#storer was storing

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

It's a fake restaurant but... it's a real legend about lovebirds.

Source: mdbooks.com

Fairest Creatures

Fairest Creatures was a Shakespearean trap Storer set up in S1 and he's still long conning it.

The obvious interpretation of the name of that restaurant that doesn't exist is that it's named after the Shakespearean sonnet #1 and the meaning behind it is that the protagonist must leave a legacy so their ephemeral beauty will live on. Lovely. Totally in sync with the leitmotiv of the show and where the show is going, etc... #Boring

BUT

Fairest Creatures exists in CA as a very special winery

Source: FairestCreatures.com

As the legend goes: they are lovebirds.

The red and the blue are in her jacket and in the napkins too and in everything Sydcarmy because those colors represent THEM. She's his red, his fire. He's the blue, the sad boy who through his love for her re-discovered his true purpose in life.

The meaning behind that award that was shown to us to get to know Carmy's background a bit better is not letting us know he was a talented young chef, not that the restaurant was called fairest creatures because it had a Shakespearean connotation, the reason why Storer planted that in plain sight back then was because the fairest creatures are Carmy and Syd, THE LOVEBIRDS, according to the Chinese poem. Shakespeare has nothing to do here. He was nothing but a smokescreen in this case.

Also, this could be a foreshadowing of Syd winning the JB Award too, eventually, as I have been predicting for a while now. S4 sounds like the best timing for that award to happen, to put the "bad review" behind.

Bonus track: I think the whole cast of Fairest Creatures is this:

Remember to follow my tag #Gingerpovs 💋

[reshirfuse]

having an east asian family is so fucking funny at gatherings cause a group of 10+ people cannot finish a third bottle of wine and it gets to me every time

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

This is the sleight of hand Storer served FOR A WHOLE SEASON to make it longer and confessed in 03x07

What Ruins Romance Between Characters

Also keep in mind I’m not a professional writer. This is just a list of things I think absolutely destroys chemistry

Lack of Communication & Proximity: It should be a no-brainer that the two characters in love would also want to be together as much as possible. However, for some authors, what they don't do is just that. Automatically, these characters become more like strangers than people that are dating/married/pining for each other. If you want to build romance start with them actually talking and putting them in situations that demand them to work as partners.

No Show of Physical or Verbal Affection: Another no-brainer. How're you going to want your reader to love them if they don't show it? Even enemies-to-lovers will always figure out a way to make a scene more tense and filled with desire as long as your characters are giving us hints that they want something more than just what they currently are.

One-Sided Pining: Do not have one character doing all the romantic gestures! Readers will think the receiver of the affection is undeserving of their partner. I can assure you, nobody wants to see only one person doing all the heavy-lifting in the relationship. It's boring, sad, and will likely make readers want that character to leave the relationship asap.

Wildly Different Perspectives/Nothing in Common: You're bound for writing a breakup if this is the situation of your characters throughout the entirety of the story. Unless they slowly come to understand one another and meet in the middle, this romance will fail.

Arguing More Than Loving: If your characters are constantly arguing with no intentions to stop it, they are no longer compatible for each other. You are writing a toxic couple that hate one another and forcing them together is unlikely to make the average reader want to continue any further. I've seen some writers do an excellent job of a couple arguing but always trying to be better for their significant other. If you want them to argue solely because this is enemies-to-lovers, some time soon they're going to want to stop being an asshole to the person they like.

Better Romance With Other Characters: If Character A is supposed to be with Character B, but Character C is becoming the ideal, then I'm afraid to tell you the romance will not work between A and B. To avoid this, make them communicate less, have less in common, spend less time together and give more attention to Character B. Take away the roles that make Character C more compatible and give it to B. This doesn't mean you should completely change C, it just means you need to do everything you can to put the focus back on B, and if that's too much then consider ending whatever B and A have.

Too Slow/Fast to Fall in Love: Characters that take 20 seasons and 3 movies to confess is insanely slow. We are starving for the romance that was promised in the story, eventually readers will stop reading because that is not being satisfied. Pacing is incredibly important and you need to take into account the behaviours Character A will have with Character B. Also, don't make them instantly fall in love, I feel everyone in the writers and readers community know this very well. That's not how people work, you actually have to try to know each other first.

Only Together for Sexual Gratification: I don't even have to do a lot of speaking for this. Unless the characters become part of each other's lives outside of the bedroom then the chemistry does not exist.

Lack of Trust/Keeping Secrets: There has to be someone that knows their partner more than anyone else. Keeping secrets will show the readers that Character A does not love their partner enough to trust them with important information. It's fine if they're keeping a few secrets maybe-- major ones-- to protect Character B, but constantly lying and being unwilling to share is the beginning of what we call "falling out of love." Even worse is if Character A went ahead and shared their deepest insecurities with Character C.

Priority is Not The Significant Other/No Sacrifices: All relationships have done something that must be done in order to make the relationship work. If Character A will not give up something that they know upsets their partner/crush then they are not ready to be with someone. In order to love someone you must devote time and have interest in them. If your character chose some external desire over Character B, then this will not work. Their greatest desire should be Character B.

