#reign 2x01 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

whenmemorydies · 26 days ago

Text

Sydney won't take Shapiro up on his offer

We all know that Sydney has the technical skill, the people smarts and the good business sense to find work outside of The Bear if she so chose. By the end of season 3, she's being pursued by one chef in particular (Adam Shapiro of Ever) to join him as he opens his own restaurant.

While she could leave The Bear - serving Carmy right for his treatment of Syd this past season - I don't think she's going to be jumping ship to Shapiro anytime soon. This is based on the conversation that Syd had with Shapiro in 3x07 Legacy. That convo had some call backs and call forwards that speak to a misalignment of values when it comes to running a restaurant together. Lets get into it.

Joy, collaboration and control

First, Shapiro tells Sydney that he wants to run his new restaurant but he doesn't want to cook all the time:

This contrasts to Carmy and Syd's discussion in 2x09:

Carmy: You still love to cook, right?

Sydney: Yeah.

Carmy: Yeah?

Which is followed by their cheeky chat about omelettes with boursin, chives and ridged potato chips (oooh fuck).

So we know Sydney loves to cook.

Carmy does too, even though we know he may not think its fun. Recall his convo with Richie in 2x01 Beef:

Carmy: This shit's not fun for me. (I swear he's saying this and not what the subtitles are saying lol)

Richie: Yeah, but you love it.

Carmy: That doesn't make it fun.

Still, there's the joy - the fun - we know that Carmy and Sydney have when they menu plan and cook together:

We also know from season 3 that both Carmy and Sydney are head down in the kitchen at The Bear. They're both overseeing the cooks, plating and running expo.

Contrast this with Shapiro who wants to run things but doesn’t want to cook every day. I’d go so far as to say he may not love cooking enough to want to keep doing it. Ultimately, Shapiro wants the control that comes with restaurant ownership but doesn’t want to take part in the creation - in the collaborative process - required to build his restaurant’s vibe (recall him telling Sydney it could be whatever she wants it to be in 3x07 Legacy):

Like @freedelusionshere has said repeatedly: Sydney craves collaboration. She did it all on her own with Sheridan Road. She's does not want to be running things on her own again at The Bear. She's reticent about relying on Carmy because as an only child and someone who ran her own business, she's used to being self-sufficient. Post 2x02-season-2 Carmy who bailed on the restaurant to numb himself with Claire and season 3 Carmy who's gone full Michelin-mode, icing her out of so much of the planning is probably giving Sydney even less reason to let herself be vulnerable enough with Carmy to fully rely on him. She indicates to Marcus in 3x05 Children that the idea of relying on someone is scary for her.

Given what we're shown in episodes 3x02 through to 3x04 prior to the above admission from Sydney, its almost certain that the "someone" she is talking about is Carmy.

Still, Sydney knows what she and Carmy can do together based on their frankness with one another in season 1 and their collaboration in season 2. She knows what Carmy promised her in 2x09 Omelette: that he wouldn't let her fail and in 3x01 Tomorrow: that he would never leave her to do it all by herself again. (OK we know he's gone in the entirely wrong direction on this in season 3 by fully taking the reigns himself…but the man is able to course-correct (remember how he made things right with both Marcus and Sydney in 1x08 Braciole?) and I hope he does this early on in season 4).

Above: Carmy reassuring Sydney in 2x09 Omelette that he won't let her fail and that she's not alone this time. Below: Carmy's vow to never leave Sydney to live a life apart from him run the restaurant alone again in 3x01 Tomorrow.

But Shapiro is not offering her any of that. He's letting her take the reigns - and consequently, the fall if anything goes wrong with his new venture - and I'm pretty sure that reality: that the buck for an entire restaurant with a full suite of staff is going to stop with Syd, is even more terrifying and misaligned for Sydney than what is happening at The Bear.

What Sydney doesn't know (but may suspect from Shapiro's offer to give her full control of the restaurant with precious little reason to - how did this man even get her phone number to begin with?) is that Shapiro may have a history of throwing other people under the bus to take the fall for his mistakes. Recall that the first time we are introduced to Shapiro in 2x07 Forks, he is yelling at the crew at Ever about a smudged plate:

After time-costing the effect of the smudge (47 seconds!), Shapiro insists that whoever caused the smudge own up to it. When no one does, he yells across the table at Richie's guardian angel, Garrett:

Shapiro: Fuck you, Garrett!

