Fantastic beasts: Grindelwald's crimes leave me with so many questions

It is difficult to admit, but in the interest of honesty, I must: the last film of Fantastic Beasts I've left, a fan of a lifetime Harry Potter, deeply dissatisfied and a little cold.

Yes, I admired the epic decorations, the cute creatures, the charming performances and the gorgeous costumes. And I was delighted to see back Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) with light hair and his magical menagerie of creatures, as well as a young Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) and new details to flesh out the day. story of this character so dear. .

But the crimes of Grindelwald, currently in theaters around the world, have not answered any of the questions I had at the end of the first film of Fantastic Beasts. Questions that I have been asking myself for two years now.

Not only did I feel deprived of the pleasure of discovery and resolution of mysteries, but the film left me with more unanswered questions than I had started.

Here are some of the big issues that concern me. Attention, big spoilers to come.

Who the hell is Barebone Credence?

Throughout the film, the audience is patiently waiting to find out who is really the terrifying boy of Fantastic Beasts' anti-witchcraft group. Credence (Ezra Miller) is also invested in discovering his own original story – in fact, it's his prime motivation. The most likely scenario was that he was Corvus Lestrange, the brother of Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz).

But then, in a spin straight out of a soap opera, we discover that Leta accidentally killed her brother years ago, when she had briefly exchanged baby Corvus in tears with another child, but that she did not could not exchange them before the sinking of the boat on which they were.

After Credence has chosen to line up with Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) at the end of the film, the black leader drops a bombshell of truth as the moment of Dark Vader's "I'm your father" at the end of The Empire Strikes Back : Credence is actually Aurelius Dumbledore, the brother of Albus Dumbledore, long lost and never mentioned before.

It's technically possible, and yet it seems unlikely. Credence was born in 1904 and Albus was born in 1881. To be a Dumbledore, Credence and Albus should at least share a father with Percival Dumbledore (if not both parents). We know that Percival died in Azkaban some time after 1890. If Credence was his son, he should have been conceived – and perhaps even born – inside the witch prison. A place where security is not only narrow, but terrifying.

Of course, this might not be true and Credence might not be at all the brother of Albus. In fact, one has the impression that it is exactly the kind of lie that Grindelwald would tell Credence to fight him effectively against Dumbledore.

Grindelwald uses the fact that a phoenix comes to Credence as proof that he is a Dumbledore (Dumbledores and phoenixes have a long-standing magical connection). But Grindelwald had also just murdered a group of blue fire witches at this point of the film, so what more effort would have been needed to create a phoenix picture lying between his teeth?

In conclusion, the jury has still not identified the true identity of Credence. Frustrating.

What is a blood pact?

After hearing several times that Grindelwald and Dumbledore can not fight each other, we finally discover why. They made a "blood pact" when they were younger, cutting their hands and brushing against the blood. And for whatever reason, it means that one can not defeat the other.

We know the unstoppable vow of the previous Harry Potter series, thanks to Snape (the late Alan Rickman) who promises to kill Dumbledore if Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) did not do it. So, how is a blood pact different? We witnessed the creation of the pact and we know that it is stored in this little orb on a pin that the Niffler flew to Grindelwald.

But we do not know his terms – what would happen if Dumbledore and Grindelwald tried to fight each other, for example? Or if it can be broken, and if so how? We must assume that it is possible, or that Dumbledore can find a solution, because the novels of Harry Potter have taught us that Dumbledore finally triumphed over Grindelwald. Following this, Grindelwald was imprisoned for decades and appears in the Harry Potter series when Voldemort visits him in pursuit of the Wand of the Ancients.

It's a new and intriguing type of magic, and it's probably what I'm most excited to know more about in the next movie.

Did Leta love Newt or Newt love Leta? Has something really happened between them?

After watching Fantastic Beasts' first film, I had the feeling that everything that had happened between Newt Scamander and Leta Lestrange had left the heart broken. The fact that he dragged his picture with him probably meant that he was still carrying a flashlight for her?

But during Grindelwald's crimes, it became more and more obvious that the opposite was true. Leta had clearly fallen in love with Newt as a girl and was still in love with him. But it's not clear whether they've ever had a relationship or just shared a close friendship at Hogwarts.

Why and how Leta found herself betrothed to Theseus Scamander (Callum Turner), Newt's brother, was even more mysterious. Some of Leta's motivations and actions, including his selflessness to save the two brothers, have never been fully explained, which has left his character a little uncomfortable. Zoë Kravitz, who played movingly in the role, deserved better.

How did Nagini end up becoming Voldemort's pet?

Of all the fantastic animals that intrigued me in The Crimes of Grindelwald, the Nagini Maledictus was the most fascinating.

We know Nagini as the beloved domestic snake of Voldemort, a violent and deadly creature who has also become one of the Dark Lord's Horcruxes – until she is killed by Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) But now, thanks to the Grindelwald Crimes, we know that she was a woman, born with a curse of blood that would see her turn between snake and human until one day she remains a snake.

