1. "The Sopranos: Definitive Explanation of The END": A lengthy, seven-part exegesis on the final scene of The Sopranos.
["“If you look at the final episode really carefully, it’s all there.”* These are David Chase’s words regarding the finale of the Sopranos. He is right, it is “all there”. This is the definitive explanation of why Tony died in Holsten’s in the final scene of The Sopranos. The following is based on a thorough analysis of the final season of the show and will clear up one of the most misunderstood endings in film or television history. Chase took almost 2 years to construct the final season of the show after the fifth season ended in June of 2004. Part 1 will show how Chase directed, edited and scored the final scene of the Sopranos to lead to the interpretation that Tony was shot in the head in Holsten’s and how this ties into the “never hear it happen” concept that Chase hammered into the viewer before the show’s final scene. Part I will also discuss (and debunk) the other theories about the end including the “Tony always looking over his shoulder” interpretation. Part II, will concentrate on what Tony’s death means and how his death was thematically constructed throughout the final season. Part III will focus on the use of symbolism in Holsten’s. Part IV will focus on “The Godfather” influence on the final season and Tony’s death. Part V will focus on how the final episode and final scene are linked to America’s war on terrorism. Part VI will concentrate on the “fun stuff” created by Chase and his creative team to foreshadow Tony’s death. Finally Part VII will discuss the possible inspiration of two films on the ending of “The Sopranos”. Some of these topics will overlap but the ultimate conclusion is the same, Tony’s death is the only ending that makes sense."]
2. "Announcing the X-Files Blog-a-Thon: July 20-26": Oh yeah!
["Now, with Hillary Clinton losing, maybe America isn't as ready for '90s nostalgia as Fox hopes it is, but we're ready for it here at SDD, as we greet the grimly smiling faces of Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny with something approaching rapture. And we're looking for YOUR thoughts on the dynamic duo and/or the monsters they faced down. We don't particularly care if you like the show (we know many of you don't). We just want your thoughts and ideas on the show, its actors, its individual episodes and anything else you can think of."]
3. "Jim McKay, 86; sportscaster brought the popular and the unknown to American television screens": R.I.P.
["Jim McKay, whose commanding presence, eloquence and versatility as a broadcaster made him the face and voice of sporting events around the globe for American audiences, died Saturday. He was 86. McKay died of natural causes at his farm in Monkton, Md., according to his son, Sean McManus, president of CBS News and Sports. It was McKay with three unforgettable words -- "They're all gone" -- who relayed the news that 11 Israeli athletes had been murdered by terrorists at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. And it was McKay who was the host of "Wide World of Sports," the breakthrough TV show that exposed audiences to athletes both familiar and obscure in events both universally celebrated and largely unknown from locations around the planet before technology made such telecasts commonplace."]
4. "Trains in cinema": Sheila O'Malley takes the lead from a series of postings at The Art of Memory.
["I love the train sequence in Penny Serenade - right after Cary Grant and Irene Dunne get married he has to take a train to the West Coast to go on to his assignment in Japan - leaving her behind until he is ready to send for her - so there is no time for a honeymoon. She gets on the train with him just to say goodbye, and they sit in his cabin, not knowing how to speak to each other, sad that they must part. They embrace. Slowly, the train starts moving. She starts in alarm, "Roger! The train is moving!" He reaches out to close his cabin door, taking her in his arms, and he says what is perhaps the hottest line in the history of cinema, "We'll get you off.""]
5. "Colorado police catch alleged 'thong bandits'": So now we can resurrect Sisqo.
["Police in a Colorado town say they've caught two alleged "thong bandits" who used women's underwear to disguise themselves during a robbery. Nineteen-year-old Joaquin Rico turned himself in Friday, two days after 24-year-old alleged accomplice Joseph Espinoza turned himself in. One man wore a green thong and the other wore blue. Each thong barely covered the man's nose, mouth and chin and left the rest of his face exposed. One also wore a pink backpack in which he stuffed the stolen items."]
Quote of the Day: Confucius
Image of the Day (click to enlarge): Bob Anderson, R.I.P. young George Bailey.
Clip of the Day: For Link #1.
_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Links for the Day (June 8th, 2008)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
Re: (1), that's an awful lot of words for the difference between diegetic and nondiegetic.
Part V will focus on how the final episode and final scene are linked to America’s war on terrorism.
