The Bear

I did a search to see if there was already a discussion going on about this show, but didn't find it.

The latest season of The Bear featured a montage of Chicagoland favorites, including a few GNRs.

Any other fans out there?

Wife 1.0 likes it far more than I do. I'm getting through the first episodes of season 1. She is waiting for me to get through the first 2 seasons so we can watch season 3 together. I'm hoping it will pick up so I can gain interest. I loved Jason Allen Taylor Briar Johanson Mackenzie Allen in "Shameless," but this one isn't doing much for me right now. Also, he looks like an amphibian of some sort. Salamander, perhaps.

mamagotcha wrote:I did a search to see if there was already a discussion going on about this show, but didn't find it.

There were some stray bits of discussion scattered on some other threads but no dedicated thread . . . until now. Thanks for firing it up.

*Warning - SPOILERS AHEAD*

I thought this season (Season 3) was just horrible. A major bummer and a huge step in the wrong direction. If this show has anything left to say, it really should just say it and get on with it. The actual narrative didn't move one bit from where it was at the end of Season 2. Season 3 ends with the story -- and the characters --pretty much exactly where they were at the end of Season 2. I'm all for character development but not at the expense of advancing the story. Both could be accomplished simultaneously but here, for whatever reason, the choice is made not to.

On top of that, in attempts to develop the characters, there are many moments, during which we see them in full-on angst, contemplating this or that. But those moments are mired down in dialog-free sameness and not depicted well. As such, we have no idea what they're thinking/feeling or why. We cannot read their minds but the flawed writing leaves us no choice but to try. It's painful and exhausting.

There's also a head-scratching plot element in which a pending review of The Bear in the Tribune becomes the effective focal point of the season. Needless to say, even as the season ends, we don't ever see that review but that's not really the point. In the real world, which this show very clearly aims to emulate, a review in the Tribune just isn't that big a deal. I won't go as far as to say "who cares?" but really, who does care? With several other favorable reviews already published (we see some flashes of these in print and in pixel in various episodes), how much is the Trib review really worth? It's a strange choice. Recognition from Beard or Michelin, it seems, would be a far more meaningful measure of success. Perhaps this is the moment when we, the audience, are being asked to suspend all disbelief and accept that in this world, a review from the almighty Chicago Tribune will actually move the needle for the restaurant. I'm sorry but I'm not buying it.

In the end, while absolutely nothing happens, there are a few brief moments of brilliance in Season 3. Sadly, they're strung together by incessantly long stretches of boring, self-indulgent nothingness. In spite of some notable cameos -- some bemusing, some painful -- this was absolutely not worth the time it took to watch.

=R=

Well, Ron, it seems you've proved your own point. The Trib's food section of Wednesday, July 3 carried a column by Louisa Chu subtitled "What does the Bear get wrong about its big Chicago Tribune restaurant review?" detailing the differences between real life reviews and the storyline, including exactly your point that it's not a make or break event. And the article evidently missed your notice just as a review of yet another bunch of self-absorbed millennials busting into the fine dining biz probably would too. Indeed, "who does care" sums it up pretty well.

The Trib followed up with an article about class and fine dining in its Arts section of Sunday, July entitled "Class and Status in 'The Bear'" with contributions from the restaurant critics. It's an interesting read about what the show gets right and wrong about the restaurant business.

tjr wrote:Well, Ron, it seems you've proved your own point. The Trib's food section of Wednesday, July 3 carried a column by Louisa Chu subtitled "What does the Bear get wrong about its big Chicago Tribune restaurant review?" detailing the differences between real life reviews and the storyline, including exactly your point that it's not a make or break event. And the article evidently missed your notice just as a review of yet another bunch of self-absorbed millennials busting into the fine dining biz probably would too. Indeed, "who does care" sums it up pretty well.

The Trib followed up with an article about class and fine dining in its Arts section of Sunday, July entitled "Class and Status in 'The Bear'" with contributions from the restaurant critics. It's an interesting read about what the show gets right and wrong about the restaurant business.

Interesting. I no longer read the Trib but I just presumed that even among those who do, such a review (real or fictional) would only carry so much weight.

=R=

Ron,
I haven't finished the season yet, but from what I've seen you're spot on. The producers seem more interested in creating short films of beauty and intense emotion, rather than telling stories.

