Monday, March 20, 2006

The Sopranos Mondays: Season 6, Ep. 2, “Join the Club”

By Matt Zoller Seitz

From the get-go, fans of classic TV pegged “The Sopranos” as a series that owed plenty to English playwright and screenwriter Dennis Potter. Sunday’s episode made the connection official by drawing on Potter’s “The Singing Detective." Originally aired in 1986, and featuring Michael Gambon in a tour-de-force performance as psoriasis-deformed writer Philip E. Marlow, “The Singing Detective” fused three narratives: a present-day drama about a psychiatrist trying to get the root of Marlow's childhood trauma, flashbacks to the writer’s past, and a Raymond Chandler-eseque 1940s film noir fantasy. Sunday’s “Sopranos,” titled “Join the Club” – an intense hour that envisoned an alternate life for comatose mob boss Tony Soprano, who’d been shot his Alzheimer’s ridden Uncle Junior -- felt like a muscular American response to Potter’s masterpiece, from the hospital location to the expressive, knowingly nostalgic use of pop music (at one point Carmela reminisces about her early years with Tony while Tom Petty’s “American Girl” plays softly on a boombox) to its depiction of dreams as the brain’s abstract way of working out real-world conundrums.

Did I say “dreams”? As you might know, Chase is already on record in the Star-Ledger as saying that he doesn’t consider this episode or next week’s follow-up to contain dream sequences per se (though he’s characteristically coy about saying what they actually are). Whatever label you hang on it, this material is more linear and outwardly “realistic” than the “Sopranos” dreamtime norm. and it boasts more explicitly theological imagery. In it, Tony is "Tony Soprano," a "precision optics salesman" who has somehow switched ID with a heating equipment salesman named Kevin Finnerty. Tony has to assume Finnerty’s identity in order to have shelter and food. But the longer he pretends to be Finnerty (a disreputable character, judging from the two monks who angrily accost him in the hotel) the harder it is to escape this four-star prison and get back to the domestic life he claims to value so much, a life that’s only heard in snippets on the other end of a long-distance phone line. (The tone of this extended sequence is very Dennis Potter, but the unexplained identity swap has a touch of David Lynch's "Lost Highway" about it.)

Taking Chase at his word, my Star-Ledger colleague Alan Sepinwall describes the sequence not as a dream, but as a mini-drama about Tony’s soul being trapped in purgatory: “Here Tony's stuck in Orange County, quite possibly the most personality-free corner of the world, with no way to leave (a k a Purgatory),” Alan writes. “On one end of town is a shining beacon (Heaven), on the other, a raging forest fire (Hell). Over and over, he stops to assess the worth of his own life, asking, 'Who am I? Where am I going?’ Then he steals the identity (sin) of Kevin Finnerty -- a heating salesman who lives in one of the hottest states of the union (Arizona) -- checks into another hotel, and falls down a red staircase, at which point he learns he has Alzheimer's (eternal damnation). And while Carmela's busy in the real world telling him he's not going to Hell, Tony's in Purgatory debating whether to tell his wife this is exactly the fate he has in store. It may be hair-splitting to call this something other than a dream, but Tony's misadventures in Costa Mesa were much more linear and coherent than his regular dreams have ever been. There were important details scribbled in the margins (the bartender joking, 'Around here, it's dead,' or the 'Are sin, disease and death real?' commercial on the TV), but there was an actual story here instead of Tony bouncing from one surreal tableau to another.”

I think it is splitting hairs to argue that this is a purgatorial vision rather than a dream, simply because in terms of plot function, there isn’t a whole lot of difference. Religious scenarios and dreams employ similar visual language; both bring us back to moral choice, and force us to ask big (often rhetorical) questions. In Coma World, and in the “real” world outside, the moral and the physical are often depicted as variants of the same thing. As Alan observes, in Coma World, a television asks, “Are sin, disease and death real?” then flashes an implied answer, a yellow crucifix. (Translation: they are, so watch yourself.) This is not a new approach for "The Sopranos." Remember Season Two, when Tony decoded the dream telling him that Big Pussy was an informant? It happened after a bout of food poisoning; subliminally, Tony understood the toxic truth about his friend but was having a hard time digesting it. Along those lines, I'm guessing it's no accident that Tony sustained injuries to the pancreas, which neutralizes acid, and the gallbladder, which creates bile (he always had anger management issues). Nor do I think it's accidental that the risk of scepsis is described as "an infection in the blood" (lots of other things are "in the blood" of a family, including Alzheimers' and a propensity for depression or violent behavior).

Jumping back to theology and morals, is it accidental that Carmela would choose this moment to apologize for telling Tony that he’s was going to hell when he died, a line delivered as he was about to get fed into an MRI machine? I don't think so. (“It’s a sin,” she said, “and I will be judged for it.”) Nor do I think it's chance that a bar patron making small talk with Tony would choose to name-check a specific type of car, the Infinity (without end), or that the bartender would later pronounce Tony’s assumed last name so that it sounds like, “finity” (finite, or limited). And what are the odds that of all the characters to publicly rebuke and humiliate Kevin Finnerty, Chase would choose men of god – monks! – and have them be enraged over Finnerty’s installation of a defective heating system? Knowing Chase, I doubt it’s random chance that in this alternate universe, whatever it is, Tony would have to choose between two professions, the installation of heating systems (hell) or precision optics (which help you see more clearly). There were also strong hints that Tony may have to face the choice of remaining loyal to his crime family (a group of self-interested goons who are already talking about divvying up the spoils when the boss dies) or informing to the feds. I doubt it’s an accident that Kevin Finnerty ate grouper – a fish showcased in a Season Two dream sequence (see above) which revealed that Big Pussy was an informant – or that once Tony gets comfortable at the hotel bar, he orders a grouper sandwich. (This line of speculation only goes so far, though. As a friend pointed out, the feds would gain nothing from trying to turn Tony, since he's a top boss who's theoretically the equal of the already-incarcerated Johnny Sack. If anything, they'd try to turn someone else in Tony's family and bring Tony down.)

