Introducing: Under-Appreciated, Layered Script
J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. Perceived within the Wizarding World fandom as a controversial addition to the franchise for one-too-many reasons. Some love it, while many fans hate it. I do not wish to go onto this topic on here at length, but to make my stance clear: I am a strong supporter of the film and believe it is one of the strongest entries in Wizarding World movie franchise. I think most negative criticism usually comes from external sources to the movie itself; which makes it either mostly invalid or uninteresting from my point-of-view. Instead of dwelling on this here, I would like to redirect some attention to one of the most underrated aspects of the film, which is J.K. Rowling’s wonderfully ambitious screenplay. The main point I would like to talk about are the parallels she draws between characters in opposing sides of the conflict to illustrate one of the main themes of the movie: the importance of context.
First, let’s get this out of the way: J.K. Rowling’s fantastic literary background makes her an interesting screenwriter. Upon watching these flicks again and again, any attentive viewer can quickly notice her artistry imbedded to every scene and dialogue written for the films. To some extent, both of the films in the Fantastic Beasts franchise feel very much like novels in motion. Many see that as a detracting factor and as uncinematic; however, in a world dominated by paint-by-the-numbers blockbusters, it is refreshing to see a tent pole-movie author bringing a fresh perspective by attributing meaning to every little detail of their creation to the point of obsession. That obsession extends to the structure of her scripts. Here in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald we see Rowling using the same technique she used in every single novel she has written to date: ring composition (1) - to a scene-by-scene level, which will then also apply to the movie itself once it takes its place in the complete five-movie series (2). Opening yourself to the sheer creative uniqueness Rowling is trying to achieve here allows the viewer to appreciate how brilliant this movie is. Some of this structure directly informs two of the direct character thematic parallels I will attempt to cover in this article:
Murdering Babies: Gellert Grindelwald and Leta Lestrange
In the first act of the movie, Gellert Grindelwald is pursuing Credence Barebone after escaping MACUSA. The latter has joined the travelling Circus Arcanus after the events of the first movie, seeking his true family. This pursuit takes them both to Paris, a setting which allowed for Grindelwald to set a plan in motion using the legend surrounding Corvus Lestrange to manipulate Credence into his clutches by quenching his need for an identity and belonging. While setting residence in Paris, Grindelwald and his acolytes take over a Muggle residence by killing the family who lived there and disposing of the bodies discreetly. His mercilessness is on display when he orders one of his followers to kill the baby in the apartment for no reason other than not to be inconvenienced. A pure display of lack of empathy. The filmmakers frame this as a meaningless act of evil - as killing an innocent child would normally be for most sane people.
However, things are about to become more complex in hindsight. There is a good reason for that scene being there other than showing the true colours of Grindelwald. In the third act of the film, we learn Corvus Lestrange was dead all along and that his sister Leta Lestrange accidentally killed him while on a boat trip to America. To silence his cries, which were inconveniencing Leta, she temporarily swapped her brother Corvus by another (quieter) baby in a nearby room on the ship, which would soon prove to have been a poor decision. The ship would soon enter an emergency state and sink, our characters would move onto lifeboats, and Corvus would be lost drowned to the sea while his sister watched. Leta has lived with the guilty of indirect killing the child ever since, believing herself a monster for the consequences this accident… and here we enter the discussion.
Both characters each killed a child, directly or indirectly. Both the murdered children were inconveniences to their killers. What makes Leta Lestrange different from Grindelwald when both of their selfish actions resulted in death? I would say context. This is one of the main thematic points Rowling is getting across with Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. The world is messy and not composed of perfect black-and-white people or situations. As much as we may try to separate them into two crystal-clear sides, the light and the dark intertwine to extents one might look like the other without proper consideration of context. A point often forgotten in recent discourse. The context of one’s actions does not seem in consideration anymore in the modern world; or how subjectivity plays a huge part in sentencing a person to damnation for their actions. We rush to point and judge. The movie does not give you the answer about how you should feel about this situation, but it points the audience into the right direction. In true J.K. Rowling fashion, Leta Lestrange ultimately does the right thing and protect those she loves with her life as a redemption for her actions - something Grindelwald would never do. Their actions define them.