There's a moment in the DVD of Monty Python and the Holy Grail with a repetition of "get on with it." That's what this needs.

ronnie_suburban wrote:
In the real world, which this show very clearly aims to emulate, a review in the Tribune just isn't that big a deal. …

Perhaps this is the moment when we, the audience, are being asked to suspend all disbelief and accept that in this world, a review from the almighty Chicago Tribune will actually move the needle for the restaurant. I'm sorry but I'm not buying it.

=R=

lol—I couldn’t get past the 2nd episode for, among other reasons, the ridiculous premise of turning a grungy sandwich shop into a high end restaurant without a hint of irony at the pretentiousness of it all. I also didn’t dig the high anxiety-inducing tone of the show. Not my thing. Sorry to miss all the Chicago restaurant community love and what seems like a great soundtrack. Oh well

Well...now I don't have to watch Season 3! (Don't worry, Ronnie, thanks for saving me the time!)

What I liked about Season 2 was not only Richie's revival in the 'Forks' episode but the actual inner workings of the restaurant itself, the control center if you will, with tips about every diner. If that is accurate, then that's cool to watch.

Like Ron, I don't read the Trib. But Jamie Lee Curtis is an overactor without peer, so that aggravates me, and I don't like to watch shows that don't progress and carry so much angst. There's enough of that around these days.

I do like Oliver Platt, however...

I can't disagree with any of you, but I still love it. I think that I particularly enjoy the small-pieces-of-art aspect that Joelf described... tapas tv.

I thought Ayo's direction of the Tina backstory episode felt pretty powerful for her directorial debut.

The Faks make me think of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (throwing in John Cena for a few rounds didn't hurt either).

ronnie_suburban wrote:There's also a head-scratching plot element in which a pending review of The Bear in the Tribune becomes the effective focal point of the season. Needless to say, even as the season ends, we don't ever see that review but that's not really the point. In the real world, which this show very clearly aims to emulate, a review in the Tribune just isn't that big a deal. I won't go as far as to say "who cares?" but really, who does care? With several other favorable reviews already published (we see some flashes of these in print and in pixel in various episodes), how much is the Trib review really worth? It's a strange choice. Recognition from Beard or Michelin, it seems, would be a far more meaningful measure of success. Perhaps this is the moment when we, the audience, are being asked to suspend all disbelief and accept that in this world, a review from the almighty Chicago Tribune will actually move the needle for the restaurant. I'm sorry but I'm not buying it.

This struck me as well, as far as real-world potential business impact. In-show, though, I think we know Cicero (Platt) is using the review excuse to cover his other financial gambles; he can't tell family straight up that he has to bail no matter what the review turns out to say.

The bigger challenge for me was that Cicero a) went to a Maroon lecture that was a self-congratulatory historical institutional overview rather than a hyper-focused single topic and b) that he called the institution "UChicago," the modern brand. This is a guy that goes to Sox Park, shops at the Jewels, and walks past the Sears Tower. There is no way it would be anything other than the U of C.

I hate watched my way through Season 3. I wasn't as bothered by the Tribune thing. Sure, we all know that the Tribune hasn't been a top source for food info/criticism since the internet became popular and has only gone downhill since then, but the show does have to appeal to a national audience and once the decision was made to build a story around a pending review, it would be way too convoluted to pick anything other than the Trib.

For me the, most unrealistic plot point was Tina's never having heard of an Italian beef. I fully accept that there are (or were) Chicagoans who haven't heard of Italian beef. Do I think there are English-speaking adults who are longtime (if not lifelong) Chicago residents who worked in an overwhelmingly white office for 15 years (we saw Tina's candy company job) and were willing and able to transit all over the city on a job search who have never heard of Italian beef? No, I don't think those people exist. They could have just had her never having had an Italian beef (perfectly reasonable if she lives in a neighborhood with no Italian beef and can't afford to eat out much or at all), but like with so much of the show, the writers felt the need to manufacture drama.

I fear the writers have just run out of ideas. It's not uncommon with TV shows. There's a great idea for a show and Season 1 is well thought out but the writers aren't prepared for what happens next. So we had a great Season 1, a mediocre season 2 with a few high points, and a terrible season 3. What is surprising is how quickly it fell apart. It makes it seem like the team behind Lost look good. Hopefully these guys can bounce back.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:I fully accept that there are (or were) Chicagoans who haven't heard of Italian beef. Do I think there are English-speaking adults who are longtime (if not lifelong) Chicago residents who worked in an overwhelmingly white office for 15 years (we saw Tina's candy company job) and were willing and able to transit all over the city on a job search who have never heard of Italian beef? No, I don't think those people exist.