In any event, without putting too fine a point on it, and without getting sidetracked into the dream-vs.-purgatory conversation, it can be said that Tony’s coma vision suggests a moral reckoning, a recognition that this is the kind of traumatic event that should force any halfway self-aware person to ask what sort of life he’s built and whether he wants to keep living it as-is or change it. I doubt it’s an accident that we got to see other characters in this same episode experiencing what also looked like potential turning points in their own identities. We saw Meadow and Anthony Jr., admit to each other that their family’s lifestyle was embarrassing (after which point Anthony put his game face on, threw open a window and cursed at the press down on the street). We saw Meadow, who’s interested in being either a doctor or a lawyer, step up and second-guess her dad’s patriarchal jerk of a doctor; has she ever showed so much backbone? We saw Anthony swear revenge on Uncle Junior -- a career best acting moment for Robert Iler (who has previously underwhelmed me) and an indication that Anthony has his father and grandfather’s volcanic temper and warped sense of righteousness and could very well follow them into a life of crime. We even saw Christopher, who’s been wanting to tell the world about mob life via screenwriting since Season One, get comfortable with FBI agents who've started hanging out in the mob-run pork store and soliciting anti-terrorist tips.

Of course, “The Sopranos” being “The Sopranos,” there’s a chance that Chase brought this weighty stuff up only so that he could dismiss it with dark quip, then let Tony and company go back to being the same as they ever were. These characters occasionally ask tough questions of themselves, but they're rarely serious about seeking answers. Tony’s psychotherapy avoids confronting the fact that he’s a criminal; Dr. Melfi’s “progress” at getting Tony to talk through his feelings and manage his rage seems a classic example of treating the symptoms rather than the disease (or to invoke a different cliché, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic). Tony can’t make any real progress toward improving his emotional or spiritual life until he identifies the rotting hole at the center of his personality and takes a hard look at it. Is Tony capable of that level of self-knowledge? I doubt it. As I wrote last week, that kind of decision would run counter to Chase’s traditionally cynical view of human nature, which answers the question, “Can a leopard change his spots,” with, “You’re kidding, right?”

63 comments:

Edward Copeland said...

While it wasn't as annoying as other "dream outings," as soon as it started I let out that sigh I've begun to have whenever the series ventured down this road. At first blush to me, I wondered if this is the comatose Tony imagining a new identity, i.e. witness protection. It would seem to be a sudden change in his character, but as one writer pointed out years ago about a possible ending: what do sopranos do? They sing.
I thought the conversation between A.J. and Meadow about hybrid cars seemed odd -- wouldn't she be the one extolling their virtues, not A.J.? Since when did he give a damn about much of anything, let alone the environment? I would have liked a little more about Junior -- what is he really facing here? I also wondered if they were laying the groundwork for something by Chris' conversation with the FBI agents about terrorism and then following it with Chris' conversation with the two Middle Eastern men at the Bada Bing. The first thing I thought of was that several of the 9/11 hijackers spent their final weeks frequenting strip clubs. Next week definitely looks interesting though with the possibility of power grabs and infighting. One other question though: since Tony's shooting was a big media story, where was the scene with Melfi expressing her concerns somehow, if only to Peter Bogdanovich?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

I didn't think the episode was giving us the impression that Anthony actually cared about hybrid cars -- it was just something to say, probably something parroted from one of his friends. Anthony believes what he's told to believe and says what he's told to say. Look how he's buddying up to the media when he's estranged from his family, then a few scenes later, after bonding with Meadow, he throws open the window and curses the press!

As for Melfi, the show has always treated her as one spice in the rack, never bringing her in unless they feel they need her. I don't object to that, necessarily, since Melfi is really only interesting in relation to Tony, and previous attempts to explore her private life have been uninteresting (except the rape episode, which ultimately led back to Tony anyway).

I haven't seen more than the first four episodes, and there's not much about it in the two you haven't seen, but I think the FBI-terrorism thing will dovetail with Chris' Hollywood ambitions in some way. My own prediction, made long before that other article you cite, was that Chris would be the one to turn stoolie, since he's always viewed mob life as raw material for a screenplay anyway. I think when we're looking at Chris, we're seeing the next Henry Hill.

William said...

I a lot of ways I find when I watch this show I feel that Chase can do no wrong. You want to walk me down a path that might lead to nowhere but make me think about the character's subconscious emotional state in a new way. Cool! Tony's limbo is just that. As soon as I saw the opening shot I felt this is the other life. The life of a working stiff like Henry Hill so blandly described at the end of Goodfellas with his "egg noodles and ketchup" speech. In Tony's comatose mind he's almost wishing he had that poor schmuck's life because that is what Tony does, wishes for something, gets it and then doesn't like what he got. "Oh poor you", the mother's cry echoes throughout the series, this time coming from the son. Does the son inherit the sins of the father?

