#tais rants

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

Every time people try to pretend there’s no existence of racial bias in the way Sydcarmy is dismissed, an angel loses their wings.

You know what’s exhausting? Watching people bend over backward to insist that there are no racist or misogynoir undertones to the way Sydcarmy gets dismissed as a valid ship.. like let’s just be real for a second.

I understand people who don't ship it or believe in the ship because they prefer to take the show at face value, focus on different dynamics, or interpret relationships in other ways. However, the people who deny any validity to believing their relationship is more than meets the eye? That needs to be addressed.

People will swear up and down that their issue isn’t with Sydney, that they love her, and that they "just think Carmy should go to therapy first" , but then in the same breath, you'll catch them romanticizing the hell out of his dynamic with Claire, a relationship that was unhealthy, regressive, and rooted in avoidance rather than growth. @yannaryartside covers the very strong existence of the Oedipus complex and the fulfillment of Carmy’s mommy issues through Claire’s behavior and manipulation in their relationship, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Let’s talk about the “Carmen needs therapy before a girlfriend” argument. Let’s be real, Carmy needed therapy when he was with Claire too, but nobody seemed to mind that. In fact, everyone around him—Richie, the Faks, even the audience, enabled this idea of Claire as a “good” thing for him, as if she wasn’t feeding into his worst tendencies. And the most infuriating part? Claire was, in fact, manipulative. (Again, covered by @yannaryartside .)

She didn’t do it in an overt, villainous way but used **soft, socially acceptable manipulation**—the kind that gets ignored when it’s coming from a conventionally attractive, non-threatening, quirky white woman.

Claire’s Manipulation: The Softness of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl

People like to act like Claire was just a character who wasn’t well-written or worth the time for analysis, but that was the entire point of her: to feel underwhelming, to feel forced into place. In many ways this is true of course, she's under/not well-written in ways, and people think she was simply there, offering Carmy what she believed (and convinced him to believe) was love, when in reality, she inserted herself into his life in a way that preyed on his vulnerabilities and pre-existing issues.

And before anyone jumps in with "she didn’t do anything wrong!"...let’s actually look at how she operated.

- She sought him out when he wasn’t in a good place.

She made it a point to go out of her way to get his real number after being given a fake one. If course she uses that classic manipulative play it off as a joke move when she threatens him but not the best way to start. I know it's been said before, but can we imagine if the roles were reversed? Would we not think that creepy?

- She made it about her when he was struggling.

When Carmy tried to set a boundary, Claire framed it as him pulling away from her, rather than him dealing with his own issues. She encouraged his avoidance, gave him an easy escape from his problems, and then was surprised—and (validly) hurt—when reality came crashing down. Even when Carmy was harsh in breaking up with her, he was speaking from a place of truth for himself. To be with her, when he was so damaged and not really in a space of genuinely liking her, was bullshit.

- She used nostalgia as a tool.

Claire’s entire presence in Carmy’s life was based on a past version of him that no longer existed. Just as Carmy didn’t really see Claire, but rather a projected version of her shaped by his family (and a little bit of Sydney), Claire didn’t love him, she loved the idea of Carmy she had from childhood. And she expected him to fit back into that mold, to regress into a state where he could blow off work to hang out with her and forget his partnership with Sydney, someone he's meant to work with and has a responsibility to be with. That’s not love. That’s entitlement to a person’s growth or lack thereof.

And yet, people ignore all this because Claire fits their idea of what a love interest should look like to them. She’s non-threatening, familiar, digestible. They don’t question why she feels right, - white - while Sydne, who actually challenges Carmy, who understands him in ways Claire never could, gets written off as “not romantic.”

Claire, for "clarity" or "peace" (ugh) is simple. She's the painted picture of a woman who puts others before herself, the quirky manic pixie dream girl inching too close to the camera, sneaking her way into his life. People argue it feels like the same effect Sydney has on Carmy, but it's not the same at all. Claire is easy. For Carmy. He can fuck up, regress, and stay stagnant, and she’ll applaud him for it. "Never ever, ever apologize."

Sydney is the opposite. She calls him on his shit, and she sees him for who he really is. Sydney is the real peace for him (how many times do we need to bring up that damn panic attack, the table scene, and strange currencies? Thank you, @chefkids ).

