Books:
Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus
Your feelings about this book are going to be almost entirely dependent on your feelings about the tone - cutesy, light, lots of coincidences, parts of the book are told from the POV of a dog - and in all honesty I vacillated quite a bit with regards to the tone, as in 25% in I was still finding myself occasionally annoyed by it, but somehow eventually the story won me over and I just didn't care anymore. The book is about a woman refusing to be oppressed by 1950s societal, cultural, and gender expectations and instead achieving something real for herself and, despite numerous negative consequences, insisting on being exactly who she is regardless of how other people respond to her. I'd say what makes the book work is also what makes it not work if you don't like the tone: its breeziness. All the characters are given a voice and backstory and all of those backstories, regardless of how tragic they are or not, are told with the same gentle humor. I enjoyed it because it made it all read very quickly plus the author's primary interest was on finding empowerment in a society that wanted otherwise and that tonal quality worked really well in telling that story as, since you already know upfront how it’s all going to turn out, the pleasure is in watching the characters navigate everything. The characters were entertaining if a bit one note and, no, those two things weren't in opposition in this book. For example, the lead character - Elizabeth - is kind of a self-oblivious, logical, verbal type who tackles any challenge the plot throws at her in the exact same way every time - powering through it - and that exact same way was fun to read because the situations required that kind of bullheadedness and it was satisfying to see various characters' responses to her unyielding behavior. The book is sort of a lite version of the book/film Hidden Figures though without the race component. It's about a woman refusing to be pigeonholed and how, in the face of societal obstacles, she creates a new path for herself and, once I got with the tone, I found it to be completely engaging and charming and flew through the whole thing.
TV/Streaming:
Interior Design Masters (Season 3):
Well much as I loved prior seasons of this design competition reality show, I loved this one even more. The basic setup is 8 wannabe interior designers are given either the exact same or very similar real-world spaces each week (cheap apartments, a small business, etc.) with a specific design brief and are then judged on the outcomes. As I've mentioned before, even though I wouldn't say - and my completely white walls would back me on this - that I'm much of a design person, I love watching people's creativity in this kind of context and the surprise of seeing how it all turns out for better or worse. The show kind of evenly divides between individual and group challenges and, given that so much of design means compromising with other people (the architect, budget, the shape of the room, city codes, etc.) it's seems fair to put them in that position sometimes vs other shows which seem to do that just for drama. Also there are sometimes clients, as in the actual shop owners or apartment dwellers or whatever, who have specific needs and it's interesting to watch people mold their style (or not) to what a client wants. But what really makes this show stand out is the main judge who's super articulate about why things do or don't work for her and how the nature of design influences how people perceive an environment. She's really good about casually explaining all that which gives the show a bit of an educational edge and I think in many ways that's the intent, like she's not looking to crush dreams but rather - sometimes pretty harshly - explain why something isn't working so even if she boots the contestant they'll leave a better designer than they entered. And she does that because the prize isn't money but rather an actual commercial design contract so explaining all this is in the service of delivering the best designer at the end of the show. Look, I like this kind of thing (clearly) and prefer shows in this format where there's enough personality so you can kind of love/hate some of the contestants - but not to the point of being a Gordon Ramsay show where it's all about contestant drama - and where the main focus is on the challenges and the reveal. Plus creativity is on display nonstop because, as mentioned, in many challenges people are given the exact same spaces so you can really compare/contrast the different takes on the same spots and hear from the judges why things do and don't work. I know some people find these shows, especially the British ones (which this one is), to be slow so I get it if it's not up your alley, but if you like a visual-based competition show, you’ll probably like this one (and if you’re searching around for it - shows seem to jump from streamer to streamer these days so I don’t know where it is at the time you’re reading this but this was on Netflix at some point - it may be under a slightly different title the way things sometimes are with British shows coming to America a la Great British Bakeoff/Baking Show and why was that change necessary btw?).
