Did Credence Know that Graves was Actually Grindelwald in 'The Crimes of Grindelwald'?

The film 'The Crimes of Grindelwald' introduces a complex ethical dilemma surrounding the relationship between Credence Belserius and Albus Dumbledore's adversary, Gellert Grindelwald. One of the most intriguing questions that fans have been discussing revolves around Credence's knowledge of Grindelwald's true identity, especially given the strategic nature of the plot. This article delves into the possible motivations and implications of whether Credence knew Grindelwald was Graves.

Credence's Vulnerability and Grindelwald's Exploitation

Credence Belserius is a lonely and abused child, a highly vulnerable individual. This makes him an ideal pawn for Grindelwald to use for espionage and gathering information. Grindelwald could have chosen anyone, but he chose Credence because of his unique background. Having been raised by Muggles, the non-magical community, Credence likely had no exposure to the magical world or its influential figures like Grindelwald. This makes it all the more logical for Credence to trust Graves, who appeared to be a kind and understanding guardian figure.

The Lack of Clues and Credence's Naivety

Even if Credence had known about Grindelwald's infamous identity, it's highly unlikely he would have unraveled the deception. During his time as a Muggle, it's practically impossible that Credence would have encountered or heard of someone as notorious as Grindelwald. The character of Grindelwald was not a common or well-known figure in the magical world, especially during that era. Moreover, the Deathly Hallows symbol wasn't as popular among wizards back then, making it another subtle clue that seems to confirm the deception.

Is It Logical for Grindelwald to Reveal His True Identity?

One might argue that, for a master manipulator like Grindelwald, revealing his true identity would compromise his covert operations. A character as devious and calculating as Grindelwald would understand the potential backlash and risks associated with direct disclosure. Instead, maintaining the facade of being a protector or ally could be more beneficial to his clandestine schemes. This strategic positioning not only demonstrates his cleverness but also adds depth to the character of Grindelwald.

Theoretical Perspectives

Several theoretical perspectives have been proposed by fans and critics alike. Some suggest that the film's ambiguous nature intentionally leaves Credence's knowledge open to interpretation. Others argue that the incomplete information suggests a deliberate narrative choice by Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore, perhaps to maintain balance in the story or create an air of mystery. However, given the complexity of J.K. Rowling's writing style, it's not uncommon for her to introduce plot holes, making precise interpretations challenging.

Examples of Logical Loopholes in Harry Potter Universe

Other examples of logical inconsistencies in the Harry Potter universe can be found in J.K. Rowling's writing. For instance, the 'Mimicry' spell that Ron used to open the Chamber of Secrets seems illogical given the magical options available. Similarly, Dumbledore's tendency to withhold vital information for no apparent reason, such as the Order of the Phoenix's existence, raises questions about his character motivations. Additionally, the excessive non-magical action scenes in the movies, compared to the magical firepower available, often borders on irrationality, leading fans to question the story's consistency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that Credence Belserius knew that Graves was actually Grindelwald. His background as a Muggle and the uniqueness of Grindelwald's status as a notorious figure make it improbable for Credence to recognize the deception. Grindelwald's strategic withholding of his true identity further supports this theory. Understanding the complex narrative of 'The Crimes of Grindelwald' adds layers of depth to the story, making it a fascinating subject for analysis.