Monday, March 27, 2006

The Sopranos Mondays: Season 6, Ep. 3, "Mayham"

By Matt Zoller Seitz

The most important scene in Sunday’s “Sopranos” episode came during Carmela’s surprise visit with Tony’s therapist, Dr. Melfi. Poring over her conflicted feelings toward Tony, who was still incapacitated from a gunshot wound, Carmela admitted that from the very start of their relationship, she knew he was a criminal. But she chose not to think about it. “I don’t know if I loved him in spite of it, or because of it,” she said.

Throughout the show’s long run, fans have periodically been forced to ask themselves that question -- but rarely for long. David Chase’s series, a rude social satire disguised as a gangster soap, was usually so preoccupied with power plays, domestic melodrama and cavalier injections of comic sadism -- and so inclined to let its murderous heroes err on the side of crackpot lovability -- that you couldn’t stay conflicted. For all its metacritical self-analysis, in the end “The Sopranos” was usually content to be seen, first and foremost, as a bloody good show, emphasis on show.

But now, in the home stretch, the emphasis seems to be changing; or at least it looks that way from the first four episodes. (Yes, I’ve seen the fourth installment, but since most of you haven’t, I’ll write around it for now.) The tricky moral calculus that informs all gangster stories has been foregrounded in almost every scene of episodes one, two and three. A cloud hangs over everything, a sense that a lot of bills are coming due, one after the other. The question is, how many of Chase’s characters will grasp this fact and pay up before the universe collects at gunpoint? Not Carmela, I’m guessing. She told Melfi that over the decades, she’d confessed her deepest fears of a compromised life to friends and advisors. And she admitted that Tony’s shooting, a local media event, had forced her now-adult children, Meadow and Anthony, Jr., to “face all these years of facade-ing.” (Facade-ing isn’t a word, but you knew what she meant.) Then she executed a typical about-face and suggested that Tony’s gangsterism was a speck on the world’s moral radar. Her admissions of guilt, she told Melfi, were “bullshit, because there are far bigger crooks than my husband.” Melfi kept mostly silent during Carmela’s session, but she did manage to interject what might prove to be the most significant three-syllable word in the show’s history: “Complicit.”

Complicit in what, exactly? Not just Tony’s life of crime, but also a generalized (and, Chase suggests, very American) tendency to put one’s own self-interest ahead of everything and everyone else. To look out for Number One. Except for Melfi, whose Talmudic scrutiny of her patients’ rationalizations makes her Chase’s true dramatic surrogate, every major “Sopranos” character is supremely selfish, even when they present themselves as compassionate.

Silvio, who was conveniently revealed as a secret athsmatic so he could suffer an eleventh-hour respiratory attack, stepped up to play boss in Tony’s stead, and warned his wife not to ask self-interested questions about the future; but she still asked, and he listened. The day before Silvio’s athsma attack, Uncle Junior’s caretaker Bobby Bacala pressed him to rule on how to distribute proceeds that used to go to Junior; Bobby arrived at Silvio’s house the next morning as he was being loaded into the back of an ambulance, just in time to whine: “I didn’t hear from you!” Slimmed-down Vito unsubtly suggested that he’d make a pretty good boss himself, and collaborated with Paulie Walnuts, his partner in a nasty robbery of Columbia drug dealers, to avoid giving Tony’s mob-mandated kickback to Carmela; then, after Tony unexpectedly awakened from his coma, they cobbled a bag of cash and handed it to Mrs. Soprano, making a big show of their generosity. (“We’re here if you need anything,” Vito told her.) Tony’s quick exit from Coma Land was spurred by the sound of Paulie’s selfish drone, which pushed him into cardiac arrest; asked by Carmela to sit by her husband’s bedside and talk to him, the silver-haired capo blathered on about himself, at one point regaling Tony with an account of his three-peat victory in a military chin-up contest. Afterward, when the big boss was awake but barely functioning, Chris stopped by long enough to tell Tony he expected him to invest Chris' first venture as a movie producer, a digital horror flick about an eviscerated mobster who reassembles himself and goes after his killers with a meat cleaver. Grotesquely invoking the memory of his slain former wife Adriana, whom Chris gave up as a snitch, he said, “You owe me this.”