Unrealistic Standards & Expectations: We can't have characters choosing each other for surface-level wants to be satisfied. Readers will end up seeing characters changing their entire personality for their partner and their entire body to fit an image they were not made for. If your readers know Character B very well and it's that Character B would never turn away a friend for example, and suddenly they cut ties with all their friends because Character A doesn't like them, then I'm sorry but this is toxic. You can't change someone's characteristics in the middle of the story to help Character A.

No Conflict: What relationship is truly perfect? There will be arguments and setbacks that need to be explored. This is a fun way at having a deeper level of understanding on why your characters are having a conflict of interest. It's quite stale when everything is happy-go-lucky with no issues, you don't need to make them breakup or anything just a simple disagreement can show a ton for readers on the complexities of Character A and B as people who operate differently together.

Underdeveloped Character with No Goals: Some shows I've watched put time and effort in flushing out one character and completely forget about their life-long partner. Uhm, hello? What's going on?? If you write Character A with their entire lore and family tree or whatnot and then-- oh side note, they also really love Character B-- excuse me, who's Character B? Give us some sign that Character B is capable of thoughts and has dreams of their own. Do not make it revolve around Character A either.

Couple Do Not Interact with Anyone Aside From Each Other/No World Building: Similar to the point above, if these characters only know and see each other, you will lose readers. We are sick and tired of stories where the overarching story has been reduced to two people. If the story is about them, then introduce us to their lives outside of their partner. Can they operate as a functioning creature with thoughts without their partner? Do they have friends and family? Do they go to work and school? Are there fears they have? There's tons of material to choose from, pick anything.

Too Much Interference: Although it's fun to watch two characters do anything to get closer to each other it can become annoying when there's simply way too many characters and situations that separate them. We want all that hard work to be rewarded to Character A when they finally get what they want, Character B. Even a little bit of talking alone, being alone, finally away from the chaotic world is more than enough. Let your characters be alone.

