(no subject)

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

You’ve got your four leads, Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob.

Newt is a more conveniently attractive Hagrid, too irritating for human contact and therefore projecting relationships onto the titular creatures (that are basically real animals with like, a horn or in a funky shade) he drags around America in a bag, protesting as they steal, destroy homes and bite (it’s fine, guys, only Muggles are affected) that everyone hates them and America is mean for not getting that it’s ~*Mankind*~ who are truly dangerous. Despite the title, the beasties don’t affect the plot beyond a few setpieces. Instead the film is mainly the search for a creature composed entirely of rage (JKR’s favourite! LINK) by Colin Farrell; while Newt fucks around being quirky and shit. The mood shifts from scene to scene (here’s a son presenting his mother with a belt for her to beat him! SMASH CUT to Eddie Redmayne twerking to arouse a rhino in heat!) pretty drastically, but at least I suppose there’s something for everyone…

Newt is vaguely connected to the Potterverse, as Albus Dumbledore is apparently ‘fond’ of him (this hilariously is established by Colin Farrell wondering why, when Newt was kicked out of Hogwarts for ‘endangering human life’. The answer’s in the question, dumbass, endangering human life is like, Quidditch to Albus, and if you don’t graduate with at least a manslaughter on your conscience, then kiss your reference bye-bye.)

An MTV review perfectly put it http://www.mtv.com/news/2954740/fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling-eddie-redmayne-review/
“He’s a character in search of a coherent personality. He’s introverted and stubborn and admits that people find him annoying. Yet the film is convinced he’s adorable. Redmayne is the master of smiling to himself for no reason, ginger hair flopped over one eye, as though he’s not living in the moment but instead in the theater watching his ascension into a GIF.”

Tina, a former Auror (or as the script puts it ‘the career woman’ out of herself and her sister, Queenie) should be relevant to the plot, being the only person with links to both Newt and Colin Farrell’s character, Percival Graves, but instead is mainly utilised in the field of frowning and the obligatory scene where she wears a sexy dress (the expectations for dudes neatly expressed in Newt, seeing that she and Queenie have magically changed clothes in order to infiltrate a speaksay; um…straightens his bowtie. It’s fine, we ladies will worry about being purty, you guys have plots to worry about, after all.)

Tina and Newt (and Jacob and Queenie – One Big Happy Weasley Family redux is happening before our eyes, guys!) have the obligatory hetero relationship JKR specialises in, in which they have almost no interaction at all while she informs us outside the text of their inevitable marriage and babies as if this is a cliffhanger it would be cruel not to resolve as swiftly as the characters themselves are introduced.

The one nod to Tina’s characterisation is her dismissal from the Aurors for cursing a Muggle (plea for tolerance, though, it was one of the many ones who Had It Coming, as opposed to the presumably nice, invisible ones that birthed Hermione.), a scene in which she is almost executed Bond-style and an attempt at ‘Oh, you could calm down Rage!Creature’ that is almost instantly dismissed for plot contrivance (drew focus from Newt and Colin Farrell.)

Tina’s sister Queenie is even less relevant, ironically, as she has a power that should be incredibly useful (she can read minds) but instead is used to establish that Newt’s ex sucks and that guys like to think of her in the buff when they meet her.
(Like Tonks, her power is in danger of aiding the plot and must therefore be used minimally.) There’s an odd contrivance of her not being able to read the minds of ‘foreigners’ because of their accents which comes into play with the big reveal, and is kind of reminiscent of Quirrell, who hides his evil intentions under a turban. Who knows how these wicked types will disguise themselves next? It starts with ethnic headgear and having an accent, but you can see from the Death Eaters surnames how few good old classic British names there are amongst them. Definitely no conclusions to be drawn there…)

Queenie is at least endearing, and hey, baby steps, is a pretty, giggly non-bluestocking who isn’t instantly dismissed like her forerunners in the Potterverse. She and Tina barely pass the Bechdel test, but still! Sisterly relationship not based around dudes! JKR’s getting PC in her old age, we might get a gay character or a lead POC in another decade!

