Monday, April 09, 2007

The Sopranos Mondays: Season 6, Ep. 13, "Soprano Home Movies"

By Matt Zoller Seitz

"Is this it?" Carmela asks Tony in Sunday's episode of The Sopranos, after waking up to the sound of cops beating on their front door.

No, it's not quite "it" -- if by "it" you mean the point where Da Family's bad deeds finally catch up with it. Tony is rich enough to buy a good lawyer, and the charge that prompted his latest arrest is old and weak (possession of a handgun and hollow point ammunition -- fallout from the end of Season Five, where Tony fled from the feds' arrest of Johnny Sack and chucked his piece in the snow, where it was discovered by a dumbass suburban teen). But in another sense, yes, this is "it" -- the final stretch for The Sopranos, the series. To answer one Carmela quote with another -- from Season Four -- "Let me tell you something. Everything comes to an end."

The opening sequence of this episode -- an off-kilter prologue, really, with an alternate narrative that opens like a hypertext link -- also echoes the lyrics of the show's theme: "Woke up this morning/Got yourself a gun." But this time, it was a gun Tony that didn't have anymore -- and damn sure didn't want. The charge, though not quite resolved, looks like it won't stick (emphasis on "looks like"), so it counts as a close call -- one of many that Tony has endured over six seasons, the most drastic of which was his shooting by demented Uncle Junior. That near-death experience, complete with purgatorial dreamworld visions, didn't change Tony permanently -- he just turned sensitive for a few weeks, got sized up as a softie by more predatory men, then re-embraced his instinct for self-preservation, starting with a flamboyant beatdown of his gym-muscled chaffeur that was intended to show his crew that the big dog still had teeth.

Tony's said that guys who live this kind of life tend to go out one of two ways: on a slab or in the can. But there's a difference between knowing and understanding, and while Tony knows the risks of mob life, it's still not clear that he truly understands them -- or that if he does understand them, that he has the willpower, or even the inclination, to act against omerta, his fucked-up childhood, a possibly genetic predisposition to violence, and an addiction to big houses, big cars, big TVs and (it would seem) lifetime membership in the Blowjob of the Day Club. (Tony got a B-Day BJ from Carmela this episode, but her self-satisfied "Happy birthday" suggested it was a special gift for a special occasion.) A leopard cannot change its spots.

I've said in other House recaps -- and in a piece published in Sunday's Star-Ledger -- that The Sopranos might be the most cynical long-running series in TV history, a worst-case-scenario look at human nature in which people can always be relied upon embrace their own caricature and do whatever's most convenient for them at any given moment. Dr. Melfi's passive tough-love notwithstanding, there isn't much noble behavior on display, just thugs and thugs-by-proxy tearing into each other like hyenas. The characters keep going through the motions of change, or reform, only to slip back into old behavior. How many times has Christopher relapsed into substance abuse? How many times has Tony sworn off adultery only to find himself in flagrante four or five scenes later? How many times has Carmela flirted with her conscience (through therapy, religion and simple anger over Tony's brutishness) only to drift back into Tony's embrace? The show's detractors have a point when they ask if the lurid weekly spectacle of The Sopranos isn't ultimately exploitive and numbing, no matter how many times creator David Chase and company shock us (and themselves) out of complacency with a stakes-raising atrocity, a satirical jab or a moment of real introspection (like the ones Tony seemed to experience during the first half of Season Six). And a part of me would still like to see Tony and people close to Tony suffer for their sins, partly to bring The Sopranos in line with classic gangster narratives (the prospect of which apparently fills Chase with self-loathing, otherwise he wouldn't keep insisting that the show isn't a gangster story), and partly because yes, from week to week, the show often does seem a bit fatuous, like Scarface for New Yorker subscribers (the pop culture-laden insults that pop out of the gangsters' mouths often sound more L.A. writers' room than Jersey Turnpike).

But the closer we get to the end, the more convinced I am that such an outcome simply isn't possible. I say that not just because Chase seems to have a low opinion of the human species but also because of of the peculiar genius of The Sopranos, which takes an aspect of TV storytelling that's long been considered a weakness and treats it as a strength.

Movie snobs (those who look down their noses at TV for not being movies) trumpet commercial narrative cinema's preference for a forward-moving, goal-directed story in which characters face problems, learn something about themselves and change (usually, but not always, for the better); they contrast this tendency with TV's open-endedness, its cyclical repetitions, and its addiction to what might be called kinetic stasis -- the dramatic equivalent of running in place. And it's true: Kinetic stasis is TV storytelling's DNA. On TV, characters do things and have things done to them; they go through dark nights of the soul, or get married or divorced, bury a child, go back to school and drop out, convert to Catholicism or buy a new boat; but in the end, they don't really change all that much, because if they did, viewers that tuned in each week to be reassured by the sight of familiar characters and situations would get irritated and stop watching, the ratings would fall, the sponsors would pull out, and soon there would be no show. Every now and then comes a show like The Wire and Deadwood, where there's a continual sense of collective forward motion, and key characters change so drastically that from one season to the next that they truly seem to have become different people. But these exceptions don't disprove the rule.