Nothing is wasted here like you mentioned before Matt. Every shot, all the subtext. The amped up delivery of certain lines, "Around here, it's dead". It all serves a bigger purpose even if not everyone gets it right away or ever.

This is Kubrickland. Putting an invisible veil over the narrative so subtle you don't get it until the ride home, a week later or maybe more. That's confidence and I think it's very powerful. Chase sees the scope of the show and he executes the way he sees fit.

William said...

Ahhhh, Matt you beat me to the Henry Hill connection!

Great observations here, the strip club-terrorist connection, very nice. If that turned into something that would be interesting.

I like that AJ steps up but in a lot of ways it might be too obvious for him to get involved in this way, to kill Uncle Junior. That seems like a telegraphed punch and that's just not the nature of the show.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

William--No, you're right. The one thing we know for sure about Chase is that he would rather confound or even disappoint us than give us the outcome we expect.

Sars said...

I'm loving this weekly commentary. Interesting that you thought this was good work from Iler; I disliked his acting choices through most of the episode. Part of what has made those kids so compelling is that the actors who play them inhabit their off-puttingness so completely; AJ's vow to kill Junior felt, to me, like an attempt to get the audience on AJ's side...it didn't seem organic.

Not to lead with a compliment and then disagree with you at ten times the length or anything. Jeez. Sorry! You got me thinking, is the thing; I'll look forward to next week's analysis.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

I believed in AJ's pledge because it seemed so totally boneheaded, and thus completely in character.

Anonymous said...

As for Chris-tupha, don't forget he nearly turned rat along with Adriana. Until he took a look at the couple w/ children at the gas station, and was reminded that Adriana couldn't have kids. It was only his selfishness that changed his mind.

Christupha's new 'sponsor' is (I suspect) an FBI guy.

That Little Round-Headed Boy said...

Matt, take a look at Wolcott's site. He doesn't take kindly to your interpretation of dream sequences. But, hey, he did call you talented before sticking the shiv in.

Anonymous said...

my first godawful thought was...please tell us this isn't newhart, where Tony the optic salesman wakes up and remembers that krazy dream he had about being a mob boss...

Chase wouldn't do that, though, right? Nah, of course not.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Anonymous: Chase is a cantankerous mofo. I wouldn't put anything past him. Except that, I hope.

THLR-HB: Thanks for the heads-up. I am delighted that Wolcott called me talented, and that he reads this blog. The funny thing about Wolcott is, he often comes across as a person who believes any art that has to be interpreted is somehow pretentious or phony. In fact, the very idea of having to interpret entertainment drives him nuts, as does the idea that there could be more than one interpretation of something as presumably middlebrow as a TV series. That's why he prefers Merchant-ivory to Robert Altman (he said so in a Vanity Fair essay about film critics) and "Law & Order" (a show that is exactly what it appears to be and nothing more) over "The Sopranos" and other HBO series.

Intriguingly, this is the second time he's called me out for a piece that presumes to suggest that a TV show might have substance. Back in 1995, when he was still a second string critic and feature writer at The New Yorker, he did a one-column takedown of "My So-Called Life," which he hated because it was soooo serious. He trashed a piece I wrote for the Arts & Leisure section of the New York Times talking about the show's use of unreliable narration. He called it "hilariously solemn." I still have the clip. My dad alerted me to it. He actually called up and said, "Hey, you're in the New Yorker!"

Richard Cobeen said...

Well, that makes Wolcott 1 for 2. He is completely wrong about "The Sopranos", but oh so right about "My So-Called Life." Never have I read and heard so many people whose taste I respect be so wrong about a television series.

That being said, I find Wolcott a good deal more on target when it comes to politics and the media than when he writes about entertainment.

Alan Sepinwall said...

Wolcott's attitude in that blog entry is so condescending that it's barely worth discussing. Criminal Intent is a decent enough member of that franchise (especially the D'Onofrio episodes), but it's so disposable that I practically forget what happened before I hear the final CHUNK-CHUNK.

I thought Iler was very good in that scene, too, not because we're suddenly supposed to be on AJ's side or think he's grown up, but because he's still the same immature, weepy, spoiled kid he's always been -- only now he wants to get a gun. (Plus, as someone on a message board pointed out, Van Helsing wants to kill The Mummy.)

Alan Sepinwall said...

Also, anonymous, Christufuh didn't betray Ade because he wanted to be like the dad at the gas station and she couldn't give him children. He betrayed her because he didn't want to be that guy, with his mullet and his passel of rugrats and his beater station wagon. He wanted to keep his Hummer, and his suits and all the other bling associated with being a gangster -- which, ironically, was the reason Adriana was in love with him in the first place.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

richard: Wolcott's a tremendous wordsmith, but he's also a meat-and-potatoes man who seems to feel that TV and movies are for passive escapism, not engagement. Give him anything that's ambiguous or that requires even a tiny amount of interpretation (even something as generally graspable as THE SOPRANOS) and he turns huffy and resentful. Interestingly, I once attended a public forum back in maybe spring of 2001 where he and Camille Paglia talked about THE SOPRANOS. He spent much of his time complaining that THE SOPRANOS had become too pretentious and was on the verge of not being interesting anymore. He quoted a friend who said that after one season, successful shows stop being about whatever they say they're about and start being about themselves. The crowd laughed, and I could certainly think of examples that backed up his claim, but all in all, it was a pretty chilling remark. It translated as, "Stay in your place, artists. Don't try to do anything but entertain, because if you do, you're walking on thin ice."

