(no subject)
You’ve got your four leads, Newt, Tina, Queenie and Jacob.
Newt is a more conveniently attractive Hagrid, too irritating for human contact and therefore projecting relationships onto the titular creatures (that are basically real animals with like, a horn or in a funky shade) he drags around America in a bag, protesting as they steal, destroy homes and bite (it’s fine, guys, only Muggles are affected) that everyone hates them and America is mean for not getting that it’s ~*Mankind*~ who are truly dangerous. Despite the title, the beasties don’t affect the plot beyond a few setpieces. Instead the film is mainly the search for a creature composed entirely of rage (JKR’s favourite!) by Colin Farrell; while Newt fucks around being quirky and shit. The mood shifts from scene to scene (here’s a son presenting his mother with a belt for her to beat him! SMASH CUT to Eddie Redmayne twerking to arouse a rhino in heat!) pretty drastically, but at least I suppose there’s something for everyone…
Newt is vaguely connected to the Potterverse, as Albus Dumbledore is apparently ‘fond’ of him (this hilariously is established by Colin Farrell wondering why, when Newt was kicked out of Hogwarts for ‘endangering human life’. The answer’s in the question, dumbass, endangering human life is like, Quidditch to Albus, and if you don’t graduate with at least a manslaughter on your conscience, then kiss your reference bye-bye.)
An MTV review perfectly put it
(http://www.mtv.com/news/2954740/fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling-eddie-redmayne-review/)
“He’s a character in search of a coherent personality. He’s introverted and stubborn and admits that people find him annoying. Yet the film is convinced he’s adorable. Redmayne is the master of smiling to himself for no reason, ginger hair flopped over one eye, as though he’s not living in the moment but instead in the theater watching his ascension into a GIF.”
Tina, a former Auror (or as the script puts it ‘the career woman’ out of herself and her sister, Queenie) should be relevant to the plot, being the only person with links to both Newt and Colin Farrell’s character, Percival Graves, but instead is mainly utilised in the field of frowning and the obligatory scene where she wears a sexy dress (the expectations for dudes neatly expressed in Newt, seeing that she and Queenie have magically changed clothes in order to infiltrate a speaksay; um…straightens his bowtie. It’s fine, we ladies will worry about being purty, you guys have plots to worry about, after all.)
Tina and Newt (and Jacob and Queenie - One Big Happy Weasley Family redux is happening before our eyes, guys!) have the obligatory hetero relationship JKR specialises in, in which they have almost no interaction at all while she informs us outside the text of their inevitable marriage and babies as if this is a cliffhanger it would be cruel not to resolve as swiftly as the characters themselves are introduced.
The one nod to Tina’s characterisation is her dismissal from the Aurors for cursing a Muggle (plea for tolerance, though, it was one of the many ones who Had It Coming, as opposed to the presumably nice, invisible ones that birthed Hermione.), a scene in which she is almost executed Bond-style and an attempt at ‘Oh, you could calm down Rage!Creature’ that is almost instantly dismissed for plot contrivance (drew focus from Newt and Colin Farrell.)
Tina’s sister Queenie is even less relevant, ironically, as she has a power that should be incredibly useful (she can read minds) but instead is used to establish that Newt’s ex sucks and that guys like to think of her in the buff when they meet her.
(Like Tonks, her power is in danger of aiding the plot and must therefore be used minimally.) There’s an odd contrivance of her not being able to read the minds of ‘foreigners’ because of their accents which comes into play with the big reveal, and is kind of reminiscent of Quirrell, who hides his evil intentions under a turban. Who knows how these wicked types will disguise themselves next? It starts with ethnic headgear and having an accent, but you can see from the Death Eaters surnames how few good old classic British names there are amongst them. Definitely no conclusions to be drawn there…)
Queenie is at least endearing, and hey, baby steps, is a pretty, giggly non-bluestocking who isn’t instantly dismissed like her forerunners in the Potterverse. She and Tina barely pass the Bechdel test, but still! Sisterly relationship not based around dudes! JKR’s getting PC in her old age, we might get a gay character or a lead POC in another decade!
