Review of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) by Marcelo A — 22 Nov 2018

If there is anything interesting to note about what is being built with the saga of "Fantastic Beasts" is the genealogy of the Harry Potter story and all that involves the events we saw in seven books and eight films whose successes gave JK Rowling the power to do what she wants. Among them, writing the screenplay based on what would have happened before Potter got to Hogwarts.

The second installment of the new franchise, "The Crimes of Grindelwald," begins to swallow the Potter story and bring the time line further separating the events of the future already reported with those of the past yet to be known.

And David Yates knew how to lead a little better story than in the first film. Rowling's veteran collaborator - he directed half of the Potter films - Yates gave the second film tones of doubt and uncertainty, and let the fears and insecurities of the characters speak louder in the story. What may be related to a Europe in a period between wars. The film takes place in 1927, when the continent is still rebuilding at the same time as there was the fear of a new war that would actually begin 12 years later.

Moving into the magical world of Rowling, the division is even more glaring, as Grindelwald escapes from prison and begins to gather a series of wizards unhappy with the life they lead, hidden from humans, living in the shadows, unable to use their powers or even to marry someone who is not a witch. Many want to be the dominant species on the planet. Natural evolution. And Grindelwald's speech, lived by a Johnny Depp in a slightly more accurate tone, without exaggerations and eccentricities of his later works, is highly seductive and gregarious for those who feel excluded and oppressed by the ministry of Magic and its aurores. Depp's scene in Père Lachaise's cemetery is one of the best in the film.

The point of the story is one. It is J.K. Rowling's motto at this point: "You have to choose a side." It's what Theseus (Callum Turner) tells Brother Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) at the beginning. Throughout the film, each one is choosing its side and regrouping its armies in the war that seems imminent. Scamander, who, in theory, has no interest in choosing sides, but only wants to take care of his creatures, gives his answer only at the end, although we always knew what it would be. He is the hero and has been proving much more than an expert on exotic animals, but a powerful and shrewd wizard. At the same time he has a shyness and the difficulty of relating to humans in general. Maybe that's why the person with whom he feels more comfortable is another strange being in the magical world, the human Jacob (Dan Fogler), whose participation in the film, however, borders the nullity.

Another interesting point of this second work is to know a little more of the past of one of the most beloved characters of Harry Potter fans. Alvo Dumbledore, who was very well into Jude Law's hands. Better than Michael Gambon ever was. Incidentally, in a general way, an advantage of this still beginner franchise of "Fantastic Beasts" over that of "Harry Potter" is the quality of its actors. Many of them are very good and occupy leading positions. And this was a problem in the previous franchise, because some actors, especially the protagonist, were suffering.

But back to Dumbledore, in "The Crimes of Grindelwald" we know of the teacher's once solid alliance with his former friend. Something well documented in the books of the Potter saga, we see how Professor Dumbledore was, always loved in the school of magic, and we know a little more about this honorable character, the eternally pacifist arm of the relation between the wizards and the defense of a peaceful coexistence between witches and humans. Dumbledore is the education bias in Rowling's world. It is the way out of education and knowledge that brings prosperity, tolerance and empathy. At least that's what Dumbledore believes. And he sees in Scamander the same spirit detached from power, at the same time curious to participate in the events and to seek justice, which he would see in Harry Potter. Certainly pure spirits who do not crave the power awaken in Dumbledore a father figure and the need to welcome these souls he foresees as vectors of change in the history of humans and magicians.

Therefore, we must not deceive ourselves. What J.K. Rowling is trying to do with "Fantastic Beasts" is to reproduce the same "Harry Potter" narrative. Scamander, as we have seen, is the counterpart to the wizard protagonist of the previous story. Grindelwald, it's Voldemort's turn. Jacob is the idiot friend doing the times of Ron Weasley, while Tina is Hermione of the time. Dumbledore is himself younger, while Queenie is a bit like Gina Weasley.

In comparison to the first film, which seemed to me too long and with little relevant content, the story advances considerably in "The crimes of Grindelwald". Which is a plus point. There are also some shadowy and unnecessary elements in the trajectory and holes already common in Rowling's work. But I understand that the interest in accompanying the main narrative still prevails.

And what remains is the mystery about Creedance (Ezra Miller). What is your real past? Where does it really come from? The movie plays some cards in the air, but you can not trust any of them. At least for now, was Grindelwald right? Or is there more to Creedance than we need to know? What remains, however, is the knowledge that he is one of the most powerful wizards to emerge. And that war, whether between humans or between wizards, is imminent.