The fantastic beasts end up revealing: Ezra Miller does not take it as a gospel

adminNovember 20, 2018

The second film of the split of "Harry Potter" ends with an amazing revelation, but should it be reliable? Star Ezra Miller gives IndieWire its own shot.

[Editor’s note: The following post contains spoilers for “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.”]

Many stories swirl through the exaggerated David Yates movie "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald", but most converge on a question: Who is the Orphan Credence Barebone? In the first film, "The fantastic beasts and where to find them", Ezra Miller entered the franchise as a strange magician so full of fear, anger and repression that he transformed it into an Obscurial, the human host of an Obscurus (a magical Parasite born of bad feelings and retained magic). Although his background was murky, it was not so surprising that the strange magic that Credence possessed was intriguing to the evil Gellert Grindelwald.

By the time the first movie was over, the terrifying magic of Credence (and, frankly, his bad attitude) almost destroyed New York City, and he thought he was dead. What "The Crimes of Grindelwald" supposes is that he did not die, but he fled the United States to join a magical circus and continue his search to know his true filiation. Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) was not far behind, and the mystery of where (or, more appropriately, who) came from the sad orphan dominates the story of Credence the second time.

Read more:'Fantastic beasts: Grindelwald's crimes' Review: An overpopulated sequel loses some of its magic

The "Harry Potter" franchise has always been forced by family trees and the way they get tangled together. "The Crimes of Grindelwald" is obsessed with them, leading several characters to try their own revelations of the Credence family, many of them blind alleys. And yet, the film ends with a revelation that is delivered with so much weight, such a ceremony, an importance so obvious that it should be the last word on the matter.

In the final moments of the film, Credence (now firmly in Team Grindelwald) meets with the evil magician, who for a long time has promised to tell him the truth about his family. His story is wild: Credence is actually a Dumbledore, and now any old Dumbledore, but Aurelius Dumbledore, the never-mentioned brother of the best friend turned into Grindelwald's nemesis, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law).

It's a surprising turn, but also one that feels half-hearted and quite implausible. Even Credence himself is not fully sold.

"I guess the point of this movie is probably not take anything from what the metaphorical Grindelwald says as a gospel in general," Miller said. "But, do we present it and then apply it to the information that the Obscurial gives you at the end of the movie? Well, I do not know, honestly, maybe not."

Jaap Buitendijk

While Grindelwald previously promised to tell Credence about his kinship, "The Crimes of Grindelwald" finally reveals a complicated plot that seems to prove that there is no way no one I could actually know where Credence came from. After a prolonged period in which many of the characters in the film seem to think that it is a remote Lestrange child, Leta Lestrange of Zoë Kravitz confesses the truth: he changed his little brother (the real missing heir of Lestrange) with another baby in a boat bound for America, but only to get rid of her brother crying constantly for only a moment.

That was a bad time: seconds after Leta made the change, the boat starts to go down. In a tragic turn of events, the baby that everyone thinks is a Lestrange (that's Credence!) Lives, arrives in the United States and is adopted by the evil Mary Lou Barebone. The real Lestrange baby? He dies in the ocean. So, who was the baby that Leta changed? It is unclear, although Grindelwald later claims to know the identity of a random infant, one of whom the evil magician says is not just a random magical baby, but a secret brother of Dumbledore who has never been hinted at in J.K. The broad canon of Rowling.

It's a big question, and an even bigger one. Still, Miller thinks that if anyone knew about a secret baby from Dumbledore, it's Grindelwald, if only because he was once so close to the Dumbledore.

"I think that, on the one hand, from the perspective of the Harry Potter canon, there are reasons why Grindelwald would definitely know something like that, given his connection to Albus and that family," Miller said. "And we know he had this story that involved Aberforth and Ariana. So it is not impossible that there is validity and truth in it ".

He added: "Is it impossible that Grindelwald is lying? Obviously also, no, it is not impossible".

But in a way it is. Dumbledore's family life has been well documented in Rowling's books, from her relationship with younger brothers Aberforth and Ariana to the tragic tale of her parents Kendra and Percival. When the Dumbledore brothers were small, Ariana was attacked by a group of Muggle children, a terrible incident that worsened with Percival's decision to retaliate against the children who hurt her.

His punishment was quick and complete: by refusing to explain why he attacked the children (he was concerned that it meant that Ariana was taken away for his own safety), he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the magical prison of Azkaban, where he later died. So, when did you have another child who is believed to be decades younger than Albus?

Warner Bros.

Kendra died when Ariana was only 14 years old, after another terrible magical accident and years of pain and isolation. So, when did you have another child who is believed to be decades younger than Albus?

Even in a magical world like the Harry Potter universe, it does not add up. And even if it did, it would be a global fold that would forever alter the years of books and movies. It really does not seem worth it.

Miller is quick to remind us that sometimes movies and their creators can make decisions that feel strange at the time. He points out the first film, which ended with the apparent death of his character, something that surprised even Miller.

Read more:Ezra Miller explains how 'Fantastic Beasts 2' clarifies that Dumbledore is gay, speaks against violent reaction

"In a way, you never see it in the movie unless you watch the DVD extras," Miller said. "We filmed three scenes of the revelation at the end of the first film in which Credence is still alive and, ultimately, in the editing room, they suddenly made the decision that it was great if you just saw that wisp of juice Obscurus and you did not do it. " I do not know what was happening. Actually, they did not tell me they made that decision, so the first time I saw the movie, I thought maybe I angered someone by accident, and that in the editing room, they had only said: "Take out the scene where you Climb the circus ship to Europe, kill him, I do not want to see that guy again. "

For a while, Miller did not know if his character was alive or dead, and "The Crimes of Grindelwald" tries to clear things up with an early and discarded line that indicates he is very much alive. So, does that mean there could be even more flashback in the third movie? Who will tell? "Look, I'm along the road like you, man," Miller said with a laugh.

"Fantastic animals: The crimes of Grindelwald" is now in theaters.

Sign up: Stay on top of the latest film and TV news! Sign up to receive our newsletters by email here.

Source link