Book (and movie) Review: Matilda by Roald Dahl

Ok, right off the bat, this is not going to be a traditional book review, as I've read this book several times and it's one of my favorites. Much like my All Creatures Great and Small review, I'm just going to be talking about both and comparing them. Spoilers for both, obvi.

Matilda is one of my favorite books of all time. She's the first character I remember looking at and thinking "oh she's me for real". As the tiny, dark-haired, overlooked, book-loving daughter of a smallish, angry, mustachioed man prone to shouting, I added her to my heart immediately. She's the first mirror I remember. While I technically haven't read Matilda that many times, I remembered quite a lot of the book and its little details. I had forgotten Matilda was kind of rude to Miss Honey about being poor and living in a cottage just barely better than a shack (unsurprising, given her awful parents), leaving me to mentally go "that's not in the book!" when the movie showed it. I'd forgotten about the boys Miss Trunchball tortured, although I re-remembered the ear-stretching scene when it happened in the movie. I remembered Bruce Bogtrotter and the enormous chocolate cake, Mrs. Phelps and the library, and Lavender and the newt. I'd remembered most of Matilda's revenge pranks on her family, and of course the wonderful comeuppance at the end. It struck me how quiet and slow-moving the book is, compared to my memory of it. Each chapter focuses on a specific part, and we move along like a bulleted list.

It's interesting how many British authors have written about characters stuck in horrible, abusive schools. This mirrors their own experiences; British boarding schools have historically been neglectful, abusive places filled with bullies and tyrannical teachers who used physical force. Major trigger warnings for all the abuse, but this article talks about it. Roald Dahl himself wrote a memoir, Boy, about his childhood and experiences in said schools. C.S. Lewis went to one such awful boarding school, and the schools in his children's books are similarly awful. It strikes me that having so many generations go through abusive & neglectful schools kind of explains why England was so awful to the countries it invaded; abused people often abuse people.

On to the movie. Going off of people's clothing and hair, the movie is set in the 1980s, which is when the book was published. This is an interesting choice, and I like it. It makes sense too, as they were more lenient on physical punishments in schools back then. The opening song mirrors the book's opening chapter about parents who think their kid is special and brilliant despite what they're really like. The girl who played Matilda was basically perfect. She played Matilda a trifle less quiet than she seems in the book, but that's to be expected in a musical and movie, where you want your characters to stand out. Matilda has dark eyes as well as hair in the book, and the actress having blue eyes as well as brown hair made her look rather like me as a child (definitely a plus). It made me a bit sad that the lovely language Matilda uses to describe how she feels when she uses her powers was downgraded: "flying over the silver stars" etc. to "it fizzes". Matilda and all the children were a bit too old, which is expected in movies. Matilda and her class are basically kindergartners (5 or 6 years old), and seemed about 7-9 years old in the movie. Hortensia, the one older kid Matilda talks to, seems about 12 or 13 rather than 11. She is so cool in the movie and rather wasted, imo. I'm wondering if one of the songs that was cut from the movie was her describing her pranks on Miss Trunchbull like she does in the book. I wish they'd left all the songs in.

The parents were pretty much perfect (i.e. gross and mean). The actress playing Mrs. Wormwood is very thin; the book Mrs. Wormwood is fat, and the view and descriptions of her character are pretty fatphobic, so I'm not mad at the change. Both movie parents have more middle?-class accents, which makes sense for a used car dealer and his wife, but can come off as classist as all the other characters have nicer British accents (I love all British accents). In the movie, Mrs. Wormwood didn't want to be pregnant or have a baby at all, being in denial about it, and Mr. Wormwood wanted a boy and not a girl. He refers to Matilda as "boy" and he/him during the movie, with Matilda saying "I'm a girl" after each time; this, as some tumblr user pointed out, makes her trans-coded. They cut out Matilda's older brother, which I guess kind of makes sense for movie streamlining, but that also lowers the heartbreak and unfairness as the parents treat the son normally/nicely and treat their daughter terribly. This is consistent with what narcissistic parents often do; they have a favorite child and a scapegoat child. The only parental prank they cut out was the parrot one, which makes sense. It's probably the least satisfying one, anyway. It would have been funnier if Mrs. Wormwood cut the glued-on hat off Mr. Wormwood's head like in the book, but I guess they wanted to cut down on the hair and makeup budget. I'm guessing the other song that was cut was the parents', maybe the "you chose books/I chose looks" line, which would make a fantastic song. In the end of the movie, when Matilda magics the hat off her father's head as a thanks for finally calling her his daughter and letting her stay with Miss Honey, was nice but not in the book. The Wormwoods deserve no redemption.