As my Star-Ledger colleague Alan Sepinwall observed, "The Keystone Kops antics of Silvio and company also neatly illustrate how much smarter Tony is than the rest of his army combined. These are dumb, dumb people, and a world without Tony telling them what to do would be a grim future indeed."

Compared to the first couple of episodes, this one meandered and occasionally ran into a ditch and spun its wheels. And there were more than a few cringe-inducing moments -- particularly Paulie’s groin injury (“My fuckin’ balls!”), Vito’s cliched predatory homosexuality (very 1970s) and the predictably crude decision to stage a dramatically significant Vito-Paulie-Silvio conference in a hospital men’s room while Silvio was unburdening himself in a stall. (My brother Richard observed that on “The Sopranos,” “You always know there’s gonna be trouble if somebody’s taking a shit.”) In the end, the drama cohered (barely) thanks mainly to powerful performances by Edie Falco and James Gandolfini (whose winsome Coma Land performance as average guy Kevin Finnerty suggested he’ll have a long life as an Everyman character actor) and by the show’s bemused contempt for venality in all its forms.

Chase and his writers are so cynical about people that they make Luis Bunuel seem like Frank Capra; they expect the worst of humanity and show humanity at its worst. Even most of the one-off characters are scumbags, hustlers and swine (including Timothy Daly’s pretentious screenwriter J.T. Dolan, who’s writing Chris’ horror movie to pay off a gambling debt). And the series routinely makes room for condemnations of whole classes of entertainment industry types -- no small feat for a drama set in suburban New Jersey. Chris describes indie moviemakers as “Douchebags who never made a film before,” and when his henchman drag Dolan out of a Writers’ Guild class, the blank-faced would-be William Goldmans don’t even get up from their seats. “An entire room full of writers, and you did nothing!” Dolan moans.

Say this for the “Sopranos” writers: they're equal-opportunity misanthropists. They see the bad in everyone, themselves included.

As for the dream/hallucination/afterlife imagery, I am not quite sure what to make of the final scene of Tony standing outside of the Finnerty home, making cryptic small talk with the gatekeeper (Steve Buscemi, who played Tony's most recent shooting victim, mobbed-up cousin Tony Blundetto) and hesitating to enter. Both times I watched the episode, I saw it as a surreal and rather beguiling "Godfather" riff -- business vs. personal, the family vs. The Family; Tony can't enter the domicile and be a real husband and father until he sets aside business (symbolized by Finnerty's briefcase). That's in addition to the obvious interpretation: Tony was in purgatory, the house is heaven, and he's called back to earth before he can step through the front door. There also seemed a faint suggestion that to get into heaven, i.e. to finally merge with, and be safe with, his true family, Tony will have to literally give up his business family -- meaning rat them out. Given what we know about Tony Soprano, that seems unlikely. But perhaps not impossible. Those voices rustling in the trees might be the children he never spent enough time with, or they could be the spirits of people he killed. At this point, we just don't know, and I'm fairly sure that Chase, being Chase, won't tell us.

40 comments:

Alan Sepinwall said...

It's funny; the first time I saw the Inn at the Oaks, I thought it was the Corleone compound in Nevada. But then I went and checked my Godfather DVDs and saw there was little or no resemblance, aside from the wooded grounds.

I think the giving up of the briefcase had less to do with work vs. family than it did with Tony being asked to give up his life, his identity, everything that he is, to move on to whatever was on the other side of that white light.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

In other words, you had a more theological than practical take on what the image meant. I can definitely see that.

Interesting, though, that the thing he has to give up in order to enter heaven is his briefcase, unquestionably an emblem of work.

Alan Sepinwall said...

Not just work. As Tony says repeatedly to Tony B. (or, as he's referred to in the closing credits, "Man"), "My whole life is in there." (Finnerty, for instance, kept the family reunion invite in the briefcase, not his other luggage.)

