As with so many fandoms lately, it's become cool to hate new installments. And I resist that for many reasons, one of which is that the outcries are often raised by angry consumers who can't/won't/don't contribute to the franchises yet who seem to think that they nevertheless know more about the story or characters than the artists. Especially when it comes to a planned series, why wouldn't you just sit back and let it take you for a ride? We all know Rowling is a genius. Let her do her thing and stop your bellyaching!
Okay, now let's talk magic.
Beginning a few months after Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, this new story picks up with Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) breaking out of MACUSA custody. We immediately skip across the pond to find Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) appealing his travel ban with the London Ministry. And so begins a complex tale with an ensemble cast, dazzling details spanning the Wizarding World, new kinds of magic we've not seen yet, and of course some fabulous new places spanning the globe. But, you know, new things tend to bother the closed-minded.
I don't want to spoil too much of the story; it's complex and detailed -- perhaps needlessly so -- and easily the most plot-driven story from Rowling yet (not counting The Cursed Child, which is also heavily plotted). But it's also one of the darkest installments in the franchise, thematically and chromatically, with major issues of racism, fascism, loyalty, and bravery taking the fore. Maybe instead of "darkest" I should say "timeliest." It's hard to watch this film and not empathize with Newt, for example, who is determined not to take sides in a conflict and who wants so badly to build bridges; it's a fascinating extension of his character from the earlier film, which is a perfect response to Harry Potter's toxic masculinity. But by the end of this film, Newt realizes that to stop evil, he does need to take a side and actively fight the war. Rowling is clearly saying, "Okay, world, are you paying attention?"
And indeed we should be. Grindelwald is a clear representation of fascist ideals and imagery. His imposing figure cuts a stylish swath wherever he goes, and his entrancing voice commands immense power. Depp is both terrifying and understatedly charismatic, oozing his control over the proceedings in a way Voldemort only hoped to attain. More interesting still, Grindelwald's message for "the greater good" rings more hauntingly now than when it was printed in The Deathly Hallows; though he seeks control and domination, his message seduces the likes of Queenie and Credence who desire greater knowledge and personal freedom. The moment when he uses future images of WWII to terrify the wizards of Muggle capacities for violence is especially unnerving.
The film also brings in Dumbledore (Jude Law) and a smattering of other characters to round out the massive tale. We finally meet Nicolas Flamel, though he's used as a weird comic relief, and of course we meet the young woman Nagini (Claudia Kim), who we learn will eventually become Voldemort's pet and Horcrux. It is at this point we can address some of the mounting claims of problematic writing and the issues of representation on Rowling's part. We can debate all day about her retconning, her appropriation of other cultures, her use of cultural shorthand (stereotypes, we might say), and of course her use of social media and personal blogs. However, her work should (and, frankly, does) stand on its own. While it might be culturally nearsighted to proclaim a character's sexuality but never depict it, this series has never been about sex; further, do we really need another cinematic example of a doomed queer love affair that ends in tragedy? While it may be problematic to depict a lone Korean woman (well, Claudia Kim is Korean, but we don't really know about Nagini, do we?) as a "snake" (think of the Asian "dragon ladies" and their dark magic and seductive sexuality), doesn't her inclusion also comment on the deeply problematic issues of colonization, racism, and of course the ableist construct of the "freak show" Circus Arcanus where we discover her?
These issues get further complicated by the fantasy world in which they find meaning. To what extent are we meant to believe these things, and to what extent do they simply allude or even allegorize? After all, we see the mushroom clouds and Holocaust marches; hell, we even see the Titanic (or what may well be the Titanic). Taken at face value, these issues are only issues now because they were non-issues during the Harry Potter series; we've become more "woke" culturally, and the target audience has learned much about the changing world.
Still, it is worth noting that this film has its issues. Besides its simply overwhelming amount of plotting and characters -- holy crap, the Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz) stuff just gets wild -- the film relies heavily on visual effects. Glorious as they may be (and they are! They really are!), with so many new and interesting characters, I desperately wanted to know more about who and what we're dealing with. The inclusion of a young Minerva McGonagall threw me for a loop, because I'm pretty sure Rowling specified her birth in 1935 on Pottermore; that's seven years before this movie. Similarly, the final cliffhanger (as if we needed one, studio, gosh!) reveals the true identity of Credence, the MacGuffin of the whole bloody movie. Grindelwald reveals that he is the brother of Albus Dumbledore, named Aurelius.
This is super problematic in many ways: nobody (even Albus) knows about this, Grindelwald himself didn't even know in the first film and could scarcely have found out while in MACUSA's prison. Of course, Grindelwald could be lying, but at this point that seems unlikely; then again, so does the alternative. And, like with McGonagall, the ages don't add up. Dumbledore Sr., Percival, was sent to Azkaban when Albus was 10 or 11; Jude Law and Ezra Miller are more than 10 years apart. I don't think Azkaban has conjugal visitations. Also Grindelwald clearly says Credence's brother wants to kill him; it's hard to imagine Albus wanting to kill anyone. Maybe Albus wants to succeed with Aurelius where he failed with Ariana, but suddenly we're in terribly murky waters.
Rowling must have something clever up her sleeve. It seems impossible that the consensus-verified genius behind Harry Potter would make such simple slip-ups. Besides, it's still a hell of a fun movie. We get to see a bevy of new beasts, new locations (um, the French Ministry? Yes, thank you!), new magic, and new people. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and let her take me for another magical ride. Aren't you?
IMDb: Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
No comments:
Post a Comment