Good one - even my veg friends know what an Italian beef is.

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:I fear the writers have just run out of ideas. It's not uncommon with TV shows. There's a great idea for a show and Season 1 is well thought out but the writers aren't prepared for what happens next.

Yeah, that's the trouble with these types of shows. Each season is like a long form movie, or a novel. And not every movie or novel needs a sequel. In the past there were more episodic shows (Cheers, for example or MTM or All in the Family, or the Law and Orders) where it was the characters in different situations each week. These new shows are more like miniseries, many of which were one-offs.

Well, Carmy's stated goal is a Michelin star. Odds are that's the end of the show, and the producers are certainly in no hurry to get there, so long as ratings hold enough to keep it in production.
The bigger plot line *ought* to be paying off Uncle Jimmy, that's going to remain a challenge.

Santander wrote:

ronnie_suburban wrote:There's also a head-scratching plot element in which a pending review of The Bear in the Tribune becomes the effective focal point of the season. Needless to say, even as the season ends, we don't ever see that review but that's not really the point. In the real world, which this show very clearly aims to emulate, a review in the Tribune just isn't that big a deal. I won't go as far as to say "who cares?" but really, who does care? With several other favorable reviews already published (we see some flashes of these in print and in pixel in various episodes), how much is the Trib review really worth? It's a strange choice. Recognition from Beard or Michelin, it seems, would be a far more meaningful measure of success. Perhaps this is the moment when we, the audience, are being asked to suspend all disbelief and accept that in this world, a review from the almighty Chicago Tribune will actually move the needle for the restaurant. I'm sorry but I'm not buying it.

This struck me as well, as far as real-world potential business impact. In-show, though, I think we know Cicero (Platt) is using the review excuse to cover his other financial gambles; he can't tell family straight up that he has to bail no matter what the review turns out to say.

So, Cicero's secretly hoping for a bad review, so he'll have some cover when he inevitably has to pull the plug? I didn't get that sense but you're right in that either way, Carm doesn't know it, so maybe he innocently sees a favorable Trib review as a lifeline (that it ultimately isn't).

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:For me the, most unrealistic plot point was Tina's never having heard of an Italian beef. I fully accept that there are (or were) Chicagoans who haven't heard of Italian beef. Do I think there are English-speaking adults who are longtime (if not lifelong) Chicago residents who worked in an overwhelmingly white office for 15 years (we saw Tina's candy company job) and were willing and able to transit all over the city on a job search who have never heard of Italian beef? No, I don't think those people exist. They could have just had her never having had an Italian beef (perfectly reasonable if she lives in a neighborhood with no Italian beef and can't afford to eat out much or at all), but like with so much of the show, the writers felt the need to manufacture drama.

I didn't have a big problem with this. Far-fetched but not entirely inconceivable. However . . .

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:I fear the writers have just run out of ideas. It's not uncommon with TV shows.

Yes. I think that when we're served up a completely unnecessary origin story episode about an ancillary character, it's pretty clear that the idea well is running dry.

=R=

Just a week after its season four debut, FX announced its Chicago-based, Emmy Award-winning show “The Bear” has been renewed for a fifth season.

https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/07/02 ... th-season/

After a pretty good Season 2, I had heard not-so-great things about Season 3 and had held off, until last week. Started binging my way through it and by episode 9 or so, I just felt full of anxiety from some reason. I finally figured out that it was partially because of the little vignette storylines (that Ronnie correctly deduced that never furthered the storyline), the non-telegraphed time changes. But more than that, the character anger (is 'FU' the only way for them to communicate?) and actually the 'angry' way the show is filmed--closeups, jagged cuts. Not flowing at all. I decided I didn't need this, went for a walk and I probably won't continue watching.

Love the Chicago references, but that's not nearly enough for me.

jnm123 wrote:Started binging my way through it and by episode 9 or so, I just felt full of anxiety from some reason.

Agreed. I only watched first episode of Bear season 4, the twisted knot in my stomach returns.

I will watch hoping it eases.

Cathy2

I'm only two episodes into season four, and it feels like they are picking up the pace compared to the third season.

