What Janine is Reading and Seeing in the Theater: Fall 2018
Foundryside by Robert Jackson Bennett
Foundryside is the first novel in a new series by Robert Jackson Bennett. Set in a world in which physical objects can be “scrived,” etched with commands that give them magical properties, in a Venice-like city run by four Houses (massive family-owned scriving businesses), the story begins with Sancia Grado’s theft of a magical key.
For reasons that become clear later in the book, Sancia, an accomplished thief, has the power to “hear” physical objects to a limited degree. But when she opens the box containing the key in defiance of her fence / partner-in-crime’s instructions, she discovers that she can hold a dialogue with this particular object, and that the key has name, Clef.
Sancia is pursued by Gregor Dandolo, the leader of the watch responsible for the security of the wharf she accidentally torched in the process of stealing Clef. Gregor is a formidable opponent, but Sancia saves his life twice and eventually they decide to join forces to stop a mutual, and more powerful enemy—Sancia’s mystery client for the key.
Orso Ignacio, a scriver who originally purchased the key that Sancia stole, and his assistant Berenice, eventually join Gregor and Sancia’s team, but will they the four of them be able to defeat their mysterious and seemingly all-powerful opponent?
Foundryside is an excellent fantasy novel with a truly different, and fun, magic system. Scriving convinces objects to defy the law of physics by programming them with emotions and drives, and Clef has the ability to talk them into a different way of looking at things. This made for entertaining dialogue.
Sancia is a wonderful character who has been through a lot in her short life. Because she can read anything she touches, she doesn’t dare touch anything, or anyone. She is therefore isolated and dirty (even showers are distressing to her). Hers is a lonely existence, but her defiant strength keeps her and readers from feeling sorry for her.
Gregor is also a great character. Though, as the scion of Dandolo House, he is born to great privilege, he is driven to seek justice. Clef, the wise-cracking and vulnerable key, is lovely, Berenice is appealing, and even Orso has humanity underneath his crabby, obsessive exterior.
The book has a high-stakes conflict which serves as the engine to an exciting plot. There is even a sweet romantic f/f subplot that takes place in between the action. I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys reading fantasy. Grade: A-
AmazonBNKoboAREGoogle Play Store
Crazy Rich Asians
This is a fun movie with romance and families at its heart. Rachel Chu (Constance Wu), an economics professor, has been dating the gorgeous Nick Young (Henry Golding) for some time. It’s only after Nick convinces Rachel to come with him to his native Singapore for a friend’s wedding that Rachel discovers that Nick is the scion to Singapore’s wealthiest family.
Nick’s mother, most of his relatives, and others in his circle want Nick and Rachel’s relationship to founder. Nick was expected to return to Singapore a year earlier and being working in the family business, but instead he has stayed in New York. His mother fears that if Nick stays with Rachel, he will never come home to Singapore. Others are simply jealous. And then there’s the fact that Rachel was born and raised in the US, and therefore isn’t Chinese enough in their eyes. Rachel has to face some serious obstacles to win her HEA.
Besides this, there’s a subplot about Nick’s sister fashion-icon sister, Astrid (Gemma Chan) and her husband, Michael (Pierre Png). Michael and his family aren’t nearly as wealthy as Astrid’s, and while she hides her expensive purchases from him, he retreats into a corner at family parties rather than deal with her relatives. Eventually, Astrid discovers that he’s also cheating on her.
Crazy Rich Asians is very enjoyable movie and wonderful to look at. The locations are stunning, the costumes terrific (there’s a great analysis of them here), and the food appetizing. In short, it’s a feast for the eyes.
I loved the cast. Constance Wu did a great job of carrying the movie by making Rachel a sympathetic everywoman who finds herself in an almost untenable situation. Henry Golding embodied the dreamboat Nick Young, and Aquafina was funny as hell as Rachel’s best friend, Goh Peik Lin. Several others in the cast were also quite good. But I think my favorite performance in the film may have been that of Michelle Yeoh who played Nick’s mother, Eleanor Sung-Young. Yeoh can say so much with a single look or gesture.
I was engaged by the plot and rooted for Rachel. Though I really liked Henry Golding’s performance, I felt that the role of Nick was underwritten. In a way, the role was a mirror-image of the one female actors often get in dick flicks, that of the love interest / eye candy, without that much development beyond that.
The movie was fun and I laughed out loud in multiple places. The displays of wealth were off-putting at times but I think they were meant to be. A friend of mine called it “aspirational porn” and it certainly is that, too.
I had an issue or two with the way both storylines, primary and secondary, were ultimately resolved.
Spoiler (Spoiler): Show
Grade: B.
Colette
Late in September, I saw Colette. The director and co-writer of the film, Wash Westmoreland, was present at the screening and did a Q&A with the audience afterward. He said it took 17 years (a third of his life!) to get this movie made.
