Skip to main content

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore

(SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit, if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts, there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore, belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald.

But at least there’s no Johnny Depp this time, right? Fabulous Beasts finally has righteousness on its side! As someone who was never a great fan of the main series – albeit, I’ll readily admit a couple of the sequels were pretty good – I didn’t feel tangibly let down by Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I was reasonably entertained, even if it was clearly led by the factors alluded to above (“What can we find to tell a story about in order to make more dough?”). At that point, I didn’t even find Eddie Redmayne’s performance as Newt Scamander – hero as cow-eyed, aspergic puddle – too wearisome on the nerves ("You can't be nervous about a speech after saving the world"? Eddie can convince you otherwise).

Prior to this review, I took another look at Miles Mathis’ take on the Harry Potter series (from 2016/17; as ever with Miles, you have to wade through a lot of his patented pseudo-genealogy to get to the meat); I’m abidingly suspicious of Mathis’ output, partly in terms of his prolific content, but also the question arising of, what it is, through revealing, he doesn’t want you to consider. And what is he asking you to understand in the wrong way? Mathis thinks JK Rowling is the output of a secret service team, and her content can be read in those terms (“Just substitute ‘agent’ for ‘Obliviator’, ‘non-agent’ for ‘non-magical person’, ‘Intel hoax’ for ‘magical event’, CIA for ‘Ministry of Magic’, and ‘propaganda blitz’ for Memory Charm”). Further still, the wizards themselves represent the Elite, while the foolish muggles, the “common folk” are “less than useless” and “completely expendable”.

Indeed, the “wizards as the Elite” is an obvious reading, so much so that Miles rubber stamping it almost makes me inclined to question such an interpretation. Mathis doesn’t think the Harry Potter movies really represent a Satanist – or Gnostic Luciferian, if you prefer – plot: “The Christian critique of Potter mostly doesn't fly, because, like Christianity itself, the books create a battle of good and evil, and Harry isn't on the side of evil”. Which is a bit like me contesting that his interpretation that “Children today are being taught to look upon their own parents as contemptible muggles and upon themselves as a superior class of magicians, who can potentially get whatever they wish with the proper spell” doesn’t cut it, as the children, born of muggles, must know they are muggles and so don’t stand a chance.

I do think there’s legitimacy to that reading (“an updated version of Plato's The Republic, where children are taken from their parents by the State, divided into classes, and raised to serve the interests of the Elders”), but this isn’t an either/or. Mathis scoffs at those who parallel Rowling and Tolkien (“Harry Potter is often compared to The Lord of the Rings, but the comparison could not be less apt”) on the grounds that Tolkien’s heroes are decidedly not Elite wannabes (the Hobbitses are muggles, basically), but that rather misses the point that their core appeal is, in both instances, the one he dismisses: magic. It matters little that their gateway drug is “good triumphing over evil”, if the end result is being hooked on godless occultism/Luciferianism.

So yes, there’s value in what he says, (“What Potter is promoting is a shallow fascism, one where all real religions and moralities are eventually jettisoned as getting in the way of business and total control”),but your conclusion will likely depend on who you think “controls” the Elite and what they want from that control. If you adhere to the materialist ballpark of spies and societal control, you’ll likely miss – or dismiss – the broader ramifications, which come into play with the transhumanist agenda. When Miles waves his “either/or" flag  – “As I see it, the current Elders aren't Satanists. They are just thieves. They want to steal as much easy money as possible, as far as possible without you noticing” – one should be very cautious.

For sure, Satanism may be another control mechanism (in as much as what it “is” is, by definition, established as a polar force to Christianity), but it would be a trap to assume it is illegitimate for those reasons, as much as it would to consume only the Jay Dyer take (interpreting everything from his self-styled Christian stand-up “comedian” – very loosely in his case – perspective). The core principles of Satanism – or whatever term one chooses to describe the impulse or general doctrine/ethos it encompasses; Steiner would have it that it’s Ahriman who has been calling the shots for the current era,  but we have to consider whose team he may have been on – are not contingent on Christianity for its sustenance.

We have to remember too where Miles sets his boundaries – he’ll dismiss the Earth shape subject out of hand – and consider the possibility that such limitations may be less out of personal preference than an instruction to redirect the inquiring mind.

Indeed, the dismissive response to Satanic design is sufficiently common, be it in context of MKUltra or as misdirection generally, that it can only makes sense – if one is professing to open-mindedness – to consider that it may be a conditioning measure. Mike McClaughry, for example, sings from the same hymn sheet as Mathis when he suggests “There is no such thing as the occult or black magic”; he outlines his belief that all those operating in this sphere are agents of spy agencies, going back to the likes of John Dee. Blavatsky, for example, was a “Russian humanist-social engineering spy”. Trance Formation of America, Cathy O’Brien’s tale of being a mind-control slave, similarly suggests Satanism (and aliens) are basic mind-control manipulation techniques employed by agencies (“…occultism is easily dispelled with reason and fact”). Dave McGowan also tends towards this perspective in Programmed to Kill.

If so, the JK agency kind of went off the boil when it came to Wizarding World. Or perhaps, it was a case of “job done” and, with Warner Bros demanding more content, they let the “actual” Rowling get to work. With the tepid results of the last few movies. Certainly, the extra time and sprinkle of Kloves did Rowling’s screenplay for The Secrets of Dumbledore no discernible good. And what to make of her cat-among-the-pigeons statements about biological women? It keeps the subject controversial and divisive in the public eye, which is clearly part of the (Hegelian) point. It also shows she’s evidently not considered a sufficiently toxic (biological) woman for Warner Bros to axe from their once monumentally profitable flagship franchise.