I like the diverse casting for the movie. I'm guessing they changed Mrs. Phelps' library into a cute retro bookmobile library so they could shoot in different pretty locales, but I'm not mad at it. I want to dress like her when I grow up. I'm not sure why the movie adaptations all tend to make Lavender (Matilda's best friend) meek and sometimes even mousey; maybe it's to set off how courageous Matilda is? In the book, they are described as equally gutsy and adventurous. The movie understandably made the other memorable kids (Bruce, the pigtails girl) be in Matilda's class. I get the reason for this, but it does mean we don't deal much with the other students. I didn't like how Bruce gets dragged to the chokey after finishing the cake in the movie; this doesn't happen in the book, as Trunchball accepts her defeat angrily. Miss Honey was perfect. You felt for her and rooted for her to be free. Emma Thompson played Miss Trunchbull very well, with her weird square fake jaws and fatsuit and weird, blocky platform shoes. She was adequately scary. I'm not sure why they moved the chokey from her headquarters to the woods, but it was creepy. It could definitely be argued that movie!Matilda's final revenge was definitely way past her abilities (making a chain monster AND destroying all the chokeys [excellent choice btw] AND plaiting Trunchball's hair into two braids at the same time AND spinning and throwing her out the window by her hair). That would've knocked Matilda out a third of the way through. The changes did feel more cathartic, though; Trunchball deserved to be thrown out the window by her hair. Having the children read out the "ghost's" words on the chalkboard out loud in unison? Perfectly creepy.

On the biggest addition to the movie: despite their backstories already being incredibly similar, the movie decided to really underscore this by giving Matilda psychic abilities on top of her telekinesis: she sees pieces of Miss Honey's story, in which Miss Honey's parents are circus performers for some reason and Miss Trunchbull is responsible for Miss Honey's mother's death as well as her father's, and abused Miss Honey as a child. It is really interesting, though, how we the audience are made to think it's Matilda dealing with her parents' abuse and neglect through this story she's telling Mrs. Phelps; indeed, Matilda sees herself as the abused little girl. They sadly left out Miss Honey's courageousness in becoming a teacher and renting the cottage behind her aunt's back; I love that for her. I love her cottage, too; it makes sense she'd decorate it with her pupils' art, and it should have been like that in the book. TBH, the book takes it a bit too far: Miss Honey sleeps on the floor and owns no furniture. You're telling me she wouldn't find stuff off the street or at yard sales? Anyway. The movie ends very similarly to the book, with Miss Honey getting her house back and the Wormwoods running away from the consequences of Mr. Wormwood's crookedness and letting Matilda live with Miss Honey. In the movie, Miss Honey is also left in charge of the school and turns it into a beautiful, colorful, carnival-inspired Montessori dream. The book is more practical: an older, good teacher became headmaster after Trunchbull bounced.

I really liked the songs in the movie; they intersected and played together beautifully. I really like the cleverness of the alphabet/school song and had "Revolting Children" stuck in my head for days. It's been ages since I've watched the 1990s Matilda, but I feel that this one is the closest adaptation yet. Matilda the Musical is on Netflix, and I really recommend it.

link

 

Trigger warnings for both book and movie: child abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, neglect, child endangerment, children forced to stand in nail-studded spiky closet for hours without being able to sit, child forced to eat a huge cake (food-related abuse), abusive parents, narcissistic parenting, abusive and enabling school staff, adult basically enslaves child and forces her to do all the cleaning, adult waterboards child (book only), off-page/screen suggested murder, poor adult, food insecurity, newts


Africa by Toto covers

"Africa", a song by the band Toto, is one of the greatest songs in the Western canon.

this music video has a weird and colonial energy but there's books and a hot librarian in it

For some reason. Toto gave their blessing to '90s has-been band Weezer to cover "Africa". Weezer has had some very nice songs I enjoyed in my youth, but their "Africa" cover does not live up to them or the original. The Weezer cover sounds like their moms are making them do it. They're preforming the song with the sulky, adequate but lackluster energy of a student in a recital they didn't actually want to do but found no way out of. Even the instrumentals have the same meh energy. Whenever I hear the Weezer cover of "Africa", I wish I were listening to the original instead.