Aaaaand there's my hearty chuckle of the day. Thanks!
yup, Tony's dead. Love the Tony/Phil stuff and how the last scene connects to the ducks in the first episode. I think Chase is pissed everybody misunderstood his ending and leaked this thing. It's huge but all comes together beautifully.
#1: Wow.
Are you going to include a link when that guy publishes his definitive explanation of why the person we know today as Sir Paul McCartney isn't the same person who helped form the band known as the Beatles in 1960?
Who knew Chase talked this much since the finale? Great job, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I actually saw this piece linked from another blog. The guy makes a very convincing argument. It's all supported by words by Chase himself and endless references to dialogue and specific scenes and themes.
I think he puts the whole "this is how Tony will have to live the rest of his life" argument to rest. There is nothing in that scene to suggest that viewpoint. It was a lazy interpretation by t.v. critics trying to meet the morning deadline after the finale aired.
I initially rolled my eyes when I saw the part about how the war in Iraq and 9/11 connect to the final episode. Then I actually read the whole thing(including what Chase himself said about the theme) and the argument actually makes perfect sense. It's perfectly consistent with the 'never hear it' theme.
I really would've loved to read this a year ago when I almost punched my television screen!
re: #1 -
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we will always have professional art critics.
To really understand The Ending of The Sopranos, we must first acknowledge that there are in fact several endings, & that the final diner scene is just the last of many curtains being drawn on this sprawling saga.
I think that Christopher's murder and Tony's triumphant proclamation of "I get it!" brings many things to a close. His trip through therapy and the hope of some enlightenment ends at that haunting moment in the desert. He is so deluded and spiritually vacant at that point, it's clear the emotional/psychological journey he began ends here.
That scene also bring the long awaited punch line to season 6, which could be described as "Tony get shot by his uncle, and kills his nephew."
We've been waiting for the answer to the question "How does Tony ultimately respond to the shooting?" We get our answer when he becomes for Christopher what HIS uncle was for him.
"Blue Comet" ends with what many saw as a cliffhanger - Tony in bed with a big machine gun, waiting for his enemies, but I think it too was another curtain being drawn on the story.
We are meant to ask "What is Tony's reaction to this disaster (Bobby & Silvio shot)?" The answer? He goes to sleep. He has achieved the emotional numbness that is the only answer to his emotional problems. He will not change, so it is a victory in a way for Tony that he can endure the last pillars being kicked out from under his little NJ empire without panic, or despair, or any real feeling whatsoever.
Notice that at this point, as "Blue Comet" ends, even Dr. Melfi has gotten off this ride. Only we stick around for one more episode, just because we have to see what, if anything, can happen now.
I'll leave "Made in America" to be discussed by others, but I want to point out the social commentary involved in Tony pulling himself out of his tailspin by employing his "war on terror" card, still stashed up his sleeve.
It's agent Grasso, and Tony's terrorist tip, that does Phil in and solves Tony's Phil problem.
Regarding the final scene itself, and the very impressive, convincing and well researched post from Word Press.
I think there are potentially more interesting things going on in this scene beyond the question of "Does Tony die?" I think the possibility that he COULD die puts everything in an important context.
Re: The significance of cutting back and forth to Meadow parking and Tony waiting, as the tension increases. The editing poses a question: Will Tony get to lay eyes on his daughter one last time before he dies?
Something Chase powerfully achieves in this scene is dramatizing the miracle & fragility of life. Tony may or may not be killed here, but that's irrelevant. Chase is suggesting that because we could all die at any time, every moment therefore has as much riding on it as this one.
That's a profound and deeply moving observation. And while it's certainly impossible to hold in our heads as we go about life, that doesn't make it any less true. Only art & artists can really expose these truths to us.
Another way of looking at this scene is to marvel at the choices that characters had to make to end up here in this diner together. Carmela is, in the hard cold truth of it, an incredibly reckless woman. By her choices (chronicled in the series) she has chosen to ride "the midnight train going anywhere" which she knows leads possibly to prison, or murder, any God knows what. Her whole family could be killed together, right here in this diner, and that a choice she made.
Chase invites us to marvel as her and think how we watched her end up here.