As I just wrote in the comments over on my blog, I could also be easily swayed over to the idea that the whole Costa Mesa adventure was a fiction created by Tony's comatose mind, assimilating his vague awareness of what was happening to him in the real world (stomach pains, Paulie's voice, etc.) and incorporating it into a kind of self-examination. When the monks talk about how someone has to be accountable for the failure of their heating system, maybe that's just Tony realizing that, if he ever wakes up, he needs to take more responsibility for the bad things he does.

I don't know. I keep going around and around on this. Damn David Chase for simply saying, "I wouldn't call those dreams" and then changing the subject! Damn him!!!!!

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Well, not to around and around on this or anything, but when Tony says, "My whole life is in there," does that mean the briefcase represents the totality of his life on earth, his physical existence, his mortal coil, etc? Or (cue Leonard Nimoy's voice) could it be that the briefcase signifies that work (i.e. crime) encloses everything in his life, including his family?

Or is David Chase just fucking with us to see what we'll say?

Edward Copeland said...

I definitely agree that the Carmela stuff was the episode's highlight. It's so funny how pretty much the entire crew has been transformed into nothing but whiners. Poor Tony looks like a zombie sitting in his chair and Chris still wants to bug him about his movie project. As far as making all the characters unlikeable, it seems like Bobby had always escaped that in the earlier seasons, but now he' starting to bitch and whine as much as the rest, though I'm sure Janice's influence is to blame for that.

Edward Copeland said...

Also, just because I'm a credit watcher, did everyone take notice that Ray Abruzzo (Carmine Jr.) got bumped to the opening credits as well?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

I hope he's got other jobs lined up. On this show, as in the real life mob, a bump up in status means you're more likely to get killed.

Alan Sepinwall said...

They've been shuffling a lot of the familiar faces in and out of the credits this year. Toni Kalem (Mrs. Pussy) was in the opening credits for episode one, but not for these last two episodes she didn't appear in, and I know Dan Grimaldi (Patsy Parisi) is in the credits next week.

Something I need to go back and check my season three DVDs for: someone mentioned to me the other day that Robert Funaro (Eugene Pontecorvo) was in the opening credits for all of season three, even though he had almost nothing to do. The theory is that the writers had a much bigger role in mind for him before Nancy Marchand died, and that there are outlines somewhere on the Web for this "phantom" third season. Anyone ever hear of this before?

TuckPendleton said...

I'm curious about the directors of the episodes...with the exception of a few names I know from indie films, it seems like most of the directors are TV journeymen. Yet their work is consistently gorgeous, evocative, has splendid framing, etc., etc. MSZ, Alan, anyone else: has the show just chosen their directors exceptionally well, are the scripts extrememly specific in their shot descriptions, or do you think Chase is Spielberg to each episode's Tobe Hooper, directing everything from over their shoulder? (OK, the wording there is a little awkward, but I think you understand...)

Adam N. said...

I'm amazed no one has mentioned the lurking presence in the doorway of the Inn at the Oaks -- Livia. I didn't think that this was necessarily Heaven. I half- expected Ralphie, Gloria, and Big Pussy to start massing on the porch -- just thinking about who was at that party and what they might have been talking about is severely creepy.

Alan Sepinwall said...

tuckpendleton, I think the expanded production time is the primary reason the work of someone like Tim Van Patten looks so much better than it did on, say, Touched by an Angel. Network TV dramas shoot over 7 or 8 days; "The Sopranos" has, I think, 20-day shoots. More time to set up shots and make everything look as good as it possibly can. The downside, of course, is 20-month hiatuses.

adam, I mentioned the phantom Livia in my review as a sign that if that house was a gateway to the afterlife, it sure wasn't Tony going to the good place.

Edward Copeland said...

When Funaro was in the credits for season 3, it took me forever to figure out who he is, and his name would only appear on episodes in which he was present. It seems that the new additions are like Frank Vincent, Vincent Curatola and John Ventimiglia -- they only appear in the credits if they are in that episode, unlike others like Bracco and Chianese who stay in them no matter if they appear or not.

aaron aradillas said...