Phew...

Moving on,

The Hypocrisy of the “Carmy Needs Therapy First" Argument

Back to the “Carmy needs therapy before a relationship” excuse, because wow, is that just selective. People only seem to apply it when Sydney is involved, not when Claire is around. It’s the most transparent double standard imaginable. I’ve seen one too many “I ship Carmy with therapy” memes, and I need to talk about it.😾.

When Carmy was with Claire, he was a mess..but people loved to romanticize it, acting like she was his “breath of fresh air,” even when she was just another distraction. Even he fell for it, tricking himself into believing the false sense of security she contrived for him.

When these people talk about Carmy and Sydney, suddenly it’s “he needs to work on himself first” as if the mere suggestion of them together is too high-stakes to even consider. It’s always “God forbid we have well-written female-male relationships without it being romantic.”

So we prefer shitty romantic relationships between the quirked-up white woman and our white male main character rather than the chemistry, character plot, and dynamic between Syd and Carm? Okay.

It’s not about Carmy’s emotional availability for these people. It’s about who people *want* to see him be available for, and it's not Sydney.

Why Do People Feel So Pressed About Sydcarmy, Anyways?

If Sydney were white—let’s be honest—this wouldn’t even be a conversation. The dynamic is already there. The intimacy, the trust, the undeniable chemistry. Their relationship fits the mold of that slow-burn, work-obsessed partners-to-lovers trope better than any other ship that actually makes it to canon.

But instead, people act like EVEN speculating about it is ridiculous, like the idea of Carmy feeling something deeper for Sydney is somehow beyond the realm of possibility. They’ll call it “forced,” “delusional,” or “just not where the story is going," as if every single element of storytelling isn’t deliberately crafted to suggest something simmering under the surface. Whether platonic or romantic, it's there. It’s genuine soulmate energy.

They pretend their dismissal of this ship has nothing to do with race, but race is an integral part of the ship because Sydney is a black woman.

It's almost like erasure in itself when they deny it's importance, as if there isn’t a long history of Black women in media being sidelined, desexualized, and treated as expendable when it comes to romance. Sydney isn’t “just a coworker.” She’s not “just his business partner.” She is one of the most important people in his career—and even his life—whether people want to admit it or not.

So yeah, maybe people need to interrogate *why* they can believe in Claire(a character who offered Carmy nothing but regression)but not Sydney, who actually represents something real.

Because if the reason is "Carmy's growth," you're bullshitting.

---

Tags

@fairestbeard @chefkids @thoughtfulchaos773 @yannaryartside

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

I don't want people to just think that i'm a chronic shipper for the sake of shipping. Or that I don't "understand the point" of The Bear. Or all of my shipping habits is only in spite of the misogynoir-ist Bear fans who claim Sydney is annoying and therefore unlovable or undeserving of love.

It's because, she's such a beautifully fleshed-out character. She holds so much of herself back and doesn’t open her walls to anybody. She really only relies on her dad, and even then, she hates the feeling of someone worrying about her. And it's one of the realest qualities to any character I've ever had the pleasure of seeing and watching within a piece of media..

So yeah, okay, I ship Sydney with three different guys on the show (I see the SydRichie potential, SydLuca, c'mon they're cute, and OBVIOUSLY Sydcarmy..) (yes, you can LOL) because I think they could all bring her out of her shell in different ways.

And this is not in an “oh, she’s dependent on another person and the show is totally a romance” kinda way , and no not in a "I think in order for her character to be fully fleshed out she needs a romantic interest"— but in a way that recognizes romance is in fact a large part of most people’s lives. And as a well-written character, she deserves a well-written arc that includes her allowing herself to be loved. Cherished. Adored. The way she deserves. The way that she's denied herself. The way that she's closed herself off to. Time and time again. (Her dodging Carmen's obvious about-to-be-ask-out in season two, or the way that she blew off his "I like this" statement just this season)

She’s done so much good for every single one of the other characters. So yeah, fucking sue me if I think:

Luca and his charm and openness to learning and skill and flirtatiousness could make her more confident

Richie’s commitment to growth could open a space for real honesty between them and their connections growth to shift and become something more together (-this I'm kind eh on but I def see the appeal and the potential some of y'all have pointed out)

Or, (as my shameless favorite): Carmen.