But in the film, it does not seem clear how demonic it becomes, nor how Voldemort makes it one of his most powerful weapons.

Nagini the woman, played by Claudia Kim, seems hesitant, nervous and almost softly in love with Credence. When Credence joins Grindelwald's army, she does not follow her and does not seem convinced by her decision to effectively reach the dark side. And yet, somewhere between the Fantastic Beasts series and the arrival of Harry Potter at Hogwarts, she changes sides. How? And why? And how does she meet Voldemort? We demand answers and like to think that this little subplot could be a movie in its own right.

Does all we know about the history of Hogwarts and its teachers is a lie?

Let's start with Albus Dumbledore, whom we already knew had a brother and a sister. It was a duel between Albus, his brother Aberforth and Grindelwald that resulted in the death of his sister Ariana. But apparently, he now had another brother? Did he know about this brother? Are there other lies about his past that we do not know yet?

Dumbledore was also known to be a Transfiguration Professor at Hogwarts, but in the film, we clearly see him teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts. Is there any reason why this fact has been hidden before?

Finally, there is the appearance of Minerva McGonagall (Fiona Glascott), who is often said to have been born in 1935, but who would have taught Hogwarts in the film in the 1920s. How is it possible?

All these questions fit perfectly into a global question: are Grindelwald's crimes full of canonical inconsistencies, or is there an explanation for all those apparent conspiracy holes that will come to light later?

Why does Queenie make such a weird decision and what does it mean for her relationship with Jacob?

A particularly strong feeling with which I left after watching The Crimes of Grindelwald is that Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol) was stolen. One of the most enchanting and interesting characters of the first movie did not have enough screen time, depth or nuance in this sequel.

Queenie finds herself face to face with Grindelwald midway through the film and knows it immediately by knowing it. But it seems that after a single conversation about how he wants to fight for the right to marry a muggle, she plans to align with him.

This does not click correctly with what we know about Queenie, because of all the characters ready to be manipulated, she is surely at the bottom of the list. She can literally read minds, which means that she can see the true intentions of people despite the words coming out of their mouths. Perhaps Grindelwald's mind is insensitive to his powers? I would like an explanation, please.

I would also like to know what his abandonment of Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) in order to join the Grindelwald supporters means for their relationship. Even the poor and simple Muggle Jacob can say that Queenie is making a big mistake. Moreover, she actually abandons him to join Grindelwald, which seems to somehow defeat the object.

Again, Jacob started the movie with all his wit in a spell expressed by her, so maybe a split is a healthy decision for him.

What are Grindelwald's crimes exactly? Where do all these "disciples" come from?

Maybe I missed something, but the so-called Grindelwald crimes did not seem so bad to me? OK, he definitely killed the guards who were supposed to keep him trapped in the flying car. And those people from whom he stole the posh Parisian mansion. And murder and house theft are not problem-free behaviors, I think we can all probably agree.

But because of the title of the film, I was expecting more and more crimes (in my opinion, Avada Kedavra's murder spell is excessive). I hoped that once Grindelwald had escaped, he would have gone around the world for a terrifying and ill-thought-out fever – like a magical and malicious James Moriarty.

On the contrary, he really phoned his criminal instinct and instead spent his time turning himself into a silver-tongued dictator. And one way or another, he quickly gathered a whole arena of followers. Did they always follow him? If not, where do they come from?

Is Grindelwald right? Is wizard fascism better for us muggle?

Look, it's Grindelwald's biggest crime as far as I'm concerned: its use of games of the political mind. His rhetoric and masterful manipulation not only attracted followers of the wizarding world, but potentially transformed him – a devoted devotee of democracy – into a fascist apologist.

In order to persuade others that wizards should rule muggles, Grindelwald shows his followers the vision of the muggle war – like the mushroom of a nuclear blast – to detail the damage that humans are doing. inflict each other. His point? Sorcerers can prevent this from happening and prevent muggles from going crazy and tearing each other apart.

And that made me think that if the wizards controlled us, maybe they could save us from muggle muggles after all.

But I feel that we have not yet seen the true colors of Grindelwald and the extent of his pain. I know deep in my heart that Grindelwald's way could never be the right one, but to know why and for my instinct to be verified, I'll have to wait for the next movie. God only knows when it will happen, but when that happens, it will be better to start giving me the answers I so desperately need. But there is no guarantee of resolution, the eventual Fantastic Beasts 3 will be the third of a planned series of five filmsso I could have a long wait in front of me.

Fantastic Beasts 2: An Adorable Mess: Crimes Grindelwald, the second installment of the magic series of JK Rowling, full of magic concepts that only fans will understand.

Watch closely and magically the awesome Lego Hogwarts Harry Potter: The 6000-piece witch school has so much to see.