The Bear (Season 1):
This show, a highly-lauded-by-non-Janices half-hour kinda verite dramedy about a high-end chef who inherits his brother's ailing blue collar restaurant, is a watchable series which unfortunately spirals off into a nonsensical mess due solely to the writers absolutely having no grip whatsoever on anything they'd created. You could kind of see this earlier on in the series but in a forgivable way, like yeah that's annoying but whatever I like the rest of it, but the final two episodes were so just dreadfully contrived that, unless things change next season (and given all the non-Janice hysteria around this show I'm thinking the writers will think what they wrote was pure genius and do nothing of the kind), this will likely degenerate into either a hate-watch or DNF for me but I guess we'll see. The basic concept is a behind-the-scenes look at the restaurant industry, something I've certainly enjoyed before (like in the much better movie version of this basic setup Boiling Point) and is somewhat about how a ragtag team is forced to up their game but is mostly about the specific economic problems of the industry where vendor issues, debt, health codes, etc. all create a seemingly endless list of problems all compounded, in the case of this show, by the fact that the lead chef gave up his NYC superchef career (because his brother suicided) and moved back to Chicago to take over the dead brother's sandwich shop. It's never really addressed but the implication is that reviving the ailing restaurant serves as some form of connection with his somewhat estranged-now-dead brother and Carmy (that would be the surviving brother superchef) is intent on cleaning up the restaurant, both literally and in terms of its management, and upgrading the food.
The background problem, the one that's present from the beginning and bubbles up to near-DNF levels by the final two episodes, is that everyone in the show is a writer contrivance and not a character. For example, there's the super-asshole bff of the dead brother who constantly undermines and creates problems for Carmy who does... nothing in response. Which could be a character choice, right? Someone more passive or more brooding or something along those lines. And it's sorta kinda consistent in that Carmy gives orders which no one really follows (ish) and, okay. Only then - and this isn't a spoiler because it's really not that kind of show - when Carmy does kind of lose it in the second-to-last episode, not only does his entire staff turn on him, but I think the notion is that we, the audience, are supposed to believe Carmy is a total asshole and everyone justified in their reactions to him. Only it's the exact opposite - and yes I know I'm being a bit vague to avoid the little that can be spoilered in this show - in that everyone in the show is a self-absorbed asshole who is then compelled, by writers who wanted to force a situation rather than, you know, write one aka crafting it, to act as if the side characters’ absurd reactions to the lead are somehow merited and that we're supposed to believe it (it all plays out in the final episode). As an example - and remember, these are all low-level line cooks in an aspirational sandwich shop - what do you think of a good restaurant review combined with someone screwing up the online order system resulting in hundreds of orders coming in - fine so far, right? - with the head chef then freaking out - fine again, he's pissed because they're not ready and don't have enough food but it's his business and here's a chance to make some money - and the dessert cook who's been obsessing over making the perfect donut, an item not on the menu, for the prior few episodes ignoring everything that's happening around him (there are like 14 cake orders he hasn't even started because he's busy obsessively glazing) and he gets screamed at and he quits… and later the chef apologizes and the never-worked-anywhere-but-a-sandwich-shop-before dessert cook grudgingly accepts it? See what I mean by writer contrivance? The writers wanted chaos and people quitting and lots of screaming and wanted their otherwise completely silent, cryptic, brooding, non-asshole lead to get upset and the mere fact that he lost it means he's the total dick who has to beg his team to come back and help. The writer(s) wanted all that but didn't want to be bothered with writing characters or plots that would allow that to happen so instead just jammed it in for a few episodes and we're all supposed to buy it I think (I won't even discuss the awful (though spoilerable) writer contrivance that ends the season - it's bad at the most basic level (I'll just ask for those who’ve seen: how exactly did those tin cans get resealed?)).