══✿══╡°˖✧✿✧˖°╞══✿════✿══╡°˖✧✿✧˖°╞══✿══

~~~ MASTERLIST

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

CODE RED!

Chefs, FX spoiled it already, Syd is signing the agreement, she's staying.

Full article here:

THANK FUCKING DOG!

[melfinawins]

One of my favorite things about watching The Bear is the scene where Carmy sees Claire at the grocery store. And she's wearing the same thing Syd was wearing when Syd decided to come back into Carmy's life after quitting.

And then Storer says in an interview somewhere that we're seeing Claire through Carmy's eyes. Claire, who is dressed like Syd, hair half up/half down, brown purse on her shoulder, green puffer jacket and all.

Okay, Carmy.

[yannaryartside]

God I just saw a video essay about the Bear and the guy who made it even recognized that the clairexcarmy scenes that seem to try to makes us care about the relationship and all the other Claire scenes where so perpetually shallow, that she is still a manic pixie “bunny girl” in his own words, but he suggested that she may need her own episode so the audience can get “to know her mind”…🤢

Like, I know is difficult to tell what exactly is so wrong about her, but is interesting that even the people that straight up don’t care about a ship that is two seasons in the making don’t get to imagine is because that’s the intention of the show. Is like those characters that you may not trust but may not completely dislike either.

But this guy also seemed to think that Syd didn’t have a right to move forward from the Bear so…

My biggest problem is I also understand the people that say Syd doesn’t do much, and I am pretty sure that’s her arc, to let her take the wheel of her own life next season once and for all.

There is a lot of racism and misogyny involved in this discussion, but even the people that are not stupid like that, seem to not suspect of Claire (in part because is the shows intention to misdirect them) but also because what they have seen from Syd is not enough for them to root for her. The same way some people didn’t root for Richie until “Forks”

God I am rambling. There is a discussion to have about what makes people care about characters because I rooted for Richie since the phone call in the trip to the store.

I refuse to believe that they haven’t make Claire unlikeable on purpose when Richie was the most obnoxious character and was reddened in my eyes whiting two hours of content while Claire was showcased for two seasons already and is still so shallow. If this was a relationship/character to root for they would have managed to make us care. Shippers or not. She is a doctor for Christ sake, one of the most noble professions in this world and she is still impossible to swallow.

And I rooted for Sydney upon seeing her, because I know what is like to be in an industry you don’t seek to be made for. She is genuine and flawed.

I love her to death. But she frustrates me. She is also stuck in an awful narrative that Carmy is the catalyst for. All her insecurities and fears keeping her in place and I know that’s the intention.

All this to say Storer, you better giver Syd her own episode and it has to be better than Forks and Napkins combined.

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

Yeah. Agreed I actually posted this a few weeks ago myself, Storer uses the 🚩 symbolism

The Bear “Pop” episode (S2x05) and the use of signs.

*so this meta is based on the assumption that The Bear is using magical realism in its story telling. Take it as seriously as your delusion can carry cos we love being delusional in here and having a marvelous time.(Yeah, Carmy! Fun. Get it?)😁

I noticed a few things upon re-watching the show for the umpteenth time. I never liked episode 5 because it was so Claire-centric and seemed very bleh but because I was still trying to be objective about it, I tried to watch it again and I couldn’t escape the way danger signs were grabbing me throughout the episode.

The abundance of red:

 Red could signify passion, desire or even adventure. It could also signify danger. It took a while to get it; why I had the feeling of unease throughout the episode before (I had chalked it up to just the corny dialogue and cringe dramatics), now I strongly believe it was intentionally shot in the way it was, both the cinematography and dialogue to create that effect within the viewer (hypothetically, of course, one can’t be entirely sure).

 The use of red flagging:

-At the beginning red tapings are shown throughout the restaurant as part of the renovations.

-We see Carmy trying to get a hang of the mechanics of the prep markings and never making time on it much to his frustration. He is repeatedly shown against a red backdrop. This already sets up the idea that Carmy might be in danger of some sort.

- Uncle Jimmy comes in and takes over the background. We would later discover along the show (season 3) that he’s having money problems- basically going broke.

-They show Carmy tearing down a red barrier to gain access, which might be indicative that he isn’t reading the signs. Later he calls Claire, despite showing signs of feeling discomfort about it. This feeds the major progression of the episode.

-After a lackluster errand posting mail with Claire, They attend a party (I’m not even going to go into the cringe/disturbing segue into the party invitation, just focusing on the use of signs). Once, they get into the venue there is an unmistakable abundance of red- from the cups, bowls and various containers to the decorations- it’s just glaring red.

-Also before the party scene, we see Nat breaking the news to Syd that Carm has been hanging out with Claire and there’s red peppered throughout Nat’s background and she’s wearing a red inner top.

-His misery at that party is palpable as well but we won’t focus on that. Neither will we focus on the recoil inducing Logan saga. When Carm and Claire have their (romantic?) aside they are enveloped in a sea of red.

-Carm invites Claire to the restaurant and even there she is constantly against a red sign. She meets Syd and both of them immediately seem to be placed in a conflicting position as Syd is irked about Carmy abandoning his duties (and possibly also jealous). Claire is mostly flanked by a red sign, Syd is shown against an orange backdrop (orange could signify optimism, happiness, etc).

Syd leaves soon after.