Another angle, the filmmakers self-deprecation. "Working hard to get my fill, everybody wants a thrill
Paying anything to roll the dice, Just one more time..." The "trill" is the famous "Sopranos" ability to hold us in suspense. "OMYGOD, someone's gonna die?" After 6 seasons, they are going to give a thrill "one more time" as the Members Only Guy walk past Tony is what feels like slow motion. Nothing happens, but wasn't that a thrill? Just like most of "The Sopranos," when we thought there would be violence, nothing happened.
Finally, there are obvious political and social observations being made here, as Tony, always "representing America," (for lack of a better phrase) happily munches on onion rings while in what can only be described as freefall.
Yes, he's taken care of Phil, but all his supports are now gone, and only disaster lies ahead, whether it comes in 1 minute or 5 years. Tony Soprano, in the course of the series, has now completed the arc of the gangster - he rose, and now he has fallen.
I still don't get, a year later, the determination for closure on a show that consistently denied it to the point of arguing that it does not exist. You're privilege as a viewer ended.
Also, I don't have time to read 10,000 words by a guy who begins by basing his argument off of what Wikipedia thinks is the purpose of a POV shot (as though such shots had never been used for the purpose of undercutting those conventions). But "Tony died" proponents have the burden of answering how, on a narrative level, it makes sense, because there was nobody left at the end of "Made in America" who (a) wanted Tony dead, and (b) had the means to make it happen.
#1. Impressed as I am by the doggedness and detail of this argument -- it's positively massive -- I think it misses the point of the show and everything Chase is about. I don't believe that Chase would ever deliver an ending that satisfies the bourgeoisie thirst to see evil punished (after six years of the audience getting a voyeuristic thrill from seeing evil in action). It's completely out of character for the series, no matter how elaborately Chase leads us to the alleged conclusion.
I actually think Michael Whalen's first comment, above, offers the most convincing explanation of what Chase was up to that I've yet read. (Wish I'd written it!) Season Six was all about the inability to escape institutions and mindsets, the inability to escape oneself, to transform oneself. The notion that the final season climaxed with Tony in the safe house awaiting -- what? we don't know -- seems utterly Chase-like. And the weirdly surrealist/purgatorial flavor of the final episode (the mob boss meeting in what looked like the underbelly of the Nostromo from "Alien" -- who eats onion rings as if they were communion wafers? -- What's up with the "this is your life" collection of representative types at the diner? At what point did Chase turn into Oliver Stone?) feels like a bookend to the coma dreams in the second and third episodes of Season Six, Part 1. This could be Tony's dream -- everything pretty much works out for him, in an utterly improbable way, but he's still going to die someday.
Plus, every season of the show placed the dramatic climax in the second to the last episode and made the very last episode a ramping-down and meditation on what happened that season. So having the penultimate episode be "real" and the second somewhat unreal, stuck somewhere between allegory and dreamland, also feels just about right.
Mostly I resist the "Tony got shot" argument because I don't believe Chase would give audiences any version of the ending so many of them bayed for -- and certainly not an elaborately coded, T.S. Eliot-like version of a traditional ending.
I think the ending is open to interpretation, and attempts to nail it down to a single meaning are misguided, reductive and contrary to the spirit of a great series.
Well said, Matt. The ending is a helluva lot more interesting if it reminds open-ended than if we give in to the 'this is what happened, end of story' closure junkie impulse.
I read the piece twice and I have to say it's very convincing. I tend to disagree with Matt.
"I don't believe that Chase would ever deliver an ending that satisfies the bourgeoisie thirst to see evil punished (after six years of the audience getting a voyeuristic thrill from seeing evil in action). It's completely out of character for the series, no matter how elaborately Chase leads us to the alleged conclusion."
But isnt that exactly what Chase didn't do? He didn't show us Tony getting killed.
"It's completely out of character for the series, no matter how elaborately Chase leads us to the alleged conclusion."
Is it? The writer makes a great point about the how all the characters have met horrible ends. Does Chase's words not reflect his disgust for Tony? (the writer uses a great quote from Chase about this very issue). So why does Tony get off the hook? I sometimes wonder if people are watching the same show. Chase isn't a true nihilist but a moralist. These characters don't exactly go riding off into the sunset.
Here is Chase's dillema.
(1) Show Tony getting killed:
He can't do this because it will satsify the fans bloodlust and want of justice. So we never see Tony actually murdered. It also shows that evil can be exterminated.
