Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is a story which suffers from the limitations of its medium.
Specifically, it’s a very exclusive form of entertainment which requires its audience to be in a specific place on planet Earth (specifically, the West End of London), and to have enough money to both travel to this location, and afford the not inconsequential cost of tickets.
As if this didn’t make things difficult enough, the supply of tickets available is far outstripped by demand, as most new bookings sell out months, if not years, in advance.
While there is talk of an American version of the play arriving at some point in the distant future, fans are obviously eager to see the play adapted into a more accessible form of storytelling.
Sure, the script is available in printed form, but it’s really not the same. This story is meant to be watched, rather than read, and as such, it’s natural that Harry Potter fans are already clamoring for a movie (or pair of movies) that would make the story more enjoyable for those who can’t afford plane tickets to London.
Rumors and speculation about as to if and when this play might be turned into a movie. While it’s not something we’ll likely see any time soon, fans have already begun eagerly pressing the stars of the existing Harry Potter movies to see whether they’d be willing to reprise their roles.
According to Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry in all eight existing movies, he’s really not sure whether it’s something he’d even want to do:
“Oh, I don’t know. I’m not sure, that’s a long way off isn’t it? I mean, Harry’s gotten a bit older now. I really don’t know, I think that’s all highly theoretical talk. If it ever became more than theoretical, I would, of course, think about it.”
He’ll think about it.
That’s probably the best we can expect, especially considering that unless Warner Bros wants to commit to two full movies of unconvincing aging prosthetics, we’ll be waiting another decade before Radcliffe and his cohorts will look the part.
In fairness, at this point in his career, it’s hard to see Daniel Radcliffe wanting to return. He’s still appearing regularly in a slew of movies – some of which have received critical and commercial acclaim (others less so, but let’s not dwell on that).
Many of the roles that Radcliffe has taken on seem to be a deliberate attempt to separate him from the bespectacled Boy Who Lived, and as such, it may not be in his best interests to remind everyone of the reason he’s famous to begin with.
Besides, it’s not like he needs the money.
Give things ten years, though, and the situation might be different. As Radcliffe ages, and as he puts more distance behind his time as Harry, he might soften to the idea of returning to the role – not least if he can’t find work anywhere else.
After all, there was a time when it seemed that getting Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, or Harrison Ford back to appear in another Star Wars movie would be impossible, but given enough time, the idea didn’t sound as awful as it might have done in the mid to late Eighties.
(Harrison Ford still seemed to hate the press junket surrounding the movie, so perhaps he was only in it for his chance to finally exit the franchise in style.)
We’ll have to wait and see where time takes Radcliffe, his costar Emma Watson, and, to a lesser extent, Rupert Grint, who was arguably the most talented of the three, and yet who has struggled the most to land significant Hollywood roles since hanging up his Hogwarts robes.
For those movie directors who’d love to see The Cursed Child in ten years with the original cast, there’s one easy way to help make it happen.
Don’t cast Daniel Radcliffe in any movies.
If his work dries up, he’ll have no choice but to return to the Potterverse.
It’s harsh, but hey, it’s not like he’s a particularly good actor anyway.