Welcome back to Sound Off!, a semi-regular column where members of Speculative Chic gather together to chat about the latest BIG THING in entertainment. This time, return to the wizarding world and discuss Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, which premiered in the United States on Friday, November 16, 2018.
Sound Off! is meant to be a reaction, but not necessarily a review. After all, while we are all individuals, even mutual love of something (or hate) can come from different places: you may find everything from critique to fangirling to maybe even hate-watching.
Now, join J.L. Gribble as she talks about Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. [Note: Spoiler-free!]
J.L.: If there was a place to jump head-first into the wizarding world, this film is not it. I’ve been a “Potterhead” for nearly 20 years, and there were moments during the movie where I had no idea what was going on. The Crimes of Grindelwald is very much a “middle of the series” movie, part two of five. It doesn’t work as a self-contained story whatsoever.
Though I enjoy J.K. Rowling as a storyteller, her skills are best employed in the literary medium. As a writer myself, I could see some of the ideas she was attempting in this screenplay. I even enjoy and agree with them! Secondary characters work best when they are also the heroes of their own stories, when their motivations and goals do not exist just to prop up the main character’s. However, that level of intricacy doesn’t always translate well to film, especially when so many characters are involved.
Newt Scamander is undoubtedly the hero of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. And while this story follows his point-of-view for the most part, I wouldn’t necessarily call him the hero. He’s a pawn for Dumbledore, a foil for his brother and the other aurors, and a needed point of humanity for Lita LeStrange. Then again, Grindelwald as a villain is too large for life. Dumbledore as a hero would also be too large for life, so perhaps we need an “everyman” like Newt to be part of such an expansive story.
I was prepared to be annoyed by a lot of the creature elements of this movie, and some of them definitely felt shoved in for gratuitous CGI, to make the 3D version of the film worthwhile for the higher ticket price. But the rest, such as the scenes with the nifflers and the Zouwu (a creature from Chinese mythology) were used specifically to further the plot, which I appreciated. And while I’m not a fan of hairless cats, I kind of want my own Matagot.
My husband and I had a long conversation on the way home from the movie about the portrayal of Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship. On the one hand, I’m a little perturbed that they weren’t more explicit about the history between the two characters (representation matters!). But on the other, as my husband rightfully pointed out to me, the year is 1929, and while the wizarding world claims to be more accepting, I have the feeling some things were still illegal no matter the English community.
As I said before, this is film two of five. There’s plenty more to come, and I’ll probably show up to see it. Things I wish for further installments are the things that I loved about the first two movies. We’ve seen New York City and Paris, so I hope we explore more historical wizarding communities. I’m excited to get more information about Credence and his family (there are plenty of good breakdowns online about what’s revealed in this film, so I’ll keep this review spoiler-free). And I continue to adore Eddie Redmayne as my favorite Hufflepuff.
No Comments