-While Carmy and Claire are hanging out in the restaurant, Claire asks “What’s with all the green?” She doesn’t notice the red tapes and plasters but she wonders about the greens, which basically indicate the things he actually needs to be working at, at that time and in general green is also associated with growth, progress, etc. On the whiteboard, “carm/syd menu review” is written and circled in green.

While showing her around, he explains that ideally the prep should pass from station to station in five seconds and she comments that it’s fast. Carmy agrees “we’re very fast”, which seems to be a double entendre signifying that the relationship is moving too fast.

-Fak interrupts them as they try to kiss. He goes to send Fak away and when he turns to rejoin Claire, she is seen framed in taping, in what looks like a red question mark with the clock in view. ?! This is the first thing I had noticed and what made me re-watch the episode more closely.

 

Then I found this bone chilling clue:

This had been one of my personal worst part of the episode and seemed like a complete waste of scene- until it didn’t !!

While going into the house hosting the party, they are accosted by a weirdo who calls Carmy “bro” and claims to have been in the same wrestling team as him. Carmy doesn’t even recognize him. He then asks Carmy,

“What are you doing?”

Not, what are you doing here? Not, where have you been?

WHAT ARE YOU DOING????

And it sounds spookily like an accusation, a plea, a warning: A message.

Carmy is making a mistake! Maybe the mistake is the person, maybe the timing, maybe the approach. But Carmy in that moment is making a mistake.

We’ll see in consequent episodes that Carmy is quite spiritual. That whenever he looks up he actually is sending a prayer. He was actually the only one who took the “our mother of victory prayer” seriously, whereas it was more tongue-in-cheek for his other siblings. So maybe he was receiving a message from his higher power, or maybe from Michael, even(bro).

 

But in true Carmy fashion, he just wouldn’t listen!

[amphibious-thing]

Pink is for Boys

"Pink or Blue? Which is intended for boys and which for girls? This question comes from one of our readers this month, and the discussion may be of interest to others. There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." ~ The Infants' Department, June 1918

[Left: The Blue Boy, oil on canvas, c. 1770, by Thomas Gainsborough.

Right: The Pink Boy, oil on canvas, c. 1782, by Thomas Gainsborough.]

Pink is for girls and blue is for boys. But it hasn't always been this way. Colour coding infants as a way of denoting gender was popular in 20th century America. The problem? Pink and blue? Which is for boys and which is for girls?

In 1927 TIME Magazine asked ten of the "leading stores that sell baby equipment" which colour was for which gender. Four stores responded pink for girls and blue for boys; Macy's (Manhattan), Franklin Simon (Manhattan), Wanamaker's (Philadelphia) and Bullock's (Los Angeles). Five stores responded pink for boys and blue for girls; Best's (Manhattan), Marshall Field's (Chicago), Filene's (Boston), Maison Blanche (New Orleans) and The White House (San Francisco). Curiously Halle's (Cleveland) responded that pink was for both boys and girls.

This debate would continue and it wasn't until mid-20th century that pink for girls and blue for boys became firmly cemented in western culture.

However the idea of colour coding infants dates back to the 19th century. According to La cour de Hollande sous le règne de Louis Bonaparte in 1808 in Holland pink was used to announce the birth of a girl and blue a boy. In March 1856 Peterson's Magazine (Philadelphia, USA) advises that the ribbon on a christening cap should be blue for a boy and pink for a girl. On the 23rd of July 1893 the New York Times writes that for baby clothes it's "pink for a boy and blue for a girl!"

[The Oddie Children, oil on canvas, c. 1789, by William Beechey, via North Carolina Museum of Art.]

During the latter half of the 18th century one of the most popular outfits for young children, regardless of gender, was a white dress with a coloured sash tied around the waist. Pink and blue being the most popular colours, although other colours were worn as well. It would be tempting to assume that the colour of the sash indicated gender but there isn't clear evidence that this was the case. The Oddie Children (above) depicts Sarah, Henry, Catherine, and Jane Oddie. The three girls are all wearing white dresses; two with a blue sash one with a pink sash. We also see Henry Russell (bellow left) wearing a blue sash and Prince William (bellow right) wearing a pink sash.

[Left: Anne Barbara Russell née Whitworth with her son Sir Henry Russell, oil on canvas, c. 1786, by George Romney, via Woolley & Wallis.

Right: Prince William, oil on canvas, c. 1767, by Allan Ramsay, via the Royal Collection Trust.]

Pink was just one of the many colours popular in 18th century English womenswear and seems to have stayed popular throughout the century. On the 3rd of January 1712 The Spectator published an article in which a man recalls seeing "a little Cluster of Women sitting together in the prettiest coloured Hoods that I ever saw. One of them was Blew, another Yellow, and another Philomot; the fourth was of a Pink Colour, and the fifth of a pale Green". On the 1st of May 1736 the Read's Weekly Journal, or British Gazetteer reports that the ladies attending the royal wedding wore gowns of "Gold stuffs, or rich Silks with Gold or Silver Flowers, or Pink or White Silks, with either Gold or Silver Netts or Trimmings;" shoes either "Pink, White or Green Silk, with Gold or Silver Lace and braid all over." On the 24th of May 1785 Charles Storer writes to Abigail Adams advising that fashionable colours in English court dress are "pink, lilac, and blue" such "as is worn at Versailles".

[Left: Frances, Daughter of Evelyn Pierpont, 1st Duke of Kingston, oil on canvas, c. 1700-23, by Godfrey Kneller, via Art UK.

Middle: Mrs. Abington as Miss Prue in "Love for Love" by William Congreve, oil on canvas, c. 1771, by Sir Joshua Reynolds, via Yale Center for British Art.

Right: Mary Little, later Lady Carr, oil on canvas, c. 1765, by Thomas Gainsborough, via Yale Center for British Art.]

In particular pink was popular amongst young women as the colour was associated with youth. Older women who wore pink were mocked as vain for dressing in a way that was seen as improper for their age. On the 31st of January 1754 Lady Jane Coke writes to Mrs. Eyre criticising old women who wear pink:

