I get her now. I understand the anger behind fans, it seemed weird but let's look at this broadly and not under a microscope. I don’t think we’re meant to be sympathetic toward her or agree with her, but be able to see where she is coming from. From what I understand of the story and her character, in general, is she is our window to see how Grindelwald got the following he did. For all intents and purposes, Grindelwald is, at this current time, the Wizarding World’s Hitler. To better explain, and I don’t think you’re stupid or need to be talked down to but I need to explain it this way so everyone can understand, the National Socialist Workers Party, or Nazi Party as we know it today, was meant to be inclusive, it was meant to attract a wide group of people that, at the end of the day, wanted war. It did not matter on who, but the Nazi party was unquestionably founded on the principle that war was needed to establish Germany’s power in Europe. After we see Grindelwald’s rally, we can clearly also see that at Grindelwald’s core, he just wants war. His argument is war for equality, war for superiority, war for power, and Queenie see this as a way out of the old norms of the inability to legally marry a No-Maj, and if that means siding with Grindelwald then that is what she is going to do. Now, I am in absolutely no way apologizing for her actions or siding with her actions, but do I understand where she is coming from? Yes, I do. Queenie has never been one to do things without going to the extreme and this is no exception. When she went to Paris she felt like she lost everyone she loved. Her sister is nowhere to be found, she left the love of her life in a different country, she is overwhelmed in a country where she doesn’t understand the language, the customs, and unable to block out all the voices in her head, so when someone offers her a helping hand and a way out, she takes it. In her mind, Grindelwald and his followers have been the only ones to accept what she wants indiscriminately. Tina, Newt, even Jacob had all been…not against her, but hesitant to help her with what she wants. Queenie’s motivation has been and always will be love. So do I feel sympathetic to Queenie, no I do not, she made very bad choices consistently, but do I understand where she is coming from, absolutely, and most importantly what I think her major purpose of this movie is that she is our window, because, without her, Grindelwald’s rise to power is hard to understand. We see that Grindelwald is in the habit of promising things to people, blanket promises to large groups, but specific individual promises to people like Credence, Queenie, and Leta. He finds their biggest weaknesses, Credence’s existential crisis, Queenie’s need to be able to love without consequences, and Leta’s want to be included and be separated from the labels society put on her as a Slytherin, a Lestrange, and the guilt she carries for killing her own brother. The only difference is Leta saw through the lies and faulty promises of Grindelwald and paid the price. If we look back to the first scene where I think we can all collectively agree she essentially roofied Jacob, but this almost makes sense to her motivation, how she is willing to do anything to not have consequences if she married Jacob. My memory may serve me incorrectly, but I believe that love potions were illegal and this was established in HBP. If I am correct Queenie is already breaking the law that way. But we have Newt and Jacob call her out for enchanting Jacob and that is when she runs away. Already from the get-go, we have established she is willing to go to extreme lengths to get what she wants. Will Jacob and Queenie’s relationship survive this? I have no idea. I hope it does, but I know it would be hard for me to move past a stunt like this if my loved one did that. Now Jacob did forgive her for enchanting him, but he was very hurt at this last decision and mirroring their earlier conversation actually calls her crazy and that was it for Queenie. The girl who probably got called crazy by people at school at Ilvermorny because she could read minds, the girl who got called crazy growing up around No- Majs for the weird stuff that happens around her and her family, the daughter who was so different than Tina had found the last straw. If they were going to treat her this way, but Grindelwald and his followers who would welcome her with open arms then she sure as hell was going to go with the one who promised a world where she could do and get what she wanted. So she would go, kicking and screaming and crying and in the eyes of everyone watching she betrayed them and that is when it finally hits them that this is what she feels she has been driven to do. But what this movie does better than most movies that have come out, in my opinion, is it gives a likable character a major flaw that can’t be justified. Joining a group meant to bring down a large portion of humanity, bad. Breaking the law, bad. Drugging your boyfriend because he didn’t want you to get thrown in prison for marrying a No-Maj, bad. Her introduction in this was meant to show the audience the lengths she would go to. This goes both ways. She is willing to go to jail to marry Jacob because she loves him so much, but she is willing to do anything to make herself happy, even if that means joining a dictatorial faction in the wizarding world. So there is a purpose for her actions so that the last scene doesn’t seem like a random decision. I wish she had more screen time making extreme decisions, both good and bad, to really make this more obvious. As much as I see this being a valid choice for Queenie, I also see how it seems abrupt. You have four major points and they don’t necessarily lead to Grindelwald, but I think it is the most logical choice.
What? I know we established in the first one that MACUSA thinks backward about muggles and No-Majs, but the founder of Ilvermorny was not only married to a No-Maj, but had kids with him. And not only that, he helped her found the school, named a house, and helped make wands for the students. I’m just a little confused on this. Like why and when would have this even become a law? After the revolution, America had an existential crisis and needed to make a global, or at least Atlantic, identity. At this time is when the first Thanksgiving was used to establish the myth of American culture, as well as Pocohantus and John Smith? If the establishment of the No-Maj United States and MACUSA run along the same timeline I would assume this law would have been considered around the same time as making Thanksgiving and the Native Americans and the Pilgrims a part of the founding of America. Point being, if Isolt and James could get married and found the wizarding school in America, with statues of Isolt and James, I don’t see how this could be a law unless it is some forgotten history. It just seems like this story is an American Wizarding World equivalent of Thanksgiving and would be used to establish the American Wizarding World mythology the same way.
blakekathryn
izzy806
tangentwithtanner
gummygunk
ellievsbear
areudirty
