FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD

Eddie Redmayne    Katherine Waterston     Dan Fogler     Jude Law     Johnny Depp

Zoe Kravitz     Allison Sudol          Ezra Miller     Credence Baregone     Carmen Ejogo

     The second installment of the Fantastic Beasts series tells about the renewed threat from the dark wizard Grindelwald, who has escaped from the custody of the MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America) and has a devious plan to create a new world wherein non-magical beings will be subservient to the wizards who have pledged loyalty to him.  In this framework, one is either for or against him, and he demands a declaration of loyalty.

     The alarm goes out in the wizard world about this new threat, and Dumbledore (Law) charges Newt Scamander (Redmayne) with joining forces to stop him.  Newt is handicapped a bit by MACUSA’s forbidding him to travel internationally, but he is managing to get around that in his and friend Jacob’s (Fogler) journey searching for their loves, sisters Tina (Waterston) and Queenie (Sudol)

     One of the drawbacks of the film is in the script with its multiple plot lines involving so many people it’s hard to keep track of everyone and all the sub-plots involved.  There are the relationships between Jacob and Queenie, Newt and Tina, and Credence and Leta; there is the historical relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald; there is the relationship between Newt and his beloved beasts (quote:  “Newt has never met a beast he didn’t love”); there is the question of the true identity of Credence (Miller); and, finally, there is a question of who among all these characters will take up with Grindlewald and help him in his master plan.

     Director David Yates has collaborated with J. K. Rowling (author of the books on which all the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts films are based) on the last six productions, and she has written the screenplays for the two Fantastic Beasts films.  This partnership, along with other consistent members of the team (Cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, Production Designer Stuart Craig), returning actors Redmayne, Waterston, Fogler, Sudol, Miller, and Depp, and the visual and special effects artists contribute a kind of consistency in quality that make the series popular with general audiences.  However, many viewers—possibly more discerning—are picking up on the repetitiousness and “tent-pole” characteristics of these creations.

     Eddie Redmayne’s talented acting is a plus in the Fantastic Beasts series, although whether it can endure the number of upcoming productions remains to be seen.  It’s been agreed that he will remain in his role.  In this film, he, Waterston, Fogler, Law, Kravitz, and Sudol pull off their roles admirably.  

This latest offshoot of the Harry Potter series is attempting to hold onto its popularity with the general public.

Grade:  C+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

JUSTICE LEAGUE

Gal Gadot   Robin Wright   Jason Momoa   Amy Adams   Ben Affleck   Ezra Miller   Henry Cavill

Joe Morton   Diane Lane   Billy Crudup   J. K. Simmons   Ciaran Hinds   Jeremy Irons   Jesse Eisenberg   Ray Fisher

     Oh, my, my!  Superman is dead, and the planet is threatened by a terrible force, Steppenwolf (Hinds), who only needs to get three “Mother Boxes” to communicate with one another and the world is his.  (There are more references to ‘mother’ in this action film than all the rest put together.  Hmmm…).  Steppenwolf has started by sidelining the Amazons and Atlantis, and now he is after Planet Earth.

     There is the possibility of bringing Superman back from the dead with scientific and super-hero means, and Batman (Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gadot) have a little argument about the merits of attempting such a feat.  She sees it as risky, but he convinces her that it may be the only option.  He also knows that it will take teamwork, so has been recruiting a team to counteract the threat.  Along with Wonder Woman, he manages to get The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Momoa), and a Cyborg (Fisher) created by Dr. Silas Stone (Morton), with Alfred Pennyworth (Irons) at central control.  All finally agree to attempt the resurrection of Superman, who is clearly essential for success.

     What follows is the usual formula of an action hero film:  Fight, fight, dialog, fight, fight—always ending up with a fist fight, of course, despite all the fancy gadgets and powers of the players.  The special effects are impressive, as is often the case in these films (production design is by Patrick Tatopoulos (Godzilla, Stargate, Dark City), but the dialog is not of the same caliber.  There are few/no surprising twists and turns, so its primary value is in entertainment, and that’s if you like action hero films.

     A star-studded cast makes this film more interesting, particularly with a larger role given to Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, who is grooming herself to be a leader.  Bruce Wayne (Batman) appears to be flagging a bit and is feeling a bit guilty about his role in Superman’s demise, so maybe the new pairing could be Superman and Wonder Woman.  Along with Henry Cavill and Gal Gadot, Ben Affleck, Ezra Miller, Ciaran Hinds, and Ray Fisher give their characters depth and watchability.

     Director Zach Snyder and his writers (including Chris Terrio and Joss Whedon) have delivered a mildly entertaining, watchable film, but one that is indistinguishable from most of the genre.

Wonder Woman proves her worth among her fellow heroes.

Grade:  C                                    By Donna R. Copeland

FANTASTIC BEASTS and WHERE TO FIND THEM

Eddie Redmayne   Katherine Waterston   Colin Farrell   Dan Fogler   Allison Sudol   Samantha Morton  

Ezra Miller   Ron Perlman   Jon Voight   Carmen Ejogo   Johnny Depp

          This spinoff of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series contains all the excitement and fascination we would hope would follow the previous series.  Exceptionally directed by David Yates (who directed four of the eight Harry Potter series), it is Rowling’s first screenplay and verifies once again her talent as a writer.  It stars the chameleon actor Eddie Redmayne as a “magizoologist” who has written a text used by the Hogwarts School and whose interest is in protecting exotic beasts that the rest of the world seems to fear and want to wipe out.  He regards them as endangered species, and carries a handy little briefcase to tuck them into when the need arises.  From there, they are magically transported to a sanctuary he has built for them.