Queenie’s relationship with Jacob Kowalski isn’t groundbreaking (it’s another ‘gosh, the tension of whether two white straight people will be able to continue a ~*forbidden romance*~’ - possibly in reference to the miscegenation laws in Muggle US at that time, which is the kind of grossness expected in the Hollywood trend of ‘what if racism/sexism/homophobia affected white straight dudes because idk, they’re magic or mutants or some shit? ~*Metaphors*~) mixed in with some ‘hottie girl dates schlubby guy’) but Queenie and Jacob are at least likeable.
Jacob is a Muggle dragged into the story when his bank loan request is interrupted by Newt’s animals.
As a guy on the porky side, there’s naturally at least one joke aimed at his size, when his stomach is stuck in Newt’s magical suitcase, but again, baby steps! (Apparently there was also a cut scene in which his fiancée dumps him because his loan is denied, which is like, the epitome of Rowling, but hey, it was deleted, so let’s give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. Psych!.)
He’s easily the most likeable, with at least one use to the plot, serving as the audience stand-in amazed at the magic. He also has the most backstory, being a veteran who works in a canning factory, but longing to bake (he’s even inspired by his grandma, rather than the usual male role model, omg, Jo, are you feeling okay? I did hear that she only provided the ideas for the script, with the actually lion share being done by Kloves and his house-elf, but still…) and the most touching moment, in which the trio bid him goodbye before his memory is taken (hey, a Muggle was treated as a viable love interest, let’s not go crazy and treat them like people!)
For a movie set in New York (and filmed in Harlem!), this is as white as Hogwarts, with a helpful gif set portraying every character of colour: http://clarkkent.co.vu/post/153521368267/people-of-color-and-where-to-find-them-aka. (I think two of them may even have had lines!)
There’s also set up for the next five (5!!) movies with mention of another Potterverse familiar name, with Zoe Kravitz’s 0.5 second role as Leta Lestrange. Naturally, JKR has more information, in case someone inadvertently used their imagination, and it’s explained in promo sources that Newt and she were childhood friends, but that Newt was expelled for a wrong she committed (of course! Newt is established as a Hufflepuff, but must share their brother house Gryffindor’s trait of getting away with nasty shit while getting punished with false accusations, allowing them to get their own way and play the martyr.)
We can assume from Kravitz’s casting that she’s also the hot POC you date/make public appearances with before locking down your true (white) love: see, Dean, Cho, the Patils, arguably Krum… We don’t know her house placement, which naturally makes all the difference; but Queenie establishes from Newt’s thoughts that she was a ‘taker’ and that, like every man, he deserves a devoted ‘giver’. (I guess she didn’t offer to wash Newt’s pants.)
Jon Voight (Henry Shaw) is also cast for a role of maybe twenty seconds, in what one can only presume will be a later explored thread, as a newspaper magnate and father of two sons, Henry Jr. and Langdon, the former of which was running for Senate (we know he’s a wicked right-winger because he’s randomly cruel to teenagers and despite his entire lines being about a sentence long, as he’s pro-prohibition and shutting down gambling halls. Boo hiss?! IDK, obviously prohibition was doomed to failure and left a gap for organised crime; but ethically, it’s no different from the drugs war, which JKR’s never really seemed to be invested in.) before being killed by rage!ball (the only victims are Muggles, natch) and the latter of whom lends a sympathetic ear to Samantha Morton’s character, Mary Lou Barebone (a Muggle Umbridge redux with a dubious accent) due to his belief in magic.
The end showdown has Muggles including Shaw observing the wizards, which he instructs his journalists to capture photos of, but a deus ex machina means all their memories (including Jacob’s) are wiped in a rain of memory potion (how this didn’t affect wizards too isn’t explained,) as we watch the newspapers headlines change from truth to the weather.
Yay, who needed a free press? (I guess the journos can count themselves lucky they don’t get caught in a jar.)