Intriguingly, though, some of the most memorable TV shows -- usually comedies like The Honeymooners and All in the Family and Everybody Loves Raymond -- don't bother depicting characters that grow and change because they aren't interested in that process and perhaps, on some level, don't believe that it happens as often as movies and plays and novels would have us believe. These series would rather show us the many ways in which human beings don't change -- the ways in which they stay consistent, true to form or type, from cradle to grave, despite occasional flurries of effort designed to convince themselves and their loved ones that this is it, they're really changing, and from now on everything is going to be different.

The Sopranos is the ultimate example of this. It takes the kinetic stasis that's an incidental quality of other shows and puts it right in the foreground. On some level, The Sopranos is often about characters becoming the thing that their subculture requires them to be, or the thing they were born to be. Anyone who goes against preconditioning, whatever its form, suffers. Eugene Pontecorvo wanted out, was told he couldn't leave, and hung himself; Vito Spatafore came out of the closet, found the beginnings of a new life, then tried to return home a changed man and got beaten to death in a cheap motel room. Christopher keeps trying and failing to kick drugs, but his real drug is Da Family. He gave up his true love to appease it -- a gangster to the core. A.J. can't really force himself to break away from the family; he gestures toward creating a new life with Blanca and her kids, but under his parents' roof. (The episode has a good laugh at the expense of A.J.'s identifying with Blanca's culture when Tony comes home from jail and A.J. says, "in my neighborhood people don't get out right away.") Meadow has spent the entire series trying to be something other than a godfather's daughter (rather comically -- the show rarely takes her aspirations seriously) and now seems to have grown closer to her parents than ever before. (When the cops roust Tony in "Soprano Home Movies," she complains to her mom, "That show of force -- was that all about humiliating dad?" Yep -- just like the feds hauling Johnny Sack away from his daughter's wedding.) And Carmela and Tony's marriage is an affectionate bond that rests on a bedrock of lies, trades and compromises; she's a mob wife and he's a mobster, and that's that.

Sunday's action was all about enforcing hierachies and deepening the status quo; it was a demonstration of Tony's inability to escape being Tony even when escape is the whole point. He and Carmela try to flee the anxiety surrounding Tony's gun charge and the irritation of A.J.'s new situation by heading out to Bobby and Janice's spectacular lakehouse to celebrate Tony's birthday. By the episode's end, Tony has resserted his personal and professional dominance over Bobby -- probably the only guy in his crew he can really trust -- by loutishly reminding Bobby that his good life comes from Tony, insulting Janice during a drunken Monopoly game, and provoking Bobby into a clumsy, stupid fight. (The music in the scene is Dave Brubeck's "Take Five" -- as in, take a break, relax.) Unable to accept the fact that he lost the fight, Tony obsesses for the rest of his vacation, then avenges himself by forcing Bobby to do a hit, something Bobby had avoided doing until now. The action confirms Tony's trivial sadism, certifies Bobby's helplessness before Tony and bonds Bobby ever tighter to the organization.

On The Sopranos, when a character compliments another character on bettering himself, or simply changing, it's usually a sick joke. "The credit goes to you," Janice tells her brother, noting how mellow he's become. "You've really changed." Of course neither Tony nor Janice has really changed -- they've just become more powerful and loathsome over the years, and more tragic because of the glimmers of self-awareness that keep getting snuffed out. The sense that Tony had a chance to really change but missed his moment is indicated, subtly, when Carmela spots a jumping fish (probably the most important animal on this show, even more important than the ducks in Tony's Season One dream) and Tony looks up too late to see it.

"You're a young man," Bobby tells Tony. "We both are. The world's still in front of us." But the episode's real message can be found in another Bobby line, when he tells Tony that he's glad he never had to do a hit because DNA evidence makes it so hard to get away with crime these days. It's a significant image: you literally cannot escape your identity.

45 comments:

Edward Copeland said...

One thing I kep thinking about after last night's episode is Barbara, the third Soprano child. How did she get out so easily? Does she have any lasting scars from growing up in that household? Her few brief appearances on the show give no signs of that and I doubt we'll find out in the remaining eight.

(SPOILERS BELOW IF YOU HAVEN"T SEEN IT YET)



The episode itself I liked a lot. That tension beneath the surface of Tony and Janice and Bobby built more suspense than just about any episode since The Weight. I'd always suspected that Bobby had never killed, just because he seemed so much gentler than the rest of the gang. You almost have to think he'd rather Tony had whacked him than to have made him cross that line.

Mark said...

I was frustrated by the dissapation of forward narrative momentum in the twelfth episode of season six. I really liked episode thirteen as it was an effective demonstration that the show is moving forward.