(2)Tony lives on: Chase can't do this either because he (by his very words) is disgusted with the character and kept upping the ante with Tony's evil to force the fans to recognize it. Many fans still root for him. Besides, Tony doesn't deserve to be murdered right in front of his family?
What he came up with is the greatest solution. He strongly suggests Tony's death but at the same time we can't be 100% sure so we can't be too comfortable that an evil like Tony can safely be destroyed.
I don't agree with everything in the article but I think most of it is consistent with what Chase has expressed on the show and the end does reflect exactly what the show has always been about.
This guy nailed it and until someone comes up with a better explanation, (I did love Whalen's response although its not inconsistent with the article) why should I believe opinions with only conclusions with nothing to back it up??
"I think the ending is open to interpretation, and attempts to nail it down to a single meaning are misguided, reductive and contrary to the spirit of a great series."
Exactly. This piece is as strong a defense of the "Tony died" argument that I've seen, but this writer has played Sopranos detective and subsequently whittled the series down to a clue-based scavenger hunt and a set of basic morals.
Jeff also brings up a good point -- what are we supposed to do if we accept this interpretation? Say "oh, cool" and go on our merry way?
Art isn't scripture -- there's no right answer. It's a profoundly personal experience in which emotions interact with elaborately constructed characters and situations. Contextual information and internal clues help mold our conceptions of what the art is (and some of those conceptions certainly make more sense than others), but struggling to figure out who's right about what happens to a fake Italian mob boss isn't going to get us anywhere. Let's talk about how the scene functions and causes us to desire the deprived ending, etc.
I also had to laugh when he argued that the viewer has never become part of the show. The last season was filled to the brim with self-conscious moments of this sort (e.g. the by-standers during the shooting -- Silvio's, if I remember correctly -- and motorcycle accident).
anon: "This guy nailed it and until someone comes up with a better explanation, why should I believe opinions with only conclusions with nothing to back it up??"
Because art isn't about solving for "x."
"The Sopranos" has never been a puzzle-box show where you put the pieces together to get one answer which then effectively ends the process of interpretation. "Law and Order" is that kind of show. "Lost" may ultimately prove to be that sort of show as well. "The Sopranos" was never that kind of show.
I agree Chase has a moral vision, and a point of view on Tony, but it's not all disgusted, and he sees too much of himself in Tony (the audience surrogate as well as the show's hero) to let the audience off as easily as the "Tony got whacked, end of story" crowd insists.
Addendum:
Anon: "He strongly suggests Tony's death but at the same time we can't be 100% sure so we can't be too comfortable that an evil like Tony can safely be destroyed."
I don't think he "strongly suggests" Tony's death, period. I think Tony's death is strongly suggested to those who desire total closure, and some sort of cosmic retribution, and frankly, an endpoint.
However, I think you're absolutely right that he constructed the ending in such a way as to give everyone a piece of what they want while denying them exactly the outcome they might have desired. It irritates me that there are enough bits and pieces to suggest an endpoint and a standard-issue moralistic ending, but this is consistent with Chase's m.o. as well -- he's an intellectual sadist who takes pride in giving nobody precisely what they wanted or expected.
I sometimes think those who believe Tony died are working from their own desire for moral tidiness and working backwards to prove it. I think Matt hit it on the head when he said this isn't a puzzle show and that David Chase is an intellectual sadist of sorts for not giving people what they want.
When I read the piece, as someone who really wishes more movies would dare have some ambiguity, it genuinely saddens me when someone responds to ambiguity not with a back and forth discussion of emotional responses to it, but as a contest to see who gets the right answer.
Personally, for me, I always thought an important scene to discuss was the penultimate scene between Tony and Junior. There is a sense of impending death for Tony, as if he sees his future in Junior.
But, regardless of whether he was shot in a restaurant or possibly alone in the future in a retirement home, Tony will still not become a better person or be regretful for all the harm he's caused and will most likely die an insignificant death. Like most people. As the quote from "Barry Lyndon" says: "It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled - good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor - they are all equal now."
With that, probably in a few months, weeks or years, I may have a different interpretation that connects to me more.
"The Sopranos" has never been a puzzle-box show where you put the pieces together to get one answer which then effectively ends the process of interpretation. "Law and Order" is that kind of show. "Lost" may ultimately prove to be that sort of show as well. "The Sopranos" was never that kind of show."