As for fashions in dress, which you sometimes inquire after, they are too various to describe. One thing is new, which is, there is not such a thing as a decent old woman left, everybody curls their hair, shews their neck, and wears pink, but your humble servant. People who have covered their heads for forty years now leave off their caps and think it becomes them, in short we try to out-do our patterns, the French, in every ridiculous vanity.

[Folly Embellishing Old Age With the Adornments of Youth, oil on canvas, c. 1743, by Charles-Antoine Coypel, via Master Art.]

For Englishmen acceptable clothing way much more limited. In A Foreign View of England in the Reigns of George I & George II Monsieur César de Saussure writes that Englishmen "do not trouble themselves about dress, but leave that to their womenfolk". He explains:

Englishmen are usually very plainly dressed, they scarcely ever wear gold on their clothes; they wear little coats called "frocks," without facings and without pleats, with a short cape above. Almost all wear small, round wigs, plain hats, and carry canes in their hands, but no swords. Their cloth and linen are of the best and finest. You will see rich merchants and gentlemen thus dressed, and sometimes even noblemen of high rank, especially in the morning, walking through the filthy and muddy streets.

César de Saussure warns that "a well-dressed person in the streets, especially if he is wearing a braided coat, a plume in his hat, or his hair tied in a bow, he will, without doubt, be called "French dog" twenty times perhaps before he reaches his destination" and is not only at risk of "being jeered at" but also "being bespattered with mud, but as likely as not dead dogs and cats will be thrown at him."

[Reverend Charles Everard Booth, Captain Griffith Booth, and an Unidentified Man playing Billiards, oil on canvas, c. 1775-9, by John Hamilton Mortimer, via the Royal Collection Trust.]

For Englishmen dressing "plainly" mostly meant wearing blacks and browns. In his book on macaroni, Pretty Gentleman, Peter McNeil found that in contrast most English menswear that he describes as generally consisting of "monochrome broadcloth" macaroni wore a variety of colours including green, orange, yellow, violet, red, white, blue, gold, silver and of course pink.

But it's not just the macaroni of the 1770s & 1780s that wore pink. We see pink in descriptions of feminine men's dress (both real and fictional) throughout the 18th century.

On the 2nd of June 1722 Sarah Osborn writes to Robert Byng:

I believe the gentlemen will wear petticoats very soon, for many of their coats were like our mantuas. Lord Essex had a silver tissue coat, and pink color lutestring waistcoat, and several had pink color and pale blue paduasoy coats, which looked prodigiously effeminate.

On the 18th of October 1729 the Universal Spectator and Weekly Journal published a story where an "effeminate" man's clothes were described as follows:

He had a flower'd pink-colour Silk Coat, with a Green-Sattin Waistcoat lac'd with Silver. Velvet Breeches, Clock'd Stockings the Colour of his Coat, Red-heel'd Pumps, a Blue Ribbon at the Collar of his Shirt, and his Sword-Hilt he embrac'd under the Elbow of his Left Arm,

[Sir Miles Stapylton, 4th Bt of Myton, oil on canvas, c. 1730-35, via Art UK.]

In The Adventures of Roderick Random (1748) the effeminate (and queer coded) Captain Whiffle is described as follows:

our new commander came on board in a ten-oared barge, overshadowed with a vast umbrella, and appeared in everything the reverse of Oakum, being a tall, thin young man, dressed in this manner: a white hat, garnished with a red feather, adorned his head, from whence his hair flowed upon his shoulders, in ringlets tied behind with a ribbon. His coat, consisting of pink-coloured silk, lined with white, by the elegance of the cut retired backward, as it were, to discover a white satin waistcoat embroidered with gold, unbuttoned at the upper part to display a brooch set with garnets, that glittered in the breast of his shirt, which was of the finest cambric, edged with right Mechlin: the knees of his crimson velvet breeches scarce descended so low as to meet his silk stockings, which rose without spot or wrinkle on his meagre legs, from shoes of blue Meroquin, studded with diamond buckles that flamed forth rivals to the sun! A steel-hilted sword, inlaid with gold, and decked with a knot of ribbon which fell down in a rich tassel, equipped his side; and an amber-headed cane hung dangling from his wrist. But the most remarkable parts of his furniture were, a mask on his face, and white gloves on his hands, which did not seem to be put on with an intention to be pulled off occasionally, but were fixed with a curious ring on the little finger of each hand.

[Henry Ingram, 7th Viscount Irwin and His Wife Anne, oil on canvas, c. 1745, by Philippe Mercier, via Art UK.]

On the 28th of July 1780 the London Courant reports:

A few days ago, a Macaroni made his appearance in the Assembly-room at Whitehaven, in the Following dress: a mixed silk coat, pink sattin waistcoat and breeches, covered with an elegant silver nett, white silk stockings with pink clocks, pink sattin shoes and large pearl buckles, a mushroom coloured stock, covered with a fine point lace; his hair dressed remarkably high, and stuck full of pearl pins.

On the 6th of August 1792 The Weekly Entertainer published Sketches and Portraits form the Life by Simon Tueopnrastus which included the following description:

Mercator was a youth of some genius and expectation, but by a strange perverseness of disposition, notwithstanding the extreme natural stiffness of his limbs, he had acquired an early attachment to the most finical and effeminate finery; so that, while yet a boy, he would exhaust every expedient of a fertile invention to procure a laced waistcoat, or the most foppish toy; would dangle a watch-string, with brass seals, from each fob, at a time when the frugal care of his parents would not permit him to wear a watch in either; and would strut in a fine pair of second-hand pink silk breeches, and a light blue coat, with all the formal dignity of—a soldier upon the parade.

[Left: Thomas King in "The Clandestine Marriage", oil on canvas, c. 1792, by Samuel De Wilde, via Yale Center for British Art.