Chase is definitely fucking with us. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The final scene in Tony's coma seems to be offering T a chance to scrape together some kind of redemption for when he wakes up. Is redemption possible for a man like Tony? Or, will he twist everything around to fit his needs? You know, like he always does.

The session between Melfi and Carmela was the show's highlight. It showed that Melfi is the one outsider the Sopranos can remotely trust. She's loyal to Tony and his immediate family while everyone else is circling his bed, making plans for the future. (God forbid!) Look closer, and you'll see in a strange way Bracco's Melfi was having a conversation with her character (Karen Hill) from GoodFellas.

Was anyone else happy that someone finally yelled at AJ? He's been needing to get yelled since at least Season 3.

This season, more than any other, seems to be a slap in the face to anyone who thought Tony was "cool" and loveable. Chase seems to be setting us up for Tony finally having to pay for what he does. Chase may be a cynic, but I have to believe he has a shred of hope for redemption. Any good tortured Catholic has to believe in the slightest possibility of salvation.

TuckPendleton said...

OK, Alan, thanks. That makes sense. And probably true since none of the directors have really made the leap to features...(that weren't already also working there...). I remember seeing that Allan Coulter directed the Kingpin mini for NBC, and I think he is directed the new movie about George Reeves, but that's really it, isn't it?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Aaron writes, " Look closer, and you'll see in a strange way Bracco's Melfi was having a conversation with her character (Karen Hill) from GoodFellas."

Absolutely right on. I thought the same thing watching it. In fact, the wording of Carmela's confession about her early attraction to Tony sounds a tiny bit like Bracco's "Goodfellas" narration.

Jen said...

"I know there are women, like my best friends, who would have gotten out of there the minute their boyfriend gave them a gun to hide. But I didn't. I got to admit the truth. It turned me on."

alonso duralde said...

Something tells me that if you're a married mobster who also happens to be a closeted gay man, your approach to hitting on dudes is bound to be "very 70s."

But that asthma showing up for the first time? Getouddahere!

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Yeah, the athsma thing got me to thinking of the Anton Chekhov rule, about how you don't introduce a gun into a play unless you're going to fire it before the final curtain. Except instead of a gun, it was an inhaler.

PS, to Adam N. -- In retrospect, it seems incredible that I didn't immediately think of Livia when Tony saw that presence in the doorway. That's got to be what it was.

KJ said...

"Except for Melfi, whose Talmudic scrutiny of her patients’ rationalizations makes her Chase’s true dramatic surrogate, every major “Sopranos” character is supremely selfish, even when they present themselves as compassionate.

We don't want to go too easy on Melfi, since we remember that in the wake of her rape it was Tony who brutally avenged her honor. The snarling rottweiler's of her feverish dream was a potent image. So perhaps she herself isn't complicit in all this dirty business (weeeelll...) but she's certainly been compromised.

What I'm always reminded of while watching "The Sopranos" is the title of Danny Sugarman's (poorly written) book on Jim Morrison, "No one gets out alive."

Brett said...

to extrapolate on a running theme in these Sopranos posts, not only do chase and co. rarely hold their characters accountable very long (or without shrugging it off), but even now, when they seem to be doing so more than ever, they are still apologizing it. I agree, AJ has deserved nothing short of a severe beating for at least a few seasons now (and talk about whinny voices, is anyone else beyond-annoyed at the way he drags out the first syllables of every sentence he utters: "mmmmI don't know" "mmmmok" "mmmmmnobody told me!"), but what happens when he finally gets a (verbal) lashing? Carmela is seeing turning herself into the bad-guy, confessing to Melfi how she's become an unfit mother. In a way that makes the drama more conflicted, but it also acts as an apology for holding any of the characters accountable.

Not complaining, I think this season is shaping up to be the best yet, just sayin' is all...

Brett said...

KJ: Dreams hardly compromise ones character. Melfi never actually had Tony avenge her rape, the scene where this (didn't) occur was one of the most powerful of the entire series...

Mark said...

