potter? 3. How can you claim to be educated enough to work as a critic for a major Newspaper and not know who the various important historical characters in Travesties are? 4. Is this article a put on?

I’m not sure why you would see this play if you haven’t read the entire Harry Potter series. While I haven’t seen the play I did read it when the screenplay was released. You absolutely need the background of the entire series to enjoy and understand Cursed Child.

I saw it in London and it was truly magical and great. I’m a potter fan. I saw it in two days, I think is better than in one day because it could be too many hours of theatre in just one day to be able to appreciate. I don’t know how the ny version differ from the London one, but my experience was super positive

Ohmigosh, Elisabeth, I am feeling you on so many levels. As much as I love the theater, I love the amusement and theme park arts even more (don't judge me), and yet I had serious reservations about partaking of the Potterverse attractions at Universal Orlando last year. Harry Potter holds no appeal for me whatsoever -- I could certainly appreciate the technology brought to bear in the park's (presumably) faithful recreations, yet I remain steadfastly not wild about Harry. So thanks for the warning. Yet I am still so, so tempted ... theatrical special effects having much in common with what one finds at the parks these days. But I don't see it happening. I already invested seven-plus hours this year with parts one and two of Angels in America, so come on -- there's nothing Harry could conjure up that would even come close. Travesties! I sat through Travesties, too! I even understood some of it, by no means all of it, but at least I had something of a mental roadmap to help me navigate the Stoppard terrain. I Googled on the train ride home trying to nail down the stuff that went over my head. But pick up a Potter book? Sorry, I'll pass.

I loved the magic of Harry Potter and spectacle of the show but when I saw both parts on Mothers Day I couldn’t help but feel the terrific story was put into a Hollywood event for the masses. A few days later I was lucky enough to see Angels in America. There was no comparison. Angels is a true theater experience. Harry Potter is a popcorn movie by comparison.

My daughter is a huge Harry Potter fan. We went to NYC for her 13th birthday last month and saw Puffs. I would describe it as the funny, small theater version of the Harry Potter story, from the point of view of all the OTHER students at Hogwarts who were not the teacher’s pet like Harry, Hermione and Ron. We loved it! And my 13 year old was laughing. Yup. Puffs made my teenager laugh. Puffs gets 5 stars for that alone!

Well, you have really busted my bubble. I bought tickets for July, and have been reading the books from the beginning to get prepared and excited for the show that awaits me. I was swayed to pay the enormous sum for the tickets based on great reviews and general enthusiasm for the story. But now, I am dreading that I spent all this money and made this great effort only to be bored in the end. Hopefully, your unwillingness to invest in reading the books proves the difference between you and me. If the play is nearly as good as the Goblet of Fire, which I am currently reading, then I expect to enjoy myself wholeheartedly!

We generally assume that a play will be self-contained, but most everyone is familiar with Harry Potter. It would make little sense to include backstory with which vritually everyone in the audience will be familiar. You seem also to be averse to the kind of entertainment that the play offers, as witness the fact that you made no attempt to read the books or see the movies despite their popularity. I can't of course judge the play without having seen it, but I sense a sourness of expectation that has perhaps influenced your response.

It's unfortunate the author stopped after the first movie, because the first 2 films were not representative of the films that followed. The Harry Potter movies started to become really good starting with The Prisoner of Azkaban. The author's review is relevant for theater fans who have minimal knowledge or exposure to Harry Potter. However, it will be less useful to the large number of pre-existing Harry Potter fans who are likely to comprise the majority of the audience for the show (and likely the majority of the readers of this review). It may have been useful to have a parallel review from someone with a more detailed understanding of the overall arc of the Harry Potter series (as there are many thematic callbacks in this play that resonate with the prior books/movies).

How much monetary juice can they squeeze from the lemon before it's just pulp?

Thanks for the warning, I definitely won't be going to this, and I'd recommend that my young niece, a Potter fan, not see it either. Don't tell my niece, but after reading book 1, I gave up on all Potter stuff as being derivative, simplistic fantasy. I like fantasy, but complicated, original fantasy, like that of Tolkien, LeGuin, Zelazny, Pratchett, Myers, McCaffrey, and so on. J.K. Rowling just lucked out with a great marketing campaign. But I think even for a Potter fan, this play isn't going to cut the mustard. Or Cuttius Mustardius, as Potter would have it. I mean, six hours of plot that has nothing to do with Harry Potter, tedious dialogue, little blasts of stage wizardry that can't compare to CGI, all of that would have my niece swear off theatre for years. If you've got a kid of about theatre age, take them to see The Gazillion Bubble Show instead, at New World Stages. My niece and I found it truly magical.