         Newt Scamander (Redmayne) has come to the U.S. to relocate a beast he has rescued into the Arizona desert.  What he encounters upon arriving in New York, though, is something like a terrorist threat.  The city is under attack from something—nobody seems to know what, and we get only vague descriptions of it, but it is wrecking everything in its path.  In addition, there seems to be tension among factions—those who want to stamp out magic, saying the practitioners are witches, those who want to preserve it (Magical Congress of the United States of America—MANCUSA), and No-Maj people (with no magical powers).  Everyone seems to want to protect these poor souls.

         Typical of Rowling, we see parallel stories develop with characters we care about, others with evil intent, and still others caught in the middle of these two forces.  We see Tina (Waterston) and her sister Queenie (Sudol) trying to use their magic in a positive way despite self-serving superiors like Percival Graves (Farrell) and possibly Seraphina (Ejogo), president of MACUSA, whose sentiments are not always discernible.  We see Mary Lou Barebone (Morton) who takes in orphans like Credence (Miller) and preaches against magic. And we see Percival Graves (Farrell) wielding his power over Credence to manipulate him into searching for someone Graves wants.  The intermixing of all these strains adds complexity and enhances our fascination with the tale.

        Cinematography (Phillippe Rousselot), production design (Stuart Craig and James Hambridge), and visual/special effects essentially carry this film, right along with the story and the characters portrayed by captivating actors.  It’s so rewarding to see Redmayne play a modest hero magically out to do good—but then, he is an expert at that, presumably because it taps into his own personal qualities.  Supporting actors Katherine Waterston, Allison Sudol, Samantha Morton, and Ron Perlman (always creepy) give notable performances that further the elevation of this film’s quality. 

J.K. Rowling:  You got it!

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

Billy Crudup     Ezra Miller     Tye Sheridan     Thomas Mann     Michael Angarano     Olivia Thirlby

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a docudrama about a well publicized research project conducted at Stanford University by psychologist Philip Zimbardo attempting to show that the environment in prison shapes guards’ and prisoners’ behavior more than their dispositions or past experiences.  The film, directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez with script written by Tim Talbott, is based on Zimbardo’s 2007 book, The Lucifer Effect.  Zimbardo saw this research as a follow-up to a study in the previous decade by another psychologist, Stanley Milgram, who showed that subjects would comply with an authority figure even to the point of increasing shocks to other subjects to lethal levels when instructed to do so by the research observer.  (The person pressing the button was unaware he/she was not actually delivering a shock.)  The point in both studies was that authority figures and the institutional environment wield a considerable degree of influence over an individual’s behavior. 

           Undergraduate students at Stanford were recruited for a psychological study of the effects of the prison environment on prisoners and guards and paid $15 a day for their participation.  They were only superficially screened for psychological problems, criminal background, or medical problems.  Nine students and one alternate were randomly assigned to be guards, and the same number for the prisoners. 

         To test his hypothesis of inherent characteristics of the participants determining behavior, Zimbardo instructed the guards to foster disorientation, depersonalization, and loss of identity.  This was done by having them arrested in their homes, strip searched, put in dresses and stocking caps, given numbers for their names, and chains put around one of their ankles—all done in order to make the prisoners feel powerless.  To reinforce this, guards were put in standard khaki garb, given mirrored sunglasses to avoid eye contact with the prisoners and wooden batons.  They were instructed not to hit or harm the prisoners in any way.

            The experiment was conducted in a building on campus, with offices converted into cells and using the hall for dining.   The prisoners were to stay in their cells day and night for the duration, except when they were eating, and then they couldn’t talk to one another. 

Early on, within a day or so, the guards—who were told they would be observed by research staff at all times—began using abusive tactics, including hitting and psychological torture.   Even when this was brought to Zimbardo’s attention, he frequently chose not to intervene or he would make promises to the prisoners that he had no intention of keeping.  Any act of rebellion on the part of the prisoners was met with harsh punishment, such as taking away their beds and giving them a bucket for toileting but not allowing it to be emptied. 

            In a short amount of time, some of the prisoners started to fall apart, and ask to leave the study.  It was determined later that not only had 1/3 of the guards resorted to sadistic behaviors, Zimbardo acknowledged that even he had lost his objectivity.  When an observer who came on the scene toward the end of the first week, deemed the experiment as unethical, Zimbardo was convinced to end the research on the sixth of the planned 14 days. 

          In retrospect, Zimbardo concluded that his expectation that the study would prove that, under certain conditions, even good people might behave badly was met.  He subsequently testified as an expert witness in the court martial of one of the Abu Ghraib guards that the man’s behavior was a function of the system, as opposed to his being a “bad apple”, as the government claimed.

           Criticisms of the Zimbardo study include a small sample size, a biased selection of the participants (all white middle class young men), and my own thought that the research staff and guards acting as if the “prisoners” had actually committed and been convicted of crimes, invalidates the study.  Additionally, no personality measures were administered or background information of the participants was obtained.  Without this information, the conclusion that it was the environment that brought out sadistic behavior is weak.

           To me, this is a horrific film to watch; the cruelty and unjustified behavior on the part of the guards made me take a number of breaks during the screening (I watched it at home via a link).  This made me question why the film was made at all; it’s an example of what not to do when people have power over others.  There is a well-known, accepted principle in psychology that to improve people’s behavior it’s more effective to model good leadership than to show poor/bad/evil modeling. 

           Unfortunately, there is no explanation of the study results at the end of the film by Dr. Philip Zimbardo.  I doubt the general public will be able to come away with a clear understanding of the rationale of the work or Zimbardo’s interpretation of it.  This would have greatly enhanced the film, and provide give an illuminating picture of the Abu Graib phenomenon that would be helpful.  

          As far as the film, the actors do a fine job in depicting the characters in the study.  Billy Crudup is especially noteworthy as Zibardo.

Viewer beware.

Grade:  D                                    By Donna R. Copeland