Of course, as with Mathis’ take on good vs evil, the actual subtext of The Secrets of Dumbledore is up for debate. As it stands, villain Dumbledore engages in (Satanic) blood sacrifice – of a poor little Qilin (a creature from Chinese mythology, although the Potterverse’s own version thereof), which can detect the pure of heart – in order to engineer an election victory and so wage war against the muggles. Obviously, Grindelwald fails, but hmmm… Who have we seen stealing an election recently, as part of an arrangement with those who would wage war against the muggles? Someone who doesn’t look anything like he used to, in fact, so not entirely unlike Grindelwald. We are even told “Each day brings tales of another conspiracy” and that “Deny them their voices and the streets will run with blood” (teetering on the Enoch Powell, or should that be George Soros?)

If you’re going to invoke a political thriller, though, go ahead and make one, rather than this lukewarm, fish-nor-fowl trifle. Given the unfussed, almost motiveless pace of these movies, a rigorously plotted mystery/investigation, a magical John Le Carré, would surely be a more appropriate flavour. Instead, The Secrets of Dumbeldore’s first thought is canvas and how to fill it, rather than story and how to tell it. There are occasional passages that hold attention, such as Newt quirkily – how else? – rescuing brother Theseus (Callum Turner) from wizarding prison via “limbic mimicry”. Returnees Jessica Williams (Lally Hicks) and Alison Sudel (Queenie Goldstein) make agreeable impressions in limited roles; much is made of the latter’s relationship with honorary muggle-of-value Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) whose heart, it is made clear, is super-pure. This may be the case, but he’s also given an elite wand to wave (the lure of the dark path), and he’s also a bit of silly fatty, just to make it obvious that muggles are not up to elite standards (you can’t help feel Queenie has a dose of pity affection for him).

It’s revealed Ezra “ker-razee!” Miller’s Credence, in a possible retcon since he’d previously been revealed as Albus’ brother, is Albus’ nephew by publican Aberforth (Richard Coyle). The character isn’t up to much here, although that’s largely the case for the prequel ensemble, barring perhaps the platypus thing (Niffler, it says here). One might argue Credence is only duped by the villain as a result of a lack of strong parental influence (so running counter to Mathis’ thesis). The most noteworthy thing about the character is that Miller seems to be made up to echo Alan Rickman as Snape. Why, I don’t know.

One might, if one so wishes, also extend an alternative reading to the Dumbledore narrative. It is, on the face of it, a massive step forward for the franchise’s progressive politics. Emboldened by the woke steamroller, Dumbledore’s thing with Hannibal Lector is now central to the plot, hence the title, as he… struggles to free himself from a toxic gay relationship - with added magical bondage – and so renounce such youthful errors of the past. Sure, there’s some hot liquid wand action at the climax, but this is decidedly unromantic; are there any out-and-proud-and-blissful-ever-after couples in the Potterverse? So in summary, what do we have? The Secrets of Dumbledore features audible damnation of attempts to steal elections, broken family units and same-sex relationships. Who made this movie, again?

Indeed, fitting with the contrarian take, one might point to the focussing in on big gay bear Dumbledore’s personal life – hot on the heels of focussing on the sure-fire hit of a hero unable to make eye contact – as a reason for the prequels’ steady decline in popularity (wokeness has also been cited in tumbles taken by the MCU and Star Wars; Spider-Man: No Way Home was notably woke-lite). After all, prior to the prequels, there was only Rowling’s after-the-fact outing of Dumbledore, and Potterheads could run with or ignore his sexual status as they pleased, per many prior form for Hollywood attempts to virtue signal in indirect ways that wouldn’t harm the bottom line.

Now, though. Regardless of subtext, there’s not much conviction to the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship. This may be in the nature of casting Mads Mikkelsen, a perfect fit for cruel, cold and calculated (not that he can’t do otherwise). Indeed, one’s instant takeaway is that Dumbledore was a dupe in the relationship, a means to an end (perhaps a prequel to the prequel is needed to clear this up: Young Dumbledore in Love). I’m unsure either of his prior incarnations would have sold the once-raw emotion; Colin Farrell would have stood the most chance, I suspect. Certainly, losing Depp wasn’t anything to cry about – not because it wasn’t gutless of Warner Bros, but this is exactly the kind of role, even when he wasn’t conspicuously distracted by dope and domestics, he fails to make anything out of (see any straight part – ahem – he’s taken in the past two decades and realise why he like working with Tim Burton, always happy to cater to his whims, so much).

Jude Law is very amenable, but he encounters the same problem his pal Ewan McGregor did as Obi-Wan; he’s simply ill-catered for on the writing front. He gets to be all beardy and sage, but you aren’t invested in his – or anyone else’s, for that matter – journey. Or world. Because, per form, this is a place of green-blue-grey, dour, washed-out existences. One might reasonably expect an embrace of wonder and vibrancy – of magic! – rather than the pervasive sepulchral palette. Director David Yates was out of creative juice by the time of the two-part original series finale, let along crawling his way through this utterly uninspired trilogy.

Also in the mix is a Katherine Waterston cameo; I’m unsure why she was side-lined here. There must be a story to tell; it’s not like she’s publicly done a Depp or Miller. Depp shot one scene but reportedly still pocketed his salary of $10-16m. Not having Depp wasn’t the reason for the $250m box office drop, though. It’s surely a conflation of hitherto alluded factors that can’t get even the devotees caring very much, and why not throw in the meaningless main titles (need to shoe horn some beast in) and lethargic subtitles to boot. Demographics suggest Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore is not attracting new audiences (over 70% of audience is over 25), which is hardly surprising. They’ve already hooked the kids on magic, but try keeping them. I guess that will be down to Amazon’s forthcoming progressive take on The Lord of the Rings. A prequel…

Popular posts from this blog

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was