Sopranos Ending (Spoilers, of course)
steve
quite a few stinkers, and even in the final episode we were subjected to
some over-the-top gratuitous violence (Phil's head getting crushed under the
car tire..jesus, was that really necessary?). All in all I could have done
without the series..take it or leave it, really.
As for the ending: I puzzled over this for a while. Tony has dodged all
the bullets and it looks like everything will work out for the family. They
gather in a restaurant, and it appears that a suspicious character may be
lurking...maybe. Just as the daughter enters, there is a jarring edit
and...nothing. Roll the credits.
Is this a (too) clever way to indicate that the family (entire restaurant)
was blown up? What else could be the intended meaning of the sudden cut to
black?
But, you know what? Whatever. The series had a lot of interesting
characters (inconsistently characterized, unfortunately) and cool moments,
but the overall credibility was spent on the gratuitous, the out of
character, and the nonsensical. Each time I was becoming emotionally
invested, something inapproapriate or incredible would kill the buzz. So
the big ending turned out to be yet another opportunity to second guess the
writers and reflect on the series with some measure of annoyance. A
watchable series, but far from great. And the good stuff only made the many
lapses more aggravating. Im actually glad it's over and Im not looking
back.
steve
--
"The law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens,
though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind."
William Blackstone
Bill Anderson
> Well...we finally made it to the end. Lots of decent episodes as well as
> quite a few stinkers, and even in the final episode we were subjected to
> some over-the-top gratuitous violence (Phil's head getting crushed under the
> car tire..jesus, was that really necessary?). All in all I could have done
> without the series..take it or leave it, really.
>
> As for the ending: I puzzled over this for a while. Tony has dodged all
> the bullets and it looks like everything will work out for the family. They
> gather in a restaurant, and it appears that a suspicious character may be
> lurking...maybe. Just as the daughter enters, there is a jarring edit
> and...nothing. Roll the credits.
>
> Is this a (too) clever way to indicate that the family (entire restaurant)
> was blown up? What else could be the intended meaning of the sudden cut to
> black?
>
> But, you know what? Whatever. The series had a lot of interesting
> characters (inconsistently characterized, unfortunately) and cool moments,
> but the overall credibility was spent on the gratuitous, the out of
> character, and the nonsensical. Each time I was becoming emotionally
> invested, something inapproapriate or incredible would kill the buzz. So
> the big ending turned out to be yet another opportunity to second guess the
> writers and reflect on the series with some measure of annoyance. A
> watchable series, but far from great. And the good stuff only made the many
> lapses more aggravating. Im actually glad it's over and Im not looking
> back.
>
The ending is not ambiguous. Tony got whacked.
Early in the last season we saw Tony and Bobby out in a boat on a
lake, fishing and discussing life.
"What's it like to get whacked?"
"You don't see it coming" (or words to that effect).
And just to be sure the audience got the point and hadn't forgotten,
Chase repeated the scene in a flashback in the penultimate episode.
And then, there at Holsten's, Tony was all innocent and happy and he
saw nothing coming and then it was all over.
I wasn't completely sure this was the message I was expected to take
from the ending until I read a few comments from Chase himself. One
comment referenced the ending of 1968's "Planet of the Apes." Chase
compared fans' confusion at the Sopranos ending to his own at the
ending of "Apes." He said that as he walked out of the theater he
commented, "So they had a Statue of Liberty too?" The implication of
the ending was obvious to many, but not all.
The other was Chase's complaint that fans wanted to see Tony's brains
spattered on the wall. My reaction was no ... I didn't want to see
that at all. Why would Chase say something like that? Unless ... of
course. He was saying he'd spared them the sight by cutting to black.
Chase and company want us to deduce Tony is dead. If somebody chooses
to believe the apes built a Statue of Liberty too, well there ya go.
End of story.
Now if you really want to wade deep into the waters of hidden meaning,
you can knock yourself out here:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sopranos/2007/06/eureka_solving_the_sopranos.html#comments
Have fun!
