Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022)

Score: 4.5 / 5

Unpopular opinion: I really love these movies. The staggering amount of creativity and detail crafted to realize such a magical "wizarding world" in this franchise is the kind of stuff movies are made for. Transporting in the best way, they stop just shy of escapism because they also deal with real, dark issues. This newest installment hits topical issues perhaps a little too solidly, with a significant plot point hinging on an attempt to steal an election and defraud the public. But it doesn't quite feel pandering to current issues because there is so much world-building happening. Perhaps that's why some don't like these films; each one is actively, aggressively engaging with the kind of fantasy world-building that usually works best in an initial installment of a franchise, not halfway through the series. It's a bit exhausting at this point, when we should be invested in character and drama rather than in catching all the exciting new tidbits.

Five-ish years have passed since Gellert Grindelwald -- again in a new form, this time played by Mads Mikkelsen -- launched his war, and now he's angling for social and political acceptance and adoration. His quest has briefly stalled as he is arraigned by the International Confederation of Wizards, but due to procedural inadequacies (and some moles), he is acquitted of his crimes against the wizarding and Muggle worlds and is suddenly launched into the global spotlight as a candidate for Supreme Mugwump. It's a lot of plot to take in, and the film moves at a breakneck pace to cover its ground, both narratively and geographically. Characters in China in one scene are in Germany in the next, and the amount of creative design is never less than overwhelming.

Newt (Eddie Redmayne) and his group of friends are tasked by Dumbledore (Jude Law) with a series of globe-trotting adventures to thwart Grindelwald's acolytes from assassinating political leaders and attempting to steal the election. One infiltrates Grindelwald's followers, one is imprisoned and needs release, one is framed for attempted murder, and all try to keep safe a Qilin, a magical deer-like creature that can determine someone's purity of spirit and thus bestow the office of Supreme Mugwump to the most deserving. This movie is all about its plot, obviously, and so the characters are thinly written and mostly undeveloped, compared to the massive character work done in the first two installments. Case in point: Credence (Ezra Miller) feels mostly shoehorned in here, and his story is getting less compelling by the minute. Whereas he initially was a fascinating character, and was essentially a MacGuffin for the mystery plot in the second film, here he just pops in a few times to learn that he's been lied to repeatedly and that his choices have been the product of gaslighting and abuse.

But I could hardly believe its opening scene brings the romantic relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald to the fore; it's a quietly entrancing scene of afternoon tea as the attractive two stars remember their affection and passions privately. The blatant queerness still isn't satisfying, but at least it's canon now, rather than relegated to internet message boards and digital missives from the author. And there are still nuggets of joy for fans, such as the physical humor Newt undertakes to distract the prison guards (if that's what the strange scorpion-like mini-manticores are?) by dancing his way to his brother Theseus's cell (Callum Turner). Similarly, the film works hard to repair the relationship between the No-Maj Jacob (Dan Fogler) and his paramour witch Queenie (Alison Sudol), and that finally has a really nice concluding feel to it. On the other hand, Newt's tenuous relationship with Tina (Katherine Waterston) has all but fizzled out, and she doesn't even appear until the penultimate scene of this film, sadly. 

What else can be said in brief? I'm feeling more hesitant than usual to critique this film because of several factors. First, it doesn't work on its own terms, but rather as a continuation of the story. Second, it's supposedly only the third entry in a five-part series, and it's hard to see where exactly the story is headed next. Third, it's more politically engaged than previous entries, but slightly out of its time; while its aggressive concerns about racism and governmental fraud have been timely for the last six years now -- and fit well with its setting of 1930s Berlin -- now they feel less nuanced and more like flogging a dead horse. Fourth, and I hate even saying this, the production studio has put further installments of this series on hold to determine if they will be commercially viable, which is about the greediest thing they could say to whip up fans into a frenzy, to say nothing of their lack of artistic integrity as a studio.