Queenie’s relationship with Jacob Kowalski isn’t groundbreaking (it’s another ‘gosh, the tension of whether two white straight people will be able to continue a ~*forbidden romance*~’ – possibly in reference to the miscegenation laws in Muggle US at that time, which is the kind of grossness expected in the Hollywood trend of ‘what if racism/sexism/homophobia affected white straight dudes because idk, they’re magic or mutants or some shit? ~*Metaphors*~) mixed in with some ‘hottie girl dates schlubby guy’) but Queenie and Jacob are at least likeable.

Jacob is a Muggle dragged into the story when his bank loan request is interrupted by Newt’s animals.
As a guy on the porky side, there’s naturally at least one joke aimed at his size, when his stomach is stuck in Newt’s magical suitcase, but again, baby steps! (Apparently there was also a cut scene in which his fiancée dumps him because his loan is denied, which is like, the epitome of Rowling, but hey, it was deleted, so let’s give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. Psych!.)

He’s easily the most likeable, with at least one use to the plot, serving as the audience stand-in amazed at the magic. He also has the most backstory, being a veteran who works in a canning factory, but longing to bake (he’s even inspired by his grandma, rather than the usual male role model, omg, Jo, are you feeling okay? I did hear that she only provided the ideas for the script, with the actually lion share being done by Kloves and his house-elf, but still…) and the most touching moment, in which the trio bid him goodbye before his memory is taken (hey, a Muggle was treated as a viable love interest, let’s not go crazy and treat them like people!)

For a movie set in New York (and filmed in Harlem!), this is as white as Hogwarts, with a helpful gif set portraying every character of colour: http://clarkkent.co.vu/post/153521368267/people-of-color-and-where-to-find-them-aka. (I think two of them may even have had lines!)

There’s also set up for the next five (5!!) movies with mention of another Potterverse familiar name, with Zoe Kravitz’s 0.5 second role as Leta Lestrange. Naturally, JKR has more information, in case someone inadvertently used their imagination, and it’s explained in promo sources that Newt and she were childhood friends, but that Newt was expelled for a wrong she committed (of course! Newt is established as a Hufflepuff, but must share their brother house Gryffindor’s trait of getting away with nasty shit while getting punished with false accusations, allowing them to get their own way and play the martyr.)

We can assume from Kravitz’s casting that she’s also the hot POC you date/make public appearances with before locking down your true (white) love: see, Dean, Cho, the Patils, arguably Krum… We don’t know her house placement, which naturally makes all the difference; but Queenie establishes from Newt’s thoughts that she was a ‘taker’ and that, like every man, he deserves a devoted ‘giver’. (I guess she didn’t offer to wash Newt’s pants.)

Jon Voight (Henry Shaw) is also cast for a role of maybe twenty seconds, in what one can only presume will be a later explored thread, as a newspaper magnate and father of two sons, Henry Jr. and Langdon, the former of which was running for Senate (we know he’s a wicked right-winger because he’s randomly cruel to teenagers and despite his entire lines being about a sentence long, as he’s pro-prohibition and shutting down gambling halls. Boo hiss?! IDK, obviously prohibition was doomed to failure and left a gap for organised crime; but ethically, it’s no different from the drugs war, which JKR’s never really seemed to be invested in.) before being killed by rage!ball (the only victims are Muggles, natch) and the latter of whom lends a sympathetic ear to Samantha Morton’s character, Mary Lou Barebone (a Muggle Umbridge redux with a dubious accent) due to his belief in magic.

The end showdown has Muggles including Shaw observing the wizards, which he instructs his journalists to capture photos of, but a deus ex machina means all their memories (including Jacob’s) are wiped in a rain of memory potion (how this didn’t affect wizards too isn’t explained,) as we watch the newspapers headlines change from truth to the weather.
Yay, who needed a free press? (I guess the journos can count themselves lucky they don’t get caught in a jar.)
And Shaw’s rich and powerful, so knowing how his son was murdered would just be overkill icing on an already loaded cake, or something. Maybe he can just forget Jr. ever existed, like Hermione’s parents!

