![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sunnyskywalker posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockI finally caught up on the FB movies. There's some cool magic, a few other neat things (like Newt at least knowing what his monsters really want a lot of the time, unlike Hagrid), and lots of things that make you go, "But... but... wait...that doesn't... what?" Also the Nagini retcon makes Neville killing her in DH a lot less triumphant and a lot more really horrible now, which seems like a bad artistic choice. I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say about all that stuff at some point.
But the main thought today is that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's similar approaches in the second movie were fascinating. The movie was this close to admitting Dumbledore is a manipulative bastard. I'm sure he'll be thoroughly excused for all his failings by the fifth movie, but it's great for the moment.
In one scene, Newt says that he's figured out Dumbledore manipulated him into going to the US so he could get involved in the confusing Credence Barebone plot. (He told Newt where to find the injured thunderbird, knowing Newt would take it to its home continent through the New York port.) Dumbledore now wants Newt to go to France for more plot reasons, which Newt refuses because he's banned from international travel and would be thrown in Azkaban... so Dumbledore lays on the flattery about how he admires Newt for not seeking power, but only doing what's right without thought for the costs. Which of course leaves Newt feeling like he has a choice between nobly going to France or staying home and letting the terrorists win, when probably there's an Option C if they would just take a few hours to think about it.
And this is back-to-back with a scene of Grindelwald manipulating someone, which he does throughout the movie by talking about noble ideals like freedom and fighting the bloodthirsty Aurors and love and telling people how great they are. Just a little familiar... Which makes you think back to how Grindelwald learned about using "the greater good" as a propaganda point from Dumbledore. (They make sure to drop that phrase in the movie, too.) Juxtaposition is such an illuminating thing. They also had Grindelwald leave the room and let one of his followers kill a toddler instead of doing it himself, which puts him in an interesting place between Voldemort, who was totally on board with murdering babies personally, and Dumbledore, who planned for a kid to die in any other way than directly by his hand for only the noblest of reasons, honest. (Though in Grindelwald's case, the toddler's death served no end but convenience, whereas Voldemort could claim preemptive self-defense and Dumbledore, saving the world.)
Now back to trying to guess how they'll explain all the other bits, if they try... and wondering why they thought it necessary to give us a half-elf character when that almost certainly involves a human master and an elf slave for parents, and WHY, WHY would you just casually toss in something so horrifying... They had really better follow up on that. And on how horrifying the mind-control bits are.
But the main thought today is that Dumbledore and Grindelwald's similar approaches in the second movie were fascinating. The movie was this close to admitting Dumbledore is a manipulative bastard. I'm sure he'll be thoroughly excused for all his failings by the fifth movie, but it's great for the moment.
In one scene, Newt says that he's figured out Dumbledore manipulated him into going to the US so he could get involved in the confusing Credence Barebone plot. (He told Newt where to find the injured thunderbird, knowing Newt would take it to its home continent through the New York port.) Dumbledore now wants Newt to go to France for more plot reasons, which Newt refuses because he's banned from international travel and would be thrown in Azkaban... so Dumbledore lays on the flattery about how he admires Newt for not seeking power, but only doing what's right without thought for the costs. Which of course leaves Newt feeling like he has a choice between nobly going to France or staying home and letting the terrorists win, when probably there's an Option C if they would just take a few hours to think about it.
And this is back-to-back with a scene of Grindelwald manipulating someone, which he does throughout the movie by talking about noble ideals like freedom and fighting the bloodthirsty Aurors and love and telling people how great they are. Just a little familiar... Which makes you think back to how Grindelwald learned about using "the greater good" as a propaganda point from Dumbledore. (They make sure to drop that phrase in the movie, too.) Juxtaposition is such an illuminating thing. They also had Grindelwald leave the room and let one of his followers kill a toddler instead of doing it himself, which puts him in an interesting place between Voldemort, who was totally on board with murdering babies personally, and Dumbledore, who planned for a kid to die in any other way than directly by his hand for only the noblest of reasons, honest. (Though in Grindelwald's case, the toddler's death served no end but convenience, whereas Voldemort could claim preemptive self-defense and Dumbledore, saving the world.)
Now back to trying to guess how they'll explain all the other bits, if they try... and wondering why they thought it necessary to give us a half-elf character when that almost certainly involves a human master and an elf slave for parents, and WHY, WHY would you just casually toss in something so horrifying... They had really better follow up on that. And on how horrifying the mind-control bits are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Fascinating!
Date: 2019-08-26 03:38 pm (UTC)A half-elf character! Yikes.
As I said, when Rowling takes steps to correct some things, she makes others worse. Far worse.
Thanks for reviewing these films for those of us who can't or won't see them!
Re: Fascinating!
Date: 2020-04-19 09:45 pm (UTC)It's a visually gorgeous movie, and there are some neat bits... which makes the rest all the more disappointing. And horrifying.
Like, they also have Dumbledore giving the boggart lesson (he's DADA teacher at the time, because why not I guess). Now, this made sense when it was just Lupin as an inexperienced teacher with no training who hadn't thought through the consequences. But here, we see exactly why it's such a terrible idea. First, we see some Mean Girls talking openly about how they can't wait to see Leta Lestrange's boggart so they can bully her about it. And then we see that her boggart is her baby brother drowning. The movie shows Dumbledore looking at it... and then it cuts away, and we never see how he actually dealt with a student being forced to reveal such a serious fear in front of her bullies. But how are we supposed to fill in the gaps here? Dumbledore considers this experience, and decides, "Yes, this is a good lesson which should be standard in DADA"? Or he puts it on hold for a while, but when Remus comes to him and says he heard about a great boggart lesson back in the day and he'd like to try it, Dumbledore goes, "Yeah, sure, sounds good! I see no problems with forcing a class including Neville Longbottom and Harry Potter to reveal their deepest fears in front of all their housemates!" WTF, Dumbledore.
The half-elf character shows up to tell a character how she took care of him as a baby, and then dies so he can feel upset. Just in case the scenario wasn't bad enough already.