I disagree with you about MY SO-CALLED LIFE, but I know I'm in the minority on that one.

Alan: Yeah, Iler played it just about right. He didn't condescend to AJ's character, either, which nine out of ten young actors might have done. I can't wait to see what becomes of this kid -- the character and the performer.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen the episode--yeah, I know, but I don't have cable. But from the episode synopsis and the presence of the Buddhist monks, sure sounds like Tony's in the Hungry Ghost Realm, perhaps, rather than Purgatory!

Anonymous said...

He betrayed her because he didn't want to be that guy, with his mullet and his passel of rugrats.

Yep, in fact, I think that scene is the only time I can think of that The Sopranos has been too on the nose. Once Christopher ran his hand down the hood of his Hummer, you knew he wasn't leaving that life for one of eating noodles and ketchup in San Deigo.

Edward Copeland said...

One other thing I forgot to mention last night: I thought it was interesting that A.J. used Livia's trademark "Poor you" to his sister. That can't be an accident, though I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. That phrase is what tipped Tony off as to why dating the late Gloria Trillo wasn't a good idea.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Edward Copeland writes, "I thought it was interesting that A.J. used Livia's trademark 'Poor you' to his sister." Am I remembering wrong, or haven't Tony and Janice used that phrase before as well?

Alan Sepinwall said...

Tony says "Poor you!" to Carmela when they're arguing about Furio in the episode where she kicked him out. I also vaguely remember Meadow using it at some point, and Gloria said it at least twice.

Anonymous said...

I'd say leave the dream sequences to Bunuel. The last show jumped shark. Too bad too--the first episode this season was a corker.

And to everyone caught up in a finely-wrought exegesis of the show's symbolism all I can say is I now understand why intellectuals are the first to get theirs after a revolution.

Wolcott is right on one very simple point: David Chase's job is to entertain. As was Freddie Mercury's. He understood that very well. Which is why we are fonder of Freddie now than we are of, say, Bono.

The one bright spot is that having gotten the dream sequence out of the way we can now return to what makes the show great.

Sars said...

"And to everyone caught up in a finely-wrought exegesis of the show's symbolism all I can say is I now understand why intellectuals are the first to get theirs after a revolution."

Yeah, Matt! Stop explicating and start blowing shit up real good!

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

anon says: "David Chase's job is to entertain."

I love the idea of a TV producer having a specific "job" with clearly defined parameters that he dare not violate for fear of censure. We should buy Chase a nametag that says, "David Chase, Entertainer" so he won't forget. And maybe institute a three-whackings-per-week rule and fine Chase if he dips below the minimum.
While we're at it, somebody should hop in a time machine, go back to the Eisenhower-Kennedy era, warn the Beatles to stick with three-minute love songs with a catchy hook, and tell Hitchcock to stay away from that vertigo stuff, cuz who wants to see an arty, boring movie like that?

Not everything on "The Sopranos" works -- it can be glib, exploitive and repetitious -- but the show's got titanium cojones, and with a couple of exceptions, the surreal stuff has been better executed -- more subtly and truly dreamlike -- than similar material on almost any TV series ever, except for "Twin Peaks," an obvious influence. The surreal stuff on "The Sopranos" is a straight-up, no apologies litmus test for fans. It's not a departure from the "Sopranos" norm, much less an indulgence; rather it represents the full flowering of a satirical/analytic tendency Chase and company have always demonstrated, and that they have expressed through dialogue and plot in every scene of every episode since the Season One pilot.

Fact is, if you hate the surreal interludes, you actually dislike the essence of the series and should not be wasting your time watching it. To wish that stuff away is to wish "The Sopranos" were content to be a bloody diversion and nothing else. It is the same mentality that insisted that the whole point of "Twin Peaks" was to tell us who killed Laura Palmer.

So Wolcott doesn't like dream sequences, or anything that doesn't fit within predetermined parameters, or anything that has to be actively engaged with (thus his writing that Merchant-Ivory was greater in the 90s than Robert Altman). Basically, he thinks neatness (even shallow neatness exemplified by the McDonald's-like "Law & Order" franchise) is the ideal every TV producer should shoot for, and to aim higher than that (or God forbid, to aim higher and fall short) is a sin against the viewer, who is there to be pleased and nothing else.

My two-year old son won't eat anything but bread and cereal, and insists that certain rituals be observed precisely, without any variation, otherwise he starts caterwauling. This discussion reminds me of him.

Edward Copeland said...

I know Tony has, but not sure about Janice.

Anonymous said...

The fact, this show wasn't billed as the exploits of a violent mobster and his zany family. It was billed as the exploits of a violent mobster who -- and here was the show's original pitch -- is also in talk therapy. Shades of Analyze This, but not meant to be a device for broad humor.

So, what does somebody do in talk therapy? Analysis of feelings and symbolism. Discussion of true motives and repressed desires.