Right: Edward Payne, oil on canvas, by Arthur Devis, via Art UK.]

While pink is mentioned in these descriptions of feminine men's dress it's not singled out as the girl colour the way pink would become in the 20th century. I would argue pink is seen as effeminate not because pink is a uniquely feminine colour but because it was used in fashionable dress. In 18th century England being interested in fashion was seen as an frivolous female trait. Men who showed too much interest in fashion were mocked and ridiculed for their gender nonconformity. "A Man must sink below the Dignity of his Nature, before he can suffer his Thoughts to be taken up on so trivial an Affair, as the Chosing, Suiting, and Adjusting the Adornments of his Person," complains a letter published on the 8th of May 1731 in Read's Weekly Journal, or British Gazetteer:

Decency of Garb ought inviolably to be preserved; nor can there be possibly an Excuse for Dressing like a Merry-Andrew: Rich and coloured Silks are in themselves effeminate, and unbecoming a Man; as are, in short, all Things that discover Dress to have been his Study 'Tis in vain for a Fop of Quality, to think his Title will protect him.

[Left: Madame de Pompadour (detail), oil on canvas, c. 1756, by François Boucher, via Alte Pinakothek.

Right: Elizabeth Wrottesley, later Duchess of Grafton, oil on canvas, c. 1764-5, by Thomas Gainsborough, via National Gallery of Victoria.]

English fashion was highly influenced by French fashion. A popular colour scheme in French fashion was green and pink. A famous example of this colour pairing can be seen in François Boucher's portrait of Madame de Pompadour (above left), she is depicted in a green gown with pink bows and flowers. You can see and example of how this style inspired English fashion in Thomas Gainsborough's portrait of Elizabeth Wrottesley (above right), who is depicted in a green gown with a floral pattern adorned with pink, white and green striped bows.

[Left: Sir Harry Fetherstonhaugh, oil on canvas, c. 1776, by Pompeo Batoni, via Wikimedia.

Right: Francis Lind, oil on canvas, c. 1775, by George Romney, via Mackinnon Fine Art.]

Fashionable Englishmen were also inspired by these French designs. Horace Walpole refers to the popularity of the colour combination writing to Lady Ossory on the 19th of February 1774 "If I went to Almack's and decked out my wrinkles in pink and green like Lord Harrington, I might still be in vogue". Almack's is referring to Almack's Assembly Rooms on Pall Mall which is believed to be the inspiration for the Macaroni Club. (see Pretty Gentleman by Petter McNeil p52-55) In a letter to Lord Harcourt on the 27th of July 1773 Walpole writes of "Macaronis lolling out of windows at Almack's like carpets to be dusted."

[Left: Detail of Stephen Fox from The Hervey Conversation Piece, oil on canvas, c. 1738-40, by William Hogarth, via Fairfax House.

Middle: Sir William Jones, oil on canvas, c. 1769, by Francis Cotes, via Art UK.

Right: Portrait of a Gentleman, oil on canvas, by George Romney.]

Men who wore green seem to have been just as much, if not more, at risk of being ridiculed, or even assaulted, for the colour of their clothes as those who wore pink. In Pierre Jean Grosley's A Tour to London (originally published 1772) he recalls traveling with a young English surgeon who was harassed by Londoners due to his green French frock coat:

At the first visit which he paid me in London, he informed me, that, a few days after his arrival, happening to take a walk thro' the fields on the Surry side of the Thames, dressed in a little green frock, which he had brought from Paris, he was attacked by three of those gentlemen of the mobility, who, taking him for a Frenchman, not only abused him with the foulest language, but gave him two or three slaps on the face: "Luckily, added he in French, I did not return their ill language; for, if I had, they would certainly have thrown me into the Thames, as they assured me they would, as soon as they perceived I was an Englishman, if I ever happened to come in their way again, in my Paris dress."

[thepalerimitation]

Let Me See Some Hands:

Why SydCarmy is the most controversial dish served on the Bear

When the Bear came out, I didn’t watch it. The most I heard, it was a show about line cooks and it had the guy from Shameless. I wasn’t interested, I’m a self proclaimed cooking snob and wanted to see a tv show that had a little more flair in cooking.

But then it was 9 pm, and I was bored.

BAM!

I watched both seasons in a week.

I was obsessed, I was absorbed, and I was deeply and truly in love. The show captured everything gritty and everything beautiful with both hands and threw them into a pan to sear at high heat. It was sexy, it was hideous, and it was mind blowing.

Then the age old question.

What’s going on with those two?

Sydney Adamu, the raw ambition and talent to Carmy Berzatto’s genius and finesse. They’re well matched in the nonstop heat of the kitchen, with an easy dynamic that snags on their jagged edges like fabric on a nail.

In the first season, they’re awkward and magnetic, drifting together and falling apart, shattering and putting the pieces back together. By the second season, they’re starting to click. They dress the same, they finish each other’s sentences, and they argue like people who have known each other for twenty years.

So yes, I did pose that particularly debase question.

Can men and women be friends?

It’s a question that gets thrown in front of the runaway train. It’s the conversation-ender and argument-starter. It’s dynamite. It’s catnip.

The warning signs were there. Shots that focused for a beat too long on him looking at her, or her looking at him. Her embarrassingly admitting he made her favorite dish of all time. Their sign language communication. The season two conflict as a girlfriend was thrown in the mix with Sydney flatly saying “I need your focus, I can’t share, I’m sorry.” I’ll admit, I’ve made more out of less.

But what’s the counter argument?

Well, for one, the girlfriend. Claire (no last name), a nurse and childhood friend who approaches him at a grocery store. She asks for his number, he gives her a fake one. She finds his number anyways and calls him.

Yeah…