I don't know if I really want or expect to see anyone get killed. Still, if someone goes to prison or Tony has another brush with the law by the end of the season I won't be disappointed.

It is nice to see that the kids are following in their parents footsteps, and if nothing else will be weaker less effective versions of their parents.

The fact that Barbara doesn't make any appearances underlines just what a sharp break she has made with her past. Could she really spend a lot of time with Tony, Carmela, and the crew without being tainted by their dysfunction?

spencer said...

I thought this show exemplified a typical sopranos technique of substituting a change in form for a change of content.

As Matt describes, the characters never change. Every time the show hints at a new beginning, it is a false one (Carmela ending her marriage, Tony viewing every day as a gift, etc.)

So while Chase has essentially been treading water in terms of what he has to say, he has continually found new ways to say it through 6 seasons. As others have mentioned, Chase loves the anti-climax, and loves to reverse expectations. Think the first episode of season 3 (where the majority of the episode is given to the FBI's wire-tap efforts) or the "finale" of Season 6A, where the episode was all build and no climax.

Last night's episode was new in form and structure, but overly familiar in the feeling of David Chase relishing how much he has defied our expectations. The show goes out of its way to emphasize just how "different" this episode is; we see clothes we have never seen before (Tony and Bobby in shorts?) and the clutter of the lake house is a far cry from the empty space of the Soprano home. The gang plays karaoke (did enjoy how Carmela's choice was "Love Hurts"). The episode contains no plot b. We're seeing our characters as never before.

But, of course, we're not. The admittedly hilarious monopoly game (we've never seen tony like THIS before) is just an appetizer for a very familiar entree.

Ultimately, I think your fears are right Matt - Chase's characters don't change. I'm sure he'll find a way of making the series Finale play out contrary to everyone's expectations, but it'll ultimately be the same point made for the 86th and final time.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Early prediction for the series finale: Lots of people in Tony's crew will go down, but Tony will be left standing, battered but unbowed, having learned basically nothing.

Edward Copeland said...

I think it will be a bit of a copout if there isn't some kind of major change at the end. Either Tony getting killed or going to jail. I can't imagine him turning rat despite the fact that their last name has always implied people who sing. One thought that keeps coming back to me is that something has to happen to one of the kids, presumably A.J., so that's Tony left feeling empty. Presumably with the power struggle building in NY, it really does beg the question: When Tony is gone, who does take over? Silvio showed last year that he's not equipped for the boss role. Christopher doesn't seem up to it either. Then again, as Tony said in the first season, he's coming in at the end of this thing, not the beginning.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

A series wrap-up without major change might feel unsatisfying to many viewers, but I wouldn't call it a cop-out. It'd be wholly consistent with Chase's cynical view, expressed in every season of the series.

In fact -- and see if you can follow me here -- the only reason Chase would have for putting Tony through major, permanent change is to outguess people who think they've got him pegged.

So will he go for a no change/anticlimax ending, which has pretty much been his m.o. since the Second Season, or will he spring some kind of major change on us, sort of a double-reversal, to prove that we haven't got him all figured out?

I think the show should be consistent even if it means anticlimax. Tony dead, Tony in jail, Tony a broken man after one of his kids dies, have all been done before. I've never seen a gangster story that ended with the main guy walking away Scott free, numbed and weary but otherwise intact, whistling "The Happy Wanderer" to keep the ghosts at bay. Which makes me think Chase'll do some variation of that.

Edward Copeland said...

I think the main reason I want some sort of conclusion is just to avoid the possibility of money or other things luring Chase and the actors into coming back in either a movie or short series form. It needs to have something that makes the idea of a followup seem unnecessary or hard to put together.

Jody Tresidder said...

Matt,
That is one terrific essay.

However, you write, harshly: "On The Sopranos, when a character compliments another character on bettering himself, or simply changing, it's usually a sick joke."

A "sick joke" when the denouement pays out, perhaps, and to the all-seeing viewer, quite possibly.

But not to the characters who yearn for change.

The journey to the sick joke's punch line is pretty much the story arc of Shakespeare's tragedies though, isn't it?

(Yes, yes - I freely admit I sound like one of "Sheik's" self-deluding liberal arts, blood 'n guts gobblers!)

Wax Banks said...

MZS sez:

Early prediction for the series finale: Lots of people in Tony's crew will go down, but Tony will be left standing, battered but unbowed, having learned basically nothing.

