Crazy Rich Asians (movie)
Aug. 19th, 2018 10:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kate_nepveuI never much watched romcoms during their heyday, but I like non-stupid romance novels and Crazy Rich Asians got good reviews from Smart Bitches, Trashy Books and Caroline Siede, who I trust to notice if it's stupid romance-wise (Siede's When Romance Met Comedy series is great), plus, you know, represent, so why not?
It's very good at what it sets out to do, which is: ridiculously attractive people being charming; a central emotional conflict that was satisfying in its complexity and resolution; and lovingly-shot conspicuous consumption. By which I mean, if you can't roll with a secondary emotional arc being symbolized by a $1.2 million pair of earrings—and not, "here is everything else one could do with $1.2 million," either—then this is not the movie for you.
I enjoyed it very much! But I was constantly aware of what it was doing.
Also I discover from a Hollywood Reporter article that the male lead, Henry Golding, was basically an unknown (he is great) and that there was some controversy over his casting because he is biracial. That is … an issue on which I am not inclined to publicly pronounce at this time, except to say that a movie that has maybe no more than one non-Asian speaking part (Rachel's TA; is there anyone else?) is not in the same position as a movie with the inverse proportions. But it did remind me that the only dark-skinned Asian people were servants; I know just enough about to know that I don't know enough to say more, but it was definitely something I registered.
Edit: from comments, a couple of articles on the complexities here, no spoilers: Naomi Ishisaka in the Seattle Times (will need to pause adblocker); Ada Tseng in PRI.
A couple minor notes before spoilers:
There's a post-credits scene that I missed, alas.
I won't be reading the book, because it sounds much meaner than the movie. I think I will reread Alyssa Cole's Reluctant Royals series instead (A Princess in Theory, A Duke by Default) because they are exceedingly delightful and will scratch the same itch, except with more economic thoughtfulness. (Possibly also I will discover that the second book does address my plot quibble and I missed it!)
SPOILERS for the movie and the book
The Internet has provided two good breakdowns of the mahjong scene. But the thing I particularly love about that scene is the way it wraps back around to the poker opener: Rachel is actually playing to win, and more, she does so by showing Eleanor how they can all win.
Eleanor is such a great character; I love Michelle Yeoh for insisting on the rewrites from the book (summary at Wikipedia). Also, it is kind of hilarious how thoroughly the movie is like, "yeah, Eleanor - Nick - Rachel is the core of our movie; Nick's father is just … away on business, that's it!"
I'm also glad the movie rewrites Astrid's plotline to get her to leave her husband cleanly without her ex getting involved. I would happily watch a sequel about her (and her ex, who is in the post-credits scene, because apparently that is a thing we do now for non-superhero movies too).
And to descend rapidly: I didn't like Rachel's wedding-guest dress; too frilly, too much illusion netting.
Trailers, a weird mix:
A Star Is Born: still looks dreadful.
Smallfoot: still looks like a kids' movie.
Night School: is a thing that I am not the audience for.
Widows: still looks like a potentially immense, potentially guilty, pleasure.
On the Basis of Sex (has a few extra opening seconds that did not play in the theater): this movie is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and needs a better title. I would like it to be good and do well and find it hard to imagine myself watching it.
Searching: the John Cho thriller that takes place solely on his laptop screen, and that got a lot of good buzz at Sundance. I knew of this solely because I saw a GQ interview with him that, relevantly, opens, "You’re the only Asian not in Crazy Rich Asians. Did you miss the meeting?"
It's very good at what it sets out to do, which is: ridiculously attractive people being charming; a central emotional conflict that was satisfying in its complexity and resolution; and lovingly-shot conspicuous consumption. By which I mean, if you can't roll with a secondary emotional arc being symbolized by a $1.2 million pair of earrings—and not, "here is everything else one could do with $1.2 million," either—then this is not the movie for you.
I enjoyed it very much! But I was constantly aware of what it was doing.
Also I discover from a Hollywood Reporter article that the male lead, Henry Golding, was basically an unknown (he is great) and that there was some controversy over his casting because he is biracial. That is … an issue on which I am not inclined to publicly pronounce at this time, except to say that a movie that has maybe no more than one non-Asian speaking part (Rachel's TA; is there anyone else?) is not in the same position as a movie with the inverse proportions. But it did remind me that the only dark-skinned Asian people were servants; I know just enough about to know that I don't know enough to say more, but it was definitely something I registered.
Edit: from comments, a couple of articles on the complexities here, no spoilers: Naomi Ishisaka in the Seattle Times (will need to pause adblocker); Ada Tseng in PRI.
A couple minor notes before spoilers:
There's a post-credits scene that I missed, alas.
I won't be reading the book, because it sounds much meaner than the movie. I think I will reread Alyssa Cole's Reluctant Royals series instead (A Princess in Theory, A Duke by Default) because they are exceedingly delightful and will scratch the same itch, except with more economic thoughtfulness. (Possibly also I will discover that the second book does address my plot quibble and I missed it!)
SPOILERS for the movie and the book
The Internet has provided two good breakdowns of the mahjong scene. But the thing I particularly love about that scene is the way it wraps back around to the poker opener: Rachel is actually playing to win, and more, she does so by showing Eleanor how they can all win.
Eleanor is such a great character; I love Michelle Yeoh for insisting on the rewrites from the book (summary at Wikipedia). Also, it is kind of hilarious how thoroughly the movie is like, "yeah, Eleanor - Nick - Rachel is the core of our movie; Nick's father is just … away on business, that's it!"
I'm also glad the movie rewrites Astrid's plotline to get her to leave her husband cleanly without her ex getting involved. I would happily watch a sequel about her (and her ex, who is in the post-credits scene, because apparently that is a thing we do now for non-superhero movies too).
And to descend rapidly: I didn't like Rachel's wedding-guest dress; too frilly, too much illusion netting.
Trailers, a weird mix:
A Star Is Born: still looks dreadful.
Smallfoot: still looks like a kids' movie.
Night School: is a thing that I am not the audience for.
Widows: still looks like a potentially immense, potentially guilty, pleasure.
On the Basis of Sex (has a few extra opening seconds that did not play in the theater): this movie is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and needs a better title. I would like it to be good and do well and find it hard to imagine myself watching it.
Searching: the John Cho thriller that takes place solely on his laptop screen, and that got a lot of good buzz at Sundance. I knew of this solely because I saw a GQ interview with him that, relevantly, opens, "You’re the only Asian not in Crazy Rich Asians. Did you miss the meeting?"
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 02:19 am (UTC)I was linked to this article by a friend who is half-Malay and feels very complicatedly about the movie.
A Star Is Born: still looks dreadful.
I still can't believe that's happening. Why.
this movie is about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and needs a better title.
Yeah, that is not a good title at all.
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 02:35 am (UTC)And yes. Complicated.
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 05:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 05:19 am (UTC)Thank you!
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 11:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 12:59 pm (UTC)this'll still be around if you decide you want to see it, after all!
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 01:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 01:56 pm (UTC)So. Good.
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 03:59 pm (UTC)It doesn't sound like the kind of movie I would enjoy right now (conspicuous consumption) but I'm glad it's making piles of money.
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 05:30 pm (UTC)Wait, Michelle Yeoh? Hello. I may try harder to make this a movie I actually try to arrange a babysitter for.
no subject
Date: 2018-08-20 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-08-21 04:01 pm (UTC)