Garrett: Yes, chef. Fuck me.

Later in 3x10 Forever. we learn that its actually Shapiro who's known for smudging plates (initially from a guest at the dinner who makes a crack about smudges after Shapiro introduces the first dish of the night, and then from Luca in Ever's kitchen):

What's notable is that Sydney is present for both of the above smudge gibes. So while she may not know that Shapiro has a habit of blaming his staff for what are likely his own mistakes (RIP Garrett), she is made aware in 3x10 that the dude is sloppy and notoriously so.

Does it matter if Shapiro is a mess in the kitchen? Honestly, I wouldn't give a shit (lol) BUT I'm not the one pursuing a career in the restaurant industry. Sydney is in this business because she loves cooking AND because she wants to be inspired. This is the same woman who sought Carmy out at his family's old sandwich shop after trying one of his meals. She wants to be the best and she knows that in order to do that, she needs to learn and work under the best. Or the most excellent. Same diff.

Does Shapiro meet the standard that Sydney has for a mentor or collaborator? I don't think so.

Inheritances

Cutting back to 3x07 Legacy: earlier in their convo, Shapiro tells Sydney that he wants to start clean and he doesn't want to inherit anything (presumably from his current job with Chef Terry at Ever):

This is meant to be Shapiro addressing Sydney's concerns from 3x04 Violet when he catches her as she's leaving the train station:

Sydney: It's been a long month [at The Bear].

Chef Adam: Ah. That bad?

Sydney: No, just-- Restaurants.

Chef Adam: Yeah. Right? Why do we do this to ourselves?

Sydney: 'Cause we're crazy.

Chef Adam: Yeah. What was this month's crazy?

Sydney: Um. The kind that's inherited.

Chef Adam: *Nods emphatically* Understood.

The trouble is, as Carmy clearly lays out for us later in 3x07 Legacy, restaurants are built on inheritances. They're ancestral, like a family tree:

Carmy: Like, um, something would start somewhere, and then, uh, people would take that thing and then they would take it somewhere else. So, all these parts of an original restaurant, they would end up at a new restaurant and that kind of thing. That would happen over and over again. And then all these parts of all these restaurants, they would sort of-- You know, they would find each other. And then new people would take those parts and they would put 'em into their restaurant. And the whole thing, it would, um-- It would start to happen all over again.

Marcus: So, like a family tree or something?

Carmy: [looks to Syd who has her back to him, closing her locker] Yeah. Yeah, exactly.

In the context of family, we inherit things from our ancestors whether we want to or not. These things can be genetic (like skin colour, hair texture or the shape of an eye), psychic (intergenerational trauma, you old dog), economic (inherited wealth? I don’t know her), religious or cultural (like a well-loved dish passed down in families).

Some of these things are obviously strengths, even gifts of a kind. Others are challenges that we need to meet. None of them can be ignored. To do so - to start "clean" without trying to work through and integrate our inheritances, good and bad - is done at our own peril. In season 3, this is what Carmy has been doing: he gives little time to the good lessons he's learned from mentors and collaborators like Thomas Keller, Andrea Terry, Daniel Boulud, Mikey and Natalie Berzatto, Michelle Berzatto, Pete, Richie Jerimovic, Gary Sweeps, Ebraheim, Manny, Angel, Marcus Brooks, Tina Marrero and Sydney Adamu, and latches onto the toxic behaviours and practices of David Fields and his mother, Donna Berzatto. To his credit, Richie rightly pulls Carmy up on this in 3x03 Doors (You're not fully integrated!).

When Shapiro says he wants to start clean and doesn't want to inherit anything, he posits a future where no lessons are learned and where no joy or pride is passed down. This is a future without memory. And to quote A.S. Sivanandan (and my tumblr username-sake):

When memory dies, a people die.

Or to put it another way: living a life without memory, without history, is no life at all. Its living in a decontextualised void or vacuum. And neither voids or vacuums hold the requisite components for supporting life.