No, but a re-watch of each season (after watching it for the first time) always sheds more light on the themes and you can really see the connective tissue about how Chase comes to the conclusion of each season. The re-watch reveals how beautifully everything falls into place.
Why does this writer's explanation "end the process of interpretation"? The guy took 22,000 words to come up with a explanation that makes sense. It's just one interpetation but it's supported by well reasoned arguments and evidence.
"I agree Chase has a moral vision, and a point of view on Tony, but it's not all disgusted, and he sees too much of himself in Tony (the audience surrogate as well as the show's hero) to let the audience off as easily as the "Tony got whacked, end of story" crowd insists."
He doesn't let the audience off easily. As the writer points out, we get whacked along with him. Chase just wanted us to work a little to see it and at the same time extract the main themes of the show and ponder what the show has always been about. Showing Tony getting whacked would never incite the viewer to look back and think. It certainly inspired one Sopranos fanatic and I commend him.
"I don't think he "strongly suggests" Tony's death, period. I think Tony's death is strongly suggested to those who desire total closure, and some sort of cosmic retribution, and frankly, an endpoint."
How does one possible interpretation of an ambiguous ending provide closure? Who are you to say Chase isn't interested in closure? You're interpreting Chase's intent, which we can't know for sure. You're doing the same thing the writer of the piece does. How exactly does Tony's death provide complete closure anyway? We'll never know if his family died as well or who exactly killed him or why.
"It irritates me that there are enough bits and pieces to suggest an endpoint and a standard-issue moralistic ending, but this is consistent with Chase's m.o. as well -- he's an intellectual sadist who takes pride in giving nobody precisely what they wanted or expected."
So Chase, who put his life blood into this show. Who oversees every detail and decision just decides he is going to end his opus by satisfying his "sadistic side"? Why is it a standard moralistic ending? Some believe (as I did early on) that Tony living in a state of fear is the ultimate punishment, his "Death in life" so to speak. If Tony doesn't die then Chase strongly hints that Tony will at least be indicted. Doesn't prison satsify the more standard "Crime doesn't pay" moralistic ending? More importantly, the very nature of Tony's death implies that he never suffered. It was over in the blink of an eye (or an abrupt cut to black). Tony feels no pain. Chase spares us the "standard moralistic" Godfather III ending where one of his family members suffers for his actions (honestly, didn't many of us think Meadow or AJ may die by the series end as the ultimate commuppance for Tony?)
I don't know. It's instructive to take a big step back from the diner scene in order to see it.
Over the course of the series, what story has been told? The rise and fall of the gangster. The genre has always told this story, from Cagney to Henry Hill. The gangster rises to the heights of power, and then falls.
As Matt pointed out, the penultimate episodes (ie. Isabella, Blue Comet) often satisfies the genre requirements before the finale's rich coda. Phil & New York finally crossing the Hudson River and kicking the last legs out from under the Soprano crew completes this story - Tony may live or die, but he is now in permanent decline. Just like the Corleone's rise to power mirrored the rise of post-war America, Tony's decent into permanent decline mirrors America's post 9/11 post Iraq fall from assumed dominance.
So Tony & his family find themselves in that diner with a paradox - their immediate enemies are smoked, but they've never seemed in so much danger. They are in free-fall. The course of the series dramatized the choices they made to arrive at this terrible point.
That's the story of the series. Life. Not the rise and fall of the gangster, but life. It's happening right now. Every small choice of the series has led them to this. Every moment of life, ultimately, leads somewhere. If you died right here, would you get to see your daughter first, or will she still be parking that car?
Chase cuts these people no slack, but he has great empathy for them. They are not unlike us. Life is choices, yes, but it's made up of so many small ones it's hard to even realize what you are REALLY choosing. We've seen these people live their daily lives in excruciating detail, and we understand that they didn't choose this fate from a menu, it just seemed to happen that way.
But that's way too much live with every day. So don't think about our choices. Everything will turn out fine. Don't stop believing.
Back when the episode first aired, I briefly entertained the POV reflecting death theory, but I quickly dismissed it upon actually rewatching the final scene when I found that the way the scene is edited doesn't fit the theory.
The general theory seems to be that the shots of people entering the restaurant are feflecting Tony's POV (they cut to it everytime Tony looks up to see who's entering), but the way the scene is actually put together doesn't fit that theory.