And Shaw’s rich and powerful, so knowing how his son was murdered would just be overkill icing on an already loaded cake, or something. Maybe he can just forget Jr. ever existed, like Hermione’s parents!
The plot thread which has been most discussed, however, is the one with some actual dramatic tension - Graves’ hunt for a creature created from repressed magic and abuse.
Mary Lou Barebone, the abusive adoptive mother of three children, and preacher at a soup kitchen/church dedicated to eradicating witches comes to the fore here.
If you’ve seen one JKR product, you’ve seen her, she’s particularly reminiscent of Umbridge, with the charitable feminine persona belying the inevitable wickedness within, as well as her abusing of male children - she even marks the palm as Umbridge did with her quill - but you can see patches from others such as Aunt Marge and Aunt Petunia.
As an adoptive, rather than ‘natural’ mother, she’s of course incapable of proper nurture, and she’s religious and therefore crazy (although she’s actually correct on the existence of wizards. How she first discovered this is of course unknown. Strawwoman don’t need no characterisation!)
It’s also funny how the evil people in the Potterverse are the only ones mentioned actually doing anything for charity - iirc, GoF has a moment where Arthur Weasley comments on how awful Lucius Malfoy is for making a donation to the hospital: HE’Z DOING IT TO CURRY FAVOURS, U GUYZ OMG!11 like can’t he spend his money on dark shit like normal?
Obviously, it’s gross, since the soup is essentially ransom to the religion, with the kids having to take the witchhunting leaflets and get assessed in case a pimple is a wizarding nipple or whatever; but still, for 1926 I’m thinking that’s probably one of the better deals you could get.
Mary Lou’s eldest is Credence (Ezra Miller), and his secret meetings with Graves, who urges him, as the point of contact for children who may be suspected as magical; to investigate and discover an Obscurial, or creature created from rage and repression of magic.
There are some pretty bald attempts at establishing his little sister Modesty as a red herring (right down to flat out misleading the audience, so the only criteria we’re given is that an Obscurial will be under ten, which Credence patently isn’t), but it’s pretty obvious from the beginning that Credence himself is the Obscurius, and a wizard (idk how Americans let their kids know, but apparently they’re not as devoted to getting the message through as Hogwarts.)
There are also some pretty bald attempts at coding both Graves and Credence as gay, which reviews and the actors have discussed in interviews. The subtexts of repression, religious oppression would be fodder enough, but the promos and screenplay (including detailing of a cut scene in which Graves presents Credence with a magical flower over a meal) and the wording used (Credence is ‘captivated’ by Graves touch, ‘nervous of and attracted by’ his behaviour, ‘allured and threatened’ as Graves gently heals his cuts, with adjectives like ‘affectionate’ and ‘seductive’) make the subtext pretty damn textual (I’d put money on a JKR confirmation once the accompanying books, DVDs and cuddly Nifflers are in store!) as does the film itself.
Unfortunately, rather than efforts at diversity, this seems to be another exploration of how hetero and motherly love is a force of positivity, while gay relationships are predatory and manipulative.
Graves (a stupid villain even by Voldemort’s standards) discovers Credence after his Obscurial form has killed Mary Lou. He insists on being shown to Modesty, still under the impression that she is the witch. Modesty cowers in tears as Graves does the tropey ‘hmm, now would be a good time to chew out my minion!’ bit, telling Credence he’s a squib and of no further use. This sets off Credence to a roaring rampage (what happens to the weeping orphan kid? Who cares - we know she’s a Muggle now!) which culminates in the Aurors apparently destroying him.
As Dumbledore’s love for Grindelwald caused him to ‘lose his moral compass’, so does yet another character coded as gay end up endangering others (people argued for Lupin prior to the hawt action that was Remus/Tonks, since his lycanthropy was according to JKR, a metaphor for HIV, which would seem to me to similiarly wrongheaded, especially considering how cavalier Lupin is about his own condition, considering he worked in a damn school.) It’s when Credence stops repressing himself that he becomes violent, so instead of the resolution that people shouldn’t repress who they are, it becomes a validation of the abuse itself.
