Hayley’s Thoughts on: Crazy Rich Asians
A non-industry perspective on everything about the industry

This Tuesday I saw Crazy Rich Asians for the second time. That means that this Tuesday I also cried a lot. The (second) proposal? The cover of “Can’t Help Falling in Love” by Kina Grannis? Gets me every. Single. Time.
Much has been written about Crazy Rich Asians and the all-Asian cast. I have a simple comment on this: it’s freaking awesome. The fact that the box office numbers of the film weekend after weekend have remained shockingly consistent is a testament to how loved the movie is and how much people can’t stop talking about it and sharing it with others.
I’ve seen a lot of articles about how it’s not an Asian love story, it’s just a love story that happens to be with Asian characters. I don’t think this is accurate. The film makes a point to portray important aspects of Asian culture, from the food to Mahjongg to the family dynamics. It’s stunning and it’s beautiful, and I’m the first to advocate on how much representation matters.
Since so much has already been written, however, I’m far more interested in dissecting the plot differences between the movie and the book. Ah the age old question — which is better? In my opinion, it is always, always the book. There’s just so much detail and plot that has to be omitted when you go from a 500 page novel to a 2 hour maximum film. I cannot recommend reading Crazy Rich Asians enough. The commentary from the author, Kevin Kwan, is hilarious in the footnotes. And the description that goes into each food scene is unbelievable, I think I was craving Asian cuisine the entire time because of the mouth-watering word choice.
Most of the plot points omitted and changed from the book to the film cause concern about a potential sequel, one which I am very hopeful for. If you want to read the book and have not already, I suggest stop reading here.
Avid fans of the trilogy are aware that the main love story might actually be that of Astrid and Charlie. Charlie, who played a key role in the marriage of Michael and Astrid, was left out of the first film until the end credits scene (during which I absolutely squealed for joy — Harry Shum Jr has arrived). In the book, Michael is actually faking his affair to try to force Astrid to leave him. He’s embarrassed about his wealth, or lack thereof, and thinks he is holding her back. Charlie, Astrid’s former fiance, invests in Michael’s company to make him successful and feel worthy, and thus Astrid and Michael stay together (…for a bit).
This plot would have taken up far too much time in the film, so I understand this change. And I’m happy with the fact that Astrid was the one to leave Michael. I pumped my fist at her “…trying to make you a man. I can’t make you something you’re not” line. She’s a badass and I’m glad she was portrayed as one. However, this will drastically change the portrayal of the Astrid and Charlie reunion in upcoming films, and my interest is piqued as to how that will come across.
Another concern I have is the characterization of Kitty Pong, a dimwitted actress in the movie and the film, who ended up playing a huge role. She was not liked by audiences — and for quite obvious reasons. She’s a disaster and a gold digger and it’s going to be a shock to movie-only audiences when she becomes the star. I’m hoping Fiona Xie can carry the weight — if her goal with Kitty was to be hated, she knocked it out of the park.
Something that slightly upset me was Wye Mun Goh and Peik Lin, played by Ken Jeong and Aquafina, respectively, knew about the Young family. Wealth, and the presentation of it, was a major theme throughout the novel. The Young’s were so wealthy and so old school that they went, and preferred to be, relatively unknown. Goh and Lin didn’t even know about them in the books — something that drove them nuts, since they considered themselves quite wealthy… but new money presents themselves quite differently than old money. Again, this change makes sense for time restraints in the film, but it was something so vital to the film that I wish they’d been able to include it.
Finally, the most major and obvious change was Eleanor’s character development and the turnaround she had with Rachel. The entire ending was revamped from the novel, probably to have a happy ending since the first book really didn’t. The discovery of Rachel’s father was sped up from the main plot point of the second book to the first, and it’s going to be interesting to see Rachel’s further discovery of who he is play out. However, as I mentioned, I hope the second movie gives other characters a change to be the star (Astrid, Charlie and Kitty). With the approval of the marriage between Rachel and Nick, there’s going to be a gaping plot line about Nick and his relationship with his family.
In short, the changes made were necessary, but I didn’t love them all. The film itself is a masterpiece, but it doesn’t stack up to the book. I’m hoping for a sequel and I know it will be great. Will it be faithful is the main question.
I go to the movies every Tuesday and will post a review and “Hayley’s Thoughts” following each one. Check out my Rotten Tomatoes page for more.
Thanks for reading! :) Leave a comment and I’ll get back to you as soon as possible. In the meantime, follow me on Twitter for more: @hayleymm14