The plot thread which has been most discussed, however, is the one with some actual dramatic tension – Graves’ hunt for a creature created from repressed magic and abuse.

Mary Lou Barebone, the abusive adoptive mother of three children, and preacher at a soup kitchen/church dedicated to eradicating witches comes to the fore here.

If you’ve seen one JKR product, you’ve seen her, she’s particularly reminiscent of Umbridge, with the charitable feminine persona belying the inevitable wickedness within, as well as her abusing of male children – she even marks the palm as Umbridge did with her quill – but you can see patches from others such as Aunt Marge and Aunt Petunia.
As an adoptive, rather than ‘natural’ mother, she’s of course incapable of proper nurture, and she’s religious and therefore crazy (although she’s actually correct on the existence of wizards. How she first discovered this is of course unknown. Strawwoman don’t need no characterisation!)
It’s also funny how the evil people in the Potterverse are the only ones mentioned actually doing anything for charity – iirc, GoF has a moment where Arthur Weasley comments on how awful Lucius Malfoy is for making a donation to the hospital: HE’Z DOING IT TO CURRY FAVOURS, U GUYZ OMG!11 like can’t he spend his money on dark shit like normal?
Obviously, it’s gross, since the soup is essentially ransom to the religion, with the kids having to take the witchhunting leaflets and get assessed in case a pimple is a wizarding nipple or whatever; but still, for 1926 I’m thinking that’s probably one of the better deals you could get.

Mary Lou’s eldest is Credence (Ezra Miller), and his secret meetings with Graves, who urges him, as the point of contact for children who may be suspected as magical; to investigate and discover an Obscurial, or creature created from rage and repression of magic.
There are some pretty bald attempts at establishing his little sister Modesty as a red herring (right down to flat out misleading the audience, so the only criteria we’re given is that an Obscurial will be under ten, which Credence patently isn’t), but it’s pretty obvious from the beginning that Credence himself is the Obscurius, and a wizard (idk how Americans let their kids know, but apparently they’re not as devoted to getting the message through as Hogwarts.)

There are also some pretty bald attempts at coding both Graves and Credence as gay, which reviews and the actors have discussed in interviews. The subtexts of repression, religious oppression would be fodder enough, but the promos and screenplay (including detailing of a cut scene in which Graves presents Credence with a magical flower over a meal) and the wording used (Credence is ‘captivated’ by Graves touch, ‘nervous of and attracted by’ his behaviour, ‘allured and threatened’ as Graves gently heals his cuts, with adjectives like ‘affectionate’ and ‘seductive’) make the subtext pretty damn textual (I’d put money on a JKR confirmation once the accompanying books, DVDs and cuddly Nifflers are in store!) as does the film itself.

Unfortunately, rather than efforts at diversity, this seems to be another exploration of how hetero and motherly love is a force of positivity, while gay relationships are predatory and manipulative.
Graves (a stupid villain even by Voldemort’s standards) discovers Credence after his Obscurial form has killed Mary Lou. He insists on being shown to Modesty, still under the impression that she is the witch. Modesty cowers in tears as Graves does the tropey ‘hmm, now would be a good time to chew out my minion!’ bit, telling Credence he’s a squib and of no further use. This sets off Credence to a roaring rampage (what happens to the weeping orphan kid? Who cares – we know she’s a Muggle now!) which culminates in the Aurors apparently destroying him.

As Dumbledore’s love for Grindelwald caused him to ‘lose his moral compass’, so does yet another character coded as gay end up endangering others (people argued for Lupin prior to the hawt action that was Remus/Tonks, since his lycanthropy was according to JKR, a metaphor for HIV, which would seem to me to similiarly wrongheaded, especially considering how cavalier Lupin is about his own condition, considering he worked in a damn school.) It’s when Credence stops repressing himself that he becomes violent, so instead of the resolution that people shouldn’t repress who they are, it becomes a validation of the abuse itself.