Alan said: "tuckpendleton, I think the expanded production time is the primary reason the work of someone like Tim Van Patten looks so much better than it did on, say, Touched by an Angel."

It's incredible to hear that each Sopranos episode shoots for 20 days. Wow. This makes perfect sense, in relation to features, but I guess I never considered how long it takes them to shoot a full season.

But I still find your answer to tuckpendleton's question inadequate. All the time in the world couldn't spin shit into gold. Not to mention that it is highly debatable how additional time relates to quality. Surely, there must be other reasons, in addition to this one.

aaron aradillas said...

Melfi's decision to not unleash her rage through Tony on her rpist is the clearest example of Chase drawing a line in the sand when it comes to dividing the morally-bankrupt characters from the rest. Chase doesn't preach, but he knows the difference between right and wrong. And he knows that every day is a struggle to maintain one's moral compass. Like Scorsese, Chase has a profound understanding of morality that is all too rare to find in our artists.

Has anyone noticed all the quotes from Season 1? During Carm's big breakdown scene from last week's episode, she apologized for saying Tony was going to Hell when he died. In last night's ep a glimpse of Bill Kurtis on the TV seemed to be an echo from the first session between Tony and Melfi. ("I get all my information from Bill Kurtis.")

BTW: Should the Emmy people just give Falco her Emmy now and call it a day?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Mark: Before Alan was on the SOPRANOS beat at the Ledger, I wrote about the first three seasons, and during the course of that, I interviewed two cinematographers and a lot of directors. They all said Chase's house style was modeled on classical Hollywood storytelling. He preferred cutting in camera to the extent that such a thing was possible, and he liked for directors to keep the camera far back whenever they could justify it, the better for us to see the characters' body language and how they relate to each other nonverbally (as opposed to the usual TV method of covering everything with multiple cameras and shooting closeups of everything in sight until you get all the footage you need). Obviously there are days when they have to plow through however they can, and really hustle, but whenever possible they try to put a bit of thought into where they're putting the camera and why they put it there. Storyboarding is not uncommon, but for the most part the directors go onto the set (or the locations) beforehand, come up with a few rough ideas of how they want to shoot, then call the actors in, block the scene and make whatever adaptations seem necessary. The gaffer tries to keep things as constrasty as possible without totally crushing the blacks (since some people don't have good TVs) but like THE X-FILES, DEADWOOD and other literally & figuratively dark shows, they aren't afraid to have large portions of the frame blacked out. Chase and many of his collaborators are fans of black and white, and it shows.

Last year, while writing a Star-Ledger obituary for the late (and in my opinion, great) SOPRANOS director John Patterson, who shot all the finales up through Season Five, I found out that he was a huge fan of 1940s film noir and French New Wave films from the late 50s and early 60s, and he used to make his cinematographers and gaffers look at books by Henri Cartier-Bresson, to give them a sense of what he wanted in terms of contrast, and also his sensibility with regard to capturing what Bresson called "decisive moments." Obviously Patterson didn't emulate some of the more obvious French New Wave stylistic tics -- no jump cuts that I've seen -- but it's still interesting that he identified with European filmmaking (and European-influenced filmmaking -- noir came out of German Expressionism). I have no idea if other regular SOPRANOS directors were this eccentric and specific, but it's interesting to me that this particular director was encouraged to cite influences and work out a personal aesthetic. TV doesn't normally permit that.

I hope that answered at least some small part of your question.

Alan Sepinwall said...

Time makes more of a difference than you would think. If you look at the pilot for your average network drama (shot on a schedule that can be twice as long as an average episode), it inevitably has more interesting angles and lighting than you get when the grind of production creates a philosophy where the fastest set-up is the best.

And guys like Van Patten are also working with better scripts and better actors than they generally have on network TV. To paraphrase Sam Jackson, David Chase isn't just in a different ballpark from Martha Williamson, he's not even playing the same sport.

TuckPendleton said...

MSZ --

I know you were answering Mark most directly, but thanks. This makes more sense to me. It also occurred to me that the show has been on long enough that a confident and skilled enough director can get a good sense of what's expected.