Deeply boring music video. Weird Al Yankovic is in it and they clip his wings and reduce him to dressing up like Stephen Colbert. What's the point of having Weird Al in your music video if you don't even use him properly!!!

You may argue that the point of a song cover is not to do it exactly the same, but to bring something new, even fresh and/or exciting, to the song. Weezer does not do that either. It's like they're a wedding band forced to play some song they think they're too cool for because it was specifically requested by the bride and groom. There is no zest or joy, and not being able to find joy in Toto's "Africa" is like if the sun came up and it was a dark sun, etc.

The cover of "Africa" by the weirdly-named Ninja Sex Party is 100 times better. They have the energy and coolness necessary to do this song justice. Even the instrumentals (which are not identical to the original) are played with great energy and cheer. I enjoyed listening to this cover nearly as much as I enjoy listening to the original.

This is fine. I appreciate that they didn't go for the obvious

One thing I have noticed in the covers of "Africa" (the two above; I haven't sought out the no-doubt countless YouTube amateur covers) is that the bands covering them think that they need to sing the high part of the chorus the loudest. The high part is not the main part; it is a harmony. All vocal parts of the chorus should be sung at the same volume/force, or the high and lower parts should be but one step behind the main middle part, in a manner of speaking. The Weezer vocalists sing the middle and lower harmonies so low they are inaudible. When it comes on on the radio, I am forced to sing the middle part myself in order to at least attempt to salvage the chorus. It is very discomforting and keeps me from fully enjoying the song.

"Africa" by Toto : 5 out of 5 stars
"Africa" covered by Weezer:  2.5 stars
"Africa" covered by Ninja Sex Party : 4 stars

App game review: Garfield Snack Time

As a nearly life-long Garfield fan, I saw the game "Garfield Snack Time" (GST) and decided to play it. It's a typical match-3-or-more-items game, with bigger points for more items matched, and possible boosters or helpful items. Each game has a specific goal: get lasagne to the basket at the bottom of the field, get a certain number of points, collect a certain amount of each of the items, etc. There is a daily challenge that awards you with one coin or more, and the game urges you to connect your Facebook account or buy more coins and boosters with real money at every turn. Watching short video ads gives you 'free' turns or rockets. The app company also constantly hawks its other games, which is annoying.

The game is bright and colorful, with everything animated in a Jim Davis style. It's cute and very addictive. Everything is food-based, with the matchable items being food: blue popsicles, green fast-food soda cups, pink lollipops, red containers of french fries, and yellow pizza slices. Personally, instead of lollipops, they should have had cupcakes, as that is a food item I could see Garfield more readily eating. 

Something else that annoys me is that whenever you fail to make your game's goal, GST does not give you the option of watching an ad video in order to get five (or even one) more turns, the way many other similar apps do. Instead, you have to pay 70 coins to get five turns, or 120 coins to get five turns and 3 boosters. GST also does not set off your remaining rockets and other boosters after you run out of turns, which I think is incredibly unfair. 

Besides the aforementioned turn limits, there are stopwatch "bombs" that will go off in a certain amount of turns, evil anthropomorphic onions that create rings that block areas of the board and mugs of coffee that cover the items in a java lock, requiring you to match the item twice before it disappears. I hate this. Garfield LOVES coffee in the comics, so the java mugs should be a power-up, not a deterrent! The ad companies are very sneaky and often format their ad like an actual video, causing it to play sound (often loudly) despite my phone being on silent. There is a special place in hell for them. 

Anyway, which it's not being an unfair, frustrating and unsolvable pain in the butt, this game is fun, and I more or less recommend it. 3.5/5 stars

Television show: Home to Keep

While my reading has slowed, my television viewing has not. Instead of keeping up with all of the currently airing TV shows I'm interested in, I've been binging on Psych and Home to Keep, both included in Amazon Prime. I literally always have one tab open for each show on my browser window.

Home to Keep is a home improvement reality TV show from HGTV Canada. The premise of this show is that the host guy goes around to real people's homes (who have applied to be on the show) and fixes the problem area/s of their home with the help of his designer/contractor friends, so that instead of having to move, they have a Home to Keep. It's a really fun, neat show if you like interior design shows, which I do.

