Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Fantastic Beasts ending: Grindelwald reveal is an overdone Harry Potter cliché

Major spoilers discussed below - you've been warned

Jack Shepherd
Thursday 17 November 2016 16:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Five years on from part two of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and the rip-roaring spin-off Fantastic Beasts is finally hitting cinemas.

As expected, Newt Scamander’s adventure through New York is filled with wonderful creatures, big and small, causing havoc among the No-Maj. However, as the film progresses, there’s one major reveal that has become somewhat of a cliché in JK Rowling’s writings.

As you may have guessed, the below features spoilers for Fantastic Beasts. If you have not seen the film, we recommend heading to the cinema before reading ahead. (Unless you really don’t care about Fantastic Beasts, then be our guest.)

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them Clip - Welcome To New York

Still here? Well, as you’ve likely seen Fantastic Beats, you’ll know that Colin Farrell’s Percival Graves isn’t actually Percival Graves. After the climatic battle, Graves is captured by members of the Magical Congress of the United States of America, who manage to out him as Gellert Grindelwald, played by Johnny Depp.

When I saw the film, as the transfiguration process took place, there was audible laughter from many critics. Whether due to misjudged makeup/moustache or the ridiculousness of the whole process, it was unclear. On reflection, the entire reveal probably shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone who has seen previous Harry Potter films.

Let’s quickly look back through the series. At the end of Philosopher’s Stone (known as Sorcerer's Stone in the US), the first novel in the series, it transpires that Professor Quirrell has been housing Voldemort underneath his turban the entire time, therefore not being who he seemed to be.

In Chamber of Secrets, during the climax, Harry Potter discovers Tom Riddle is actually Lord Voldemort before he became Lord Voldemort. Prisoner of Azkaban features the rat Scabbers being revealed to be Peter Pettigrew.

Perhaps the biggest ‘reveal’ comes in The Goblet of Fire when Mad-Eye Moody is outed as Barty Crouch Jr. using Polyjuice potion. In The Half-Blood Prince, towards the end, Snape is revealed to be the Half-Blood Prince, while in The Deathly Hallows, Harry discovers Snape isn’t actually a villain but the ultimate good guy.

Even in Cursed Child, Rowling’s phenomenal stage play based within the wizarding world, a character you are led to believe is good turns out to be the main villain. By now, you should have realised that almost every Harry Potter story features a reveal in which someone you are led to believe is good/evil is actually evil/Voldermort.

Apple TV+ logo

Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days

New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled

Try for free
Apple TV+ logo

Watch Apple TV+ free for 7 days

New subscribers only. £8.99/mo. after free trial. Plan auto-renews until cancelled

Try for free

Fantastic Beasts does exactly the same with Graves/Grindelwald, following the same narrative tropes as its predecessors. A blindingly obvious twist? On reflection, no, mainly because it's hard to believe Rowling really went down the same route again.

Funnily enough, actor Ezra Miller was asked whether Graves was Grindelwald in an interview before the film came out, to which he said: “I do not know. I do not know that. It was not scripted. If there is a transitional point we were never told about it. But that does not mean that it did not happen because we were not told about a lot of things.”

When asked the follow-up question 'Where is the real Pervical Graves?' Ezra basically made the same connection discussed above, saying: “If this is a Barty Crouch Jr. situation he is probably at the bottom of one of those trunks.”

With four more films in the series heading to cinemas, hopefully, there will be some different twists along the way - ones not centering on someone not actually being who they seem. Otherwise, the series is at risk of becoming a bit too Scooby-Doo.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in