The crucial point comes just after Tony says that Carlo is going to testify, when AJ and Members Only Guy enter. The camera cuts to the POV shot before Tony actually looks up. Here's the sequence:
Shot 1 - Tony mentions Carlo testifying
Shot 2 - Carmela silently reacts.
Shot 3 - (POV Angle) Members Only Guy and AJ approach the door. Members Only Guy pushes open the door, ringing the bell.
Shot 4 - Tony, still looking down, looks up in reaction to hearing the bell.
Shot 5 - (POV Angle) AJ and Members Only Guy approach camera.
These shots can't be reflecting Tony's POV if they cut to that angle when Tony is still staring down at his menu. The author mentions this break of the pattern, but he seems to be acknowledging and ignoring it simultaneously:
MOG is the only patron ever seen outside of the door of Holsten’s before the bell rings (we see him opening the door just before we cut to Tony and hear the bell ring). However, the pattern set out above in (1)-(5) is never disrupted because once the bell rings we then cut to Tony looking up and then the pattern continues accordingly.
But that's the thing, the pattern is disrupted. They cut to the angle that's supposed to reflect Tony's POV when it's not actually reflecting his POV. Doing such a thing removes the attributed significance of all uses of said angle before and after. Once you break a pattern, it ceases being a pattern. The POV theory does not hold, nor is it meant to.
I love that this episode aired a year ago and we're still arguing about it.
Andrew,
You're overthinking it. The author explains it rather clearly. Once Tony looks up staring, the standard film school 101 subjective POV shot continues (Tony staring-cut to "Members Only" entering-cut back to Tony's face for the reaction).
The third person objective shot does not preclude the subjective POV shot once Tony hears the bell ring. The pattern is not disrupted. When Tony hears the bell ring, the pattern always continues (4 times) except the last time when the camera cuts to black when it should cut to Meadow from Tony's POV.
The real question is why does Chase use the same angle for the shot when Tony is looking down at his menu? I think the author is correct in that it's to emphasize the importance of Tony's killer (the only patron seen outside the door before it rings) to the viewer while at the same time revealing that Tony doesn't see him (much like he doesn't see him staring twice at his table). I also think it's to further tie our POV with Tony's much like the "jump cut" to Tony seeing himself (or more accurately, the viewer seeing Tony from the same spot where Tony was just standing). It's all to further tie our POV with Tony's.
I love that this episode aired a year ago and we're still arguing about it.
Yeah, me too. I've always maintained that The Wire is a better show, but this final episode, so far as individual moments go, might be the television zenith.
Though I respected the show, I'm not a fan. And there are large chunks of the series that I've never seen. But I'm going to make my comment anyway.
Several here are arguing deliberate ambiguity about the final moment, and that attempts to decipher the "answer" are, as Matt puts it, "reductive and contrary to the spirit" of the show. Matt again: "The Sopranos has never been a puzzle-box show."
I agree that an ambiguous, layered ending is in keeping with the particular integrity of the show and it's maker's vision. What has puzzled me from the beginning, is why then did not Chase make the ambiguity more obvious? By that I do not mean that he has in fact spoon fed us one interpretation, but rather that the way that he goes about presenting this final scene invites -- even demands -- exactly the kind of decoding that Matt is decrying.
There are a thousand ways to have a straightforwardly ambiguous or multi-interpretational ending to a story -- and ending where there's not doubt: we're not supposed to know for sure. But instead of going that way, Chase is ambiguous about the ambiguity itself.
For me, this dilutes the power of the ending.
Nomi: "What has puzzled me from the beginning, is why then did not Chase make the ambiguity more obvious?"
Nomi: "Chase is ambiguous about the ambiguity itself."
In a way, I think you answered your own question. To an extent, "The Sopranos" has always been preoccupied with the ways in which people watch "The Sopranos." The final few minutes brings that preoccupation to the forefront, which is why, in my own piece on the finale, I said that the cut to black was Chase whacking the viewer.
Also, I would never decry decoding -- I do it myself. But in this particular case, the author is trying to make a definitive argument in favor of one interpretation that trumps, even excludes, all others -- not, "here is one interpretation" but "here is the only explanation that makes sense." Both the writer's conclusion and the spirit of the exercise itself run counter to the spirit of the series, which was always contradictory, complex, multifacted, and open-ended in its meanings.