Carmen, the damaged, youngest, most driven, most “I-have-something-to-prove-even-when-I-don’t,” the self-destructive and the caring, the altruistic yet insanely flawed young man, could grow alongside Sydney.

In what has the potential to be one of the most beautifully written dynamics in TV history.

The most complex, D1 yearner, and developed relationships to be told in a story already so deep and complex and human.

To have the upper middle-class Italian white youngest son, Carmen, with ambition and anger and years of pent-up emotion, to choose financially struggling Black woman, Sydney, who had to fight to become an absolutely, deliciously impressive chef in a predominantly white male industry. (meta tagged below) And for her to choose him back.

And to be together. Create together.

To hold each other (accountable, and in love)

in consistent apologies, and growth, and change, in discomfort and in the face of adversity.

To keep choosing each other.

To be each other’s partners.

And yeah, none of this is even from a technical or meta mind. This isn't an analysis or a deep set and heavily researched post to show you guys the evidence of how the show will show her love.. it's honestly just a rant at this point. I defend and love Sydney's character so hard and I believe so deeply she deserves the love she avoids and she deserves to be held and looked at longing and lovingly the way she really, already is. And to be okay with it and not only okay with it but to accept it and love it right back.

---

I alluded to a lot of ideas brought up in a couple metas I've read the past few days in this rant so I'll tag 'em here:

@whenmemorydies "system" works

@habaritess "I like this" was a confession

@yannaryartside "why Sydney is the bear..."

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

Sydcarmy vs Clairecarmy shot type, script, and relationship differences.

I was watching some clips I had for an edit I was working on and then I realized some interesting things about the shot sizes and types used In Carmen's interactions with Claire and Sydney, and the differences between u which can be argued to further push the Sydcarmy agenda. So... Let me cook.

Claire and Carmy

Their INFAMOUS close up shots are often talked about among the fandom. These scenes are often viewed as imposing, absorbing, intrusive and sharp. This shot type is often in their scenes together after medium double shots or over the shoulder shots.

Their initial meeting is quick-cut to these close ups, mirroring how their relationship and connection is brought about. A simple accidental meeting (alternating single medium shots) straight- almost immediately - to these really intense close-ups that, even to people who don't like to analyze these things, felt really affected by.

The cinematography regarding their connection is quick to be close, some would even say too close, and I believe this is meant to reflect their exact relationship.

Let's discuss their "intimate" or "cute" scene at the party in season 2 episode 5. (I cut off the rest of their dialogue because I wanted to discuss/analyze the shot and cinematography choices mostly

- slow push in during initial dialogue about Carmens fake party persona, Logan. (Whom @yannaryartside has discussed EXTENSIVELY and always eats about so I won't go too deep about that just yet but check 'em out.)

- cut-to close up after Carmen attempts to make a genuine observation about Claire's character.

What's the effect?

The initial choice to start this scene off with a slow push into their dialogue gives a personal, real feel. Like you're really there at the party. This makes sense with their topic of discussion at the time, Carmen going along with this fake persona he's adopted at this party.

Then, Carmy changes the subject, trying to make a 'genuine' observation about who Claire is, who he thinks he is.

Carm: "With Kelly, you're really good at that."

Claire: "good at what?"

Carm: "uh... Listening"

But let's think about that observation real quick, it was pretty much fed to him, just like everything else he has ever known about Claire. He sees the image of her his family laid out of her, and now he's seeing this image of a caretaker and listener that she has put out for him. Or, rather, literally made a whole outing with him about, basically saying "lets go to a party so you can watch me comfort my sad friend."

I digress, paired with this dialogue, the slow push in is intentional, to set that kind of real connection and build up a good relationship would have. But then...