On a somewhat related note, I finally had a chance to see Bubble, and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Upon reflection, I think a large part of that was due to the static camera, and the sheer confidence that Soderbergh showed in how he shot the film. And I think it is one of the reasons I enjoy the Sopranos so much.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

I didn't like BUBBLE, but i did like the way Soderbergh shot it. He erred on the side of stasis -- wide shots, static setups. I wondered if he was overcompensating after complaints that he'd gone overboard with the verite stuff (almost everything from THE LIMEY through K STREET was shot largely handheld, with the conspicuous exceptions of OCEANS 11 and 12 and parts of SOLARIS. I was starting to think that he only busted out the tripod and the dolly when he studio bosses looking over his shoulder, wondering if he was making things commercial enough.

But I digress. HBO, Showtime and some FX series demonstrate a lot more visual variety than most network shows, which tend to be shot either all handheld or all-Steadicam. I don't like too much of one thing, and that's why the cable dramas tickle my fancy even when particular episodes fall short.

Anonymous said...

I showed up here last week to dis the dream sequence and MZS admonished me to watch show 3 first. Advice taken. And the error I made, which should be obvious, was to pan one episode of a story which arcs over a much longer period.

Having said that I'm still basically into The Sopranos for yucks, with a secondary appreciation for character development, psychology, etc. I think there are huge possibilities inherent in reducing Tony from alpha male to feeb and that alone could supply story material for the rest of the season. Especially if, as seems to be the case, Tony's diminished status has suddenly given all the other pack males licenses to indulge their own fantasies.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

"From Alpha Male to Feeb: The Tony Soprano Story."

Sean Burns said...

Matt, I'm afraid I can't agree with your interpretation that the Inn at the Oaks was supposed to be heaven. Remember, this was an Irish family reunion... and as Christopher informed us after suffering a similar situation in Season 2: "Hell is a crowded Irish bar... and every day is Saint Patrick's Day!"

This episode was indeed a bit klutzier than the last two, but must confess I dug some of the stuff you cited as "cringe-inducing."

The show has always had a cheerfully lowbrow, scatalogical edge to it, and somehow Paulie whining incessantly about his balls and acknowledging that his formerly muscular arms "are now wrinkled as an old lady's cunt" felt like a sort of homecoming after a rough couple weeks.

I laughed out loud when Paulie's bitching seeped through the hotel walls and sent Tony into cardiac arrest, and downright roared when Christopher explained that, the way he saw it, Tony "owes him this."

(You know it's a good episode if I'm watching alone and find myself talking to my cat. "My God, these people are monsters!" I yelped, somewhere in the direction of the indifferent animal.)

I felt that the moment after Chris left, when Tony was hunched over drooling in the hospital chair, was a deliberate throwback to my favorite shot in Season 2 -- after Tony's been up all night cleaning up Janice's Richie Aprile mess, only to come home and get an earful from Carmela about how he's now going to pay for her trip to Rome.

I'll need to go back and double-check the DVD to see if the shot's the same, but the feeling it leaves is so wonderfully similar...and maybe a key to why we love this character in spite of his awful misdeeds:

"Yeah, he's a bad guy and all, but really... how much more ridiculous bullshit is this poor bastard gonna have to put up with?"

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Yeah, you're not the first person to point out that on THE SOPRANOS, Irish equals Hell. I'm on the verge of retracting my interpretation of what that house symbolizes. There's too much evidence that it's a source of menace rather than comfort. That the menace is merely glimpsed and overheard rather than seen makes it more mysterious and chilling.

KJ said...

Brett, thanks for straightening my recollection, I had recalled the resolution of that episode incorrectly. Unlike my faulty memory Chase's moral compass remains oriented correctly.

Edward Copeland said...

While I love Edie Falco and think she deserves an Emmy nearly every year, I'm sort of saddened that this will be the last shot for Frances Conroy to win for "Six Feet Under" when she was the only consistent character on the show. As for the Livia appearance, I rewound and watched that scene twice, but I didn't get what you all are talking about. Is it in the flash of light? Do you need to slow it down to catch it?

