"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" Is Raw Meat

Since the 2007 release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I have read all seven of J.K. Rowling's novels about the young wizard once a year. I am, to put it mildly, a fan. That being said, it is obvious to even the most casual readers of Harry Potter that, as a writer, Rowling has her flaws. The plots of her novels are often riddled with holes, inconsistent, nonsensical, ambiguous, and, if I may be so bold, sloppy and cliche. While reading the books, I am able to push these flaws to the back of my mind and become absorbed by their charm and characters. However, as I watched Rowling's latest work, Fantastic Beats and Where to Find Them, I found myself unable to quell the indignation aroused by the movie's countless narrative failures. From the outset, it is clear that there is a concerted effort to separate Fantastic Beasts from the other Potter films. It takes places across the Atlantic, in New York City. The year is 1926, and the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA) - the body that governs the American wizarding world- finds itself at odds with Mary Lou Barebone, a no-maj (non-magical person, known as a muggle in Britain) who leads the New Salem Philanthropic Society, an organization that is working to convince the population at large that witches and wizards are not only real and living among them, but are dangerous and need to be exposed and eliminated. At this time, Gellert Grindlewald - the dark wizard familiar to those who have read the books - is also wreaking havoc across Europe, and his influence is spreading to the United States. The protagonist of the film is Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a Brit and Hogwarts-alum who stops in New York on his way to Arizona, where he plans to release a thunderbird that he has rescued and rehabilitated back into the wild. Scamander is a magizoologist, a wizard who studies, protects, and cares for magical creatures. He travels around with a magical suitcase that functions as a makeshift lab and wildlife reserve where he raises, heals, and houses his creatures. His short layover in New York is derailed after he accidentally switches suitcases with a no-maj named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler). Before he is able to track down Jacob and swap suitcases, Newt is taken into custody by Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) after she sees that he is in possession of magical creatures that are illegal to own in the United States. Tina is an ex-auror (dark-wizard catcher) who had previously been assigned to investigate the New Salem Philanthropic Society. While on assignment, Tina used magic against Barbeone after she witnessed her abusing her adopted son Creedence (Ezra Miller). She was stripped of her role and demoted for her recklessness. As Newt is taken into custody, Barebone and the New Salem Philanthropic Society visit the offices of newspaper publisher Henry Shaw Sr. (Jon Voight). Barebone and her adopted children try and convince Shaw and his son, New York Senator Henry Shaw Jr. (Josh Cowdery) to publish an expose on the existence of magic. Both Shaws laugh in their faces and kick them out of the offices. Meanwhile, Newt's suitcase is brought by Tina to Percival Graves (Colin Farrell), a high-ranking auror, for punishment. Because the suitcase belongs to Jacob and not Newt, it does not contain any illegal magical creatures and Graves lets Newt go. Newt and Tina then leave to track down Newt's missing case before Jacob opens it and releases the creatures. By the time they arrive at Jacob's home (you guessed it), it is too late, and several of Newt's fantastic beasts are released into the city. Once he tracks down Jacob, he reveals to him the existence of the wizarding world and enlists his help in re-capturing the missing creatures. My mentioning of all these storylines may seem confusing and overwhelming, and thats because, in the film, they are. I mention them because they are all haphazardly introduced in the first third of the film, making for a poorly told and confusing story. And Rowling, as screenwriter, does nothing to clear up the aforementioned confusion as the film progresses. In the later two-thirds of the film, we are introduced to a few new and interesting magical creatures, as Newt, Jacob, and Tina search for them throughout Manhattan. Just as we are having fun learning about these creatures and watching the trio capture them, the film turns its focus to yet another conflict. Rather than tell a story about Newt and his creatures (a story that is far more interesting), Rowling introduces us to a force of dark magic called an obscurus: a deadly force that manifests itself within a child who has had their magical powers suppressed. The obscurus, after wreaking havoc across the city, kills Henry Shaw Jr. at a party, thus forcing the MACUSA and Newt to find and stop it before it kills anyone else. It is this conflict that consumes much of the film's second half and denouement, thus not making the movie about fantastic beasts or where to find them. And that is one of the film's many detriments. Simply put, Rowling's screenplay is one of the worst that I have ever encountered. It does not tell a story. Instead, the film, directed by David Yates, is a hodgepodge of nonsensical facts and horribly explained details about the wizarding world that are carelessly presented by a cast of characters who are impressively inconsequential and unlikable. As a screenwriter, one of Rowling's strengths is her ability to create interesting conflict. Her greatest weakness, on the other hand, is her inability to offer any compelling solutions to the conflicts she creates. Instead, she just jumps from conflict to conflict, offering contrived strands between them and resolutions that are forced and unimaginative. Take, for example, the films opening scene, where Rowling introduces us to the aforementioned New Salem Philanthropic Society. Rather than deal with this conflict head-on, Rowling shifts, and opens up a new conflict between Newt and his creatures, and then transitions to the havoc Grindelwald is wreaking across the Atlantic, and then to the conflict between Tina and Newt, and then to the finding of the obscurus, and so on. I found myself wanting to know more about this new Salem and how it related to the Potter Universe, however, Rowling failed to deliver. As is clear to anyone who sees this film, she does not address the conflict in full and her "resolution" is sloppy and unsatisfying. This is the case throughout the movie. The only redeeming aspect of the film is that it is easy to look at. The cinematography and special effects are great and make the film, if one does not pay too much attention to the story, somewhat watchable. As is evidenced by the film's later half and ending (in an effort not to upset the ghost of John Updike, I will not reveal the disappointing ending), it is clear that this film is nothing more than a battering ram used to open the door to an entirely new wave of Rowling-films. And therein lies the true problem. This movie (if we can really call it that) is just a piece of bloody, raw meat that Rowling tossed to her starving fans. She and Yates made no effort to refine the film because they, like their producers, know that fans and the general public don't care if its terrible. Why give them filet mignon when they know that, as long as Rowling is the chef, the masses will eat up cheap, uncooked, unseasoned meat? That is wrong. And it is certainly not art.