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Kingo Gondo
I knew it would come to this when we allowed the drugs in....
steve
On 12-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Is this a (too) clever way to indicate that the family (entire
> > restaurant)
> > was blown up? What else could be the intended meaning of the sudden cut
> > to
> > black?
> The ending is not ambiguous. Tony got whacked.
Well, we may agree on the interpretation, BA, but it is most certainly
ambiguous.
Ambiguity is fine, but I dont paticularly like the execution. The cut is
not particularly cinematic. When they cut (and before the credits started),
I turned to my wife and wondered aloud if the DVD or player was
malfunctioning.
Since the series is not first person, a first person ending isnt quite
right. And didnt it end in a relative close shot of the daughter coming
through the door? That's certainly not Tony's POV. In that way the cut to
dramatize death is a bit too cute. No, I dont like it.
Bill Anderson
> On 12-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson<billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Is this a (too) clever way to indicate that the family (entire
>>> restaurant)
>>> was blown up? What else could be the intended meaning of the sudden cut
>>> to
>>> black?
>
>> The ending is not ambiguous. Tony got whacked.
>
> Well, we may agree on the interpretation, BA, but it is most certainly
> ambiguous.
>
> Ambiguity is fine, but I dont paticularly like the execution. The cut is
> not particularly cinematic. When they cut (and before the credits started),
> I turned to my wife and wondered aloud if the DVD or player was
> malfunctioning.
>
> Since the series is not first person, a first person ending isnt quite
> right. And didnt it end in a relative close shot of the daughter coming
> through the door? That's certainly not Tony's POV. In that way the cut to
> dramatize death is a bit too cute. No, I dont like it.
No, it didn't end with a shot of Meadow -- it ended significantly with a
shot from Tony's point of view, which of course was darkness. You've
picked up on a key indicator but you don't quite have it pictured right.
The key to what happens is the bell on the diner door. Watch the scene
again. Here: I'll make it easy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnT7nYbCSvM
Note that every time the bell rings during the scene, someone enters the
diner and you get a closeup of Tony's face looking at the newcomer
followed by a first-person shot of what he sees. Over and over this
pattern is repeated: bell, entrance, Tony, Tony's POV. Finally the bell
rings once again as someone enters (Meadow) and once again you get the
closeup of Tony's face and once again you get his point of view -- only
this time it's blackness and silence.
If you want to argue ambiguity over whether Tony was whacked or his
entire family was whacked or the entire diner was blown up, you just go
right ahead. What's not ambiguous is Tony's fate: He's dead, Jim.
steve
On 12-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Note that every time the bell rings during the scene, someone enters the
> diner and you get a closeup of Tony's face looking at the newcomer
> followed by a first-person shot of what he sees. Over and over this
> pattern is repeated: bell, entrance, Tony, Tony's POV. Finally the bell
> rings once again as someone enters (Meadow) and once again you get the
> closeup of Tony's face and once again you get his point of view -- only
> this time it's blackness and silence.
I didnt notice that stuff. You make a very strong case.
> If you want to argue ambiguity over whether Tony was whacked or his
> entire family was whacked or the entire diner was blown up, you just go
> right ahead. What's not ambiguous is Tony's fate: He's dead, Jim.
No matter how good a case you make for the "tony wacked" interpretations,
(and I obviously agree with the general conclusion) you must admit that the
ending is purposely ambiguous. If not, we would not have to draw
inferences. Beyond that quibble, we have little to disagree about.
Bill Anderson
> On 12-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Note that every time the bell rings during the scene, someone enters the
> > diner and you get a closeup of Tony's face looking at the newcomer
> > followed by a first-person shot of what he sees. Over and over this
> > pattern is repeated: bell, entrance, Tony, Tony's POV. Finally the bell
> > rings once again as someone enters (Meadow) and once again you get the
> > closeup of Tony's face and once again you get his point of view -- only
> > this time it's blackness and silence.
>
> I didnt notice that stuff. You make a very strong case.
>
> > If you want to argue ambiguity over whether Tony was whacked or his
> > entire family was whacked or the entire diner was blown up, you just go
> > right ahead. What's not ambiguous is Tony's fate: He's dead, Jim.