This is when you really have to be in JKR’s ideal fan wheelhouse to find much to be comfortable with as a resolution.
The Aurors kill an abused kid (despite him still presenting as human intermittently and responding to Tina, Newt and Graves’ pleas for ceasefire.)

Newt and Graves battle, as the latter uses a magical whip (?!) rather than Cruciatus. I guess even villains have more scruples than Harry.

Then there’s one of those classic Potterverse arguments where everyone is the loser – at Credence’s death, Tina and Newt immediately lose interest and don’t protest the massive abuse of power (~*a metaphor for police brutality*~? Kinda weakened by the heroes folding to it, especially Tina, who apparently cared enough about the kid to get the sack initially. But it’s totes okay, guys – she gets her job back! Wow, I guess she learned a valuable lesson there – never try.)

Perhaps they knew not to take it seriously, since it was a MCU style death in which the cast may as well wink at the camera and hold up a sign saying ‘Loki will return in 2017 for Thor 3!’

(David Yates confirmed this, noting that they cut a scene showing Credence’s inevitable escape.)

At this point, Graves interjects and you’re like ‘Oh, thank god, someone’s protesting the cops and government gunning down that kid!’ but actually, the argument is that Graves thinks they shouldn’t have done it to suppress the truth from Muggles, as Muggles suck. So there we go, we were thinking this guy was awful, when really, it was a difference of tone!
He’d rather be open about his distaste for Muggles, whereas everyone else is merely content to fiddle with their memories and maybe pull hilarious pranks on them.

This is pretty much any argument in the Potterverse, like in HBP, when there’s all this friction because Harry’s sliced up Malfoy, or when the twins have cursed Montague, where you get this vain hope that maybe someone will have some kind of non-sadistic mentality, but nope, fraid not, the argument is based around whether or not this will get someone into trouble or affect Quidditch scores.

Newt (of all people!) then suddenly casts a reveal spell, and ba-dum ba-dum, The end result furthers this even more, when it’s revealed that Graves is none other than Grindelwald played by, of all people, Johnny Depp. Wow, I can’t wait to see the quirky hairdo and funny accent he’ll use!

At first I thought hiring a guy who beat his wife was in conflict with JKR’s proud declaration that she’s a feminist, but then David Heyman, her producer explained “Here’s the thing: Misogyny, abuse, maltreatment of people is unacceptable — but none of us know what happened in that room. So I think it would be unfair for me to be judge and jury, or for any of us to be judge and jury.”
I mean…right, you guys? Especially relevant in a series about how you can’t trust the justice system to not be hopelessly corrupt! Do any of us know what happened in any room we weren’t in, ever? People say that a culture of celebrity and cronyism protects well-known abusers like Bill Cosby, Barry Bennell, Jimmy Saville, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski; but I’ve never been in a room with even one of those guys. I’m really not comfortable judging them, especially when I could be judge and jury of their accusers.

David Yates clarified the matter, with a very zen statement: "What you have to remember about Johnny is that extraordinary talent and that talent never goes away. Hollywood is such a fickle place. People go up and go down.” One day you’re on top of the world, next day people are fickly down on you just because you allegedly threw a cellphone at your spouse. It’s just a sad indictment of the world we live in how people can forget the amazing character Johnny Depp has played in every movie and focus on the little things. Thankfully people of one particular gender never seem to be down for long in the public eye!

JKR finished with a sedate ‘I’m delighted’ when asked for comment on Depp’s casting.
Aw, she’s lost so much passion from the days where she was happy to go in on celebrities like “the talking toothpicks held up to girls as role models: those celebrities whose greatest achievement is un-chipped nail polish, whose only aspiration seems to be getting photographed in a different outfit nine times a day, whose only function in the world appears to be supporting the trade in overpriced handbags and rat-sized dogs.