Shapiro's wish for no inheritances also reminds me of this promo still for The Bear which @thoughtfulchaos773 posted about recently:

This is a shot of Carmy in the kitchen in Empire. The writing on the wall next to him reads:

Its only after we've lost everything we're free to do anything.

This quote was likely written by Chef David Fields who made a living out of terrorising his staff, getting them to subtract everything from their lives until their world revolved around his kitchen. Recall him telling Carmen in 3x10 Forever:

Chef David: So you got rid of all the bullshit, and you concentrated, and you got focused, and you got great. You got excellent.

The "bullshit" here being Carmen's entire existence outside of work. Fields allowed no inheritances from any of the staff in his space. The result? A team likely suffering the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and god knows what else.

Sydney is not about voids or vacuums. She is not about living a life without context. She has shown us time and time again that she listens to history and does her best to integrate it. My favourite example of this is her building an entire fucking kitchen in The Beef's parking lot when the restaurant loses power and gas.

Despite her own trauma from the world of catering, she remembered the lessons she learned there (particularly around innovation and resourcefulness) and she saved the day - and The Beef - from ruin.

Now while Carmy is struggling to integrate in season 3, he has never shied away from inheritances in his work. The most salient example of this is the sandwich window at The Bear which still serves up the Italian beef sandwiches that his family is known for. Something tells me that if it had been Shapiro in Carmy's shoes, he would have nixed that idea completely.

The devil is a snake

And finally, unrelated to any life lessons inferred from the show is the allegorical warning about Adam that we are given in 3x01 Tomorrow.

Recall this scene in the third season premiere where Carmy, Luca and Shapiro are shucking peas at Ever.

Its clear Carmy is working at a speed that Luca and Shapiro find it hard to match. Shapiro is seen looking over at Carmy's tub of peas and whispering fuck in surprise/jealousy:

The camera then dips to Shapiro's tub of peas, which we can see is running low compared to Carmy's.

There are also what appear to be three apple slices on Shapiro's cutting board. They only appear at his work station. Carmy and Luca do not have anything other than peas in front of them.

We know that almost everything we see and hear on screen in The Bear is intentional and I reckon these apple slices are no different. So what could they mean?

The Bear utilises a lot of Biblical imagery and narrative and I think these apple slices continue in that vein. In the Old Testament of the Bible, there is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Eve is seduced into eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil by a serpent. In Western retellings of the story, the forbidden fruit is often described as an apple. As a result of this deception by the snake, Adam and Eve are booted from Eden.

Back at The Bear, we have three slices of apple on Chef Shapiro's cutting board. I think these represent three attempts by Shapiro to tempt Sydney to join his new restaurant (i.e. get her to eat the forbidden fruit that will result in her getting booted from The Bear and the life she's built there)

In season 3, Shapiro puts his offer to Sydney twice: once in 3x07 Legacy and again in 3x10 Forever:

I suspect that Shapiro is going to try one last time to get Sydney on side in season 4, but she'll turn him down. Eve might have trusted a snake but Sydney's got better instincts lol.

Now whether she will stay at The Bear is another story and one entirely dependent on Carmy getting his shit together in season 4. But the way I see it, Sydney certainly won't be leaving her found family in order to join Shapiro. I mean who has time for disloyalty, smudges and snakes when you have people to feed and make happy?

#the bear #the bear fx #the bear hulu #sydcarmy #sydney adamu #carmen berzatto #the bear meta #chef adam shapiro

57 notes · View notes

eemoo1o-tfrmoo · 1 year ago

Text

Snotlout Jorgenson and the art of defiance*, defamation, and daddy issues

* I will be including his demeanour as a doormat alongside this. I will not be discussing his dissipation in this post as well.

Today, I will be studying Snotlout in (RTTE) and his issues with rule abiding and control management and how his relationship with his father affects this.

The episodes in particular I will be deriving my sources from are:

Reign of Fireworms (1x07)

Team Astrid (2x01)

And, Darkest Night (6x10)

Additionally, an episode I will also be looking at, though only briefly, includes:

Big Man on Berk (1x05)

Firstly, we look at Reign of Fireworms for his acts of defiance towards leadership, with his vast background of defying Hiccup in reference.