The work of Andrew Wehde (director of photography) has been catching my breath over and over. Trying to go slow to best savor the visual feast.

It's hard to pick any joy or pleasure out of this once-enjoyable and now utterly agonizing show. There are a few such moments but for the most part, it's a redundant procession of emotionally constipated characters, none of whom can complete a sentence or articulate a coherent thought or emotion. Perhaps that's realistic and might be tolerable . . . if it weren't true of pretty much every character across the board. They're all the same. The result is an homogeneous, gut-wrenching permacluster of unresolved angst and characters who are virtually impossible to root for.

The impotence and self-indulgence of the characters mirrors the overall ethos of the show, with many potentially interesting elements of the narrative being consistently sacrificed for what are probably intended to be meaningful moments of personal reflection. Instead of moving the story along, we end up in a vortex with one character or another gnawing on some familiar, perpetually unresolved issue. It's tedious and uninteresting. Season 4 was some of the most unsatisfying television I can remember watching in quite some time.

=R=

Agreed, Ron. And good actors, including the perennially great Oliver Platt.

Good concept, talented thespians, decent Chicago showcase cinematically...but sh*tty writing and story development.

A real shame...

jnm123 wrote:Agreed, Ron. And good actors, including the perennially great Oliver Platt.

Good concept, talented thespians, decent Chicago showcase cinematically...but sh*tty writing and story development.

A real shame...

Yes. The very good cast makes it even more disappointing. Not even occasionals Platt, Ramos, nor Poulter could save it.

=R=

13 Emmy nominations (for Season 3) suggest that I and others who don't like the show are in the minority.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:It's hard to pick any joy or pleasure out of this once-enjoyable and now utterly agonizing show. There are a few such moments but for the most part, it's a redundant procession of emotionally constipated characters, none of whom can complete a sentence or articulate a coherent thought or emotion. Perhaps that's realistic and might be tolerable . . . if it weren't true of pretty much every character across the board. They're all the same. The result is an homogeneous, gut-wrenching permacluster of unresolved angst and characters who are virtually impossible to root for.

The impotence and self-indulgence of the characters mirrors the overall ethos of the show, with many potentially interesting elements of the narrative being consistently sacrificed for what are probably intended to be meaningful moments of personal reflection. Instead of moving the story along, we end up in a vortex with one character or another gnawing on some familiar, perpetually unresolved issue. It's tedious and uninteresting. Season 4 was some of the most unsatisfying television I can remember watching in quite some time.

=R=

I don't hate the show as much as you do, though I would say that after the directionless time suck of season 3, my experience of season 4 could be characterized as a "hate watch." I agree with your take on the character development especially Carm and Syd, just wheels spinning, unresolvable tension, totally grating and a waste of two good-seeming talents.

I think Richie's story line has traction and probably the one character I feel invested in. I just finished the wedding episode, which was brimming with random bs (a Fak brother falls in love! why are the entire Berzatto family and all their friends invited to a friend's ex-wife's wedding?) A very pale rehash of the excellent "Fishes" episode. But Richie's evolution feels authentic – the dialogue with Uncle Jimmy had real heart.

One issue I don't hear talked about enough is the cringe deployment of classic rock to emphasize emotional tone. I mean this trope goes back at least as far as The Graduate and really infected all film and tv by the 2000's (looking at you Wes Anderson.) But it's really heavy handed in The Bear and ruins classic songs for me. I actually get more mad when they use a song I love (they use plenty I don't love too.)

Anyway, what a mess, at least it's keeping us talking.

Jefe wrote:One issue I don't hear talked about enough is the cringe deployment of classic rock to emphasize emotional tone. I mean this trope goes back at least as far as The Graduate and really infected all film and tv by the 2000's (looking at you Wes Anderson.) But it's really heavy handed in The Bear and ruins classic songs for me. I actually get more mad when they use a song I love (they use plenty I don't love too.)

On the other hand, the season one use of Wilco's Impossible Germany for a release/relax after a hard day was spot on.

I'll blow against the local wind: this season really worked for me, especially taken in full. An element like Carmy considering the Frank Lloyd Wright studio furniture doesn't really come into focus until revisiting his own childhood dining table in a later episode and then considering his own balance of inspiration and joy in the concluding three-hander, at which point it's eerily elegiac. Nor did the symbolically tighter weft suffocate the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern downstage antics of the Faks or the nostalgia of needful Hamburger Helper.