Cut to a close up of Claire at his observation. She goes on further to tell him about how in college she was the one that everyone went to and that she would take care of when intoxicated. Not only does this jump straight into the image that's been created and upheld by others of Claire for Carmy, but it also skips a good chunk of the way they could have gotten there from continuing its slow push in. The cut to Claire’s close-up feels like it’s reinforcing the manufactured, performative aspect of her persona. She’s always already presenting an image of herself and the one that Carmy’s been fed by others, and now he's seeing her perform it for him. There’s no real room for them to discover who each other truly are beneath the surface. They get pushed(heh) into that “perfect” intimacy too quickly, (hence the ungodly amount of close ups) and everything gets rushed and artificial. The choice to make their interaction so loose and slow and intentional, to tight and suffocating, cutting to close-ups where Claire is the one “listening” or “comforting,” reinforces how his perception of her has been shaped by external factors rather than his own emotional processing. (Also, kinda wanna talk about how in the clip above you hear the inflection of Carmy's line when he says "listening" goes up, sort of sounding like a question. Does he really know if she's good at listening or is that just what he's been told? Is that just what he's been shown? It sounds like he's questioning whether she is really a good listener or not)

The nature of Clairecarmy cinematography is supposed to be rushed, invading and almost immature, just like them.

As opposed to

Sydney and Carmy

For Sydcarmy, we'll talk about The Table Scene (cue the "oh brother"'s) - sorry I had to speed it up it's a VERY LONG SLOW PUSH

The table scene features a (very) long push-in on Carms and Sydney's interaction under the table with no cuts or major changes in their positions. This scene is often seen as one of the most intimate within this show. It's a real intimacy, as opposed to the contrived "intimacy" we see in clips of Claire and Carmy, where even their dialogue doesn't serve their connection and deepening it as much as the shot types they get do.

Let's discuss the differences between the table scene and the party scene.

That table scene is a chef’s kiss example for tension* in cinematography.

*fun, emotional, and genuine tension, maybe even sexual and romantic, but not malicious

The slow push-in during the Sydney and Carmy's conversation is such a stark contrast to the Claire-Carmy moments. Where Claire and Carmy’s shots are invasive and rushed, Sydney and Carmy’s are carefully measured, building that slow tension that just eats at you. Which is deliberate, of course, as everything with this show is. (Also remember how I brought up the questioning infliction in Carmy's 'observation' he made about Claire? Here, he makes a standing observation about Sydney without any unknowingness. "You like taking care of people." It's resounding. It's real. It's not contrived intimacy, it's natural.)

It's a direct contrast to any scenes of "intimacy" between Carmen and Claire. Just thinking about any scene of them together, there are quick cuts, quick close-ups and shot types that read intimacy parked with dialogue that... Doesn't.

Sydney and Carmy's scenes usually feature these slow push in's, but especially so for the table scene. Just like mentioned with the previous scene, this is supposed to be a reflection of their connection and relationship.

There's a lot of distance in the beginning, a slow, slow push in is like their slow connection building. Not only is this deliberate to bring us as the viewers closer to them, but to bring these characters closer together as well. These cinematography choices are made along with dialogue that is actually intimate rather than cheaply contrived to trick the viewer into believing it is real intimacy (like with almost every Claire and Carmy scene)

Then, there's a still moment in the middle of the push inwards, around when the wide shot becomes a medium. This may be supposed to signify that for them to grow closer, there will be some resistance to face there. Stagnation. This period could possibly be equivalent to season three? That was Carmen's stagnant and regressive state where he began to relive and react his traumas, making Sydney step back. In this moment as the shot stills Carmen's eyes are on Sydney. Just as he always keeps an eye on her. Reminds me of something from season three...

Then the still is broken and we get more of a push in, into an almost close-up, until they both exit from under the table.

This could mean a lot of things in the context of the cinematography reflecting their relationship. But the one that makes the most sense, (and that we pretty much already know) is that

They're both resistant to getting close. But they still want to be there for each other.

Cinematography and shot speaking, the moment ending mid-push felt abrupt. It felt like it could have gotten closer, but it didn't. The intimacy of the moment caught up with both of them, making their clean transition to a more stable position and a still shot type. (Above is a double cowboy shot - waist up, more comfortable[?])

But, script wise, it was a fully realized and well executed moment, that had a beginning middle and end. Their talk was real and cherished, transitioning to another moment where they share that they are not alone. This idea of leaving each other alone is, and becomes a very important motif throughout the series.