The movie is about the early years and first marriage of the French author Colette, a distinguished woman of letters who wrote Gigi, among other books. Colette’s is a fascinating true story and the film takes place in the Fin de Siecle period (roughly from 1890 to 1910).
Colette (Keira Knightley) marries Willy (Dominic West), an older man and a writer who essentially employs other writers to ghost write for him. Willy gets Colette to write him a manuscript based on her schoolgirl days, but then the tells her it’s not publishable. Eventually, when their furniture is taken away by bill collectors and they’re faced with penury, Willy publishes her manuscript, Claudine, after all—under his own name.
Claudine and its sequels go on to become the only books bearing Willy’s name which sell like hotcakes. This creates some friction in Willy and Colette’s marriage, as does Willy’s philandering—or more accurately, his lying to her about it. Colette does not have as much of a problem with the sleeping around itself; for her, the cover up is worse than the crime.
Colette herself is a sexual free spirit and as Willy doesn’t look at her sleeping with women as an infidelity (he will not entertain the idea of her with a man, however), theirs could be said to be an open marriage. They even have a love affair with the same woman, separately.
When the ghost-written Claudine novels become huge bestsellers, Willy becomes the toast of Paris, with only a few people guessing that it’s really Colette that is behind his success. Of course, he is happy to take all the credit for her work.
Colette is not a traditional biopic—instead it focuses on the beginning, middle and end of Colette’s first marriage, and on her awakening to both her writing ability and her sexuality.
This was a really enjoyable movie and Knightley and West do good work in it. I was impressed with Dominic West especially, because, as director Wash Westmoreland said afterward, he imbues Willy with a great deal of charm, so that even though Willy is the antagonist of the story, you can understand why Colette puts up with his shenanigans for so long.
While Colette’s character is truly inspiring in her self-possession, self-knowledge and honesty about who she is, and Knightley has both the acting ability and screen charisma to carry this off, I found Willy the more fascinating precisely because he was less honest with himself and others.
Colette brings turn of the century France to life with its authentic costumes and sets, and the cinematographer gives the film a warm color palette that fits with its vibrant and occasionally arch tone.
Colette’s choices would be at the forefront of social change even today–she becomes involved in a romantic and sexual relationship with the genderqueer Missy (Denise Gough), performs a play partially nude, and refuses to bow to the patriarchy.
Willy is without a doubt the villain of this piece, but what a delicious villain he is. It is easy to be infuriated by him (for example there’s a scene in which he locks his wife in a room in order to force her to write) but West makes him so recognizable and at times, appealing, that despite his loathsome actions, it’s hard to loathe him.
It is interesting that though it is set in France, the movie itself was made in English, and *NOT* dubbed or in French with subtitles. Grade: B+.
I was planning on seeing Crazy Rich Asians, but once the (very positive) reviews started coming in, it was clear that they changed quite a bit from the book, in ways that didn’t necessarily make sense.
Books spoilers:
In the book, Nick was not involved in the family business, the Youngs were not well-known (they’re rich enough to ensure their anonymity) and Eleanor doesn’t come around about Nick and Rachel’s relationship – but the point isn’t that Rachel has to win over Eleanor, it’s that Nick has to win over Rachel after her adventures with the various Crazy Rich Asians. The Astrid-Michael plot plays out completely differently. And there is no mahjong scene (though I know many people loved it).
So glad to see you enjoyed FOUNDRYSIDE. I’m listening to THE CITY OF STAIRS and have the next two books waiting in the wings, so this will be another. A tea towel I own has a quote from Lemony Snickett: “It is likely I will die next to a pile of things I was meaning to read.” Truer words.
@Rose: Most of those sound like big changes. In the movie it was not the point for Rachel to win Nick’s mother either, though, just to realize that she (Rachel) was worth a lot even without wealth and better off without Nick’s relatives. And Nick had to win her back in the movie too.
A friend told me that Eleanor’s turnaround was added to the script because MIchelle Yeoh did not want her character to be a complete villain.
@Darlynne: Yes, it was terrific. I believe Sirius gave it a B+, so she really liked it too. I bought the Divine Cities trilogy when it was on sale for next to nothing, but I’m a little scared to read them due to a spoiler I have heard. And LOL — that’s a great quote from Lemony Snicket.
@Janine:
I really don’t know why they made Nick’s family famous in the movie; I’ve seen so many reviews questioning why Rachel didn’t Google him, and the family’s obsession with privacy comes up later on, too. They’ll also have to continue departing from the book with Astrid’s character arc, as in the second book she and Michael are still together.
Eleanor *is* a villain, though even in the books you can see why she acts they way she does.
I have to admit that my favorite character in the first two books (still haven’t read Rich People Problems) is Kitty Pong. She’s hilarious, and I understand that she wasn’t given much to do in the movie. Too bad.