The general format of each show goes like this:

1. Family has a problem area in their home. Awkward, too small, no storage, etc.
2. Peter comes in, talks to them and assesses what needs to be changed. 
3. He gets the realtor to find them a similar house where they've done something unique and exciting with that room, and shows it to the family to give them ideas of what they could do with their problem area.
4. Peter and the contractors get to work.
5. Peter and the interior decorator, Liz, choose the look and materials for the area.
6. repeat #4 & 5 as needed.
7. Peter and Liz decorate the finished room/s.
8. Reveal.
9. Peter invites the realtor back to show her what they did. She always loves it.

To me, what sets this apart is that the show is set in Canada, and the approach and timing is completely different than it would be in an American interior design TV show. The show host Peter is a smiley, friendly white dude who you can tell really does care about the families and wants them to love their homes. While I'm sure many of his relationships with the contractors and realtor are professional, he is 100% BFFs with his interior decorator, Liz. They are so cute together, getting all excited about floor tiles and fabrics. I feel like an American host of a TV show would be super put together and dressed up, etc., but Peter looks like an ordinary dude who is wearing his normal clothes. He doesn't dress to stand out or bleach his teeth, if he's wearing TV makeup it's only powder for shine, and sometimes his hair is out of place. It's refreshingly normal. The contractors and designer are all normal people who are good at their jobs. Only the realtor, an icy former beauty queen type, looks like she's in show biz.

This show, which is half an hour long, moves at a clipped pace through the renos (that's HGTV-speak for renovations). It moves briskly along without spending any time on drama the way an American HGTV show would, even though renovations and changing layouts etc. would organically lead to possible conflicts and problems. Sometimes in the end the couple will casually mention they weren't sure about some change when it was presented to them, but they always say it worked way better than they thought it would/they love the change, etc. The families don't really seem to be involved in the decisions, but that's par for the course in these types of home renovation shows.

What I don't like and would change is that there is no big reveal to the family. I want to see their surprised faces when they see all of the team's hard work! This is probably the biggest difference between this and American renovation shows. US shows are all about the big reveal and tears, etc. The reveal is for us, the viewers, and shots of the before and after are interspersed with footage of the family using their new space and talking heads of them saying how much they love the changes. I also don't like that they show us brief clips of the finished rooms before the end of the show, probably as they go to commercial. I would save it all until the end. I do like that Peter himself also takes on small projects, such as sanding and repainting small pieces of furniture, reupholstering seats, etc.

Overall, this is a fun, interesting show that I love to watch while relaxing. The Canadian accents and friendliness are so soothing, and this show is way better to watch at night than any of my many murder mystery shows as there is no suspense. It gives me lots of great ideas for home projects, and I love it.

Makeup review: Maybelline Color Whisper lipstick in "Who Wore It Red-er"

A while back I tried a couple of my best friend's lipsticks, which were the same brand and type but different shades (an explanation if you are confused by these terms). Maybelline's Color Whisper lipsticks are glossy, sheerish shades that are very light and smooth and glide on easily. I tried a nude shade and a peach shade, both of which can look harsh or weird on my skin, but because they were so light and sheer they actually looked really good. I decided to buy my own tube, and opted for "Who Wore It Red-er" (um, Maybelline? The word "redder" exists. Use that. People are going to know you're punning "who wore it better".) since I'm always on the hunt for the perfect red lipstick (the makeup-wearing human condition). This shade was just as smooth and slide-on-y as the others, but it was otherwise disappointing. Who wore it redder? Everyone. Everyone wore it redder, because this lipstick is not red. It is a sort of ambiguous magenta (feel free to use this as a band name, just give me 10% of your band's earnings).  The picture above does have an Instagram filter applied, but it was chosen for increased color accuracy since my cell phone camera is weird and makes things come out both darker and more washed-out than in real life, and it doesn't quite show the correct shade, which is quite vibrant. It's a magenta that looks kind of reddish if you look at it quickly. But it is decidedly not red. Because it is so smooth and slick, I feel like the color kind of slides around on your lips and possibly outside your mouth into Not Lip territory. It is also hard to apply it accurately from the tube; using a lip brush would probably correct that. Since it's so glossy, your lips don't really dry out the way they do with matte lipsticks, but the color kind of feels like it stains your lips, which is strange because initially it feels like you have to apply a lot in order for the color to look even. It takes a lot more wiping to get it all off than you'd think, for a lipstick that's practically a gloss in stick form. Anyway, I give this particular tube 3 out of 5 stars.