Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

[sunnyskywalker]

I 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.

Comments

Fascinating!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I basically love this, though I haven't seen the movies and absolutely refuse to do so. Do you think, honestly, Rowling knows what she's saying? After DH, so many of us saw Dumbledore as an unrepentant, egoistic manipulator--and here Grindelwald is echoing him. And after DH, so many of us hated the epilogue--and Rowling came up with that play, which, by any reading, shows not all is well in Harry Potter's family. OTOH, she then comes up with perfectly loathsome ideas like Nagini's being an enslaved woman of color, which not only diminishes Neville's heroism at the end but also makes Nagini a cannibal.

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!