I wouldn't be at all surprised. But I wanna take issue with your choice of words here: 'having learned basically nothing.' I'm inclined to say Tony's learned a lot, indeed is constantly learning - look at how quickly he assimilates Melfi's advice into his life every time, if only superficially. He's lasted this long, the show says, because he's the smartest of his (not terribly smart) compatriots, because he keeps the right guy (Silvio) by his side, because he's never allowed himself to be tempted away from a comfort zone. What enables him to live his 'charmed' life is that he doesn't want anything else; he's got the kids, the car, the house, the everything, and if it doesn't make him happy, he knows he can't do better, given his nature and his circumstances. A hell of a thing to have to confront, hence the agita. That's what was so sad about the Season Six episode in which he and Christopher did the truck heist and spent the whole episode referring incessantly to it: Tony sees that there's nothing new for him except going straight (self-defeating), and sees also that Christopher wants only to be Tony.

I'm with you, Matt, in wanting to see Tony brought low (even as I want him to get away with it all, and hate that impulse). Watching The Wire's third season gave me similar feelings; the fate of Stringer Bell was the more upsetting because he saw it coming. The more you know, the less you're able to delude yourself into happiness: that's maybe the most depressing lesson of the show. Paulie and Christopher come off as whiny because they're mad at the world without cause; Tony's too smart for that. Which is why his unusually literate malapropisms don't bother me, and seem like a silly thing to complain about: as has been repeatedly demonstrated, he's exactly the kind of guy who'd effect a smarty-pants vibe to win respect, not knowing what a fool he sounds like (who in his crew can judge him?).

Besides which, The Sopranos is apparently something called a 'TV drama,' in which artificial language is employed to create a heightened effect. It's not like, say, The Wire in that respect: the language is stylized in The Sopranos such that the verbal missteps and circular confessional non-confessions allude to the show's psychotherapeutic origins. Which is part of what grants the show its iconic power, of course - and it seems churlish to hold its writerly flourishes against it.

You see the same sadness in Ralph Kramden and other weeping clowns - I'm gonna resist the urge to type the words 'going back to Falstaff' so as not to feel like a goddamn dork here. But there's a straight line from Kramden to Archie Bunker to Tony, not just physically but in terms of the character tradition all three roles draw on. (Picture Gandolfini as Willy Loman. Oh wait, no need - just check out early Season Six again...)

Tony is probably the most expansive portrayal of human consciousness ever shown on TV; if there's something a little self-aware about the character, it's because...well, because he's a little self-aware. He knows better, but not enough better. To say he's learned nothing is to mute one of the series's tragic grace notes.

I can't wait to see this episode.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Wax: Yeah, you're correct, that phrasing is not quite right. Building on what you said, the characters on the show learn a great deal about themselves, but they often misinterpret the information, disregard it, or just forget it and go back to their old tricks.

Jody Tresidder said...

"[Tony] knows better, but not enough better."

Yup, that's it, wax banks!

(And you avoided goddam dork syndrome.)

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Jody: "The journey to the sick joke's punch line is pretty much the story arc of Shakespeare's tragedies though, isn't it?"

Yup. Pretty much. The character's greatest strength is also his weakness. My favorite Shakespeare is "Othello," because it boils that idea down to its essence. The scene where Tony tries to strangle Gloria reminded me of Othello and Desdemona somehow -- although in that case, Desdemona wanted Othello to destroy her, and himself.

Anna Laperle said...

Some very insightful comments about this episode and about the show in general. I agree that Tony will likely survive alone and unchanged by his experiences while others fall about him. Not because he's necessarily smarter or better than anyone else but because he's infinitely luckier than most.

Adnan Sheikh said...

What stood out to me about this episode was the prominence of the children (not Meadow and AJ, but Janice's daughter and her friends, and the kids of the home movies). I wasn't sure what to make of the story Carmela tells about the braindead child, especially in light of what Janice says about their mother not having a problem with them until they started speaking.

I liked the family sitting around discussing their stormy past while staring at the serene lake (Tony seems desperately to want the symbol to be more appropriate and less of a joke by the way he reacts to the story Janice tells). Janice's freakout upon seeing her daughter in the water, as well as the final shot of Bobby and the girl, makes me think the season might focus on these characters trying to save the next generation.

Brad LaBonte said...

"The action confirms Tony's trivial sadism, certifies Bobby's helplessness before Tony and bonds Bobby ever tighter to the organization."

Trivial indeed. I couldn't help but compare this hit, with its hints of Bobby as family taking on more responsibility, to the hit Tony gave to Christopher in the S4 premiere. While that killing was itself trivialized (in the end, it didn't matter *why* the cop was killed), both Christopher and Tony could delude themselves into believing the lie that the cop killed Christopher's father, thus creating an excuse to bond Chris to the organization in a meaningful way.

Bobby's hit, on the hand, was, without a doubt, to...get a lower price on some expired pills. I'm curious to see how the season plays out, but if Bobby is going to follow lock-step into hell like Chris (and the last family-filled shot makes him seem a lot like Tony, to me the real tragedy in last night's episode), it'll have to be with a characteristic sad-sack sense of duty. While he can stand up to Tony, it doesn't seem like Bobby can grow much, either.

William said...