The flow of the cinematography differing from the flow of the script is not a mistake or a fluke. I believe that this is all completely intentional.

To us, we hear and we see the intimacy and the connection between these two. We heard their professions, and reassurances and their devotions to one another. What we're shown through the cinematography is a slowly building connection, that takes pauses at times, that has moments of stillness, but continues to push grow and learn alongside each other. We know, just as they know, that there is something there between them, and the transition from under the table to over it is reflective of their resistance. We don't really have those sort of close-up moments between Carm and Syd.

This is sort of saying, if we want to get them to let themselves get close to each other, they need to let it happen.

SO. To sum it up...

Clairecarmy scenes are feigning intimacy and faking the "build" to their connection - really just cutting straight to it

Sydcarmy scenes are real and hold a genuine intimacy between the two, but the only thing keeping it from being a fully realized relationship or connection is themselves. They need to let the build-up happen (because it does) and they need to let each other in(close-up to each other)

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

okay SO.. while there isn’t a *direct* quote of chris storer saying “i’m writing seven seasons of the bear,” there’s been talk that APPARENTLY there's enough material to go seven seasons if it keeps getting renewed. and like... based on how it’s paced? the way the relationships ('SPECIALLY SYDCARMY) are slow-burning and layered as hell? yeah. they’re in this for the long haul.

and i keep thinking about what @outmakingmoonshine pointed out: in season one, in the VERRYY FIRST EPISODE, carmy makes spaghetti and says “it took seven hours to prep.” SEVEN. HOURS. i have not known peace since connecting the two.

again it may be hearsay but the number 7 is too prominent for me to NOT be reaching a lil bit regarding it. Call me crazy...

but what if that’s the writers playing a long game? what if it’s not just about food prep, but a breadcrumb—like maybe it’s going to take seven seasons to fully develop syd and carmy’s relationship. to build it right. no shortcuts. just pressure, tension, growth, and then a real, earned resolution. Seven seasons to address all of Carmens traumas and hurt and healing. a seven-course meal of emotional payoff.

i’m not saying it’s CANON...

but i’m also not not saying it.

...

I might compile a list or appendix of all the '7' motifs cus I'm just that extra bit o' crazy

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

Oh, Carmy, Carmy, Carmy. The man who can turn a beef sandwich into a Michelin-worthy masterpiece but can't seem to manage his own mental health. Season three of *The Bear* has been a rollercoaster of culinary highs and personal lows, with Carmy spiraling into the very chaos he once sought to escape. But then, in the season three finale, enter Chef Terry—Andrea Terry, if you will—a beacon of wisdom in a sea of culinary turmoil.

As Ever's doors prepare to close, Chef Terry imparts a nugget of wisdom to Carmy: "You have no idea what you're doing, and therefore, you're invincible." At first glance, it might sound like a chef's version of a pep talk gone awry. But let's break it down, shall we?

Throughout the season, Carmy has been haunted by the ghost of Chef David Fields, his former mentor who believed in the "tough love" — or realistically more like abusive — approach to culinary excellence. Fields' methods left Carmy with ulcers, panic attacks, nightmares, trauma doomed to be repeated in an abusive cycle, and a fun memory of the chefs general disdain for black pepper. In contrast, Chef Terry embodies a nurturing spirit, emphasizing the importance of people over perfection. Her mantra, "Every Second Counts," isn't about relentless pressure; it's about cherishing the moments and the people who make them meaningful. The BACKSTORY of her famous mantra is even tender and born in sweetness and family, a stark difference to what was Carmy's experience with Chef Fields.

By telling Carmy he's invincible because he doesn't have it all figured out, Chef Terry is giving him permission to embrace uncertainty. She's encouraging him to let go of the need for control and perfection, to trust his instincts, and to lead with empathy rather than fear. This is the antithesis of the Carmy we've seen in season three—a man so consumed by the pursuit of excellence that he alienates those around him, and begins to lose himself in the middle of his unprocessed trauma through the only thing he knows which is working the human away.

"The more people I cut out, the quieter my life got"

Okay, my self isolating king!