There’s some moral arguments. As coworkers, a romantic relationship would be inappropriate. As partners in the restaurants, a romantic relationship could fracture the Bear. Then there’s the purist argument. It’s a cooking show about found family! Let it be that. Romance doesn’t have to be in everything.

“Well gee, which do you think people are pro or anti SydCarmy?”

Well I can tell you why I’m pro.

To me, romance doesn’t demand satisfaction. There’s no need for boyfriend/girlfriend hand holding and playful arguments about doing the dishes. I’d like a kiss, but I’ll take a heated conversation in the walk-in and longing glance.

They’re young and crazy, and HR violations can shove it.

But I also think romance has killed some excellent plots.

Platonic representation is important, especially male-female relationships. I think a lot of platonic relationships are fetishized in media or misinterpreted to add intrigue or interest to audiences.

But can Syd and Carmy be friends?

The short answer?

Who Cares?

The long answer?

Whatever Storer’s design for the show, whether he moves forward in the unclear relationship between Syd and Carmy or buckles down on either platonic or romantic, he’s definitely won.

The show has buzz. It’s got attention and heat.

You hate the romance, so you watch it to prove it’s not there. You love the romance, so you watch it to prove it IS there. You’re curious because every news site talks about it, so you just have to watch it.

Even I’ll admit, I’ve rewatched it and stayed hooked to prove my little delusion. (And because it’s beautifully acted, but who cares about that).

So whether you’re pro or against, just remember:

There is no controversy that wasn’t first stirred up by a clever strategist.

[mephistopheles2022]

TOBIAS was in town this week for the premiere of the film Ghost: Rite Here, Rite Now, which will be released worldwide today. It was, as always, a pleasure to be invited and the film itself is phenomenal, although everyone present was sworn to secrecy regarding leaked spoilers.

It was also great that he found time to spend the afternoon at the store and pick up some goodies. Not least, the incredible new album by Uncle Acid & the Deadbeats: Nell' Ora Blu (white label edition limited to x55 copies, all already shipped).

Credit by Helen Storer. June 19, 2024 at Rise Above Records & Relics Shop, London.

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

I KNEW IT!!! I KNEW IT! → This is how Storer will play the Sydluca card (or something along those lines)

I figured it out when I saw this:

But actually, Storer has been Storing about having Carmy selflessly letting Syd go eventually since S2.

And I always knew this was some kinda foreshadowing, from day 1, he's just gonna play it out in S4. He's playing the looooong game.

Thinking about the writers decision to have Tina sing a break-up ballad in s.2 ep. 5 Pop.

Tina sings Before the Next Teardrop Falls by Freddy Fender, a song about a man having a hard time accepting his ex has moved on and promising to be there for her if things don't work out with her new man. The writers dedicate a whole scene to Tina singing the full song, which kinda furthers its importance to me.

Prominently featuring a song about a breakup in this episode in particular is just... telling. Very telling. The episode being the one where Carmy effectively chooses Claire as his new romantic interest.

Considering the fact that the song's point of view is from the heartbroken man, I wanna assume this song is from Sydney's heavily-walled emotional perspective (I know, the theory is bumpy. But by the time Tina is singing the song, Sydney has already learned about Claire. Plus, we don't know how Natalie described Claire to Sydney). Sydney now knows there is another woman in the picture, one who Carmy willingly gives him time to, more so than their restaurant, their menu, and Sydney herself.

I'm just saying it's a little highly suspicious.

If he brings you happiness Then I wish you all the best It's your happiness that matters most of all But if he ever breaks your heart If the teardrops ever start I'll be there before the next teardrop falls

[amphiptere-art]

Crimson is a storer. Both the little baby demons are but crimson is the least sneaky about it. If he likes something he puts it somewhere he deems safe for storage. Unfortunately this also applies to people. Sometimes he will pick up his sleeping brother and store him somewhere and blue moon will have to deal with one baby vanishing

Blue Moon is just in a respite of panic trying to look for his other baby. Finally asking crimson where his brother has ran off to. Only to know that for some reason they have stored them under the bed.

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

We all know we are talking about the SAME GRAPEFRUIT RIGHT?

OK, cool

[gingergofastboatsmojito]

Why did Storer think we didn’t know this?

Carmy shared his dream with her and before that put her in charge of Mickey’s legacy, his most valuable asset (emotionally).

Put himself through hell to get her the star she wanted (not saying this is OK but this is what he did).

Made her partner.

She’s the only one he apologizes to without being told to, spontaneously.

He created houndreds of menus for her, to rotate them every day.

He wants her to get some rest while he continues to work on a dish inspired by her polka dots headscarf and losing sleep, which is something he does every night, he stays there sleeplessly working on the menu, after everyone leaves.

He wants her by his side when he says goodbye to Ever, which means a lot to him.

So… Why put us through this to show us that all his paths lead to Syd who can now twist it all depending on what she decides to do next? Is not like we didn’t know! We got it, Chris! WE GOT IT!!! That’s why we need a CLEANER timeline where Clairmy’s loose end is tied for good (Carmy apologyzing and moving on) and Syd enjoying her time with Carmy for once as opposed to… what happened. All of Carmy’s paths do lead to Syd but Storer is making him take every single detour possible before he reaches his destination, and now he created another divergent path between them (Luca). Can we just have Carmy walking in a straight line to Syd, once?! Just once?! And her open enough to receive him when he finally reaches his destination? Give me 1 ep that shows that, not imply it, shows that.