>
> No matter how good a case you make for the "tony wacked" interpretations,
> (and I obviously agree with the general conclusion) you must admit that the
> ending is purposely ambiguous. If not, we would not have to draw
> inferences. Beyond that quibble, we have little to disagree about.
> --
There is ambiguity in many areas regarding the final scene. But I do
not have to "admit" there is ambiguity regarding Tony's death because
Chase showed us he was dead. He didn't say it in the English language
because, I think, he believed his audience was smart enough to
understand the language of cinema. You said in an earlier message
that the cut to black "was not particularly cinematic." Wrong,
Steve. It's a perfect example of how editing film is an art form --
how a single cut can make a statement as clearly as dialogue.
steve
On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> There is ambiguity in many areas regarding the final scene. But I do
> not have to "admit" there is ambiguity regarding Tony's death because
> Chase showed us he was dead.
That is a credible and defensible interpretation of what he did show.
> He didn't say it in the English language
> because, I think, he believed his audience was smart enough to
> understand the language of cinema.
Just as the english language can be convey ambiguity, the language of
cinema, in this case, was used to imply.
> You said in an earlier message
> that the cut to black "was not particularly cinematic." Wrong,
> Steve. It's a perfect example of how editing film is an art form --
> how a single cut can make a statement as clearly as dialogue.
You make a very good point, BA. But dialog and editing can both be
ambiguous.
Bill Anderson
> On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > There is ambiguity in many areas regarding the final scene. But I do
> > not have to "admit" there is ambiguity regarding Tony's death because
> > Chase showed us he was dead.
>
> That is a credible and defensible interpretation of what he did show.
>
> > He didn't say it in the English language
> > because, I think, he believed his audience was smart enough to
> > understand the language of cinema.
>
> Just as the english language can be convey ambiguity, the language of
> cinema, in this case, was used to imply.
>
> > You said in an earlier message
> > that the cut to black "was not particularly cinematic." Wrong,
> > Steve. It's a perfect example of how editing film is an art form --
> > how a single cut can make a statement as clearly as dialogue.
>
> You make a very good point, BA. But dialog and editing can both be
> ambiguous.
>
I once read a fascinating novel in which slowly over the course of the
book it became more and more obvious that the protagonist, the hero,
the good guy was really a double-dealing, backstabbing, murderous,
devoid-of-conscience bastard, a betrayer of family, friends and
homeland. When it was all over and I'd turned the final page, I kept
telling myself this can't be so ... there must be some mistake ...
he's really a good guy who's been misunderstood. It was very hard for
me to let go of this mistaken notion, even though the author had made
the truth quite unambiguous. It took a while, but eventually I
accepted reality.
Give it time, Steve.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Sorry I Can't Risk Spoiling the Book by Naming It
Favog
steve
On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I once read a fascinating novel in which slowly over the course of the
> book it became more and more obvious that the protagonist, the hero,
> the good guy was really a double-dealing, backstabbing, murderous,
> devoid-of-conscience bastard, a betrayer of family, friends and
> homeland. When it was all over and I'd turned the final page, I kept
> telling myself this can't be so ... there must be some mistake ...
> he's really a good guy who's been misunderstood. It was very hard for
> me to let go of this mistaken notion, even though the author had made
> the truth quite unambiguous. It took a while, but eventually I
> accepted reality.
>
> Give it time, Steve.
No time necessary. I agree with your interpretation and your reasoning.
But I disagree with your characterization of the ending as unambiguous.
And, frankly, since you carefully (and convincingly) lay out the logical
steps that you use to infer that Tony is dead, I cant see how you can
possibly deny ambiguity. WIthout ambiguity, the very analysis and inference
you employ would be unnecessary.
tomcervo
That may not have been the time for ambiguous innovation. It wasn't
fair to audience, actor or even character. However the plot may have
demanded it, the execution was off. If they'd had the insight/skill of
the makers of "The Shield", who gave their antihero the ending he
deserved in a full, measured episode, instead of a gimmick. We know
nothing of the fates of the rest of the cast. The antihero is never
granted self-knowledge, and end of existence is the only thing
resembling punishment.