All that is part of the show's gimmick, and this dream sequence seems beside the point to people? This is half of the show. If people still don't see that, it's not because David Chase hasn't said so -- it's because people have their incorrent ideas about the show's style and subject, and then they get annoyed when the show doesn't conform to their inaccurate ideas.

Please. Gimme a break. This show was never meant to be a straight action show, and if it's continually understood as such, it's because, to quote last week's episode, no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

odienator said...

MZS: every TV producer should shoot for [neatness], and to aim higher than that (or God forbid, to aim higher and fall short) is a sin against the viewer, who is there to be pleased and nothing else.

When I was a kid, my Mom used to tell me "there's a time and place for everything." Some shows are designed to be grand entertainment and nothing more, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The world would really suck--or be like English class--if everything we encountered required some Rube Goldbergesque device to decipher it. We would sit there for hours, with dumbfounded looks on our faces as we tried to figure it all out. Raymond Scott's The Powerhouse would be playing in the background.

Sometimes we just don't want to think. We just want to have some mindless fun. There's a time and place for everything, but no one thing has a monopoly on time nor place.

I could understand if these surreal dream sequences just came out of nowhere, but Sopranos viewers have come to expect them. Annoying or not, they are part of Chase's universe, and not some warped attempt to just fuck with viewers' ingrained expectations like, say, Parker and Stone did when they began that season of South Park not with the episode resolving their cliffhanger, but with a seemingly out of place Terrence and Philip movie about ass.

Chase and company intended at the outset to provide no easy answers in Tony's world. Whether it works or not is a matter of opinion, but I don't think he's playing dirty pool with these interludes.

I wonder if Chase and his writers are sitting back saying "I'm glad our episode is generating all this analysis and overanalysis, but these people have no idea how wrong they are." Or any writer for that matter whose work inspires this much interpretation. It was something I wondered a lot about during the aforementioned English class. I wished that Shakespeare would show up after my teacher had droned on and on about what the Bard intended, and said:

"That doth not even what I farkin' meant.
O Fool I damn thy cursed attempted folly."

Keith Uhlich said...

One of the more interesting moments for me in this episode was Vito Spatafore's aside about the now deceased Eugene Pontecorvo, to paraphrased wit, "Maybe he was gay and couldn't tell anyone about it." I laughed, I admit, thinking of Season 5's early-morning construction site sight gag. But it exemplified the problems I often have with The Sopranos when it comes to character psychology. It seems they'd rather go for a reductive punchline more often than not; for whatever reason the world seemed to shrink a little for me after this moment.

It did, however, make me recall a similar sight gag on the third season of The Wire where you see Rawls in the background of a gay bar (while Mouzone's henchman is seeking out Omar) and it makes all the sense in the world. One of those intangible things, I guess. David Simon's world feels more organic than David Chase's, though that holy spirit David Milch has 'em both beat.

Matt, hope you'll do a similar episode by episode breakdown on The Wire's fourth season. It's easy to forget how great that show is. And I have to say that I'm liking Big Love a lot, though I feel like maybe I shouldn't. Harry Dean Stanton is a fuckin' godsend!

Alan Sepinwall said...

I think part of the problem are these long, long, looooong gaps between each season. To pervert a cliche, absence doesn't just make the heart grow fonder, it makes the mind wander. We remember the show not how it was, but how we want it to be. And the fact that every season but the fourth ended in violence makes it real easy for people to remember the show as a weekly bloodbath. So when it's not that, they think it's somehow changed.

They've been doing these symbol-laden dream/fantasy sequences since episode four. To quote Terry Winter, one of the writers, "The opening shot of this series is a guy in a psychiatrist's office. You think maybe the show is going to deal with dreams and psychology?"

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Keith and Odie: "The Wire" and "Deadwood" are ultimately greater works than "The Sopranos" because they are more likely to resist the temptation to chew the audience's food, so to speak. Also because they portray a much broader spectrum of human behavior, specifically morality and ethics. You get to see everyond from knights in shining armor to sociopathic monsters in the course of one episode, plus every shading in between. The human carnival isn't all lions or clowns. It takes all types. Altman understood that, and so do David Milch and David Simon.

Keith, you're dead on in that specific citation, how it represents the series at its most glib. I cringed, too. During moments like that, "The Sopranos" really is as crude and reductive as detractors say.

But then you get an astonishing moment in the same episode, like Carmela's reminiscence of her early years with Tony -- one of the most intensely moving five minutes of TV I've seen, and it's just a woman talking in closeup while a pop song plays on the soundtrack! For a moment, you forget how venal Carmela is, and find something redemptive in her life -- her relationship with her murderous cheating scumbag husband, who means the world to her.

The phrase 'good drama' is always an intangible, but I think one way of measuring it is to ask the question, "How do I feel about this character at this moment?" If the answer is, "I love her and I pity her and I hate her," or simply, "I can't make up my mind," then it's good drama. If you know exactly how to feel -- worse, if you know exactly how to feel because the show told you how to feel -- then it's not good drama. It's just a show.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

PS, to Keith: I am planning to give both "The Wire" and "Deadwood" similar treatment. They need and deserve it, arguably more than "The Sopranos," because they're richer and subtler series, but nowhere near as popular.

