In “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” we know the reason why Dumbledore cannot go against Grindelwald. Although hinted through the whole film, it is confirmed by the Hogwarts teacher to Newt Scamander in one of the last scenes: he can’t fight Grindelwald because of a blood pact they made when they were teenagers. Newt Scamander gives Grindelwald’s pendant to Dumbledore, where drops of blood (from both characters) are stored. Dumbledore says that he may be able to destroy it, implying that the blood pact isn’t something abstract but actually lays in there, and destroying the artefact would destroy the pact.
The idea is novel and it introduces a new spell in the Wizarding World, similar to the Unbreakable Vow. The problem with this Blood Pact is that it simplifies things for Dumbledore’s character. We used to believe he couldn’t move against Grindelwald because he loved him or because it would mean to face the truth about who killed Ariana (Albus’ sister) when they were young. But the reason is simpler and makes the relationship less complex. He can’t move against Grindelwald just because of that device, and destroying it would solve it. It puts Dumbledore’s fear and feelings in the background, making the pendant that main reason for their distance.
If this isn’t Dumbledore hiding his feelings and using the artifact just as a public excuse of why he can’t move against his ex-friend, it would make the character flat and dull, ignoring the feelings that he felt of Grindelwald all this years and just using a pact (that he clearly regrets) as the only reason of why he cannot attack him.
Read more articles about “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald”:
- Who is Aurelius Dumbledore?
- Is that Minerva McGonagall? Does it break canon?
- The blood pact between Dumbledore and Grindelwald: Does it simplify things?
- The Mirror of Erised and Boggart: Changed for the sake of the plot
- Scenes from the trailers and posters that didn’t make the final cut of The Crimes of Grindelwald