Books:
Endless Night by Agatha Christie
Yes, Agatha Christie, the author I haven't read since I was like 10 and inhaled all of her books though I'd never heard of this one which she wrote later in life. The reason I wound up reading this book is that I mentioned the above to a fellow Janice about how I used to enjoy Dame Agatha but that there was, not a childishness, but maybe a simplicity or something to her books that I'd outgrown and said Janice suggested I check out this one. It's definitely different from her other books in that it's not a detection story nor anything cozy but rather a mystery generated out of questions around what actually happened in the novel's central doomed romance. It's a rich-girl/poor-guy story told from the first-person POV of the poor-guy - a lower class Englishman - and that doomed romance is setup almost immediately and infuses the entire book; it starts with a how-could-something-so-wonderful-go-so-bad melancholy (kind of Rebecca-like maybe) and then unfolds from there. Since it's Agatha, it's definitely a mystery, and I won't be spoilering anything, but the basic gist of the plot revolves around a seemingly cursed property, a young, stifled woman coming into her inheritance, her handlers (stepmother, lawyer, banker, etc.), her not lady's maid - companion maybe? - because the book is set I think the '60s or maybe '70s but something along those lines, and her efforts to free herself from all these people as she falls in love with the English guy. It has a kind of gothic, windswept vibe to it and while not fun exactly - I mean it is, as noted, doom-laden from the start after all - it's still a pleasurable unfolding of a story. As far as the mystery goes, I wouldn't say I saw the resolution coming, and the process of getting there was also fairly enjoyable. Look, the Dame can definitely write and this book is pretty short and if you're reading hesitation in this review, it's that the book is very much about mood rather than plot per se and sometimes that spooky, moors-ish mood combined with people flying over to the UK on a 5 hour flight - a combo of older and modern that I liked btw - made it feel sluggish in parts because those sorts of books of necessity are a lot of time in the narrator's head talking about thoughts and feelings and foreshadowing and some of that felt a little much to me. But really this is still a good book and frankly if you're into that vibe, you'll probably inhale it and even if not, it was interesting to read such a familiar author in what I'd consider to be a more adult guise and that made it worth it.
TV/Streaming:
Magpie Murders:
This is a mediocre though fine enough series version of the deeply mediocre Agatha Christieish book (review here and review for even worse sequel here) about an editor searching for the missing final chapter of a murdered author's final novel. The idea is that there's a linkage between the events in the final novel and, ultimately, the real present-tense mystery and the series intercuts between them and, frankly, not only are there really no meaningful links, but the past-tense mystery is kinda boring, primarily because everyone in it is a piece of Dame Agatha cardboard with no character beyond things like "the suspicious gardener" or "the pawn shop owner with a past" or whatever. The present-tense story is more fun in part because the editor isn't an investigator but rather just someone who ends up solving the mystery in her hunt for the final book. Though really none of it makes a lick of sense, neither of the mysteries (and this was true in my vague memory of the book as well). The cops in both, for instance, are idiots, one a bumpkin and one refusing to actually investigate anything for no reason whatsoever other than he doesn't like the nosy editor. On the one hand I could totally tell you all the plot details of both because they're completely irrelevant to the conclusion of both mysteries in that there's absolutely no way whatsoever that anyone could ever figure them out, though the explanations make logical sense. I'm guessing this is because that's how Agatha did it, where you have a bunch of people who could've done it with plenty of red herrings then Poirot puts it all together at the end. This series is that and the ending is ridiculous, especially the present-tense one which really doesn't make any sense either in its explanation, the aftermath of its reveal, nor the editor's behavior. But in some ways all these critiques don't matter if you go into this show knowing it's dumb and not particularly well-made (to hardly mention, other than the lead, one of the worsts casts I've seen in a British show to date which makes me think they spent all their money on that lead and scraped bottom for the rest) plus the direction seems to be referencing something that I was clueless about, like the score would get very dramatically strange at certain points and, I don't know, maybe there were British mysteries made in the '50s/'60s/'70s that had that style and which I was totally unfamiliar with. But it was jarring enough that I'm writing about it. I know I know this is all critiques and seemingly gives no reason to watch but the series is only 6 45 minute episodes and very easy to get through and equally easy to forget. The present-tense stuff has enough going on with the lead to keep it amusing and the past-tense stuff, while more turgid, is at least an investigation so there's some interest in seeing where it all goes. It's a barely classed-up procedural - imagine a very special 6-part Murder She Wrote - but sometimes, like on a rainy day or when you want something that more or less holds your attention without requiring much thought, that's just fine and when that day comes for you, there's this.
