Over the years, it's become a running gag of sorts that J.K. Rowling will drop a whole new bit of long-hidden behind-the-scenes Potterlore on Pottermore, and virtually the entire internet rolls their collective eyes at her for having done so. Me, I'm enough of a lore fiend who's memorized so much trivia about the entire franchise that I've always dug it, and even had a private laugh at how much, to my perception, everyone else was just reaching for a reason to compete to see who could lay the sickest burn on one of my greatest inspirations. But this time I may have hit my limit? And not because of there being too much lore, but because I think this time, while sitting down to type up The Crimes of Grindelwald, JKR may have left her story bible behind in her other Scottish Highland mansion and saturated this screenplay, twisty as it was, with a few annoying continuity errors. So, yeah, in the twenty-four hours and counting since I've seen this movie, a lot of thoughts have percolated about it in my mind, all of it mixed. But I'm not about to toss the franchise in the trash heap, not by a long shot. It'd take a hell of a lot of Mooncalf shit on JKR's part to get me to jump on that bandwagon, and sure, we've never been closer to that hell of a lot. But for all the faults this movie's got, so much of it (*cough NEWT SCAMANDER MY AUTISTIC HERO cough*) shines jewel-bright like the Occamy's silver eggshells.
 |
| Everyone looking good and stylish. Except that bleached asshole on the upper right. |
So...where to begin?
Perhaps with how differently the first movie plays out now that this one is officially out in the world. Though only a few months have passed in-universe - which begs the question of how the whole five-part series will cover events from 1926 to 1945, the year of Grindelwald's defeat as established in Sorcerer's Stone Chapter 6 (watch me pull a lot of tiny details from the books to support my points, "In this essay I will..." style.) Very quickly, The Crimes of Grindelwald reveals a few twists that turn a few characters upside down and inside out. Maybe one isn't so surprising, a MACUSA agent turning out in the prologue to be a traitor and a Grindelwald disciple. (Semi-related, why is it that MACUSA is now called the "American Ministry of Magic?" I rather liked that name, plus it makes more sense because for those of you reading this who aren't USians, the term "Ministry" isn't used in American government.) Another big surprise comes later, a bigger surprise too because it's a major character I really loved in the first movie, but (without getting spoilery) their actions here are simply unforgivable.
Or are they? Maybe that's the lesson JKR wants us to take away from this movie, with its heavy recurring themes of tragic love and of desperation. There's the obvious, of course - Dumbledore still has feelings for ol' Grindy, to the point of seeing him in the Mirror of Erised - first as his teenage Jamie Campbell-Bower form (a lovely man, he's still my favorite Jace Wayland by far too), and eventually morphing into his scary-as-hell adult form. Though they still don't explicitly say that Dumbledore is gay (yet), I still fully support this assertion because...I mean, show, don't tell, right? Meanwhile, there are all sorts of other loves in this movie that end in absolute tragedy. I won't spoil them for you, for the most part, but I would also like to highlight Newt Scamander and Leta Lestrange. He still carries a torch for her, as established in the first movie, and now it's clarified just how well they bonded as kids at Hogwarts. She, an angry misfit lashing out at constant teasing from her classmates, and he, a sweet misfit with not an inconsiderable case of social awkwardness. (Eddie Redmayne says Newt is autistic, a Word of Saint Paul to which I give my full #ownvoices support as Newt's fellow autistic guy.) And even though Leta ain't no saint, she's still a classic example of one of JKR's most controversial secret talents - the surprisingly sympathetic Slytherin anti-villain.
It's a pity JKR couldn't also draw on her talents of crafting tons of lore together in a way that makes sense. This movie is filled with details that, while providing legitimately stunning twists, often are so stunning for the wrong reasons - namely, that these twists, as much as they could be for the sake of twistage or even fanservice, contradict established canon from the books. The very fact that Professor McGonagall is in the movie, for instance, being one of the biggest offenders - she's not even supposed to have been born yet, and in Order of the Phoenix she states that she's been teaching for 39 years that December - putting the start of her Hogwarts career in 1956. Not only that, but what the hell is Dumbledore doing teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts? Half-Blood Prince tells us that at this point in time, the DADA professor was Galatea Merrythought, who would've had about fifty years' worth of tenure by the time Tom Riddle was in his later Hogwarts years. Plus, Riddle's diary-Horcrux memory-form, in Chamber of Secrets, explicitly names Dumbledore as the Transfiguration professor. I mean, there were a lot of people willing to hand-wave the scene from one of the trailers where Dumbledore is teaching Newt and his classmates how to stop boggarts with the Riddikulus spell, simply because Riddikulus can technically count as Transfiguration...but no, it's made clear in this movie that Dumbledore's teaching Defense. Which might help make it another reason why Voldemort went and jinxed the job because he didn't get himself...but still, there are so many book details, details JKR wrote herself over the last almost thirty years, that this movie outright ignores. (One of the biggest such examples, I won't spoil, but it does completely throw off the timeline of a certain big bloodline if true, which very likely isn't the case considering the in-universe source of said information.) Perhaps the films really are meant as an alternate continuity? But then again, I - as well as Speedy - was under the impression that these movies were meant to bridge both the film and book continuities together.
