The Case For the Short-Running Show: Why The Bear Should End With Season 4
Every. Season. Counts.
The Bear's renewal for simultaneously filmed third and fourth seasons was sweet dad-rock music to the ears of critics and audiences alike.
After sweeping the Emmys and benefiting from word-of-mouth buzz around its Christmas-themed episode "Fishes," the show was practically guaranteed renewal to give us at least one more season with the volatile and tight-knit Berzattos.
An Interesting Experiment
Capitalizing on the moment by filming back-to-back seasons was a smart move for the series and might become a trend for other shows.
Logistically it makes sense to take advantage of utilizing a show's cast and crew for two seasons in one go, instead of having to align all of those schedules again in another eighteen months or so.
In the current landscape of surprise cancellations, it also makes creative sense for a show to film a multi-season arc without the worry of ending on a cliffhanger.
The danger of multi-season renewals is similar to that of so-called "limited" series that are renewed beyond their single-season source material.
Big Little Lies went off-book for its poorly received second season.
White Lotus wasn't based on a novel, but it too was originally designed as a one-season show.
The Bear has the distinct benefit of not being constrained by finite source material.
In theory, as long as the actors remain willing and the writers keep writing, the show could go on indefinitely.
The series, however, operates well as self-contained slices.
Related: Should The Bear Season 3 Ditch the Cameos & Get Back to Basics?
Season 1 told a complete story whose ending had a little ambiguity but ultimately formed a closed narrative circle.
The show could've ended there in a satisfying way, leaving a host of possibilities to our imaginations for what Carmy and crew ended up doing with all that money.
Do we want to know where it came from and (more importantly) how it got into those cans?
Yes, but those money logistics aren't really the point of Season 1.
At best, they occupy a charmed middle ground between deus ex machina and the willful suspension of disbelief.
Just like with most great shows, we're there for the characters more than the plot.
But that doesn't justify keeping a series going forever, even one as beloved as The Bear.
Why Shorter Can Be Better
Initially, using television series to tell larger stories (like adapted novels) instead of compressing them into a 90-minute movie was a godsend that allowed for nuanced, expansive storytelling.
This was a big part of our recent Golden Age of Television.
Related: Should Big-Name Actors Like Nicole Kidman and Kate Winslet Dominate Limited Series Casting?
For the first time in decades, viewers searching for narrative complexity found it on the small screen instead of in movie theaters.
This trend also devolved into popular shows being stretched out unnecessarily just to make money.
The financial motivation of production companies isn't news.
But we as viewers have also kind of lost the ability to judge what formats are the best creative fit for different stories.
In other words, we're forcing the television equivalent of short stories to become novels.
Is The Show's Story Incomplete?
Cliffhangers or unresolved storylines are responsible for why many people are still, years later, mourning shows canceled in their prime (Firefly, Pushing Daisies, Santa Clarita Diet).
Whether a series had a seven-season arc planned out or was just counting on being renewed for the next year, dozens of shows legitimately needed another season (or five) to fully tell their stories.
Maybe a slow-burning romance didn't have time to flourish or a secondary storyline was left unexplored.
Perhaps a shocking accident left a beloved character's life hanging in the balance, and we'll never know if they survived.
There are many reasons a show can end without closure.
Or Do We Just Want More Time With The Characters?
Character change is pretty much the only reason stories exist.
The Bear features a great balance of external and internal dilemmas for its characters, as do many successful shows.
A series will get to a point where the characters have completed a realistic number of growth arcs, and most of the plausible external sources of change and conflict have been exhausted.
The choices then are to either end the series gracefully or introduce out-of-character personality changes and outlandish external situations in the hope of giving characters something to do and viewers something to watch.
Some classic examples of this are Dexter, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones.
It's great when a show gives us characters that we fall in love with and want to continue spending time with, even if we have to overlook a dip in the overall quality of the show.
But it does a disservice to their memory if we hold on too long and too tight.
There's a Reason Goldilocks Didn't Have Four Bowls of Porridge to Choose From
The traditional three-act story structure (Setup, Confrontation, Resolution) is familiar to filmgoers.
Musical theater deviates by rearranging storylines into two acts instead of three.
This can create problems by either overstuffing the first act or stretching it out to have the show-stopper tune play right before intermission and then having the second act drag or feel rushed.
A criticism of many new streaming series such as Stranger Things is the "slump" in the middle of an eight or nine-episode season.
Eight episodes seem to be the standard season minimum these days, for better or worse.
There's a disconnect between season length and season content with many shows, probably due in great part to corporate mandate.
But it's a reminder that form should follow content, not the other way around.
Leaving Room For Something New
In The Bear's third season, it looks like Carmy is going to become that version of chef he hated when he was coming up: an inflexible Michelin star-chaser who alienates his staff.
This does seem like a plausible, if disappointing, storyline.
I hope it has a basis in finances, as in Carmy sees this as a way (or the only way) to pay his uncle the restaurant's investment money back in time.
Related: The Age of the Renewed Limited Series: Is Network Execs' Fear of Commitment Bad For TV?
Following this storyline out to a fourth season, the restaurant could be lost, or a middle ground reached in terms of its style, somewhere between a sandwich shop and Le Bernardin.
Maybe a change of command or another power shift will happen between Carmy and Sydney.
Much as I'm not a fan of Claire-Bear, I do *not* ship Carmy and Sydney.
I prefer their dynamic as serious professionals who deeply respect each other and are trying to make a business partnership work despite having different creative visions and levels of experience.
Closing Out This Chicago Chapter For The Characters
The show's characters are still healing from Michael's suicide, and they all came a long way with that in Season 2.
A whole season could revolve around Carmy and Sugar getting closure with their mother (Jamie Lee Curtis), and having Richie's next growth arc be about making peace with his role as a divorced father when his ex-wife remarries.
The mystery surrounding Michael's death is an undercurrent that functions well in the background; it might be a mistake to treat it otherwise.
However, it seems like truly getting closure for Michael's loss, for all of the characters, is what the entire fourth season should be about.
But after eight episodes exploring that, it feels like the characters will have then come full circle emotionally.
Seriously: how many more forks can Richie polish?
Quality Over Quantity
Back before streaming and the new Golden Age, television audiences were more loyal to the actors they saw in their living rooms every week than film stars due to a sense of familiarity and perceived accessibility.
It's something we don't experience in the same way now with short streaming seasons, even if that longing for intimate continuity remains.
Related: Streaming is Dominated by a Handful of Shows. Is There Any Room For Smaller Players?
One of film critic Gene Siskel's best quotes can be seen as a litmus test: "Is this film more interesting than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?"
Even so, do you want to watch them have lunch for an entire season? Or six?
The Bear is a wonderful and groundbreaking show, but four seasons sound like the perfect run time for the series based on the plot threads we've seen so far.
What do you think, fellow Fanatics?
Are you excited for The Bear's June 27th return on Hulu?
Let us know in the comments!