 |
| Depp, Redmayne, and Law |
“Fantastic Beasts and Where Not to Find Them”
A Review of Fantastic
Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald by Nick Olszyk
MPAA Rating, PG-13
USCCB Rating, A-II
Reel Rating, Three Reels
When Warner Brothers first announced its intention to
make a big screen movie based on the fictional textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, I was skeptical such a
small work could be transformed into a major motion picture. After the success
of the first film, it was then announced that it would be part of a five films
series, a prospect that would make even Peter Jackson blush. It turns out that
I was correct: the book could not sustain a film series, but that was never Crimes of Grindlewald intention. Rather,
J.K. Rowling transformed the story into an extended prequel to Harry Potter. This will please some and
annoy others. I fall into the first camp, though my doubts have not yet been
completely disappeared.
The film begins with a surprise that everyone saw
coming: Gellert Grindlewald (Johnny Depp) easily escapes prison and begins to
amass followers, preparing for a rebellion against the current Wizard
authority. Meanwhile Credence (Ezra Millar) and his incredibly confusing Obscurus
parasite have inexplicitly survived from the last film and are being hunted by
various forces, good and evil. Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is once again
pulled into the drama, mostly to rekindle his old flame with Tina Goldstein, an
undercover auror also looking for Credence. This is only the start of a number
of bizarre and complex relationships and plot developments. There aren’t many “beasts”
to be seen, but Newt keeps a few around like James Bond and his various
gadgets. It all feels like a more somber version of Scooby Doo with Newt and his team of misfits solving mysteries and
saving the world.
At center stage is Grindlewald and his racist
ideology. Currently, wizards must hide their magic and are severely punished
for revealing themselves. Grindlewald believes pure-blood wizards “have a right
to rule.” They are a master race meant to dominate the humans. This fascist theme
has appeared many times in fantasy, especially the X-Men series. Like most dictators, he is charming and manipulative,
appealing both to good impulses (freedom to marry muggles) and bad (genocide of
muggles). When the Harry Potter
series first emerged in the early 2000s, it was criticized for its pagan imagery.
If there is pagan influence in the series, it does not come from the occult but
the modern secularism adage “the ends justify the means.” Grindlewald uses this
philosophy effectively, using WWII and nuclear proliferation to convince
wizards that mankind simply cannot be trusted to rule themselves and they would
do a better job, even if that means killing many of them.
These themes are obvious, and few would object to Newt’s
desire to bring Grindlewald to justice. What makes the film difficult is its
mindboggingly confusing narrative. I’m no means a Harry Potter expert, but I am married to one and had to read all
the books as a perquisite to dating her. Yet I constantly found myself baffled
by the sheer number of characters and references. This was not an entirely unenjoyable
experience. Jude Law did an especially good job as young Dumbledore in a cameo.
His implied homosexuality and previous affair with Grindlewald were handled delicately
without fanfare, which was appreciated. An argument could even be made that his
participation in this relationship hurt those he loved and was a terrible idea.
Besides this one example, however, the film was messy and overblown.
The Crimes of
Grindlewald, as work of high fantasy,
is entertaining, even more so than the first Fantastic Beasts. Yet at the same time, this is clearly a film
meant for fans alone. Anyone unfamiliar with this Universe will be lost. If one
is familiar, you will still be lost, but at least you’ll have a good time
finding your way.
Comments
Post a Comment