(Wow, Tumblr really ate the quality on my already crunchy gif.)

Admittedly, this is a shy example in comparison to anything else I could have picked. Snotlout is known for defying orders and challenging leadership (with Hiccup and later Astrid respectively). However, what makes this episode so different is how Snotlout is so indecisive over the twins’ leadership. Allow me to put a pin in that for later.

Unlike other instances of rejecting leadership, Snotlout reacts similarly to the other riders over the twins’ new roles as Island Rulers, but the main difference between Snotlout and the others is that Snotlout seems to hold no filter over the matter, which is shown with how he is the first to protest, insult, attempt to rebel, and even propose to off the twins.

However, unlike the rest of the riders, Snotlout’s perspective on the twins’ leadership is quick to change when —

The twins give him a job that he likes: “sergeant at arms”.

This job is significant, and as such a role of power. This is seen throughout the episode where Snotlout is the one to throw all of the other riders (save from the twins, but eventually including himself) in jail.

Snotlout is the only one of the riders (with perhaps the exception being Fishlegs, but we don’t see much of that) to take his job, and the twins’ ridiculous rules, the most seriously.

However, once he throws himself in prison — claiming that “he was framed” — he is quick to side with the other riders’ rebellion again.

The main rule that Snotlout is seen sticking to most is the “no S” rule. At first, he seems adverse, with the twins calling for his as “Notlout”, and him completely missing the point, asking who that is and shrugging.

However, once fully embracing his role as “egeant at arm”, Snotlout is heard attempting to remove any S’s from his speech as often as he can. Until he throws himself in jail.

The “throwing himself in jail” aspect of the episode is only used to get the riders all together again, and as a gag, but if we look at it more earnestly it’s sort of telling of how seriously Snotlout took the role and how he was playing into the role so much that he became a different person from his regular self.

Such evidence could be seen in how he claims “I was framed!” instead of “I wa framed!”.

I’m not implying that I think Snotlout has DID, but I am implying that I think his father (and other adults of Berk) — and the first movie — has something to do with this.

As far as I recall, in the first movie, Snotlout was the leader of the teens, and bully of Hiccup. I think it’s also implied that he’s the teen (or all of the teens are, excluding Hiccup) who’s well revered as being what a Viking should be for being strong and hard-headed, but now those are the characteristics that many on Berk frown upon him for. (The civilians even cheered for his death in the Defenders of Berk finale — another gag at Snotlout’s expense.)

I believe it’s also said or at least implied in the first film that Hiccup wants to be like the other kids, specifically Snotlout, and that Snotlout and Astrid were a thing, though the latter seems more expendable for my point to be made.

Now, Thawfest seems to be the only place where Snotlout can prevail over Hiccup (resented family name aside), and as such live up to his father’s expectations to some degree. We even see this inferred with how Snotlout is panicking in the final race over how “he can’t lose”.

We move onto the Defamation element of my analysis, with the few points I’d just made, and as such we skip to the episode Darkest Night.

In this episode, each of the riders (with the exception of Astrid and Hiccup) pitch each of their ideal realities if they’d never gone to Dragon’s Edge.

In Snotlout’s reality (after intruding on the ending of Fishlegs’) is one where he is promoted from Berk’s official weapon tester to their official weapon inventor.

Comparatively, this would be like a drug tester suddenly becoming a pharmacist, or a stunt man inexplicably becoming a choreographer.

The original job (weapon tester) in and of itself is telling of how Berk now views Snotlout. And while no one really mentions how dangerous or implicative the job actually is, we can see for ourselves the danger the job includes in both the twins’ reality and Race to the Edge’s first episode (as the twins’ reality starts off with a clip from the first episode where they place a wheelbarrow of sharp objects next to Snotlout’s pile of pillows whilst he’s testing out a catapult).

I don’t think this job would have been distributed to anyone smart enough to decline it, or at least well-liked enough to dissuade the distributor of said job to offer it to that person. As such, the job is very implicative in how Berk views Snotlout, whether he’s aware of it or not.

Now, in the episode, with the promotion Snotlout gives himself, he emerges from an explosion which is reminiscent of how the first film introduces the rest of the teens, only this time Snotlout is alone.