I’m surprised this hasn’t come up yet; for me the lake hark back to The Godfather II sequence between Michael and his brother. Tony and Bobby mirror Michael and Fredo, Michael being the power and Fredo the lame ineffectual brother. Instead of the svelto Al and John, change the body shape to be current with the slothful American diet and you have our Jersey crew. Even though Bobby didn’t die like Fredo and I think there were moments in the episode when we thought he was going to. Someone did though. Someone had to pay so Tony could feel better about himself and keep the machine parts of our thing well-oiled.

Alan Sepinwall said...

I wasn't sure what to make of the story Carmela tells about the braindead child

This was Tony (who brought it up and made Carm tell it) trying to ruin Janice's good mood, as he so often does. It also explains, in part, Janice's later freak-out when Nica is in the lake without her knowledge, even though Carmela and the nanny are both right there.

Richard Leary said...

Although Tony took great pleasure in giving Bobby the assignment to kill the Canadian musician, the only aspect of this delegation was that Bobby had never done a hit before. (Is this plausible? Isn't whacking someone a prerequisite to being "made"?) If Paulie, Christopher, or some other subordinate had set up the Fosamax deal, the subordinate's taking care of the deadly part of the deal would be taken for granted.
Tony, however, outsmarted himself this time, because in clumsily "losing his cherry" Bobby seems to have left his DNA in the hands of his victim, and then left the murder weapon in plain sight in an alleyway. As Bobby puts his real family ahead of his business family -- witness not only his willingness to blindside his boss to defend his wife's dubious honor, and his taking on Paulie last year after his kids got endangered by Paulie's cheapness -- he would seem the most likely member of Tony's crew to be flipped by the FBI in its RICO pursuit of Tony.
I agree that Chase is likely to let Tony live, but I would advise Meadow not to buy any green bananas.

Ross Ruediger said...

I suspect Tony will live if no other reason than he was already "killed" at the beginning of the season.

benaiah said...

I think it is highly unlikely that Bobby would flip. I guess it would bring home the idea of family betrayal, but surely the FBI won't turn Tony's brother in law? Then, I doubt Janis would think hard about throwing Tony under the bus if it meant saving herself. I like Matt's interpretation of the DNA line better.

This is the second time this season that Tony has demonstrated that he feels like much of his power comes from being able to beat people up. He obviously thinks that is what makes his crew respect him and also what makes Carmella love him.

I could see Tony and Carm, lock-step into a future with Chrissy (at Tony's hands) and A.J. dead, Ade's murder revealed and Meadow permanently out of the family. Carm too afraid to leave and Tony refusing to change. That is the sort of ending I expect, more than Tony flipping or going to prison.

Aaron Aradillas said...

EW's Lisa Schwarzbaum suggests the possibility of Carm dying this season. I think this would be more devastating to Tony than one of the kids. There's no way he could bounce back. I doubt the show will go this way, but it's interesting to think of what ecactly would break Tony as a man.

Benaiah said...

Bill Simmons floated the idea that Carmella will kill Tony in his column today. I think this is the worst and most improbably idea I have heard in a long time. It would turn the Sopranos into Jerry Springer. Oh well, he later devoted a paragraph to all of the "great Reality TV" on the air.

Anonymous said...

I'd just like to make a comment about Tony or other Sopranos characters learning/not learning. If this were a tale of a working class man trying to break out of poverty through theft, or an African-American drug dealer who tries for a "straight" life but then is pulled back into it (a la the Wire), I don't think we would demand that the story give him his punishment to show crime doesn't pay. Perhaps that is because the noble downtrodden stuck in circumstances beyond his control is a very common literary trope. As is the idea that if you are better off materially than the rest of the world and have obtained it through crooked means (theft) then you either have to have a miserable personal life or you must somehow understand/pay for your it.
The interesting thing about the Sopranos is that it refuses to fall into these familiar literary tropes and to ask it to is perhaps not just unfair but also a closing off of unfamiliar narrative strands.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Anon: That's an interesting idea, but I have to disagree simply because we're not talking about "Killer of Sheep" here -- this is a highly stylized, in some ways "unreal" portrait of real people, one that constantly bends credibility to make metaphoric points or to invoke religious and philosophical notions of guilt, sin, obligation, etc. That sort of treatment begs for a Moral to the Story. That's why gangster pictures have traditionally been bigger than life, and it's why they've typically shown the gangster suffering in some way -- physically (loss of life or freedom), emotionally (numbness, paranoia, alienation) or spiritually (see Corleone, Michael). They're fables, and fables need morals, otherwise they're anecdotes.

That said, Chase is well within his rights to go down this road only to conclude, "God is dead, morality is an abstract construct, and neither of these things have any bearing on whether or not a person lives a happy life." But Chase himself has specifically said the series is about morality, so an ending like the one I describe would seem like pure nihilism, and not of a terribly mature variety. (It'd also beg the question, "If nothing that happens to Tony and company has any contextual weight, why have we been tuning in for six seasons, watching all the lurid behavior that goes along with it?")

