Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
(2016)
(SPOILERS) It can definitely be a positive
to approach a picture with lowered expectations. I could quite easily have
skipped JK Rowling’s self-penned Fantastic
Beasts and Where to Find Them on the big screen, as I did the latter five Harry Potters. While I’ve never been a
devotee of the series, I’ve never had much against either, and a few of them (The Prisoner of Azkaban, The Half-Blood Prince) I was even rather
impressed by. But there was a nagging feeling that, whenever I caught up with
the latest instalment, they were foremost intended for devotees of the books, dutifully
faithful and lacking the necessary flair and individuality to become truly
cinematic affairs in their own right. At this point, the Fantastic Beasts franchise has no such encumbrances (even if it
looks to be weighed down with Potter
lore subsequently, much as Lucas’ prequel trilogy was), and it benefits
enormously. It also benefits from an array of top-flight talent in pretty much
every significant role, such that even the longueurs during this (inevitably)
lengthy introductory chapter don’t feel like a hard slog.
So what’s with all the tepid reviews, then?
Part of it may be that Fantastic Beasts
is so visually undifferentiated from has gone went before. Remember the surge
of enthusiasm when Guillermo Del Toro was announced as director of The Hobbit, and its gradual dissipation
as Peter Jackson’s “same-old” took over (although, if we’d known it would be
the director of Pacific Rim and Crimson Peak, rather than the one of Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone, we might have stayed our anticipation)? The Potter-verse needed that kind of
shot-in-the-arm. David Yates is a perfectly versatile journeyman, meaning that
he puts all the pieces in the right places, and makes perfectly competent
(above average, to be fair) fare, but lacks that spark of true inspiration.
He’s inhabited this sphere for five movies on the trot now. The only other
titan of a current franchise with that kind of record is Michael Bay, and you
wouldn’t really want to be replicating Transformers,
would you?
So Yates delivers the requisite washed-out
hues and energetic action with due accomplishment, but he’s essentially in a
holding pattern, which you can also feel in Warner Bros’ rigorous branding. Weening
a spin-off is a delicate, very rarely achieved balance. It requires casting the
atmospheric spell of the original much-loved movie(s), but sufficiently
differently in approach not to lead to déjà vu or weariness. Kicking off with notes of the Potter theme isn’t overly confident
(hedging bets, although composer James Newton Howard is new to the series) and
it seems, with the focus on Dumbledore and Grindelwald in future instalments
(depending on how diminishing the returns are; this already looks like a Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, box office-wise), this is going to be very much
striking the beats of a prequel trilogy rather than a different story in the
same universe. Verdicts are necessarily reserved on Rogue One, but that looks from the trailers like a spin-off hitting
all the wrong beats tonally, simply because it doesn’t have characters to
invest in; Fantastic Beasts has that at
least. Indeed, it’s easily its best and most agreeable quality.
Which is not to say the plot doesn’t have
its virtues, but it is a grab-bag of familiar elements and themes. The premise
of a collection of escaped rare and magical creatures is instantly arresting
but also instantly leads to Jumanji-esque
concerns over an effects-heavy barrage of chases and escapes and the like.
Which is partly the case here, and probably why the refugees from Newt Scamander’s
suitcase are stapled to the introduction of an over-arching prequel plotline.
Really, though, intolerance metaphors in
blockbusters have already been done to broad strokes death in X-Men to little overall consequence, and
there’s something of stir-and-repeat feeling here. When Fantastic Beasts talks of the persecution of witches and wizards
(and invokes a new Salem), we’re not talking about the same thing as someone
brewing a few herbs and casting the odd hex; we’re talking full blown fantasy
land wandsmanship, transmogrifications and incredible feats (and maybe turning
into a newt, if not a Scamander). As others have noted, there’s a similarly
not-quite-fitting aspect to the lesson, since those on the receiving end in
both this and the Fox/Marvel-verse frequently stand as gods in relation to the
mere mortals who would notionally oppress them.
That said, while the tropes may have been
over used, they at less have a degree of reinvigoration, similar to the one Michael
Fassbender brought to Xavier in First
Class. The likes of Samantha Morton, in an undifferentiated persecutor part
(especially post-True Blood), are
able to breathe life into standard types. In particular, Ezra Miller, an
excellent actor (comparing him to Crispin Glover might be overdoing it, but he
elevates any mainstream fare he’s a part of) who ends up as the nominal Big Bad
(although, not really; his Obscurial status seems to echo interpretations of
poltergeist activity as inspired by humans present, although the idea of the Obscurus
as a parasite is slightly offbeat, since it’s a parasite spawned by its host), gives
his role such conviction that the clichés roll away.
And, while some critics
have identified a tonal mismatch, I rather like the interplay of the larky hunt
for creatures and the dread force wreaking havoc on New York. It may not quite
dovetail successfully (Newt is never sufficiently on board with the latter threat
to justify suddenly confronting it when his suitcase is full again), and there's an inelegance to the way Newt gets off the boat and is immediately introduced to the main plot elements by simply walking down the street, but in a
two-and-quarter-hour picture the distinctive shifts are actually quite welcome.
