Haven’t watched the season finale of The Bear yet? Then you probably don’t want to read this. Don’t blame us for spoilers. 

So what does that review say?

At the end of the third season of The Bear, Carmy (Jeremy Allen White) looks at his phone late one night and sees a review of his new restaurant, The Bear, in the Chicago Tribune. All we see are flashes of words and phrases, some seemingly good and some seemingly bad, and then Carmy says, “mother——,” and that’s the season.

And look: The idea is to leave you uncertain about what the review says, and to be clear, the review could say a lot of things. Trying to decode the words we can see and come up with an idea of whether this is a good or a bad review is rank speculation. Rank, I say! So let’s speculate.

I’m really not excited to reveal how long I spent doing this, but what I am about to show you is the best rendering I can manage of the words (and parts of words) that they show in this little sequence. I present them in the form of a poem, since I can’t offer you screenshots. (These groups of words, of course, are undoubtedly not in this order in the actual review. And yes, I think this is a show that’s probably playing fair; I think these probably are all consistent with the actual review that we will eventually learn much more about.)

of flavors both d
the confusing mis
any apprehension

an almost sloppy fas
f innovative d
nu was a testa
complex array
, as each dish arrived, there
were excellent, sho
rt, leaving me fee

focus on pushing
true culinary gem
my experience at

tto, offering a
palpable dissonance b
ng the chef’s brilliant cr
disappointed and craving
Feeling disapp

and downs, t
inconsistent
as resting on

undeniable inco
of delicious pe
tchen couldn’t

e. However,
was simple an
s the potential

Berzatto p

s not subtract f

felt overdone

incredible
Carmen Berzatto

re tired a

t stale a
talent

Clear as day, right?

For my money, the most interesting phrase comes from the screen that highlights the word “delicious.” Below that, you can see “tchen couldn’t.” My guess is that the full review uses the words “kitchen couldn’t.” And I’m going to further guess that “undeniable inco” is part of something like “undeniable inconsistency” or “undeniable incompleteness” — in other words, something negative. And in the middle, the word “delicious.”

So: what if the review is basically saying that there is an inconsistency in the operation because the kitchen isn’t doing a solid enough job?

That would also fit with this bit right here:

tto, offering a
palpable dissonance b
ng the chef’s brilliant cr
disappointed and craving
Feeling disapp

Now, the “tto” is probably the end of Carmy’s name (although I suppose a word like “risotto” is possible). But right in the middle, you have “the chef’s brilliant cr,” which might be “the chef’s brilliant creations” or “the chef’s brilliant creativity” or something like that. And before that, you have “dissonance.” And after it, “disappointed.” Again, what if this is saying Carmy is a brilliant genius, but something is amiss in the staffing and the execution?

Could this also be what “an almost sloppy fas” is about? What if that says the dining room — Richie’s beloved dining room — operates in an almost sloppy fashion? It also occurred to me that it could be a reference to The Beef, that The Beef was “almost sloppy fast food” or something. Or perhaps Neil Fak is a little too sloppy for this reviewer’s refined tastes.

Here’s another interesting part:

f innovative d
nu was a testa
complex array

That middle line should be “menu was a testament,” right? The menu is a testament to something? Probably Carmy’s brilliance? The changing menu he’s been obsessed with? And that would fit with “f innovative d,” which could be, say, “of innovative dishes.”

A prediction

Go back and read it all, like a poem, all together, and let it wash over you. Here’s what I think the review might say: Carmy is an amazing chef, full of potential, creative and amazing. But the rest of the team is not living up to his great ideas. In other words, I think the review says everybody else at The Bear needs to get on Carmy’s level.

If it says that, then that would explain why, after reading a review that (probably) calls him “brilliant,” he swears angrily. It would also complicate his obsession with his own standards to see the system he insisted on (the changing menu especially) wind up making him look good, but interfering so much with how the place runs that other people look bad.

I want to stress that if this is all completely and totally wrong, it will be no surprise. The whole thing could be a misdirect, every word could be misleading — “the chef” might not be Carmy, “nu” could be “Keanu” instead of “menu,” you get the idea.

But to me, it would be consistent with this season if Carmy had the most pyrrhic of pyrrhic victories, and this review gave him what he wanted at the expense of the people he works with.

LOS ANGELES — A jury in U.S. District Court ordered the NFL to pay nearly $4.8 billion in damages Thursday after ruling that the league violated antitrust laws in distributing out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on a premium subscription service.

The jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages to the residential class and $96 million in damages to the commercial class. Since damages can be tripled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could end up being liable for $14.39 billion.

The lawsuit covered 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses in the United States who paid for the package of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons on DirecTV. The lawsuit claimed the league broke antitrust laws by selling its package of Sunday games at an inflated price. The subscribers also say the league restricted competition by offering “Sunday Ticket” only on a satellite provider.

The NFL said it would appeal the verdict. That appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly the Supreme Court.

Should the NFL end up paying damages, it could cost each of the 32 teams approximately $449.6 million.

“We are disappointed with the jury’s verdict today in the NFL Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the league said in a statement. “We continue to believe that our media distribution strategy, which features all NFL games broadcast on free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams and national distribution of our most popular games, supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday Ticket and NFL+, is by far the most fan friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment.

“We will certainly contest this decision as we believe that the class action claims in this case are baseless and without merit.”

The trial lasted three weeks and featured testimony from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones.

“Justice was done. The verdict upholds protection for the consumers in our class. It was a great day for consumers,” plaintiffs attorney Bill Carmody said.

During his closing remarks, Carmody showed an April, 2017, NFL memo that showed the league was exploring a world without “Sunday Ticket” in 2017, where cable channels would air Sunday afternoon out-of-market games not shown on Fox or CBS.

The jury of five men and three women deliberated for nearly five hours before reaching its decision.

Judge Philip S. Gutierrez is scheduled to hear post-trial motions on July 31, including the NFL’s request to have him rule in favor of the league because the judge determined the plaintiffs did not prove their case.

Payment of damages, any changes to the “Sunday Ticket” package and/or the ways the NFL carries its Sunday afternoon games would be stayed until all appeals have been concluded.

The league maintained it had the right to sell “Sunday Ticket” under its antitrust exemption for broadcasting. The plaintiffs said that only covers over-the-air broadcasts and not pay TV.

Other professional sports leagues were also keeping an eye on this case since they also offer out-of-market packages. A major difference though is that MLB, the NBA and the NHL market their packages on multiple distributors and share in the revenue per subscriber instead of receiving an outright rights fee.

DirecTV had “Sunday Ticket” from its inception in 1994 through 2022. The league signed a seven-year deal with Google’s YouTube TV that began with the 2023 season.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco but was dismissed in 2017. Two years later, the 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over California and eight other states, reinstated the case. Gutierrez ruled last year the case could proceed as a class action.