Brett said...

wait, when did it become unpopular to like and respect My So Called Life?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Brett: Among a pretty small but intense slice of the viewing public, the show was always beloved. But it never caught on during its original airing, it has never attained mass popularity even after cable repeats, and the Marshall Herskovitz-Ed Zwick TV company, which produced it, has never been able to keep a drama on the air for more than a couple of seasons. So as much as I love it, I'd have to describe it as a cult series. The sorts of people who hang out on geeky blogs like this might have a perception of a positive consensus, but the fact is, the general public rejected it and never really changed its mind. Hopefully in another 10 or 20 years it might be a different story.

odienator said...

Matt, I'm looking forward to your The Wire post. That's a fascinating show that sweeps you up in its mise en scene. It's my second favorite HBO show of all time, behind a show that gets little respect, Oz.

I remember the day I met you, we talked about The Wire while waiting for the train. You'll recall that I said something like "Geez, I never thought Edward Burns could actually write something that good after all that Brothers McMullen shit." To which you replied, "it's a different Edward Burns!" To which I said "thank God! I thought I was losing my mind!" You remember?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Odie: I remember that moment vividly. Your posture actually improved and you smiled. It was as if a great weight had been lifted.

Brett said...

well i know it failed to become a Friends or even a Party of Five, but I was and still kinda am under the impression that the critics all treated it pretty favorably and after it went to Mtv and aired endlessly that it got a pretty good (though, yeah, still probably "cult") following. Either way I'm still surprised to find people glad it's not talked about anymore..

Brett said...

I've only seen half of the first season of The Wire, and while I liked it and thought it was well-written, I couldn't really get over the fact that it seemed a bit Crash-ian in the sense that many of it's characters seemed too strategic for the show's ultimate "messages" or theme. It lost some realism going for Shakespearian tragedy though it seemed to be going for an Altmanesque sort of ensemble drama it's characters and it's story all seemed a bit too convinient. It's basically why, though The Wire is a well written show, I'll always pick Homicide over it.

Am I wrong? Should I watch it again and get over my pretension?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Brett: In Wolcott's one-column Vanity Fair kissoff way back when, he described "My So-Called Life" as a "sick puppy" show, meaning a series to which some critics gravitated because it was sensitive and doomed. I wish I could refute that assessment. But when I look over my Top 10 TV and movie lists at the end of each year, usually half the titles could be described as sick puppies -- i.e., stuff that was hated by more people than loved it, or stuff that for whatever reason never had a chance of being really popular with wide audiences. "The Sopranos" is not and never was a sick puppy show, but "My So-Called Life" and "The Wire" (which almost got canceled last year, and was saved only after a relentless letter-writing campaign by fans) definitely qualify.

Brett: I agree that in the third season, "The Wire" sacrificed some realism for literary ambition -- that drug legalization subplot was nuts! -- but it generally stayed on the right side of plausibility (which I wouldn't ask it do to if it hadn't established itself as a "realistic" show). I generally find it more relevant and better written than most of "Homicide," except for the NBC show's first season and part of its second. It was hit and miss after that. But I think that's the fault of network meddlers who kept trying to sex it up with action and personal psychodrama, rather than any failing on the part of the writers or actors.

Brett said...

Yeah, i was referring more to the early years of Homicide. Anyway, like i said, i've only seen half of the first season of The Wire, so i should likely give it a chance. I reacted mostly against the idea of the tragic and conflicted villians (the drug dealers). It may have a point to get across, but to me it felt a bit stagey.

Keith Uhlich said...

It took me a bit with The Wire as well. I personally committed to it because a good number of people wrote glowingly about it. I knew it was a masterpiece (first season included) by the second year with the dock workers plotline. Has my favorite "bad guy" line ever written, said by "The Greek", "Everywhere we go we run into police. This is telling us something."

And despite the hit-or-miss nature of Homicide it's still one of the greatest shows ever. I LOVE the last scene of the movie finale - as a Catholic, I would.

Anonymous said...

Don't conflate entertainment with pop. Entertainment takes an infinite variety of forms, some of which can challenging, mystifying, obscure or indeed of any characteristic or quality. Viz. Bunuel dream sequences. It's just that last night's show never really got started. Tony in Costa Mesa felt gratuitous. (Yes, gratuitous can be entertaining--but this wasn't.) The hospital scenes were boring, except when Janice went OTT, which I got a huge chuckle out of.

It's interesting that people have started to mention The Wire, a show so inimicable to the idea of a dream sequence it helps illustrate my point. The Wire is a truly grand entertainment, on the order of Balzac perhaps. One senses an obsession with keeping it real. Within the utter artifice of tv drama that can make for totalling compelling entertainment.

I guess I'm trying to say that a full-episode dream sequences has about as much to do with the Sopranos as Costa Mesa has to do with Jersey.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Anon: Like a lot of SOPRANOS episodes, Sunday's is actually half of a two-parter. I think that when you have a chance to see next week's installment you might feel more charitably towards the Costa Mesa stuff. Some fairly important things happen while Tony is under -- not just in Coma Land, but in the real world as well.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Keith: Re: HOMICIDE. Didn't it bug you, though, that towards the end of the series they decided to explain the Kyle Secor characters' neuroses and hang a label on him? I hated that. I felt like it explained too much and let people pigeonhole the character in an Oprah sort of way. I'm not getting specific here because some of the people reading this might not have seen the show. But you know what I mean. I liked him better, and I liked the show better, when it wasn't explaining itself so much. Frank Pembleton's racially motivated crusading in the "Law and Order" crossover was irritating for the same reason. I felt like it removed a bit of mystery from a character who was more interesting for being a bit enigmatic.