This slow burn feels like: “I don’t want this to happen”, as opposed to: “It will happen, at some point and that’s OK”. Yes, Storer showed us that in Tomorrow (beautifully) but then spent an entire season showing us the opposite. I still believe, but I don’t get why try to convince us soooo hard that this may never happen and that we shouldn’t keep our hopes up, which is what he did with this season. It was like a disciplinary action on romance. Btw: he said the show wasn’t about that. Yeah, right…

thoughts on tomorrow

So I was thinking about tomorrow and how it’s filmed, and how the timeline shifting becomes a feature of the storytelling. Critically, it has been stated that it’s one of the most creative things ever done on television with storytelling. Like Storer was really in his Nolan bag with that one. I, like everyone else, enjoyed it immensely. On first watching trying to keep up with how many days between FNF and before official open and between Noma, Chef Terry’s, Daniel, and the French Laundry etc. was a little chaotic but that’s not why we’re here.

I recently rewatched the clip from Chris Storer at the premiere and what he said the episode tomorrow was about. Which is to paraphrase, “meeting the right people when you’re supposed to and legacy.” So we watch all these different timelines converging around Carmy as he thinks about everything that got him to this point. And if you’re a Loki enjoyer like me, I started to think of the timelines as branches, and it’s a Disney show so I feel like it fits, but anyway, the branches of Carmy’s timeline all converge during this episode. And everything he’s learned and every decision he’s ever made on his own, led him to Sydney. Including things out of his control. It’s always been her.

The first person he speaks to out of the fridge in one of the present timelines is Sydney. And there’s really not much dialogue in this episode but most of it in the present is coming from and to Sydney or because of Sydney.

And the episode ends with the beautiful moment of Carmy making the decision to sub the blood orange and it goes to Sydney who is beautifully centered in front of a giant tree. The tree representing the legacy that Carmy describes in legacy. Sydney is the only person in Carmy’s life who values what’s important to his legacy. Call Richie, I’ll call Marcus. Two branches of their family tree.

Sydney really is at the center of this story in all the ways that matter and all the ways that count and Chris Storer basically told us that at the premiere. This is a story about Carmen and how all of his paths converged to lead him to Sydney, his present, his future, and his legacy.

Excuse me while I go ugly cry😭

[under-the-table-podcast]

Hands!

We're back chefs! Today we have really juicy stuff to share with you. Come and sit at our table to discuss the misogynoir elephant in the room and much more! Let's talk shipping culture, let's raise questions, let's get into it from a Sydcarmy perspective, and let's continue exploring the Storer universe to try and figure out what he has in "Store" for us.

[thecapricunt1616]

luca was serving more for me this season than carmy was and frankly, as much as it hurts my sydcarmy heart to say this, i would fine if luca and sydney ended up together

obviously i'm still holding out for sydcarmy but i genuinely don't know what storer has in store (haha pun intended) anymore considering the way he framed their relationship

but idk, what are your thoughts?

Ohhhhhhh anon - DO I HAVE THOUGHTS FOR YOU!!! Luca became the LOML this season, He is so calm and - what was that BS that Carmy said about Claire? Ohhh yes!! LUCA is Peace :))) As well as Marcus, I would love to be friends with Marcus. He is WAY too well adjusted for that kitchen thats for sure.

I am holding out for SydCarmy until the show is literally over because this season feels like it could be one of a few things more btc

A: (most likely what happened) This show was never meant to be a romance. But, after S1- and all the fans being like 'wow, idk if its just the actors butttt...Syd&Carmy are cute! And would be a great couple!!' and in the writers room , Chris said- that is it. This is endgame for the show, we will work it in to the 3 seasons we already have outlined. So come season 2 , sydcarmy is ITTTT it is it. Like - we all know this, sydcarmy is IT, everyone goes NUTS and loves it and Storer wasnt ready to see just how much we pay attention to the symbolism that isnt blatant (since with basically any other show out there people dont look as deep into it for symbology as the bear fans do because storer films it a certain way it attracts a certain crowd) - he got mad. he literally got mad that we figured him out. so like a baby he went "NO. WWWAAAHHH I WANTED IT TO BE A SUPRISE LIKE IT WAS MY IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE!" and shit all over it. Hm. Someone who has something great going for them, and then as soon as it starts actually going great - they SHIT ON IT AND RUIN IT FOR THEMSELF who does this sound like? Someone I think they go by...bear?

B: Second most likely, WILLFUL MISDIRECTION!!!! This was supposed to happen. I kinda knew things would get worse before they got better, but I didn't know THAT much worse. The more I think about it, Carmy wasnt OOC this season - EVERYONE ELSE WAS except for maybe Marcus? Which is CRAZY because the only one that SHOULD be OOC right now IS MARCUS BECAUSE HIS MOTHER DIED!!!! Carmy is turning into his old boss. Point blank period. So his behavior if anything is a tad bit tame. The smoking thing was out of left field I'm still trying to understand that one, but yea. This was purposeful misdirection, because syd needs to be broken down so she can realize why she really isnt leaving (hint- she feels something for carmy past platonic) carmy is still trying to romantisize claire in his head which is why were always seeing them make out. his family keeps bugging him about it and telling him that he needs to be with her so hes trying to make himself see it (he cant he tried in the freezer and can't see her that way.)

C: (least likely) they have 0 idea what theyre doing. sydcarmy isnt romantic, every writer in that room is on drugs or simply stupid, and claire and carmy are somehow meant to be????? when he literally doesnt like her and its so clear.

anywho im going down with this ship. i prefer my blue lotus fic storyline where carmy goes to therapy before this point and doesn't spiral and ruin everything :))) and admits his feelings to syd!!!