Kubrick was cynical, too, but there was usually an undertone of despair that people and societies weren't better -- and that made his movies, in their pretzel-twisted way, oddly optimistic. He showed us the worst because he wished for the best -- his subject (pursued to its most fantastic end in "2001") was the gap between what humanity could be and what it was/is. I don't sense a similar grandeur, or a similarly buried but immense sense of hope, in David Chase's world -- just a general malaise, a sense of decline and fall.

Ryland Walker Knight said...

I've been predicting Meadow to take over for a while and I'll stick with it as this season finally comes to us and starts with yet another deferral. Not only do the Sopranos never change, they never want to accept responsibility for anything. Except, of course, that one time when they were king of the castle and turned somebody on.

I dug the episode almost as much as I dug this essay. I hope the season stays this de-centered and elusive. One of the series' strong suits is diversions and tangents and this was one of the best I'd seen in a while. We all know the plot is irrelevant anyways, it's just about the (uh?) joy of watching these people try to destroy one another piece by piece -- and themselves, too.

Biggest laugh? Christopher's belated B-day well wishes get hung up on. (Homie's going down, hard. And soon.)

Biggest downer? Bobby's corruption coloring his elated reunion with his adorable daughter. They's gots killer endings...no doubt the series will do the same. I expect I'll feel terrible for, like, months.

Ryland Walker Knight said...

"Kubrick was cynical, too, but there was usually an undertone of despair that people and societies weren't better -- and that made his movies, in their pretzel-twisted way, oddly optimistic. He showed us the worst because he wished for the best -- his subject (pursued to its most fantastic end in "2001") was the gap between what humanity could be and what it was/is. I don't sense a similar grandeur, or a similarly buried but immense sense of hope, in David Chase's world -- just a general malaise, a sense of decline and fall."

Pure dope, and spot on. Wish I could add more. Maybe I'll try:

Chase is mostly a downer. His ideas of morality are oddly European and not American, like, say, Emerson. I'm still learning/reading more philosophical texts from Europe so I don't know who I'd point to but I got to say, even if Chase has a moral perfectionist streak, as Emerson exemplified, it's in how his characters fail that goal, not how they embody it. So, it would have to be said he's maybe more Nietzschean, in that he's all about the present tense life but one fraught with distractions and deviations and devilry. But then the series doesn't support that read, either, because it seems nobody on The Sopranos knows the size of their own stomach, as Freddy says is crucial in, I think, Ecce Homo.

Anybody else want to get super silly heady with me? (I should be doing homework but fuck it.)

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Ryland: "I should be doing homework but fuck it."

I want that on a t-shirt. Or maybe a cape.

Anonymous said...

"His ideas of morality are oddly adolescent and not American"

fixed.

Ryan B. said...

Just watched the ep on DVR and I thought it was a dull episode. I agree with everything Matt has to say in his write-up. However, I can't help but feel that the series constantly squanders narrative potential in its attempt to reinforce the static, unchanging nature of the characters. The characters' nearly achieving epiphanies only to fall back into easier, more familiar ways of thinking is thematically central to the show...but I wonder it's not also emblematic of the show itself.

At this point I don't expect Tony, Carmela, Christopher, or anyone else to change or learn anything but the show itself could at least find some new things to say. Yes, they find somewhat new means to express these same themes but it's beginning to feel tired and redundant. Couldn't the characters be juxtaposed against a new environment (The ep that depicted Chris' time in Hollywood was a breath of fresh air) or a new challenge? I'd be happy if Tony was faced with anything that wasn't just a mob power struggle or a question of loyalty. His being shot and his lapsing into a coma was a chance for new ground in the series. Unfortunately, though Tony's "condition" is still referenced, very little in his world changed while he was in that coma.

I got it. I understand what the The Sopranos has to say. I wish there had been more in six seasons but there's still an awful lot to like about the series. But I'll watch the final episodes. Not because I expect compelling television but because I just want to see where the chips fall.

nicanor said...

Better late than never, I hope.

Was wondering if anyone thought about Tony mentioning his wounding several times was Hemingway-esque, in the sense of the big wound? Wouldn't that be a kicker if it ended in a suicide instead of murder, or jail.

All the best shows never seem to end well. 'Six Feet Under,' love it or hate it, at least showed you how everyone ended. Am hoping the 'Sopranos' goes out with a bang, though.

eve m. said...

eve m. in toronto said:

At this point in the series, it was absolutely necessary for Chase et al to remind us of Tony Soprano's dark side -- or at least to show us that as Matt re-phrased it, "The characters on the show learn a great deal about themselves, but they often misinterpret the information, disregard it, or just forget it and go back to their old tricks."

After after ten months of anticipation spent re-watching this magnificent series (and in particular, viewing the breathtaking sixth season), I could't wait to see Tony again. (I suspect I was feeling much like Carmela did each time her love object Furio showed up at her door!)