Look at it this way: you have characters who are allowed to explore their creativity and try new things because they have a boss who's open to all that and when the boss has a bad day due specifically to one of those characters screwing up, we're supposed to believe he's a total dick who needs to grovel. On the one hand, yes, it's all minor; on the other, the whole show is made up of minor incidents; it's a character piece. All it has going for it is minor character changes since there's no plot - in fact what little plot there is is mostly generated by the contrived asshole who you (me) just kind of have to swallow being in the show because really - and the show is, as noted, a kind of verite - he offers so little to the business and in fact causes many of its problems and is written in such a blunt way - "I'm an asshole 24/7!" - that in any form of reality he wouldn't even be working there at all. So when the characters, in the lead's case pretty thin to begin with, start doing things because the writers told them to rather than stemming from any drama that was crafted in the prior 6 episodes, well what are you investing in? If you had a friend who had a basically nice and supportive boss who one day snapped due specifically to your friend's fuckup and your friend's response was to storm off, who would you think was in the wrong and needed to apologize? Me too, and if the writers had wanted to create a situation where the audience would be on the side of the friend, well that would actually require writing it and not merely slapping it on the final episode as if it's implicit. So take this one step further: if you know there are no rules to a show and the writers don't care about your investment but just want to write whatever they feel like writing in the moment (presumably because they don't have much of a sense of their own story and characters so just have them do anything episode to episode), what's the show? Basically it's an anthology series with the same actors in the same location week to week with those actors given random speeches that are unrelated to prior weeks and will have no impact on the subsequent weeks. That's what and, as you can tell from this review, I felt ripped off by this show as it sold itself as being one thing - a coherent series - and was actually another - disconnected scene ideas. I don't know. Clearly there were plenty of non-Janices who weren't bothered by this but this Janice was so there you have it.
Movies:
Mandibles - This is a completely idiotic ostensible comedy about two stonery dudes who discover a giant fly in the trunk of their car. I was going to say that I can't even begin to describe the levels of stupidity and boredom this movie engendered but then I remembered that describing all that is exactly the point here so I guess I'm going to. The tl;dr here is don't even bother. I didn't DNF, not because I wasn't insanely bored (I was) but because I kept thinking the setup had go somewhere right? I mean, big fly in the trunk, a bunch of nothing happens - did I mention the movie’s French? would I be wrong to eliminate an entire country’s output due to cliches about its awful arty pretentious? but what if those cliches are totally true Exhibit A being that I suffered through this? Hmmm, I’ll have to think about it - but it would have to have an ending? Yes? Well no. I was wrong. Here's the plot: two stoners (or whatever - Bill/Ted-alikes) find a big fly in the trunk of a car they borrowed (I think; I was possibly zoning from the minute this thing started) or maybe stole or agreed to drive somewhere for money or something along those lines. I have no idea why the fly is there or why it's big but I guess that's all part of the, in the filmmaker's mind, surreal and hilarious setup maybe? Upon seeing the big fly instead of killing it which what I do with flies of any size or shape (sue me, fly attorneys) they instead decide to train it in order to - again I think but can't say with certainty - perform heists of some kind, i.e. fly as thieving drone. Are you with me? Or have you already DNFed in your mind and are wondering why I didn't? So you'd think, even with this unbelievable stupidity, that it would turn out to be some kind of heist movie with a fly but you meaning me would be totally wrong. Because what happens is Bill/Ted wind up at a motel or a friend's house - I was so deep in couch-shivasana by this point I'm not sure - where they have stupid conversation by a pool for about, oh, half the running time of the film while they feed the fly occasionally and try to keep the fact of the fly's existence from their friends because I guess there's a no-pets policy? Or something to do with keeping it secret to make money in the heist? Whatever. The way they do that is, in addition to sitting by or in the pool, sitting at dinner, sitting outside, having random conversations and just kind of hanging out being dumb surrounded by OTT characters (like one of them had a skiing accident that wound up with her being able to speak only via screaming - hilarious I know!). Eventually the fly gets away but then they meet up with the fly on a beach, show it a picture of (I think) something they want stolen, the fly zips away, they're about to drive off, and then the fly returns. Credits. I refuse to call that a spoiler. If all this sounds great to you, apparently the director has made others just like so you'll have a catalogue of boring faux absurdity to quote unquote enjoy. And, France, knock it off! The British are at least TRYING to change their cliche about their awful food and maybe you need to take a good hard look in the mirror and do la meme chose. And given that that’s all the French I can remember from freshman year, we’ll consider the matter closed.