Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022, PG-13)

*A few spoilers from The Crimes of Grindelwald.*

I didn’t see this movie when it first came out, for a number of reasons: the pandemic, J.K. Rowling, Ezra Miller, the shaky quality of the second film, etc. But I did remain at least a little curious about it, so when a friend asked if I wanted to watch it recently, I went for it.

As Gellert Grindelwald takes steps to shore up his power across Europe, courting followers to his anti-Muggle cause, Dumbledore finds himself unable to move against the dangerous man, thanks to a bonding spell they cast together during their youthful romance. While he searches for a way to undo the spell, he enlists Newt Scamander to lead a small band of wizards (plus Muggle Jacob Kowalski) to try and avert disaster.

I will say, I think it’s better than the second one. Grindelwald’s bigotry is openly vile, which it’s supposed to be. His contempt for Muggles is skin-crawling, and retroactively makes it even dumber that Queenie would have aligned with him at the end of the last movie. There’s also no ambiguity about his past relationship with Dumbledore (only took 15 years for that to happen)—both of them use the word “love” to describe it, and it’s clear that even now, there’s a pull between them that’s hard to entirely break. Of course, since Grindelwald is an overt magical Nazi, that one winds up being a bit of a mixed bag. But hey, Reylo, am I right?

Also in the good pile? Newt doesn’t take a bizarrely both-sides stance on the growing rise of fascism, as he did in The Crimes of Grindelwald. No, he realizes that everyone has to pull together to stop the growing threat on their world, even as he also has a lot of energy and heart to give to his beasts. Speaking of which, there’s increased magical-creature presence in the film, including one that plays a pivotal role in the plot. And Jacob, who I’ve always liked, is really acknowledged as an important member of the team, even though he doesn’t have magic.

On the other hand, the plot is busy and way over-convoluted. Oddly, that’s part of the point of the story, deliberately causing chaos to keep Grindelwald from gleaning their objectives. But it leaves us with a frenetic story that lurches from setting to setting, from one group of characters to another, and never really takes the time to come together in a satisfying way. The stuff with Queenie, as well as Credence, feels more like a means of cleaning up narrative messes from the last film. Tina has little more than a glorified cameo. And while I am interested in the Dumbledore/Grindelwald story, Newt and his beasts have always been my favorite part of this franchise, and Newt hasn’t really felt like the protagonist since the first film.

Nice performances from the returning actors, especially Jude Law as Dumbledore, Eddie Redmayne as Newt, and Dan Fogler as Jacob. Mads Mikkelsen takes over as our third Grindelwald in three films, and since we couldn’t keep Colin Farrell Because Reasons, he’s an excellent choice to take on the role. In his hands, Grindelwald is every bit as terrible as he ought to be, but you can also see his seductive nature, why people might get sucked into his cult. Mikkelsen and Law are fantastic in all their scenes together. I also really enjoy Jessica Williams as Lally Hicks, a professor from America’s magical school and part of the team Dumbledore assembles. Lally especially has some fun scenes with Jacob, and she gets to do some pretty awesome magic. (By the way, there’s still zero reference to the experience of being a person of color, even a witch of color, in America in the 1920s.) Additionally Richard Coyle (who I remember best as Jeff from Coupling) appears as the younger version of Aberforth.

Warnings

Violence (including violence against animals,) scary moments for kids, and thematic elements.

Some Thoughts on S.P.E.W. (Harry Potter)

When I was rereading the Harry Potter series this past year, I made a mental note that at some point I was going to have to do a post on S.P.E.W. It’s one aspect of the series where I think its exclusion from the films was an instance of absence making the heart grow fonder. Because I definitely remember finding the S.P.E.W. stuff annoying when I first read the books, but after getting some distance from that plotline, I developed a rosier view of it. Some time ago, when I did a write-up of Hermione, I brought up that she was a House Elf abolitionist as yet another mark in her favor. But then I reread the books and was like, “Oh yeah, that’s how all the S.P.E.W. stuff went.”

First, of course, there’s the name, Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare. When Hermione is confronted with the fact that House Elves are slaves and she witnesses Winky’s cruel treatment at the hands of the Malfoys, she’s horrified and immediately sets her not-inconsiderable brain to the task of thinking about how she can help. What she comes up with, though, is the unfortunately-acronymed S.P.E.W., and she’s somehow willfully ignorant to any of Harry and Ron’s gentle prodding that that might not be an ideal name for a social justice movement.

Right from the start, this positions S.P.E.W. as two things. One, it’s little more than a joke. No one would expect big accomplishments from an organization called S.P.E.W., and Hermione’s efforts largely amount to trying to get people to buy membership badges and knitting Elf-sized clothes to leave around the Griffyndor common room for the House Elves to find when they’re cleaning (any House Elf who’s presented with clothes is freed.) And two, it’s hugely annoying to anyone who has to hear about it, chiefly Harry and Ron. They quickly get sick of Hermione lecturing them on Elf rights and rattling her collection tin at other students. The whole thing is basically an embarrassment.

