'Fantastic Beasts' without a story
No need to be snobby about it — J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series is excellent fiction, especially when you compare it to the wave of secondary YA fantasies that flooded pop culture in its wake.
In the past, Rowling relied on screenwriters to adapt her books and stories for the big screen. “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” a prequel of sorts to “Harry Potter,” is Rowling’s screenwriting debut, and it’s a narrative mess — easily the most convoluted storytelling in her “Magical World” franchise.
What went wrong? Was Rowling less comfortable with the structure of screenwriting? Did too much of her original vision get stifled by the studio? Unfortunately, speculating on the behind-the-scenes work is more interesting than discussing the movie itself.
“Fantastic Beasts” makes a fatal mistake in the first few minutes. It introduces its hero, wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), in the middle of a mission. He arrives in New York City circa 1926 with a suitcase full of magical monsters. He’s a bit of an oddball, but the film otherwise offers very little about a character who will apparently headline five “Fantastic Beasts” movies in total.
Conflict comes in frustrating fits and starts. An early sequence features Newt switching suitcases with a No-Maj (non-magical human), a wannabe baker played with extreme “aw-shucks” sincerity by Dan Fogler. The beasts get out, and Newt, teamed with a disgraced wizard cop (my phrase for whatever her job is at the Magical Congress of the United States) played by Katherine Waterston, work to collect the monsters. Meanwhile, another high ranking American wizard (Colin Farrell) searches for a child with unprecedented magical abilities.
The seemingly disjointed stories are connected by a cult leader played by Samantha Morton. There’s also setup for another sorta-antagonist played by Jon Voight, but the film only seems to be laying some pipe for future installments.
Whatever the conflict, “Fantastic Beasts” struggles to make its magical action sequences fit into a purposeful narrative. Of all the characters, Newt gets the least development. We know more about how the baker wants to run his business than we do about Newt’s mission or his past. Newt is writing a book, and there was a girl who broke his heart, and he knows Dumbledore, and… WAIT for the sequel, guys!
Redmayne, a good actor with a tendency to play things too big, tries to give Newt a shy, goofball charm, though it is entirely unclear if the character’s tics are acting choices or indications of future character development. Not knowing enough about Newt drags the adventure down — a more defined protagonist would help “Fantastic Beasts” through its muddled climax.
The choppy storytelling hobbles some good ideas and aesthetic choices. The 20s-era production design is wonderfully realized, and combining it with the world of wizards and goblins distinguishes the film from the visual tone of the “Harry Potter” films. The supporting cast, especially Waterston, Fogler and Alison Sudol as another Newt ally, seem energized by the Gatsby-esque surroundings. It helps that each character gets an individual story arc in support of Newt’s ill-defined one.
Rowling and director Yates (who made the last several “Potter” movies) are too good at telling stories to fumble “Fantastic Beasts” completely, and the film doesn’t skimp on the CGI spectacle expected by audiences today. The theater I attended last Saturday even erupted in applause at the end. Still, the problems with the film stem from basic screenwriting traps. It takes narrative shortcuts and invents mystery for the sake of extending a franchise. The film feels like a prequel to the prequel series, where the fantastic is teased but never executed.
•••
Tyler Wilson can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.