Masterchef Australia (Season 14):
I've said it before - though maybe only in my mind because I can’t find the Media Report where I actually put it in print - and I will say it again (or maybe for the first time): Masterchef Australia is the best Masterchef and possibly one of the best competition cooking reality shows out there. As a reminder: this is a series about aspirational home cooks competing in various challenges either for immunity or to save themselves from elimination where 24 cooks are whittled down to 1 winner. The show is great for several reasons. First, the producers have given it a, to me, perfect blend of enough backstory/personality so I can get invested (or not) in certain contestants while primarily focusing on the competition, i.e. the food. Second, all of the challenges are on-the-spot meaning no advance prep meaning in every episode you're watching people wing it which really does make for a more interesting challenge because even though (obviously) you can't taste anything, you can still compare (due to the excellent production) how various people are dealing with whatever was thrown at them and their own creative processes where they grope to come up with something that they think will work and their own hesitations about where they're worried they're screwing themselves over. While some challenges repeat - there's generally a "mystery box" meaning ingredients hidden under a box where the contestants have to make something using just what's in the box plus some pantry staples like salt, oil, flour, etc. - there are always new ones every week which keeps everything interesting because it forces you - me - to think what you (okay, me again) would do. Like some challenges allow the contestants to get better ingredients in exchange for less cooking time and it's interesting to watch that calculus. As with so much in Australia, it's all mega-sized - I mean those frigging Australian spiders, right?!? - meaning the show is like 64 episodes a season which is also part of what makes it work as that's enough time to get a feel for people meaning, because the show is zero contestant drama but a lot of personal drama (like struggling with depression or whatnot), it's more about people trying to overcome their own issues in order to succeed - not that all of them have some drama, but there's usually something there to keep it engaging on a human level. Third, the judges are pretty articulate and, while they're supportive, they're in it more to help people leave as better cooks than they entered so the critiques are sometimes harsh and always clear which as a viewer of something intangible like food on a screen is critical. And, fourth and finally, Australian cooking is heavily influenced by Southeast Asia so there are always ingredients and dishes that I've never seen before and which inspire my own imaginary world where I might actually go off and cook them (not that I ever have but still). If you're into cooking competition shows and prefer them with a more measured pace (as opposed to the Gordon Ramsay pace, my goto for what I hate about many American competition reality shows where they become a mashup between a competition and the contrivance of the Housewives and what am I investing in if I know a lot of it is fake?), go hunt this one down.
Movies:
Sorcerer - This is a '70s movie in both the literal and artistic senses that, apparently, is most famous for being a highly anticipated potential blockbuster that came out at the exact same time as the original Star Wars and thus totally tanked at the boxoffice. The basic plot of the film is four shady criminals - a Parisian fraudster, a Palestinian terrorist, a Mexican hitman, and Roy Scheider as a low-level thief who robs the wrong person - all wind up in a total shithole in an unnamed impoverished South American country where their only way out is to drive two raggedy-ass trucks filled with leaking dynamite through a jungle and up mountainous dirt roads to deliver the explosives to some rebels (I think) in exchange for cash. The way in which this movie is very '70s is that it has a detached vibe to it, like the first third or so is mini-movies showing the backstories of those four and how they wound up where they wound up. There's then a fair amount of not much happening followed by the circumstances where they find themselves in these two trucks followed by the bulk of the movie which is the horrific trip and the awful and dangerous circumstances necessary to get the trucks where they need to go. I think the movie was going for a kind of Heart of Darkness thing (I'm not sure if Apocalypse Now had been released at that point or not and as usual am far too lazy to Google) where the journey is meant to serve as some kind of metaphor for Life. I wasn't bored exactly and some of the truck stuff was pretty interesting mostly because it looked so atrocious to film. I mean there were no VFX back then so these were all practical stunts - like the trucks being driven over a rickety rope bridge - so from that standpoint it was kind of cool to watch. I guess the character emptiness is a hallmark of these higher-end artistic '70s movies, like I wouldn't say either The Conversation or The French Connection had much passion to them but were detached and observational of their characters rather than immersive where you're into whatever the characters are up to. This movie had the same thing and it's not a criticism; it's just the style. Also, it's not as if the characters were scrappy wily criminals who had a great plan to get out of their circumstances; instead an opportunity arose and they were chosen to deal with it so you don't get a great sense of who they are as people other than the mini-movies from the setup, just their desperation and willingness to go to extremes because the alternative - being stuck in the shithole forever - is even worse. I wouldn't say I loved the movie but I also wouldn't say it was a waste of time. I found it hard to engage with it for the reasons above but also found it somewhat clinically interesting, so I'd say this movie is probably worth your time as long as you know what to expect going in and, if you're a fan of these types of '70s movies and haven't seen this one, you should probably add it to your list.