But lets take, for instance, his interactions with Sydney. Instead of fostering a collaborative environment, as he often claims this season, Carmy often undermines her, believing his way is the only way. It's not how it starts in season two and the beginning of season three however, where they work shopped the menu together (despite his changing it everyday [🙄])This dynamic leads to tension and missed opportunities for growth. Chef Terry's advice serves as a wake-up call for him: it's okay not to have all the answers. In fact, embracing the unknown can lead to unexpected brilliance.

Richie has done to understand and he's tried to embrace in his own personal journey, and that difference in character is also what's keeping their divide all season, their serious lack of communication causing a strain in their relationship. But the strains present because they do truly love each other(this is a rant for another day)

I digress, this season concludes with a cliffhanger—Carmy's reaction to a seemingly mixed review from the Chicago Tribune—it's clear that change is on the horizon. Chef Terry's words are a catalyst for Carmy's evolution. They signal a shift from a leader driven by fear and perfectionism to one who leads with heart and humility. This transformation is essential for the survival and success of The Bear.

Not only chef Terry's words, but I believe and hope that when he finds out about SYDNEYS OFFER from Shapiro.

Ooph, oh boy that'll be a wake up call.

In essence, Chef Terry's parting words are a gift—a reminder that vulnerability and imperfection are not weaknesses but strengths. For Carmy, embracing this philosophy could be the key to unlocking not only his potential but also the true essence of what it means to be a chef.

Terry's vulnerability and tenderness is similar to Sydney's all throughout the series, especially season three(even referring back to the first episode when she encourages him to call Richie to make things right between them. The relationship that matters. Not Claire.)

If and (hopefully) when Carm finds out about Sydneys potential leaving, this will be a real pushing point for him to out into action Terry's words, realize that his control and repeated cycle of everything he's been through needs to change.

Just as Syd expressed early on in season one, The a bear became the very thing she wanted to escape from. People yelling and pushing, the constant chaos of what their industry is. And she and Carm both knew and still know that it can be different.

And Sydney has that opportunity with Shapiro, but Carmy will totally freak without her to enact that change.

Phew.

Anyways, I can't wait to see the post-review chaos, and hopefully some real growth on Carmy's end.

Season four, anyone?

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

I cannot interact with this fandom on Instagram or Reddit anymore. people just straight up hate sydcarmy in comments and even on tik Tok edits and clip posts, and say they "don't understand it" but I just know if Claire and Sydney's characters swapped actresses ppl would be all for Sydcarmy —if Molly Gordon were Syd and Ayo were Claire (thank God this isn't the case btw) — people wouldn't be so against it

It's very much unlike X-Files when Scully and Mulder ended up together, some fans were upset by this because they genuinely enjoyed the relationship based on platonic intimacy, but most fans were all for their romantic potential and eventually ending. Within The Bear, all the hold back I see doesn't come from character arcs or pacing, it seems like.. blatant discomfort with a white male main character having chemistry with the black female main character. If she was or looked like a "default" romantic interest or character archetype that is more often than not yt women, everyone would be eating sydcarmy up.

But when it's intentional in the cinematography, in the writing, and when the showrunners put two people with insane chemistry together and don't correct it or lessen it in the direction, where all of this is clearly deliberate, it's unfathomable. Carmen watching Sydney with gravity and watching and framing her tethered to his world? Suddenly we're all just 'reading into it'

It's not about "just not seeing it" it's about flat out refusal at this point. People ship white people who share an empty glance and a laugh or two in other 'comedies' like the teen drama Ginny and Georgia (I've seen... A few Abby x Marcus posts and that doesn't make sense to me but that's a completely separate topic)

And I don't know if there's going to be any payoff in defending this ship! I've made my peace with the potential that hey, maybe Storer and Calo don't know the potential they have here, and I can appreciate the show on so so so many levels as it's a beautiful story still; but I know that everything here is done intentionally, and that nothing means nothing. So it's not at all outlandish to be a sydcarmy enjoyer or believer.

Because we have heart and critical eyes, and we read into things it doesn't make us crazy it makes us people who wanna take everything the show runners give us. And that includes the relationships between the characters. Especially of the main characters with insane amount of chemistry.

[endlesslyhyperfixating]

Hi y'all if any of ya like Challengers pls like this edit:3