Comments

[fdsfd (from livejournal.com)]

Was I the only one who kind of liked it?? I mean, it was terrible, but in the usual predictable way we're all accustomed to like when your dog makes a mess inside but its your dog so you just fondly regard the garbage strewn all over the hall. Much better than the awful cursed child play (ironic that there was more of a cursed child in Credence than in CC)

Thoughts:

- When I went to see the film at the cinema there was ~5 people - its not a big cinema and it was a week-night but showing a film that a handful of people bothered to see doesn't sound promising for however many sequels they're trying to milk this for.

- Anyway I thought it was mostly just a re-skin of Doctor Who except with magic. The tardis suitcase. The ~misunderstood creature. The stupid bow-tie. Most of Newt's dialogue came off like a shoddy version of what Matt Smith's Doctor would say, except even less charming.

- Didn't like Newt because he was quirky hipster Doctor Who and broke quarantine laws even if it was for a good reason (restoring the trafficked griffon thing or whatever it was). Jacob was adorable, I loved him. The girls needed better personalities, jobs and dialogues. They just looked like cut outs that say "female goes here" Queenie was a qt but Tina was mostly just a waste of space

Also I think they changed Legilimancy from a skill to an inborn talent so they could keep Queenie as a dim-witted waitress. She could have learnt legilimancy off her own bat (like, I dunno, to take up fortune telling to scam muggles of $$$ during the depression) but its just, like Tonk's metamorphmagery a useless talent that never does anything. I would say Queenie deserved better but she was mostly just eye-candy for the audience so I won't bother.

- Did no one else notice that the Goblin they met in the grog bunker was both simultaneously an anti-semetic caricature and a goblin at the same time?? I get that Tina and Queenie were fairly obviously supposed to be yiddish, but having 2 jews doesn't really off-set the fact that the goblin was literally an animal-traffiking, money-grubbing back-stabber while wearing what looked like a skull-cap. I think it might have been a deliberate (????) attempt to say something meaningful about jewish americans in early 20th c New York, but I have no idea what, or why. Sticking with the 1920s prohibition=magic was probably a better bet.

- Fav. characters were Grindelwald and Credence, because as you mentioned they were the ones with the actual tension and plot. Didn't even mind the ~evil homosexuality vibe or whatever because at least interesting characters were interacting. On a re-watch I'll probably root for Grindelwald the whole time, kind of like I did with Delphi, because he is the only one with an actual plan that he takes steps to realise instead of being stuck in a passive siege-bunker mentality like Pickering. Also literally everything Grindelwald said after Credence was killed was basically accurate and even though he's an evil dark sorcerer bent on world domination I still have to give him the moral highground, because unlike his opponents, he didn't kill a child.

Also contrast Grindelwald vs Dumbledore's approaches to damaged, dangerous magical children in Credence vs Riddle.

- Kind of weird that they set this film in the 1920s before the depression - it gave it kind of a fleeting feeling, like the society is about to lose everything in an economic crash that will drive everyone into destitution, so none of it really matters. Queenie's adorable clothes, her effortless cooking, that 1920s tea-set in her restaurant. The Woolworths Building. Very Gatsby. I get that it was because of the tortured prohibition metaphor, but the slide into fascism the depression precipitated makes the whole thing seem small beer. Maybe thats what Grindelwald, with his phoned in divination skills was counting on. Jacob will probably lose his bakery in a few years when the bank that loaned him the money goes under. Before the aurors turn up and obliviate everyone who ate a niffler shaped pastry, hopefully. Anyway I'm not sure how Yates et all plan on tackling wizards magic etc when what was actually happening was so horrific. Not that that'll stop them though :/

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Was I the only one who kind of liked it?/

Not at all, I thought that the film was fun too. Like I said earlier, I liked the parts with the fantastic creatures and I wish that the film had just focused on them instead of trying to be political.

