‘Beasts’ undermines ‘Potter’
Hannah Yasharoff: Prequel franchise lacks heart of its predecessor
“Harry Potter” lives on through the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise. But what initially seemed like a blessing for fans has turned into an unforgivable curse.
As the prequel series continues to move forward as its own story with “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” (in theaters now), it becomes increasingly difficult to recognize the best parts of the franchise anymore. “Fantastic Beasts” may share the same world and intensity as its predecessor, but none of the heart.
At one point, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) and Co. return to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, which should have been the saving grace for a series that’s starting to forget what made it great. But instead, it felt empty; fans may recognize the location, but stories are about people, and a location is nothing without those people.
The franchise’s new lot of main characters, led by Redmayne’s Scamander and backed up by Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) and sisters Queenie and Tina Goldstein (Alison Sudol and Katherine Waterston), are interesting enough and make for some solid comedic moments, but they give us no real reason to care. They bounce through a conglomerate of plot lines and action sequences, but we never get a full sense of who these core four really are. They don’t reflect any truth viewers might see reflected in themselves, such as Ron Weasley’s struggle with never feeling good enough or Hermione Granger’s affinity for a world that often treats her as lesser.
Instead, the stars of “Fantastic Beasts” seem to be checking boxes for character “types” that make a good story: the goofy guy; the ditz; the strong and independent woman; the quiet, thoughtful one. Ultimately, this spinoff tells viewers to care about these new characters simply because they’re “Potter”adjacent, not because they have a new story to convey.
For hard-core “Potter” fans, going to each movie was like coming home. It was a chance to reunite with the characters they had grown up with and come to care about.
The further the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise goes, the more it feels like returning to high school long after graduation: It should feel the same, but there’s nothing there for you anymore.
That gnawing feeling of losing the “Potter” core began in the original “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” but it’s accentuated here in the new plot twists that author and screenwrit-
er J.K. Rowling and director David Yates (who directed the final four “Potter” films) throw in. These ideas play as halfhearted attempts to surprise fans who know everything about the “Potter” universe, but they just undermine the existing canon.
Lord Voldemort’s pet snake? Turns out she was a human woman. Dumbledore’s family? Surprise! He had a longlost brother.
Even stranger, if this story was so comfortable with upturning what already exists, why continue only lightly alluding to Dumbledore’s sexuality after Rowling announced years ago that the Hogwarts headmaster was gay and in love with Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), who takes the front seat in this movie? The closest “Crimes of Grindelwald” comes to acknowledging any romantic feelings comes when Dumbledore sees a younger Grindelwald in the Mirror of Erised, a magical contraption from the very first “Potter” book that shows those who gaze into it their greatest wish. The two share a fleeting glance before moving on.
The “Potter” world has been reborn again and again since the original book series wrapped up 11 years ago. Movies and a theme park and an interactive website and a play have given fans a chance to keep the magic going. But the franchise may have met its match with “Fantastic Beasts.”
If the “Fantastic Beasts” franchise was made to satisfy “Potter” fans’ nostalgia (and to make a whole load of money), it sorely missed its mark. Instead, it has alienated its target audience by forgetting that the characters, not the concept, were at the franchise’s emotional core.