IMHO.
Matt,
Don't most filmakers and writers couch things in ambiguous ways but usually have instilled in their works a clear and definitive meaning?
I don't want to speak for the author, but I don't think he's saying this is the only interpretation (besides, you think he's going to get people to read that huge thing if it's titled "I'm pretty sure this is what happened"?). He does say it's open to interpretation but Tony's murder is Chase's personal interpretation because it's the only ending that makes sense from a thematic standpoint (not to mention a technical standpoint from the pure cinematic directing and editing of the final scene). I'm surprised the author didn't use this quote from Chase:
"Somebody said it would be a good idea if we said something about the ending. I really wasn't going to go into it. But I'll just say this: When I was going to Stanford University graduate film school, 23 years old, I went and saw 'Planet of the Apes' with my wife. When the movie was over I said, 'Wow, so they had a Statue of Liberty, too.' So that's what you're up against."
To me this is the most revealing quote of all. This points to one definite answer and most importantly suggests the fans missed an implied or suggested ending rather than one that was made explicit. Chase took the superficial answer that the "Planet of the Apes" had its own Statue of Liberty and missed the obvious and implied answer, that the planet was earth all along. He needed it spelled out for him with exposition, much like the fans of the show do ("so that's what you're up against").
Of course, Chase can't be totally sincere. He knows his ending is more ambigious than the "Planet of the Apes" but I think his point is made.
juno: "Don't most filmakers and writers couch things in ambiguous ways but usually have instilled in their works a clear and definitive meaning?"
Often, but not always. "2001," it seems to me, has a clear and definitive ending. "Blow-Up" and "L'Eclisse" not so much.
Hey Matt,
I agree that the continual debate is a tribute to Chase's ending.
While I enjoyed the essay and the author makes a decent (but NOT airtight) case for the "Tony gets whacked" theory, I still interpret the final cut to black as the viewer getting taken out of the series.
The POV switch that made it appear as if Tony was looking at himself, is, for me, the most powerful argument that the viewer was deliberately being made part of the action (I realize that the author disagrees).
I think one miscalculation Chase made was that because MANY people had assumed that their cable service had gone out they were taken out of the moment.
BTW, since the essay delves into song lyrics, I never tire of pointing out the line from Journey's "Don't Stop Believing" which doesn't quite work:
"Just a city boy, born and bred in South Detroit"
As a resident of the area, I can assure you that there is no thing as the "South Detroit" described in the song (unless you count Windsor - which happens to be south of Detroit). We refer to Eastside and Westside, Downriver, etc, but not "South Detroit"
Which only shows that nothing is "Definitive" ;)
...Oh, I forgot to add that I look forward to the scurrying which will take place to revisit the "Tony Gets Whacked" theories once the Sopranos reunion special is announced ;>
Returning to Michael Healey's excellent theory, if the penultimate episode is "real" and the final episode is Tony's dream, the cut to black is the point when the dream is over and the dreamer awakes.
Matt: Nomi: "What has puzzled me from the beginning, is why then did not Chase make the ambiguity more obvious?"
Nomi: "Chase is ambiguous about the ambiguity itself."
In a way, I think you answered your own question. To an extent, "The Sopranos" has always been preoccupied with the ways in which people watch "The Sopranos." The final few minutes brings that preoccupation to the forefront, which is why, in my own piece on the finale, I said that the cut to black was Chase whacking the viewer.
Yes, I remember your piece, of course. And I suppose I did answer my own question.
I guess I just still don't like the answer. That element of "screw you" to the viewer that runs through the whole show is part of why I stopped watching the series in a serious way.
It's not that I think that's all Chase was doing with "The Sopranos." Of course not; that'd be easy. No, it was the extraordinary richness coupled with that inevitable screw you that made me turn away.
This has been discussed here a lot too, but to say it one more time: For me, there is no amount of exquisite filmmaking that can overcome a worldview like Chase's.
Nomi: For me, there is no amount of exquisite filmmaking that can overcome a worldview like Chase's.
I can certainly understand that. As I always say, your mileage may vary.
Matt: As I always say, your mileage may vary.
Yeah. I guess I'm like a Hummer. Except not tough or cool. OK, I'm nothing like a Hummer. More like your father's Oldsmobile. There.
Post a Comment