Edward Copeland said...

Thinking more about Bobby, isn't he the only member of the crew never shown to commit violence or get rough with someone else?

Alan Sepinwall said...

Bacala has been shown threatening people a couple of times, notably when he offered to put three bullets in the head of a union guy who was thinking of voting against the mob's chosen frontman.

Livia is the woman in the gray dress whom you glimpse briefly on the porch of the Inn at the Oaks, right before Tony B. says "Everyone's in there."

Andrew Dignan said...

Bobby's also been known to jump into a fray and swing a bat/pipe from time to time, specifically the Columbus Day protest in season 4 and the episode where the black reverend was protesting one of Tony's job sites back in season 2. But in general, you're correct, he's just a big ol' teddy bear.

JRE said...

Can Tony really "leave" his work behind? Chase is on the record as saying that The Sopranos follows/will follow the pattern of the classical gangster picture with a rise, a time on top, and the inevitable fall. Tony has confided as much to Dr. Melfi, that he knows there are only two ways out for guys at the top, death or prison, and that he only hoped he could stick it out long enough to get his kids out of the house. Well, he's done that, so there are really only two ways out.

I'd also like to note the sharp contrast to what's happened in the hospital this time when Tony’s been shot vs. the first time he was shot (the botched hit in “Isabella”). Then, when Carm tried to get him to take the Feds up on their offer of protection, she reminded him of the kids, and the possible future with him in jail. “Don’t you want them to have a father?” she asked, and he responded, “The do have a father: me. Tony Soprano. And all that goes along with it.” (Quotes somewhat paraphrased from memory.) At the time, you wanted to applaud -- the roguish gangster was putting his oath above his personal comfort. Now, with the moral stakes being ratcheted up not just for Tony but, as Carm pointed out to Dr. Melfi, for those children, it’s hard not to look back at Tony’s statements has hopelessly naive.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

jre: Great point. And consistent with where this final season seems to be going; it's taking prior events and prior statements and repeating them in a new context, so that we have to revist them and critique them. A great strategy, potentially quite promising, whether the characters learn from their mistakes or not.

hhaller said...

It is pretty amazing that the show has maintained such a consistent visual style and pace with so many different directors, especially since they are afforded a surprising amount of freedom. The moment that I knew the directors were allowed creative freedom, and actually wished they weren't was in Mike Figgis's episode in season 5. Remember when Carmela bumps into AJ's principle (couselor?) at the school, after their affair ended poorly? She tells him that she got back together with Tony, then as she walks away the shot goes into slo mo, then a freeze frame, then there's a ridiculous wipe to the next scene. It was a moment so aesthetically out of place and jarring that I think it stands as the only really glaring stylistic error in the entire series. It was just so terrible, and clearly it was only there because he thought it was cool because it added nothing to the emotional thrust of the scene. Pretty much the opposite of good direction in my humble opinion.

Toadmonster said...

Carmela's therapy scene was stunning. It reminded me of a scene where Tony told Melfi that his hope for Meadow was that she would get away from him ("Not necessarily geographically, I mean, she could live close-" "I know what you mean."). Like Tony, Carmella knows she's damned herself. They've both transferred any hope for redemption onto their children.

"Something tells me that if you're a married mobster who also happens to be a closeted gay man, your approach to hitting on dudes is bound to be "very 70s.""

Yeah. Vito displays predatory homosexuality because he's predatory. The menace is also deliberate, because Finn is a threat (while also someone Vito can be 'open' toward).

Re: the end of the coma dream, the scene is definitely a choice between life and death/afterlife; work (briefcase) and family (Meadow's voice) on one side, ghosts on the other. No question, though, the house is hell. It's a decorated house instead of a fiery pit (or Irish bar) to highlight that Tony doesn't choose life out of simple fear, but it is hell. Livia of course lords over it all. Tony B makes sense as the gatekeeper - Tony's murdered 'good' half. The house is no doubt filled with every friend he murdered, every innocent he screwed. He knows exactly who he is.