/When I went to see the film at the cinema there was ~5 people/

The theater wasn't stuffed to the brim when I went, but there were still a lot of people in the audience.

/Jacob was adorable, I loved him. The girls needed better personalities, jobs and dialogues./

I liked Jacob and I liked Queenie, but yeah, there wasn't much going on with her below the surface. Tina's job would've been fine, I just wish that she was actually competent at it or people treated her with more respect than they did.

/Queenie was a qt/

What's a qt?

/its just, like Tonk's metamorphmagery a useless talent that never does anything./

Well, she did use it to blackmail one of the MACUSA (is that how it's spelled?) employees into letting her pass, so at least it was plot-relevant once. Which is more than I can say for Tina, whose backstory with Credence went nowhere.

/I'll probably root for Grindelwald the whole time/

I was rooting for him when he was dueling against the President and her Aurors.

/literally everything Grindelwald said after Credence was killed was basically accurate/

Yes, I thought, "How sad is it that the VILLAIN, the one who'd been using Credence the whole time, is the only one who called the President out on what she did to him?" Not Newt, who tried to reason with Credence. Not Tina, who lost her job because of Credence. Only the villain. Is this similar as to how Voldemort is the only one who showed any regret towards Snape?

/Grindelwald vs Dumbledore's approaches to damaged, dangerous magical children in Credence vs Riddle./

Yes, this was another thing that I'm not sure that the film was aware of. It highlighted a continuing pattern in the HP series, which is the wizarding world's utter negligence towards abused magical children, especially those in the Muggle world. Tina lost her job because she tried to protect Credence, but did any Auror bother to check in and make sure that Credence wasn't being abused anymore? Especially since it was by a woman who's been ranting about how evil wizards are to anyone who'll listen? Of course not. Just like how the Ministry didn't bother to check in on Merope after her abusive father and brother were sent to Azkaban. Dumbledore allowed Tom Riddle to go back to the orphanage every summer, despite knowing that Tom didn't want to go back and that the other children were terrified of him. And then, of course, there's Harry. Who's being raised by relatives who hate his magic and try to stamp it out of him. And nobody - not Dumbledore, not McGonagall, not the Weasleys - nobody tries to do anything about it until HBP when it's too little, too late.

So, again, I don't know if the film realized that it did this, but it basically illustrated how the wizarding world learns NOTHING. For all that the President blathers on about how she's willing to do anything to maintain the Statute of Secrecy, including Obliviating Jacob, arresting Newt and Tina, and destroying Credence, apparently it's too much effort to check in on magical children living in the Muggle world and make sure that they, you know, don't blow things up in front of Muggles because they're treated badly.

[fdsfd (from livejournal.com)]

/I liked the parts with the fantastic creatures and I wish that the film had just focused on them instead of trying to be political./

I wasn't too sold on the creatures myself, it just felt like a bad episode of Doctor Who watching them chase the magical bandersnatch or whatever around but I'd take that over whatever the political message was supposed to be. I've thought it over and I still have no idea what the moral was supposed to be. Segregation is bad but There Is No Alternative?? Chid Abuse is bad but not bad enough for anyone to care??? Religious fanaticism is bad even when the fanatic runs a soup kitchen?? No clue, honestly.

/Tina's job would've been fine, I just wish that she was actually competent at it or people treated her with more respect than they did./
Poor Tina :( Another one of JK's women who are so perfect they never actually get to do anything important.

/What's a qt?/
qt=cutie!! She was super cute! Calling Tina "Teenie", teasing Newt, teasing Abernathy with her case. I'm smitten.

/Well, she did use it to blackmail one of the MACUSA (is that how it's spelled?) employees into letting her pass, so at least it was plot-relevant once./
Yes but she only blackmailed him about girl things, like who he was dating and when. She's pretty firmly stuck in the feminine "separate sphere" of clothes, cooking and romance. I still like her over Tina though.

