At last after what feels like longer than only two years, the second film in the spin-off prequel series of the global phenomenon Harry Potter has hit cinemas and stormed the box office. Having been a Potter fanatic since I can’t remember when (for those who are wondering what Hogwarts house I belong in, I’m a proud Ravenclaw), I have been on countdown since the first Fantastic Beasts film and been very excited to see the magic all over again. But ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’ has been plagued by controversy before the first trailer was even released. The casting of Johnny Depp as dark wizard Grindelwald caused outrage among fans owing to allegations of domestic abuse made against him. South Korean actress Claudia Kim’s casting as Voldemort’s pet snake-to-be has been perceived by a select few as racial stereotyping. The negative vibes surrounding the casting choices have tainted the fanatical anticipation that usually comes with the release of a film from the Wizarding World franchise. In the latest instalment, Professor Albus Dumbledore enlists ex-Hogwarts pupil Newt Scamander in his fight against Grindelwald who has escaped prison and is gathering followers for his pure-blood supremacy scheme.
There have clearly been script issues during the film’s planning stages, as it seems like J. K. Rowling has struggled to tie the threads between what happened in the first Beasts film and what’s yet to come. Someone may as well cast obliviate on our memories of the previous film, as pretty much all of the major events are effectively undone in some silly plot twists that don’t fit right. The narrative teeters between world-building and plot development without quite settling on one. Where the first film got away with taking an encyclopaedic approach at the expense of an eventful story, ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’ has recycled this structure where there should have been a clearer focus on showing us where all the build-up is leading. In places where the storyline progresses, the script gets lost in the finer details of its own mythology, which is a shame considering J. K. Rowling penned the script. The countless references to Harry Potter will bypass novices who are unfamiliar with certain names, magical objects and so on, unless you fancy spending the rest of your evening looking up every link you missed on fandom sites. The inconsistent direction gives this otherwise engaging film a convoluted feel and makes it tricky to follow.
As expected with films in the Potterverse, the production design and visual elements are outstanding. So finely crafted is every last detail down to the buckles on Newt’s suitcase, and the small things barely in shot are given the same level of artistry as the grand architecture of the French Ministry of Magic. This feature of the film is among its strongest for how stunning it is to look at and lose ourselves in. If the costumes and production design aren’t recognised in this year’s awards season, I’ll eat my sorting hat. The depth of J. K. Rowling’s imagination remains unparalleled in the expansive world she has created and is continuing to build. Hopefully this film’s introductory approach will develop into more dramatic instalments in the future. The first film’s ebullience and sense of wonder have been dropped in favour of a grittier tonality in a similar way to the Harry Potter films taking a character-driven approach as the central trio reached adulthood. I very much liked the menacing, high-stakes atmosphere as it created the aesthetic of a film noir, but it won’t satisfy everyone.
In the build-up to the film’s release, I was most excited about seeing Jude Law’s debut as the younger Dumbledore. Fans needn’t worry, as he shines in the role and gives a carefully nuanced performance in his brief screen time. I truthfully would have liked there to be more of him, but he captures the sharp intelligence and mischievous humour Potterheads loved about Hogwarts’ headmaster in a few key scenes that it just about suffices. What’s also impressive is how Law gives subtle glimpses of Dumbledore’s darker, manipulative side in making Newt an offer he can’t refuse. Bombshell Queenie Goldstein (played with Marilyn Monroe-like playfulness by Alison Sudol) is at last given the screen time to develop into a multi-layered character. Potterheads will get a shock when they see there is more to Queenie than her pretty face. However, her increased presence is at the expense of her sister’s (Katherine Waterson) relationship with Newt, which doesn’t progress from where they finished at in the first film.
What I found strange about the film is the title. Where are the beasts? True, we meet a couple of additions to Newt’s collection in a lovely scene that takes place not in the bottomless suitcase this time, but his London flat-turned-menagerie. Those who adore the cuddly Niffler as much as I do will squeal at his babies making a mess of their handler’s living room. Unless I’m under the influence of a confundus charm, I was expecting to see more creatures and felt a little disappointed by the lack of them. Also Grindelwald’s ‘crimes’ are left unexplained, so I was dumbfounded over what he’s done to warrant confinement behind bars. No doubt the future films will go into his crimes more explicitly. Beautifully decorated and irresistibly magical, ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’ combines J. K. Rowling’s intricate mythology with politically relevant undertones to deliver an engaging, if muddled, sequel that enchants from beginning to end with its nostalgic charm.
HKFilmBlog 