What innovations there are do have the air
of magpie meanderings. It’s well-known that Rowling has been asked to
contribute to Doctor Who (wise of her
not to, at least under current management), and here she has fashioned a Doctor
in all but name, this being the eleventh, Matt Smith, complete with bowtie and
geek-chic, albeit under the influence of Eddie Redmayne’s capable tics, Newt is
closer to manifesting Asperger-chic, a bumbling but passionate protector of
endangered species who finds it difficult to look anyone in the eye but just knows what is right.
Some have found his performance
ingratiating, and it is one full of
very actorly sleights and flourishes, with a dangerous dose of Norman Wisdom
and Lee Evans, but I think it works here. Redmayne brings a natural warmth and
sincerity, and more especially he’s blessed by a complete absence of Moffatisms
that did in the actual Doctor he’s
half-imitating (that is, self-satisfied self-referentiality up the wazoo).
But it further bear stressing that this
pseudo-Doctor comes with a sonic screwdriver/wand and a pseudo-TARDIS/magical
suitcase, complete with many rooms (preservation-conscious zoo cages,
effectively). So yes, Fantastic Beasts
wears this on its sleeve, but it doesn’t matter too much. It doesn’t feel like
slavish lifting, and Redmayne has clearly thought about his performance such
that, while Newt is heroic, he is never so in a grandstanding, self-glorifying
or inane way.
He’s also provided with sterling supported from
his co-stars. Dan Fogler, an actor I haven’t noted before, shines as Kowalski,
almost stealing the movie as the Muggle/No-Maj introduced to a magical kingdom
and falling for Queenie (Alison Sudol, who has the ear-to-ear smile of her
generation’s Cameron Diaz). The comic relief role can run the risk of being
wearily over-played, but Fogler gets the level exactly right.
Indeed, this plotline, for all that the no No-Maj
thing is, like the persecution of magicians, rather rote, far more affecting
than the attempt to inject a spark into Newt’s relationship with Tina
(Katherine Waterston). The problem there is that Tina’s a memorable character
when she’s taking an authoritarian, adversarial stance towards Newt, but as
soon as she’s on board with his mission she becomes next-to-immaterial.
Elsewhere, we are introduced to the controlling
structures of this period universe. The magical authorities work reasonably
well, forces that, through ignorance and inflexibility, cause more problems
than they solve. The magical New York underworld falls flat, though; the goblin
speakeasy is as replete with visually unconvincing character designs as it was fifteen
years ago in the days of Dobby, and if some of Newt’s creatures (particularly
the platypus-like Niffler, although the insecure green twig is a blatant
Groot-steal) are appealing, there’s a general sense that Yates isn’t wringing anything
new from his crew. The politicians, meanwhile, are entirely a bust, with Jon
Voight wheeled on and wheeled off.
Which brings us to the "real" villain. It’s a
bit of an ignominy for Colin Farrell that his solid performance as Graves should,
in the final product, be revealed as the manifestation of Johnny Depp. They’ve
interchanged before, of course, in The
Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, but I can’t help feel that Farrell, who hasn’t
generally had the greatest success with his Hollywood roles, has finally been
attached to a good one only for his work to be reduced to a footnote by the
greater star who appears for all of two minutes – and the latter with scant continuity of
performance or style.
Which is to say, Farrell delivers,
particularly in his manipulation of Miller. As for the widespread vocal
disavowal of Depp as Grindelwald, as if his very presence is now a death
sentence on quality, well I had no problem with him (albeit he’s looking a bit
puffy of late). I’ve rarely found Depp less than at least entertaining in a
role (hey, I’m the one who liked Mortdecai),
with the proviso that I won’t be checking out his collaborations with Kevin
Smith, and he’s fine in this. Comments have made it sound as if he’s awful,
when he’s nothing of the sort. The sole problem is that, narratively, his
presence detracts from Farrell.
Yates delivers numerous engaging set
pieces, from death sentences to fantastic beasty hot pursuits (the teapot set
piece is especially well-delivered; Redmayne’s mating dance fails to enchant or
amuse, however) to de rigueur city-wide destruction-porn. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them rattles along, and if
Rowling the screenplay writer is trying to assemble too many elements (almost
as if, halfway through the process, she decided to cross-pollinate a one-off
tale with a new franchise), she nevertheless maintains interest and intrigue
throughout. The prospect that Newt won’t be front-and-centre of future
instalments is perhaps a disappointment, as Redmayne brings something agreeably
off-kilter (if very “dram”) to the series that should be encouraged. The main
fear is that the saga will reduce to a rigorously unremarkable course of good
vs evil wand-waving that leads to viewer apathy. But that’s studios (and
presiders over their own universes) for you.
Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.