Now if Tony had been arrested, and faced with a life behind bars and
his wife charged as an accessory---if he'd turned rat and the final
five minutes show him living in protection in a shitbox condo in
Boise, watching the History Channel while Carmela comes home with a
bag full of Hamburger helper in a BigLots bag . . .
moviePig
> On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I once read a fascinating novel in which slowly over the course of the
> > book it became more and more obvious that the protagonist, the hero,
> > the good guy was really a double-dealing, backstabbing, murderous,
> > devoid-of-conscience bastard, a betrayer of family, friends and
> > homeland. When it was all over and I'd turned the final page, I kept
> > telling myself this can't be so ... there must be some mistake ...
> > he's really a good guy who's been misunderstood. It was very hard for
> > me to let go of this mistaken notion, even though the author had made
> > the truth quite unambiguous. It took a while, but eventually I
> > accepted reality.
>
> > Give it time, Steve.
>
> No time necessary. I agree with your interpretation and your reasoning.
> But I disagree with your characterization of the ending as unambiguous.
> And, frankly, since you carefully (and convincingly) lay out the logical
> steps that you use to infer that Tony is dead, I cant see how you can
> possibly deny ambiguity. WIthout ambiguity, the very analysis and inference
> you employ would be unnecessary.
I think Tony's alive. So there.
In support of that contention, I ask both of you to consider how Chase
would have filmed the ending to convey that Tony's every waking
instant henceforth will be spent in imminent fear of it being his
last, until one of them finally -- and indeed inevitably -- delivers.
Afaics, that'd look pretty much like the ending we saw. The main
difference between our interpretations is that mine replaces Chase's
narrative ambiguity with Tony's existential uncertainty. I'd like to
think that such a good, explicit series didn't exit by ripping/riffing
off 'The Lady Or the Tiger'...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Kingo Gondo
Tony was not killed, or at least not with certainty, for this reason:
THEY FUCKING WANTING TO KEEP OPEN THE FUCKING POSSIBILITY OF A FUCKING
SPORANOS MOVIE, WHIHC MEANS TONY SOPRANO!!!
I hate to let commerce intrude on art, but there you have it.
Now could they pull a Godfather II? I doubt it, but they could try I
suppose--unwillingly. Now you try this:
Go to Google.
Type in "Sopranos".
The first suggested search (beyond "Sopranos") is "Sopranos movie". This
tells you two things. One, there is great interest in such a thing. And,
two, if you read the links when you do search "Sopranos movie", you can see
what is principally holding back the project--the reluctance of Gandolfini
to resume the role.
Now play nice.
steve
On 13-Aug-2010, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> I think Tony's alive. So there.
>
> In support of that contention, I ask both of you to consider how Chase
> would have filmed the ending to convey that Tony's every waking
> instant henceforth will be spent in imminent fear of it being his
> last, until one of them finally -- and indeed inevitably -- delivers.
> Afaics, that'd look pretty much like the ending we saw. The main
> difference between our interpretations is that mine replaces Chase's
> narrative ambiguity with Tony's existential uncertainty. I'd like to
> think that such a good, explicit series didn't exit by ripping/riffing
> off 'The Lady Or the Tiger'...
My wife is also unconvinced of his death. She and I both noticed something
odd; Early in the same scene, it appears that Tony looks across the Diner
and see's himself seated (a la the 2001 jupiter sequence). She thinks it
could indicate that this is one of Tony's dreams (and there were many dream
sequences in the series...too many). Im not sure what to make of that.
Given so much empahsis on the editing, I cant believe that Tony loking at
himself was just a sloppy cut. So..I dunno. Any theories?
william
> My wife is also unconvinced of his death. She and I both noticed something
> odd; Early in the same scene, it appears that Tony looks across the Diner
> and see's himself seated (a la the 2001 jupiter sequence). She thinks it
> could indicate that this is one of Tony's dreams (and there were many dream
> sequences in the series...too many). Im not sure what to make of that.