/Yes, I thought, "How sad is it that the VILLAIN, the one who'd been using Credence the whole time, is the only one who called the President out on what she did to him?"/
It is weird that the villain is the only one engaging with any actual moral dilemma, or who can convincingly attempt to relate to Credence as a person, not like Newt who saw him like the Sudanese girl as a create (an animal) or Tina's painfully generic dialogue to Credence "please don't do this" or the Minister who just saw him as a threat to the sweet New York secret skyscraper thing they've got going on.

/the wizarding world's utter negligence towards abused magical children/
lol nobody checked on Credence after Tina got fired because he was just a muggle, obviously. Same way as what happened to Modesty was just ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Maybe its not so much a magical thing as more of a class/ caste thing? Nobody checks on Merope because she's a penniless urchin. She may have had a fancy name but she also has $0 so who cares. Harry also has a fancy name (?) but nobody really gains anything from having him around, so into the muggle memory hole he goes. Its sad, but given that abused children so often go unaided by social services, etc, and when social services do get involved the situation often gets worse, its not unrealistic. Its just sad. Wizards may have incredible magic but they don't really seem to have a strong society or community to support it.

[vermouth1991.livejournal.com]

Especially since it was by a woman who's been ranting about how evil wizards are to anyone who'll listen?

Evil *and* incompetent, it seems. You'd think that her threat to the magical Secrecy would finally galvanize them to go Obliviate her until he's drooling at the mouth (like the British wizards and witches did to the guy guarding the camp ground of the Quidditch World Cup), but noooooo.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

Nah, I did too, I just like to bitch ;)
My faves were the rhino beastie and Credence/Graves (all I really expect from JKR at this point is characters I'd read fic about, expecting legit representation of diversity from her is like expecting Stephen King to write a hot sex scene, or Woody Allen to write a black character. They'd really just fuck it up if they tried, let them stay in their wheelhouse.)
And it was definitely an improvement on the cursed child!
Haha, it was like my dog threw garbage, but I'd been expecting diarrhea and puke, so I was almost proud.

LOL, the Queenie eyecandy thing is true - especially how they establish that you can dress yourself magically in a second; and her intro is still her seductively dressing in lingerie. Might as well have had the subtitle 'Something for the dads *wink*'

I think it might have been a deliberate (????) attempt to say something meaningful about jewish americans in early 20th c New York

I think the actor playing the goblin was Jewish (iirc it was Ron Perlman) so I'm sure they'd handwave it as that, but yeah, it's such an odd choice...

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

I liked the film too. The main characters I thought were reasonably likeable, even Tina and Newt, and watching them do stuff together was a pleasant enough way of passing a couple of hours.

I get that Tina and Queenie were fairly obviously supposed to be yiddish,

Interesting, I never picked up on that. What makes you think so?

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I assume it’s due to the name Goldstein, pronounced gold-steen for some inexplicable reason.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

I assume it’s due to the name Goldstein,

Oh, I missed that detail. Yeah, Goldstein is definitely an American-Jewish sounding name.

pronounced gold-steen for some inexplicable reason.

Wait, you mean that isn't how it's pronounced?

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Gold-stine. Like a beer stein. The pronunciation of that diphthong (and its mirror-image, ‘ie’, which is pronounced ee) is one of the few things I remember from high school German. Of course it’s possible the Yiddish pronunciation is different. If so, I withdraw my complaint.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

It's probably the same in Yiddish, which, I'm fairly certain I recall correctly, related to German. *quick google* Yup, it's a German dialect with words from Hebrew and other languages. Search term: 'Yiddish'

Most '-stein' names in the US, though, tend to get Americanized / Anglicized, so are pronounced '-steen.' Goldstein seems to be one of those, but I've heard 'Rubenstein' pronounced both 'Rubenstine' and 'Rubensteen.' Personally, I'd follow the way the person with the name pronounces it, so I guess I could know both a 'Goldsteen' and a 'Goldstine.'

I took some German in school, too, and do tend to '-stine' the '-stein' names.