I've appreciated the increasing effort to get local details and sentiments right (while still thinking the 773 tattoo was a ridiculous initial choice in and out of universe), but most of all that characters, Richie first among them currently, really do get growth arcs that seem motivated and credible. Donna can seem like a cartoon caricature to some families but will ring unnervingly true in others, including some of her eventual self-realizations, which might be even more resonantly uncomfortable than the earlier behaviors.

These characters are intense and repetitive but when they grow it is still in-persona, rather than being reformed by just the script. It's really not like much else on television and, like an early-aughties molecular gastronomy menu, I'll take the experiments along with the immediate rewards, hopefully not at the complete expense of the chefs.

I have to wonder... perhaps the people who enjoy the show came from families with members who are represented here so painfully well. And perhaps people who grew up in well-adjusted families just don't see themselves here, and thus conclude that the characters are not believable.

Jefe wrote:One issue I don't hear talked about enough is the cringe deployment of classic rock to emphasize emotional tone. I mean this trope goes back at least as far as The Graduate and really infected all film and tv by the 2000's (looking at you Wes Anderson.) But it's really heavy handed in The Bear and ruins classic songs for me. I actually get more mad when they use a song I love (they use plenty I don't love too.)

Anyway, what a mess, at least it's keeping us talking.

Yeah, the music is a fun hack . . . until it becomes a cliched, overused crutch. It's just writing laziness to repeatedly depend on someone else's work to provide the lens for underdeveloped and underwritten characters.

Santander wrote:I'll blow against the local wind: this season really worked for me, especially taken in full. An element like Carmy considering the Frank Lloyd Wright studio furniture doesn't really come into focus until revisiting his own childhood dining table in a later episode and then considering his own balance of inspiration and joy in the concluding three-hander, at which point it's eerily elegiac. Nor did the symbolically tighter weft suffocate the Rosencrantz & Guildenstern downstage antics of the Faks or the nostalgia of needful Hamburger Helper.

I've appreciated the increasing effort to get local details and sentiments right (while still thinking the 773 tattoo was a ridiculous initial choice in and out of universe), but most of all that characters, Richie first among them currently, really do get growth arcs that seem motivated and credible. Donna can seem like a cartoon caricature to some families but will ring unnervingly true in others, including some of her eventual self-realizations, which might be even more resonantly uncomfortable than the earlier behaviors.

These characters are intense and repetitive but when they grow it is still in-persona, rather than being reformed by just the script. It's really not like much else on television and, like an early-aughties molecular gastronomy menu, I'll take the experiments along with the immediate rewards, hopefully not at the complete expense of the chefs.

You make a lot of interesting points here and I love the perspective. It doesn't change the overall current for me but I do agree with a lot of it.

mamagotcha wrote:I have to wonder... perhaps the people who enjoy the show came from families with members who are represented here so painfully well. And perhaps people who grew up in well-adjusted families just don't see themselves here, and thus conclude that the characters are not believable.

Sounds a bit simplistic to me but in any case, it's probably not constructive to make assumptions about peoples' backgrounds since we really just don't know.

I didn't think the characters weren't believable, just uninteresting because their growth and development happen at a sub-molasses pace (if at all).

=R=

Jefe wrote:One issue I don't hear talked about enough is the cringe deployment of classic rock to emphasize emotional tone. I mean this trope goes back at least as far as The Graduate and really infected all film and tv by the 2000's (looking at you Wes Anderson.) But it's really heavy handed in The Bear and ruins classic songs for me. I actually get more mad when they use a song I love (they use plenty I don't love too.)

Anyway, what a mess, at least it's keeping us talking.

Total side note, but isn't Martin Scorsese you should be talking to?

Vital Information wrote:

Jefe wrote:One issue I don't hear talked about enough is the cringe deployment of classic rock to emphasize emotional tone. I mean this trope goes back at least as far as The Graduate and really infected all film and tv by the 2000's (looking at you Wes Anderson.) But it's really heavy handed in The Bear and ruins classic songs for me. I actually get more mad when they use a song I love (they use plenty I don't love too.)

Anyway, what a mess, at least it's keeping us talking.

Total side note, but isn't Martin Scorsese you should be talking to?

Scorsese definitely mastered the needle drop. The Graduate pre-dates peak Scorsese though.