Yes, love object. This is what Chase has done. He has shown us Tony Soprano, self-identified "fat fuck from New Jersey", and made many of us care for him, root for him, try to understand and somehow forgive him.

Watching him led off in cuffs and spending just a few hours behind bars at the start of this episode was hard to take. But then Chase and his writers did what had to be done -- they reminded of the brutal, self-centred aspects of Tony's character.

Watching him overturn Janice's phony anger management-inspired serenity in an earlier episode was funny, even admirable. Tony knew, and we knew that he knew.

But it was hard to watch him send the gentle giant Bobby Bacala out to do his first hit (i.e. to "lose his cherry") for such petty reasons -- Tony's sense of being diminished by losing the fist-fight, his still unresolved resentment towards his sister, maybe even some unfinished business over the fact that Bobby wasn't there to look after Junior on the fateful night that Tony was shot).

I had been prepared to see the Tony of Season 6/I. Remember that Tony? We saw him as the object of his family's love, heard Carmela's memories of his youthful strength and sexual attractiveness. Chase was keen to show us his positive side: his childlike interest in dinosaurs, possibly because on some level Tony realizes he's a dinosaur himself, his willingness to reject the wad of cash offered by the terrified young EMT who allegedly did the "wallet biopsy," his visit to arch-enemy Phil Leotardo during which he seemed to clasp the older man's hand in empathy, promising no recriminations, that there would be "enough garbage for everyone."

Now, just eight episodes away from some culmination (if not a resolution), we must look squarely at Tony and realize that he probably won't be healed in any major way. Not ever. The years spent sitting across from Dr. Melfi may have done some good, but I agree with the very perceptive comment from WAX BANKS that if Tony is just a little self-aware after six years, "it's because...well, because he's a little self-aware. He knows better, but not enough better."

This underscores Matt's idea that while the characters on the show learn a great deal about themselves, they often fail to use what they've learned. Christopher is perhaps the best example of this, along with Carmela.

Even Tony, complaining to Carmela in this episode how he had to give up his "great friendship" with Johnny Sack to get Janice and Bobby the Sacrimoni mansion is breathtaking in its quality of self-delusion. Wasn't it Tony who, just a few months earlier, spat on John's character after his admission in court that he belonged to the mob?

Then there's the self-delusion of Janice on display for all to see -- the former hippie-chick, mobster moll, religious freak, petty thief and murderer whom we've seen nurse her innocent baby from an ample breast tattooed with a graphic, leering image of Mick Jagger's tongue. Now, supposedly a better person, a wife-and-mother, Janice remains dizzyingly deluded.

We hear her describe the "loss" of a boyfriend who once struck her (in reality, the loathsome Richie whom she shot in the chest, leaving her brother to clean up yet another mess). We also listen as she explains to Carm that Livia "didn't really hate" any of the Soprano children. It was just that she couldn't take it when the kids stopped being passive babies and started to express their own ideas. Then, less than five minutes later, we watch Janice reject and punish her toddler after Nica innocently refuses to get out of the water.

But I have faith that Chase will allow us to love Tony again before ringing down the curtain on this rich character and on the astonishing world(s) he inhabits.

I like the comparison that has been made here between Tony and Willy Loman (Kevin Finnerty trudging through anonymous hotel lobbies with his sample case and no identity). But a more appropriate comparison is the one to Archie Bunker of "All in the Family."

Some loyal viewers of Norman Lear's great 1960s TV satire might think that Archie didn't change much, if at all, over the course of the show. But that isn't true. The changes were small but they were there, and they meant everything: a shot of Archie briefly embracing his arch-enemy son-in-law "Meathead" before the Stivics left for California, and in a later episode, Archie giving a Star-of-David on a chain to the little Jewish girl who has come to live with him and Edith.

In the end, I really don't care much what happens to Carmela or Janice, to Paulie or Junior, even to Meadow or to A.J. I care about Tony Soprano. Whatever happens to him, whether we will continue to love him or be glad to leave him, I have to believe Chase will create some spark, some glimmer of redemption.

eve m. said...

Eve M. in Toronto said:

I agree with Richard Leary that, after the events of this episode, Bobby B. would seem 'the most likely member of Tony's crew to be flipped by the FBI in its RICO pursuit of Tony.'

This would be satisfying in one special way. It would be akin to Georgie, the poor, stupid, loose-lipped bartender at the Bada Bing -- finally getting back at his abusive boss. This minor character disappeared from later episodes of the series after one beating too many from Tony (always for some trivial but often psychologically significant reason -- remember Tony's frustration over his mother's inability to deal with push-button dialing which George paid for in spades?)

Bobby is physically similar to Georgie, and has always displayed a similar naive innocence.