I absolutely loved the introduction of a professor from Ilvermorny (the U.S. wizarding school), a Charms instructor named Lally Hicks (Jessica Williams). Her spunk and charm are much needed, and she's a breathtaking screen presence. The Yusuf Kama (William Nadylam) storyline here is deeply emotional, finally validating his presence in the previous film. And other than that, it's all fun magical mayhem, just as we expect from the series. I personally love this franchise, despite a few issues with writing and editing, because of its creativity, its performances, and its production design, and so I hope David Yates and Steve Kloves and team continue their brilliant and fun work.

Emma. (2020)

Score: 4.5 / 5

There are those adaptations that only work well if you are a fan of the source material, and then there are those that seem catered to wider audiences. We tend to think of film adaptations as needing to be widely accessible by definition, and in this process the "original fans" -- of books, usually -- tend to think of these as watered-down, less insightful, or even overwrought bastardizations of their beloved novel. Adaptations of Jane Austen's works, however, seem to be generally blessed with favorable reception, whether through the medium of PBS or BBC specials, direct cinematic translations, or even modernized, loose versions inspired by her characters and plots.

Though I am by no means a huge Austen fan, I've enjoyed her novels enough and most film adaptations a bit better. And with the exception of Joe Wright's magnificent Pride & Prejudice in 2005 -- and perhaps another or two, including Love & Friendship (2016) -- Autumn de Wilde's new Emma. might be one of my favorites. I make this distinction for several reasons, primarily that de Wilde's aesthetic is so pure and she carries it through with such integrity that I occasionally forgot this was Austen material. It feels more like an arthouse comedy, an offbeat indie flick made as a hyper-stylized period rom-com, and in that regard it is magnificent.

I'm grateful to have recently read Emma -- a local theatre is producing it this month -- because Austen's many plots and characters hopelessly interweave in my memory. The story is, essentially, about the proud and selfish title character who decides to meddle with the lives of people around her. Specifically, she thinks she has a knack for matchmaking and manipulates everyone around her, friends and otherwise, into enacting her perverse romantic whims. Her schemes fail more than succeed, and she is suitably punished by the climax before all is forgiven and all comes to a happy ending. Well, an arguably happy ending; Austen doesn't really have fairytale conclusions, and her portraits of love are not quite idealized.

Though I personally find Emma a troubling character, here she is portrayed by a magnificent Anya Taylor-Joy (brilliant leading actress of The Witch) as a wickedly intelligent, surprisingly well-intentioned young woman who has the impeccable timing and social strength of any Internet "influencer" worth her followers. Her every beat is calculated, every expression measured and controlled. She imbues the spoiled brat of a character -- unlikable even in the novel, Emma is pampered and wealthy to the point that she herself feels no need to marry but determines to match up everyone she knows -- with surprising earnestness and even a certain innocence I found fabulously intriguing, if not quite endearing. Taylor-Joy's ability to combine smug self-righteousness with absolute incompetence breathes new life into the character and, by extension, the film.

The same may be said for director de Wilde, who approaches the proceedings with a pretty straightforward period piece method. In fact, while she captures a fine blend of humor and manners as in any worthwhile Austen adaptation, she manages too to make a profoundly charming work of its own merit; gorgeous costumes, bright lights, brilliant performances, and sharp editing buttress a film that presents its warm heart on its sleeve. It builds pieces and routines that at first feel a bit odd, but by the end are comfortably pleasant. Alternately cold and warm when it needs to be, the camera nevertheless views these characters with humanity and honesty, daring us to treat these characters -- almost caricatures in their universal ridiculousness -- as our friends.

But de Wilde complicates this by presenting them to us behind a veneer of rigid and distractingly artificial Regency society. Bold colors and textures, enormous feathered hats, and sometimes true-to-life unflattering clothes awe our eyes even as we see the damaging (and damning) suppression of real emotions and fruitful communication. In this way, this film feels more authentic and true to Austen than other adaptations I've seen, yet also feels more urgent, immediate, and accessible than others. Without, that is, sacrificing anything to modern sensibilities or pop culture.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018)

Score: 4.5 / 5

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