This is when you really have to be in JKR’s ideal fan wheelhouse to find much to be comfortable with as a resolution.
The Aurors kill an abused kid (despite him still presenting as human intermittently and responding to Tina, Newt and Graves’ pleas for ceasefire.)
Newt and Graves battle, as the latter uses a magical whip (?!) rather than Cruciatus. I guess even villains have more scruples than Harry.
Then there’s one of those classic Potterverse arguments where everyone is the loser - at Credence’s death, Tina and Newt immediately lose interest and don’t protest the massive abuse of power (~*a metaphor for police brutality*~? Kinda weakened by the heroes folding to it, especially Tina, who apparently cared enough about the kid to get the sack initially. But it’s totes okay, guys - she gets her job back! Wow, I guess she learned a valuable lesson there - never try.)
Perhaps they knew not to take it seriously, since it was a MCU style death in which the cast may as well wink at the camera and hold up a sign saying ‘Loki will return in 2017 for Thor 3!’
(David Yates confirmed this, noting that they cut a scene showing Credence’s inevitable escape.)
At this point, Graves interjects and you’re like ‘Oh, thank god, someone’s protesting the cops and government gunning down that kid!’ but actually, the argument is that Graves thinks they shouldn’t have done it to suppress the truth from Muggles, as Muggles suck. So there we go, we were thinking this guy was awful, when really, it was a difference of tone!
He’d rather be open about his distaste for Muggles, whereas everyone else is merely content to fiddle with their memories and maybe pull hilarious pranks on them.
This is pretty much any argument in the Potterverse, like in HBP, when there’s all this friction because Harry’s sliced up Malfoy, or when the twins have cursed Montague, where you get this vain hope that maybe someone will have some kind of non-sadistic mentality, but nope, fraid not, the argument is based around whether or not this will get someone into trouble or affect Quidditch scores.
Newt (of all people!) then suddenly casts a reveal spell, and ba-dum ba-dum, The end result furthers this even more, when it’s revealed that Graves is none other than Grindelwald played by, of all people, Johnny Depp. Wow, I can’t wait to see the quirky hairdo and funny accent he’ll use!
At first I thought hiring a guy who beat his wife was in conflict with JKR’s proud declaration that she’s a feminist, but then David Heyman, her producer explained “Here’s the thing: Misogyny, abuse, maltreatment of people is unacceptable - but none of us know what happened in that room. So I think it would be unfair for me to be judge and jury, or for any of us to be judge and jury.”
I mean…right, you guys? Especially relevant in a series about how you can’t trust the justice system to not be hopelessly corrupt! Do any of us know what happened in any room we weren’t in, ever? People say that a culture of celebrity and cronyism protects well-known abusers like Bill Cosby, Barry Bennell, Jimmy Saville, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski; but I’ve never been in a room with even one of those guys. I’m really not comfortable judging them, especially when I could be judge and jury of their accusers.
David Yates clarified the matter, with a very zen statement: "What you have to remember about Johnny is that extraordinary talent and that talent never goes away. Hollywood is such a fickle place. People go up and go down.” One day you’re on top of the world, next day people are fickly down on you just because you allegedly threw a cellphone at your spouse. It’s just a sad indictment of the world we live in how people can forget the amazing character Johnny Depp has played in every movie and focus on the little things. Thankfully people of one particular gender never seem to be down for long in the public eye!
JKR finished with a sedate ‘I’m delighted’ when asked for comment on Depp’s casting.
Aw, she’s lost so much passion from the days where she was happy to go in on celebrities like “the talking toothpicks held up to girls as role models: those celebrities whose greatest achievement is un-chipped nail polish, whose only aspiration seems to be getting photographed in a different outfit nine times a day, whose only function in the world appears to be supporting the trade in overpriced handbags and rat-sized dogs.