They do not expel this out the audience watching the movie and it requires multiple viewings and deep thinking to hit-home. This is one of the many virtues of this movie and of Rowling’s writing, it does what many blockbusters cannot do: it is food-for-thought in the most literary sense possible. The script refuses to spoon-feed the audience, and I love it for it.
Enchanting Lovers: Queenie Goldstein and Corvus Lestrange Sr
In another blatant (and shocking) parallel, the script mirrors Queenie Goldstein’s actions with one of the most vile characters in the movie, Corvus Lestrange Sr. Both characters enchanted their respective partners to do their bidding, albeit for different reasons. Following the ending of the first movie, Queenie and Jacob have started an illegal relationship because of Jacob’s muggle blood status. After refusing to put Queenie in danger by continuing their love affair any further - denying her requests to move to the socially progressive Europe - Jacob is placed under a spell by Queenie and taken by force to England. That is the situation until the couple meets Newt Scamander in his residence, where the spell is lifted. Queenie believes Jacob is not willing to understand the situation and disapparates to join her sister who is working to locate Credence; which sets Jacob’s quest in motion with Newt to find Queenie (along with Tina and Credence) in Paris.
Later in the movie, Rowling will throw the audience into a similar situation, allowing for an interesting discussion of context furthering the thematic relevance of the subject to the film. Yusuf Kama tells the story of his family to our protagonists. They learn about the abduction of his mother by Lestrange Sr and about how he made her into his unwillingly lover. Lestrange Sr is an obsessive man who sees women as inferior objects to further his pure-blood line - his magical family tree device follows only the Lestrange men, with women depicted as flowers. The reasons behind Lestrange Sr’s actions regarding Kama’s mother differ greatly from Queenie’s with Jacob - one made from a place of entitlement and another made from a place of love. Both are wrong though.
Are we to believe Queenie is a monster for doing what she did to Jacob? I believe that is not the intention of Rowling’s screenplay. This is a place in this story which the actions from one of our heroes is strikingly similar to one of the villains, an example of how seeing the world in a black-and-white perspective can be very detrimental to understanding the reality behind people. The journey Queenie goes through in this movie only shows she made this wrong decision out of love and need for Jacob, as she spends most of the movie longing for a support she does not have - which ends up having catastrophic results as she joins Grindelwald to remake the world in her own terms. Her intent and the context of her situation makes her character fundamentally different from Lestrange Sr despite their similarities. Does the movie state what it wants you to think about this parallel between these two characters? No, but it places a lot of trust in you to get to the most sensible conclusion.
Only Scratching the Surface: The Fantastic Beasts Movies are Beautiful
I hope this article has enticed you to think more fondly of J.K. Rowling’s Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. This a layered movie with many surprises hiding in plain-sight, waiting for discovery. Just like any other work from Rowling, the screenplay is carefully structured around ring composition and uses of many parallels between characters imbedded into this structure to drive strong thematic points forward. If we could just shift the narrative online to more of an appreciation for what this movie has to offer, as opposite of negative comments for external reasons, most people would notice it is an excellent addition to the Wizarding World canon. These movies offer beautiful and rich narratives for those open to see it.
Exploring the importance of context in such a large story with a huge established audience like Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald allows Rowling to engage us in a timely and important discussion about breaking down the barriers of black-and-white thinking and embracing the subjectivities of human existence - to learn context before judging the actions of others prematurely. These two examples (of many) I brought forward here help to illustrate why we need to have this discussion more than ever - especially considering the reaction of some Wizarding World fans to the movie and its characters.
I could go on for pages talking about the wonderful parallels between the Goldsteins and the Scamanders (hint: look at Newt & Queenie; Tina & Theseus), or the beautiful recurrence of birds being connected to moments in which lost characters embrace their identities (hint: look a Credence & phoenix; Leta & raven) - but I will leave those for you to explore. That should keep you busy enough until the third Fantastic Beasts movie is released!
(2) Those seem to be Rowling’s intentions, which appear to be overridden by director David Yates, producer David Heyman, and editor Mark Day by cutting crucial scenes from the movies in certain situations. There are apparently no plans to release the screenplays in their original form, but one can gather a lot of information based on deleted scenes and cast interviews.
Comments