@Rose: I think they made Nick’s family famous because it (A) made for a great montage / split screen of people texting about the news that Nick was bringing Rachel to the wedding after a blogger overheard them and posted about it, and (B) this way Eleanor found out about Nick’s invitation to Rachel before Nick had a chance to tell her about it, which got the movie off to a fast and dramatic start.
Re. Eleanor–that’s true in the movie, too, but I can understand Michelle Yeoh’s desire to add more complexity to her character.
I had to google Kitty Pong to be reminded of who she was. Screenplays are typically between 90 and 120 pages long, so it’s inevitable that some characters get cut out of movie adaptations of longer books, but it can really burn readers. That happened to me with Neil LaBute’s horrible 2002 adaptation of Possession. Aquafina’s character, Goh Peik Lin, was hilarious in the movie, so maybe she served some of the same function that Kitty Pong did in the book, at least as far as comic relief?
I haven’t read the Crazy Rich Asian books so I only have the movie to go on but I thought Rachel’s speech in the mahjong scene eloquently showed that the only way for Eleanor to keep her son is to let him do what he wants; if she forces him to step away from the woman he loves he will eventually resent her for it and if she kicks him out because she disapproves of his wife she loses him anyway. So it worked for me.
I also think for the movie to work (for me at least) Eleanor had to turn around because it wouldn’t have felt like a true HEA for Nick if he lost his family to get it. I mean, I’d have settled for it but I do prefer HEAs wrapped up in a bow. LOL
@Kaetrin: I think Eleanor could just as easily have convinced herself that Nick would eventually get over Rachel and therefore over his resentment. Financially, it was certainly hugely advantageous to their family that he stay in Singapore.
I agree that Eleanor’s agreement was necessary for a romantic HEA, at least given the way Nick has been portrayed as a devoted son. His family had enough awful people that if he’d had a different personality I could have imagined him walking away from them gladly, though. And the friend I saw the movie with felt that the movie would have been stronger had it ended right after the mah jong scene with Rachel walking away from Nick and his family.
However, that wasn’t what I wanted or was trying to say in this review. My point was not that Eleanor shouldn’t have changed her mind, but rather that her about-face wasn’t set up well. The movie needed one or two more scenes before the mah jong scene to seed this change of heart by showing us one or two hints of Eleanor’s character that would have made her turnaround more convincing.
As it was, it felt like a shortcut was taken and that made the ending less than fully believable.
@Janine: Both the gossip scene and Eleanor finding out from someone else also happened in the book, though – the Youngs are well-known within a more exclusive circle, and everyone there was gossiping. But Nick is not a celebrity, and it’s kind a joke that Astrid is mentioned in gossip columns as a mystery woman in amazing clothes.
Peik-Lin and Kitty are completely different characters. Kitty is a shameless gold-digger and a better actress than her credits would lead one to expect ;) Peik-Lin is kind of a contrast to the crazy rich as her family is loaded, but the differences between old and new money are very clear.
What I liked about CRA-book was the sprawling cast and biting humor – if anything, Rachel and Nick were the least interesting characters in it, and Rachel is so bland that she’s pretty much an avatar for the reader. I get that the movie had to focus on what they saw as the main plot, but it’s just not what I was interested in seeing.
@Rose: Hmm, interesting about the book’s sprawling cast and biting humor. That wasn’t present in the movie, so if that’s what you liked, it’s probably not the movie for you. Though Rachel wasn’t bland in the movie, FWIW. If you do see it, perhaps you could look at it as a completely different story.
Maybe I should read the book to see what I think of it.
@Janine:
I should clarify that it’s not the characters who are funnier, but Kwan’s voice and how he sends up so many of the behaviors of the super-rich. There probably wasn’t any real way to get that across in the movie.
Years ago when I saw LA Confidential I thought that there was a lot going on. Then I read the book and suddenly the movie seemed so pared down! From what I gather, they did something similar with the CRA adaptation – cut out pretty much anything not related to the main characters. I’m sure I would have liked LA Confidential a lot less if I’d read the book first. I’m not sure I can let go of my mental movie with CRA…
@Rose: I did the same thing with LA Confidential! I loved the movie so much that I decided to read the book afterward, so I know exactly what you’re talking about. I really hated the book, but maybe I wouldn’t have felt that way if I hadn’t seen the movie first? Although I read A Room with a View after seeing the movie first, and in that case, I liked the book a lot, too.
@Janine: I liked both the book and the movie :) but reading the book made LA Confidential the movie even more impressive; l would have considered it impossible to adapt if the movie didn’t exist, and they absolutely nailed the casting.
It’s the only Ellroy book I’ve ever managed to get into, however.
@Rose: Yeah, that screenplay was a thing of beauty. I actually bought L.A. Confidential: The Screenplay by Brian Helgeland and Curtis Hanson after trying to slog through James Ellroy’s book, because I wanted to revisit that story and the way it was told in the film.