Unlike the others’ unrealistic realities, Snotlout’s is more like a fantasy than anything.

Not only does this fantasy feed into Snotlout’s egotistical point of view (as this is entirely centric on him, and other characters that are shown in this fantasy don’t pass the Snotlout-based Bechdel test), but we are also reminded of the time when Snotlout was well-liked: the first film, before Berk befriended dragons (though the dragons are still their friends in Snotlout’s fantasy, because as defamed as Snotlout’s image now is in contrast, I don’t think he’d give up Hookfang for the world — inexplicable explosion in the beginning of his fantasy aside), and even in Astrid’s alternate timeline where Berk hadn’t befriended dragons, and Snotlout is also well-liked by Stoick and others.

Firstly, Snotlout states that he invents this superweapon, though what is depicted is an unimaginatively unusable combination of all pre-existing weapons, though in the fantasy everyone adores the ‘invention’. I have the sense that while this isn’t stated to compete with Hiccup’s fire-sword, it is an attempt, because in the real world Hiccup inadvertently overshadows Snotlout in every possible aspect. Even Thawfest, however fleetingly.

In Snotlout’s fantasy, Gobber — who is very infamous for not taking Snotlout seriously or viewing him with any high regards — is the first to interact with Snotlout the Inventor by being completely enamoured with his invention, and praising him profusely on it.

When Hookfang appears in the fantasy just after, his tongue is hanging just marginally out of his mouth and his pupils are large and rotund, and he flies off whilst allowing Snotlout to remain standing on him.

The pupils of a dragon are shown time and time again to be easy tells of their mood. Narrow for hostile or under the influence of mind control (via Death Songs, Bewilderbeasts, Red/Blue/Green Deaths, so on), and wide/large for comfortable, adoring or even playful, as well as under the influence of dragon nip.

However, what makes Hookfang’s expression here most odd — as fantastical as it is — isn’t the very adoring way it’s depicted, but rather the shape of his pupils. We’ve seen Hookfang’s pupils dilated before, but they aren’t ever as round as they are here.

The dragon with the roundest and largest pupils that we know of is actually Toothless (the Night Fury, and as such the Light Fury). While Toothless’ pupils go a bit squarer as the movie series goes on, in the way they are depicted in Race to the Edge they are round, and as such so are Hookfang’s here.

This is obviously another way of showing that Snotlout wants what Hiccup has. In a way, he wants Hookfang to see him like Toothless sees Hiccup.

(A note worth adding us that in Snotlout’s fantasy, there’s even a metal statue of himself on Hookfang which he kisses the cheek of. This feeds into the egotistical side of things, but also serves as a callback to the Riders of Berk episode When Lightning Strikes.)

There’s also this golden, smoky hue over Snotlout’s fantasy which is lacking in the others’ concepts for an alternate reality, which perhaps could symbolise how this is an ideal, self-serving idea, and that these would have been golden memories for Snotlout, if they were to exist.

Next, we see Astrid fawning over Snotlout and then, the moment he is to land, his father scoops him up and says “You make me proud to be a Jorgenson, boyo!”, which is a recurring theme in Race to the Edge with how Snotlout expresses a true desire to hear this.

Which brings us, briefly, back to season one, with the episode Big Man On Berk.

In short, as stated in @jesse-the-writer’s post here, Snotlout seeks validation from men he deems strong, such as Thor and Dagur, due to his faulty relationship with his father.

He idolises them (Dagur more so in and before Riders and Defenders of Berk than after), in a manner similar to how he idolises his father, and in doing so he ignores how they write him off (Thor and Dagur), or forget his name countless times after being corrected (Dagur), or even insult his dragon (Thor) by laughing it off awkwardly and sometimes agreeing.

And all of the above is reminiscent of how Spitelout treats him (mostly in Riders and Defenders of Berk, but in a few instances of Race to the Edge also).

Psychoanalytically, the way parents treat their child pays a big role in how they view and act in relationships. This source focuses on romantic relationships, however some key elements can be attributed to platonic relationships, also.

“For instance, if your parents were not very affectionate and hardly ever hugged or kissed you, you may have an aversion to affection as an adult.”