Which, why should this be an embarrassment? Even if we buy that Hermione, whose smarts admittedly extend more to books than social savvy, thinks that this ridiculous name is a good idea, why isn’t anyone interested in Elf rights who wants to help her come up with something more palatable (or at least do their own thing if they don’t want to deal with Hermione)? We know that Harry cares about House Elves, having arranged for Dobby to be freed at the end of The Chamber of Secrets. But instead of working with Hermione to go about her newfound mission in a way that will garner support, he just tries to avoid the issue. Meanwhile, Ron actively argues that House Elves like serving wizards and don’t want to be freed (the House Elves’ general dialect and the behavior of all the ones we meet who aren’t Dobby lean pretty heavily into unpleasant “happy slave” tropes.)

I mean, okay. Let’s say that all the kids from wizarding families have been indoctrinated into thinking this is okay. But kids who grew up in the Muggle world shouldn’t have these “okay, slavery, whatever” attitudes. After all, Harry and Hermione, both raised in Muggle households, have understandably-adverse reactions to realizing that wizards condone this behavior. But no one else? No one in the entire school has an issue with the fact that their dorms are being cleaned and their feasts are being prepared by slaves? Dean Thomas, a Black kid raised by his Muggle mother, doesn’t care about this? I call serious bullshit on that.

Book-Movie(s) Comparison: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

I really enjoy both parts of The Deathly Hallows. Despite splitting the last book into two movies, there’s a ton of stuff left out, but the films still convey the overall story well and manage to be a fine pair of movies to boot (spoilers.)

First off, props to these movies for handling the mess The Half-Blood Prince left them to deal with. The previous movie gave the two Deathly Hallows films basically nothing to work with in terms of the trio hunting Horcruxes, but damn if the films don’t do the work to make it all hold together. Not to mention, Part 2 does a good job really making me feel for the deaths of Tonks and Lupin – since neither of them have anything worthwhile to do after their introductory films and Tonks barely gets a chance to be a character at all, injecting their deaths with so much earnest pathos that doesn’t just coast on the good will of their book characters is no small feat.

For me, tying up those loose ends that got dropped in earlier movies makes up for some of the plot threads that don’t get included here, like most of the stuff about Dumbledore’s past. There’s plenty of smaller details, world-building stuff, and character moments that don’t make the cut (personally, I wish we could’ve got a bit of the secret radio station, and I’d have liked more about Harry’s growing obsession with the Hallows,) but the films don’t feel all that cut up as you’re watching them. It mostly hangs together quite well.

One thing I will point out, though, is that I wish they’d kept the explanation of how the Death Eaters can detect/locate anyone using Voldemort’s name. It’s pretty obvious that such a scene was originally in one of the films, since 1) the trio is initially perplexed at how the Death Eaters find them in the café, 2) they eventually switch to calling Voldemort “You-Know-Who,” and 3) there’s the big dramatic moment where Xenophilius Lovegood calls the Death Eaters by saying, “Voldemort.” But without the actual explanation of the spell, you need book knowledge to put those things together.

Part 1 does an especially nice job keeping the plot moving. What felt like endless chapters of the trio camping and bickering in the book is accomplished in a few montages and a handful of well-chosen scenes. (Montages that feel appropriately cinematic, I should point out – not like The Order of the Phoenix, where some of the montages blatantly feel like transparent attempts to cram 7-8 chapters into 20 seconds.) The emotional throughlines of the main characters carry us along, and the significant scenes/set pieces crop up just often enough to keep things from ever feeling too slow.

Most of the big moments from the book are given their due in the films. Particular standouts are the trio sneaking into the Ministry of Magic, “The Tale of the Three Brothers,” the Prince’s tale, and the Resurrection Stone scene. Re: the last two, both of those scenes in Part 2 really hit me in ways they don’t in the book. When I’m watching Part 2, I almost inevitably cry when either of those scenes come on.

I also think both films are a little like The Prisoner of Azkaban in that they include some great scenes that deviate from the book. It’s a small moment, but I really love Harry dancing with Hermione to cheer her up after Ron leaves in Part 1 – a fabulous, sweet display of their friendship. And man, does Neville get to come through towards the end of Part 2! I know the same basics happen in both the book and the movie, but I just adore the scene of him standing up to Voldemort and vowing to keep fighting, even though everyone thinks Harry has been killed.

Finally, we’ve gotta talk casting. Rhys Ifans is excellent as Xenophilius Lovegood, just knocking it out of the park in his scenes. Bill Nighy only makes a brief appearance as Rufus Scrimgeour, but he conveys the feel of the character with limited screentime. And even though Part 2 plays the scene between Harry and the Grey Lady very differently than the book does, I really like Kelly Macdonald’s performance as the film’s version of the character.