Then again, though, it's not like JKR hasn't written some enormous plot holes even in the books. The Triwizard Cup Portkey in Goblet of Fire, anyone? Of which I'm extra-reminded because Newt and Jacob, at one point, use an illegal Portkey to travel from England to France. A bucket, which Jacob keeps on carrying until Newt casually orders him to drop it at the last minute. And good thing too, because it loses no time returning to the place whence it came.
The obvious places where this movie shines are mostly visual, of course. It ain't perfect, of course. Hell, a lot of the movies in this franchise have had some really dodgy effects work over the years, going all the way back to the beginning with the crappy green screen for the first movie's Quidditch match. This time, though there are still a few issues - some of the creature CGI still sucks, most notably those freaky Matagot cat familiars at the French Ministry of Magic; and the return of what looks to me like Fiendfyre, which hasn't improved much since its terribad appearance in Deathly Hallows, Part 2, other than now it can come in blue with the aid of the Elder Wand - the movie does significantly benefit from an improved direction in overall visual style. Art Deco elements are even more prominent here, particularly with the Parisian setting for most of the film. Like the French Ministry, or Père Lachaise Cemetery (mes excuses aux tombes, surtout laquelle d'Oscar Wilde.)
I'd also like to bring up the way this movie delves even more heavily into a lot of the franchise's long-running themes of prejudice. There's the obvious - Grindelwald. One of the most literal Wizard Nazis there was. But in a lot of ways, he's more dangerous than Voldemort, and I'm not just saying that because Johnny Depp plays him so full of bad touch, ignoring lots of people's personal space not unlike how he did when he wore Colin Farrell's face and masqueraded as Graves in the first movie. No, but while Voldemort's mission was pretty obviously self-centered, Grindelwald manages to talk a better game of presenting himself as a man of the Wizarding people. I saw at least one fan argue on Twitter that Grindelwald was meant to represent Trump, but someone else rejoined that Grindelwald stands in more accurately for the likes of Jordan Peterson - espousing right-wing nastiness but hiding it behind a carefully-constructed veneer of visionary intellect. I'm sure JKR was really working hard to hold back a few lunches while writing his lines in the screenplay - particularly his long speech during a rally at the film's climax. To say nothing of the backstories of both Leta Lestrange and a soft-spoken but mission-driven young man, Yusuf Kama, both of whom are victims of French-colonial nastiness themselves. That JKR would write the backstories she did for these two would no doubt earn her a lot of ire, particularly in the Black community. But that was probably the point, a reminder that, hey, white people, we got a lot of nasty shit to answer for.
And to tell all the interconnected stories, JKR and David Yates have assembled a (mostly) stellar all-star cast. It doesn't all work out, I'm afraid. Like, for instance, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. I mean, at least they made him play the villain when pretty much nobody but his most hardcore stans will defend him anymore after how extremely messy his personal life has become. But still, that personal life taints any and all perception of Depp's performance here, to the point where, as much as I used to look up to Depp more than anyone else in Hollywood as a kid, more than ever I really wish they just fire him and bring back Colin Farrell instead. Claudia Kim also feels very underused as Nagini - yes, that Nagini, whose backstory leading up to her eventual working with Voldemort has yet to be covered. But given the unexpected directions one other character took in this movie, there's certainly precedent for Nagini to really start going bad as early as FB3.
But there's a lot of strong performances in this cast too, though. Dan Fogler, once again, has a real blast as Jacob Kowalski. Jude Law, as Dumbledore, is some seriously understated excellence, as is Zoë Kravitz as Leta Lestrange and relative newcomer William Nadylam as Yusuf Kama. Ezra Miller returns strongly too, allowing Credence a chance to come out of his shell and not look so scared shitless in every frame anymore. Plus Credence has grown out his stubble a bit, giving him a slightly more mature look that he deserves. But Eddie Redmayne...my God, I want him to win Best Actor for this movie just because of how accurate he is, once again, as an autistic man and hidden badass. And now I need to get together a Newt cosplay for next year's HVFF, or whatever convention I'm lucky enough to attend.
To this chapter in the Wizarding World, I regretfully give my franchise-lowest grade yet: a B+. But I'm hoping against hope that the third through fifth movies are a serious return to form. That is, if so many on Writer Twitter don't get their wish that the whole series crashes and burns - a wish I'm going to counteract as hard as I can, as a reader, writer, fanboy, and viewer.
Till next time, Pinecones...
 |
| #FeedTheRightWolf |
 |
| Remember: Denis Leary is always watching. Always. |
No comments:
Post a Comment