Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore
At this point, I’m done with J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World. It has less to do with her real-life transphobia- though that’s not an insignificant hurdle- than to do with how little she has to say as a storyteller. Even if it didn’t captivate as much as the “Harry Potter” series, 2016’s “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” had a charm and sense of imagination on its own that has made its sequels, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” and “The Secrets of Dumbledore,” feel like checking off boxes in a list of story ideas Rowling wanted to get to in the Potter books, but never did. Rowling is using the “Fantastic Beasts” films as an excuse to keep the money train that is the Potter franchise moving; unfortunately, it’s getting less interesting as it goes.
After three films in this series, not only would I like to see this Wizarding World come to a conclusion, but I’ve also seen enough of David Yates as a director. The franchise director since 2007’s “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” Yates’s visual pallet has gotten worse and worse- while his “Potter” films still felt like they had a creative vision in telling the adventures of Harry, Ron and Hermione, there’s almost no color or visual personality to these films at all, leaving James Newton Howard’s score to work overtime; without the strong, distinctive themes of the Potter films, that’s hard to do, although his work has always been a welcome addition to this franchise, and set the “Fantastic Beast” films apart from the “Potter” series.
“The Secrets of Dumbledore” feels like a finale to a narrative in every way; it’s also the first of these to feel like a cohesive narrative, in general. Is it fair to credit the return of Steve Kloves to the franchise as a co-writer on this script? I think that is part of it, as well as the decision to put Dumbledore (Jude Law) front and center of the action. While Eddie Redmayne’s Newt Scamander- a magical zoologist- is effective when he’s dealing with the titular fantastic beasts, he doesn’t really have enough personality to be given a strong-enough arc as the main character for more than one movie- he is best here as part of the outskirts of the story, rather than the center of it. Dumbledore is at the heart of this story, as is his relationship with Gellart Grindelwald (Mads Mikkelsen), a fugitive for his crimes, and whom wants to remake the world as one solely of pure-blood wizards and witches. What will the birth of a particular beast, and an upcoming election for the leader of the magical world, have to do with that? Because we need something to drive the narrative of these films.
Rowling is basically telling the same struggle she did in the Harry Potter stories, of a pluralist wizarding world which embraces humanity vs. authoritarianism and “pure blood” supremacy, but with less interesting character dynamics. In this film, she’s even included a “unique bond” between the main characters- Dumbledore and Grindelwald- that will be broken at just the right time. The only difference is, this isn’t between a high school kid and “the most dangerous wizard” of all-time but two adults who have their own views of the world, without a sense of destiny. In a way, in large part because of the performances by Law and Mikkelsen, this is more compelling than Harry Potter and Voldemort, but one can’t help but recognize that it’s just Rowling repeating herself; there’s no new ground to be broken from this on a thematic perspective. Say what you will about the “Star Wars” prequels (and I’ve said plenty), but they at least had something interesting to say about the world while filling in the blanks.
I actually enjoyed “The Secrets of Dumbledore” a lot more than this review is giving off. Newt Scamander’s exploits with fantastic beasts are entertaining; the way they found a place for muggle baker Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) in the story is nice to see; and I do think they managed to make magical politics interesting here. But like its immediate predecessor in the franchise, there’s not much more of interest in this world for me. Having a woman whose own personal views seem to run counter to the ideas she presents in her work doesn’t help in that.