I recall in the Defenders of Berk episode Scauldy, that when Astrid finally returns Snotlout’s affections/serial flirting (albeit in an insincere but well-acted way), Snotlout is immediately deterred and as such disgusted by her advances.

This is seen again with Ruffnut in the second and third film, and how he is quick to move on from and disregard her when she finally shows interest (albeit in both him and Fishlegs).

This shows that Snotlout actively pursues relationships (assumably romantic) where he is led to believe that his affections will not be returned or where they outright are not. Seeing as Spitelout, too, is not very affectionate, this could be a direct cause to Snotlout’s inability to find mutual affection very favourable or at the very least pleasant.

(A note worth mentioning is that in the season six episode Mi Amore Wing, Snotlout is the most visibly disgusted by the extreme affection shared between Mala and Dagur.)

Now, the most important question: is Snotlout aware of his father’s bad parenting? For that we go to the episode Team Astrid.

(The true villain of How To Train Your Dragon was Hiccup all along.)

Well, of course he is.

I think there’s something to be said for the change in Snotlout’s design. I won’t go too much into the theory here, but when Snotlout was younger he looked more like his father which shows that back then he was probably more blindsided to his father’s bad parenting ethics.

However, now that he is older he looks less like his father (squarer jaw, lighter skin, less freckles, shifted teeth), albeit still related in some way, which could be seen as a metaphor for how Snotlout is still looking up to his father, but is more aware than what he once was about what is so inherently wrong in their relationship (if not directly).

(This theory of mine also includes the idea as to why Spitelout has Deadly Nadder over a Monsteous Nightmare, which is briefly explained in the tags of this post here.)

As such, Snotlout clearly wants revenge that “the world owes him” (a line which could also double as him being owed for passing this opportunity up to actually listen to one of Hiccup’s orders, a trait which he gets better at in most instances as Race to the Edge goes on).

The way that Snotlout also puts emphasis on “I” and “him” here also implies that this is what Spitelout’s influence and presence over him is: a means to correct and shape him in a way that puts him down and never allows him to meet expectations, at least not fully. As such, this affects his ego and desire to be known, seen, as well as his view on relationships that hold a mutually professed affection whilst he still craves and shows a longing for his father’s approval and praise which deters him from anyone else’s (causing him to seek out relationships that are not mutually beneficial).

However, while I believe that Snotlout and Spitelout’s relationship isn’t beneficial to either parties, and as such toxic but not purposefully so (in fact I can imagine Spitelout’s relationship with his own father having been quite similar, but there is no evidence to support this, as far as I recall), I do not believe that it is inherently parasitic (otherwise I would be quoting the twins’ ramble about such relationships from Living on the Edge).

To sum up this analysis, I bring you these points:

Defamation: Snotlout was once well-liked amongst other Berkians for being strong and courageous but since Hiccup befriended the dragons Snotlout has since been pushed aside for the reasons he was once held in high esteem for.

As such, this makes him envious of Hiccup, and Hiccup’s relationship with Toothless, as Hiccup is now the one that everyone likes.

Defiance: This means that he is all too willing to prove and make a fool of himself due to this as well as trying to show to his father that he can amount to his expectations, and as such disregard most orders.

This makes Snotlout very willing to abide rules when he his put in a position of power above others, as seen in Reign of Fireworms. However he can sometimes get too carried away and disassociate himself from the role the more seriously he takes it.

Daddy issues: His and his father’s relationship is the reason why he chases relationships that treat him as the underdog despite his own ego, that either have him pursuing the forever unreciprocated (i.e. Astrid, and later Ruffnut) or even those that he idolises but is always disregarded (like Thor and Dagur), which could be seen as him trying to recreate his and his father’s relationship or perhaps search for the affection he has never properly received, but is immediately deterred once potentially finding or receiving it.

A part of Snotlout sees what is wrong with his and his father’s relationship, as seen with how he wishes to enact revenge through treating his father as he did him.

I think that the damage caused to Snotlout and his relationship with his father isn’t entirely reversible, I do believe that their relationship could reform. However, I don’t think them finding a means of doing so is entirely possible.