Life is funny like that. We expect revenge or punishment to come from the big players -- the Phils, the Johnnys, the Carmines. But imagine if it's the little guys we've hurt -- Georgie, the Russian (yes, I know, he WON'T be back) who play some key role in our downfall? Just a perverse thought!

MaxF said...

In amongst all the other foreshadowing of The End, I'm suprised nobody's commented yet on Nica and the nanny singing about the ducks coming home to roost...

Jonathan Potts said...

The fact that Bobby had never killed anyone made his other character traits, and past behavior, more plausible.

Someone questioned whether it was realistic that a made guy would never have "popped his cherry", so to speak. Chase has always sacrificed realism in service to the show's narrative arc when necessary. But according to Joseph Pistone in "Donnie Brasco" (the book, not the movie), the mob had abandoned its rule that you had to kill someone to be initiated. After Pistone, as Donnie Brasco, had been proposed for membership and then revealed to have been an FBI agent, the mob re-instated that rule, according to Pistone.

Alan Sepinwall said...

If Tony's going to go to prison(*), I expect it would be from something incredibly minor, like this gun charge being the tipping point for the fed's RICO case.

(*) Not that I think Tony is going to wind up in jail, or dead. Like Matt, I'm of the Tony survives while all around him crumbles theory. Then again, even that would be somewhat derivative of Godfather 2, so I don't know what the hell Chase can do where someone will say they didn't see it coming.

Vaughan said...

Great stuff here. I go back in forth over Tony's eventual fate, so I will just contribute my laugh-out-loud moment from this episode:

Carmela flicking the Monopoly house of off Tony's bloody face.

#2 would be Christopher's one line contribution to the episode. Priceless.

Joshua said...

does anyone else think there's a connection between the overall downward trend in hopefulness/nobility/grace in our great mafia films (THE GODFATHER to GOODFELLAS to THE SOPRANOS) and the american cultural trend towards atheism?

the idea of earning/receiving redemption in our lives has become far more sentimental, has it not? perhaps even as unsentimental as it was in the wake of the holocaust, the era that spawned the bleak birth of film noir.

i'll bet anything sam harris loves THE SOPRANOS.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Joshua: That's an excellent point -- I have thought about that while watching "The Sopranos," the fact that while the show includes explicit religious language and some religious imagery (often coded) I don't get a sense that the characters have any real spiritual awareness, in the way that, say, Coppola's characters sometimes do. Maybe it is a byproduct of the time (and country) in which they live. Is God dead in Sopranoland?

I'm not entirely convinced. There are enough omens and strange sights that I often think we're seeing a story set in a universe that has some kind of omniscient, intelligent design behind it. There's a sense -- particularly in some of the early Season Six episodes (the wind in the trees, tying into the Ojibwe reference), and in many of Tony's dreams, and in pretty much all the episodes written by Michael Imperioli -- that there is a God, or some kind of higher force, bearing witness to this madness, maybe not passing judgment on everything and everyone, but definitely stirring the pot a bit, just to see what happens.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

maxf: For some strange reason, the ducks thing didn't register with me, though of course in retrospect it should have.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Eve M: "Now, just eight episodes away from some culmination (if not a resolution), we must look squarely at Tony and realize that he probably won't be healed in any major way. Not ever. The years spent sitting across from Dr. Melfi may have done some good, but I agree with the very perceptive comment from WAX BANKS that if Tony is just a little self-aware after six years, "it's because...well, because he's a little self-aware. He knows better, but not enough better."

In that sense, Tony is only marginally more self-aware than Janice. What they've got isn't true introspection, but a continuation of the same self-centeredness, but expressed in therapeutic catchphrases.

Joshua said...

"He knows better, but not enough better."

Conrad: "Our destinies are indeed in our own hands. But our hands are weak."

By the way, Matt, this was my favorite essay of yours to appear on this site, and I've read quite a few of them.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

Thanks, Joshua.

Kevin Finnerty said...

Just wanted to throw something in - the Quebecois bit was also an example of something Chase likes to do. A little jab at the US healthcare system; at the way drug companies and insurance companies run the US Medical industry (like the a Mob). At the whole 'cheaper imported Canadian medication' issue. Maybe Chase et al are using the series as a critique of the whole US way of life as much as anything else. If so, I think they are very perceptive.

Anonymous said...

I remember a David Chase commentary in the scene where Carmella kicks Tony out of their house - he talks about wanting her character to have the self-respect not to put up with the philandering. Chase says roughly "we figured that in TV, unlike in real life, people can change." Even so, she took him back. I think Matt is right that Chase's show is about the characters not experiencing development.

Before the fight, Tony strongly implied to Bobby that he thinks the leadership gauntlet should be passed to him instead of Chris... I didn't think Tony's "provocations" were very severe, and I thought Bobby instigated the fight because he was threatened by that possibility.

-Miguel

Toadmonster said...

How did nobody mention the scene with Tony sitting by the lake, where a duck flies right by him and he doesn't notice it?