All in all, though, it's a pretty incredible show, and I am amazed it ever made it onto a major broadcast network and then lasted as long as it did.

Keith Uhlich said...

It's funny Matt, I think I always bought what happened with Bayliss because Kyle Secor played those explanatory neuroses superbly. Even when he was having an affair with the coffin-obsessed Emma Zool it made some kind of weird sense. It's sort of a Manny Farber thing I have with actors: depending on how they move through the space of a given movie or show I'll believe practically any turn of plot or character. (Kinda why I had problems with Ballard and Gharty, though its been great to see Peter Gerety pop up in small character roles in War of the Worlds and Inside Man.)

Secor and Melissa Leo were the untold heroes of Homicide, moreso than everyone's favorite Andre Braugher, who I don't think was particularly good until his post-stroke mellowing in Season 6. His final interrogation of Kellerman is amazing, particularly when he inhales his rage. Pembleton and the actor playing him implode in that moment.

Edward Copeland said...

Since we've digressed to "Homicide: Life on the Street," I'd like to mention how great that show was until NBC and/or Tom Fontana started pushing more and more stunts onto it. The first two seasons and most of the third are pretty much flawless, but then it really started to go off course, especially with the introduction of awful characters like Jon Seda's and the loss of many of the original players. I stuck with the show, despite its plunge in quality, as long as Andre Braugher was still there, but as soon as he left, so did I. I thought it was funny that in the beginning they emphasized how detectives are seldom in direct harm, but by series' end nearly every detective except Richard Belzer's had been shot. It just got ridiculous. As much as I loved the Luther Mahoney character, I think that arc is what really killed the show as they dragged it on and on and even brought in his vengeance-seeking sister. I treasure the first three seasons of "Homicide," but except for an episode here or there, I can live without what came after that.

Alan Sepinwall said...

If there's an unsung hero of "Homicide," I'd have to say it was Clark Johnson, who was so relaxed, so natural that you could easily believe he was an actual Baltimore detective who confused the show's set with his new office and just never left. Braugher was amazing, don't get me wrong, but after Pembleton, the show's most essential character was one Meldrick Lewis.

Shame he's doing so well as a director; I miss his acting.

Edward Copeland said...

Johnson was great as were most of the originals. It was amazing they were able to rise above the show's deterioration the way that they did.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

HOMICIDE was probably the greatest compromised series in NBC history. The only two shows I can think of that might compete with it are MIAMI VICE (the last two seasons of which are basically nada) and CRIME STORY (which nobody watched even during its great first season). It combined laid-back naturalism and expressionist psychodrama quite effectively. You could see TV and cinema's kinship throughout the show's run, and the often expressionist acting (particularly from Braugher) reminded you that both media owed a huge debt to theater. You're making me want to watch the entire run again now. Keith, your defense of Secor's evolution is pretty convincing. I might have to give him another shot, provided you'll come at Braugher again as well. He's definitely off in the ionosphere, doing his own thing. The rest of the cast is in a Cassavetes movie, and he's starring in something by Clifford Odets or Paddy Chayefsky.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Edward Copeland: I am not the first, nor will I be the last person to point out that the Luther Mahoney stuff now seems a dry run for what would later become THE WIRE.

PS to Keith: I agree that Melissa Leo was an anchor on that series. All the more reason to wish they'd let her drive the plot more often, instead of playing second fiddle to various self-destructive or pigheaded guys.

Alan Sepinwall said...

The story I always heard was that Melissa Leo was almost universally disliked on the set, to the point that actors would ask to not be in scenes with her. A shame, because I loved the character, too.

I wouldn't call Luther a dry run for The Wire so much as I would call The Wire the Luther story done right. Luther, other than his first appearance, was pretty much a James Bond villain, cackling, eeeeevil and invulnerable. David Simon went to a lot of trouble to establish Stringer and Avon as real and smart, so that you believed why the cops had so much trouble putting him away.

I own the entire series on DVD, but I doubt I'll watch more than a handful of episodes made after season four.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Well, one thing I can say for sure: Between the final seasons of THE SOPRANOS, THE SHIELD and THE WEST WING, new seasons of DEADWOOD and THE WIRE, plus all the other promising and semi-promising new and returning stuff on the air (BATTLESTAR, THE UNIT, BIG LOVE, LOST, VERONICA MARS) this is already shaping up to be one hell of an interesting year for scripted television.

Keith Uhlich said...

Maybe it's that Odets thing that gets me about Braugher. I think it was the former's screenplay for Humoresque ("Well what do you know... I hit the bullseye.") that made me develop something of a Clifford aversion.

Sean Burns said...

Late for the party as usual, but I just watched this episode for a second time and I couldn't possibly be happier.

As previously noted, Chase always gives you what you knew was coming... but always in a slightly different way than expected.

Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the program must've figured that Chase couldn't resist going all out with a Tony Coma Dream - but unlike the rapid-fire Freudian Bunuel bonanza of "The Test Dream" (one of my top five favorite episodes ever, and one I hold quite personally dear, unfortunately having much more than a passing familiarity with anxiety dreams) this one was all slow, quiet, awful insinuations.

The one thing I'd add to Matt & Alan's cogent analysis is that "Dream Tony"'s Alzheimer's diagnosis, coming so shortly after Ron Liebman's "Most Obnoxious Doctor Ever" brings up brain damage, is maybe T already subconsciously accepting that there's no way he's coming out of this thing at 100%.

William said we're in "Kubrickland" - which is quite apt, as where else have you heard such creepy, malevolent room-tone?

Formally, I found the episode dazzling... with a shockingly different lighting scheme than usual. There's a very harsh glare hitting these characters right now -- that hospital seemed to have no fill-lights.

And yes, this was some career-topping work by Falco, and great timing, script-wise -- as we really needed to see Carmela as a person again. She came through like gangbusters, and maybe even stole ownership of "American Girl" away from THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

(My only disagreement with the Star-Ledger posse is on Iler's performance. Particularly upon second viewing, I felt like a lot of the editing choices were covering for him.)

And a question: Was that Drea DeMatteo's voice as "Dream Tony's Wife" on the telephone? It certainly didn't sound like Edie Falco.

But yeah, like many have mentioned earlier (damn, I hate being so late to a party) I've already found myself in the same discussions with the same people who complain that these dreams "take us out of THE SOPRANOS world" -- as if all this stuff inside Tony's Head hasn't been the driving force on the program from the get go!

I was tickled this morning to hear an impassioned defense of the episode from die-hard fan Howard Stern. It always kills me when he falls back on his old mantra: "All you guys who only care about all the whackings and the mob stuff... you really just shouldn't be allowed to watch the show anymore. I don't know what else to tell you."

And one last kudo - to Gandolfini for using his real-life diction in the dream sequence. It always throws me when I see him in (rare) interviews and remember that he's "doing an accent" when he plays Tony. (He's even got a dialogue coach mentioned in the closing credits.)

It's just very disconcerting to me to hear him pronoucing the letter "R."

But then again, that might be my own personal baggage. Ever since I moved back to Boston in 1998, I honestly don't think I've heard anyone pronouncing the letter "R" on a regulah basis foh at least the last six yeahs.

Sean Burns said...

MZS: this is already shaping up to be one hell of an interesting year for scripted television.

I'll confess I don't watch most of the shows you've mentioned. (Hey, I work two jobs and drink too much and listen to way too much goddamn radio to have enough time for everything I hear is good.)

But every couple of weeks or so I do find myself setting aside some time for BOSTON LEGAL. The show itself is fairly awful, boilerplate David E. Kelly schlock - but man, those performances from James Spader and Captain Kirk are just way, way off somewhere in a whole other stratosphere.

What was that thing you said in another thread about eating the crayons?

I'm particularly taken aback by the way Spader is able to be at once both sleazy and gallant -- a combination I myself been working on, with sadly little success, for a couple decades now.

Edward Copeland said...

Another show that has done a better version of a Luther Mahoney-type story arc is "The Shield" with Antwone Mitchell, a perceived community activist who is really a brutal killer and drug kingpin. Of course, the "bad" cops on "The Shield" actually put Antwone behind bars instead of the "good" cop on "Homicide" killing Luther in cold blood.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Sleazy and gallant: The Sean Burns Story.

paynomind said...

Great weekly analysis.

Just a tidbit: Part of me was expecting Tony to go all "The Passenger" with Finnerty's identity throughout the Costa Mesa experience. I'm not sure how it would fit into the show narrative structure, but it would have been an interesting reference.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

There's definitely a 1970s art film vibe to some of this stuff, which might partly explain why it's so alienating to a large sector of the audience.

Paynomind said...

Also, when the hell is The Wire Season 3 (my actual favorite HBO show) going to be released on DVD?

Tina said...

Re: Homicide -- if Clark Johnson is the unsung hero, can Ned Beatty be the not-sung-enough one? Beatty has had such a long career that I think his wonderful work on Homicide got overlooked. His performance in the "Crosetti" episode, particularly the scene where Stan and Meldrick discuss Crosetti's saying goodbye by leaving his yo-yo, is one of my favorites in the series.

And yes, The Wire is brilliant. Kind of a window into what Homicide could have become without network interference and ratings concerns.

Megan Rose said...

What is the name of Meadow's boyfriend?

I think it's Finnerty.

-M.R.

Anonymous said...

I think the voice of Tony's wife in the dream is Gloria (Annabella Sciorra).

M. A. Peel said...

I think you have missed a delicious, subtle undercurrent: Kevin Finnerty is an outrageously Irish name. Just another aspect of Purgatory or Hell for the trapped Italian. I haven't watched all the eariler seasons, but I believe one of the characters had a dream that he was in an Irish bar on St. Patrick's Day, and that was a vision of hell. I'm an O'Neill--I can attest that the mixed Irish/Italian marriages in the family bring a subtle sheen of mutual dislike to holiday gatherings.

Arachnophobe said...

The way Tony's condition mirrors the his journey through his coma induced dream, together with the odd motif like the helicopter lights turning into operating theatre lights, bears more than a passing similarity to "The Bridge" by Iain Banks.

Right down to the "O" on Tony's torso.