> Given so much empahsis on the editing, I cant believe that Tony loking at
> himself was just a sloppy cut. So..I dunno. Any theories?
He wakes up in "Dallas"?
William
Bill Anderson
> On Aug 13, 1:15 pm, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > I once read a fascinating novel in which slowly over the course of the
> > > book it became more and more obvious that the protagonist, the hero,
> > > the good guy was really a double-dealing, backstabbing, murderous,
> > > devoid-of-conscience bastard, a betrayer of family, friends and
> > > homeland. When it was all over and I'd turned the final page, I kept
> > > telling myself this can't be so ... there must be some mistake ...
> > > he's really a good guy who's been misunderstood. It was very hard for
> > > me to let go of this mistaken notion, even though the author had made
> > > the truth quite unambiguous. It took a while, but eventually I
> > > accepted reality.
>
> > > Give it time, Steve.
>
> > No time necessary. I agree with your interpretation and your reasoning.
> > But I disagree with your characterization of the ending as unambiguous.
> > And, frankly, since you carefully (and convincingly) lay out the logical
> > steps that you use to infer that Tony is dead, I cant see how you can
> > possibly deny ambiguity. WIthout ambiguity, the very analysis and inference
> > you employ would be unnecessary.
>
> I think Tony's alive. So there.
But you usually seem so ... well, intelligent isn't the right word ...
jeez ....
>
> In support of that contention, I ask both of you to consider how Chase
> would have filmed the ending to convey that Tony's every waking
> instant henceforth will be spent in imminent fear of it being his
> last, until one of them finally -- and indeed inevitably -- delivers.
> Afaics, that'd look pretty much like the ending we saw. The main
> difference between our interpretations is that mine replaces Chase's
> narrative ambiguity with Tony's existential uncertainty. I'd like to
> think that such a good, explicit series didn't exit by ripping/riffing
> off 'The Lady Or the Tiger'...
>
Then life is good ... because it didn't exit that way. MP, I want to
come up with a response in which I won't repeat something I've already
said in this thread. Let's see ...
I suppose if Chase had wanted to convey that Tony's every waking
moment would be spent in fear, he'd have shown him living in fear at
the end, not enjoying his last supper:
http://users.rcn.com/weanderson/images/sopranos_last_supper.jpg
Not convinced yet, I suppose? Not even by the three main characters
eating onion rings exactly as though they were taking communion? Oh
well ...
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Amused by the Holy Light on Tony's Face Favog
Bill Anderson
> On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I once read a fascinating novel in which slowly over the course of the
> > book it became more and more obvious that the protagonist, the hero,
> > the good guy was really a double-dealing, backstabbing, murderous,
> > devoid-of-conscience bastard, a betrayer of family, friends and
> > homeland. When it was all over and I'd turned the final page, I kept
> > telling myself this can't be so ... there must be some mistake ...
> > he's really a good guy who's been misunderstood. It was very hard for
> > me to let go of this mistaken notion, even though the author had made
> > the truth quite unambiguous. It took a while, but eventually I
> > accepted reality.
>
> > Give it time, Steve.
>
> No time necessary. I agree with your interpretation and your reasoning.
> But I disagree with your characterization of the ending as unambiguous.
> And, frankly, since you carefully (and convincingly) lay out the logical
> steps that you use to infer that Tony is dead, I cant see how you can
> possibly deny ambiguity. WIthout ambiguity, the very analysis and inference
> you employ would be unnecessary.
What appeared ambiguous to Watson was actually elementary fact, as
Holmes often patiently explained.
--
Bill Anderson
I am, after all, the Mighty Favog
Bill Anderson
wrote:
If there's ever a movie I'll be first in line to buy a ticket and I'll
gladly purchase a big bucket of buttered crow at the refreshment
stand. I just hope they'll shoot at least one scene at Reichenbach
Falls.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Kingo Gondo
steve
On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > No time necessary. I agree with your interpretation and your reasoning.
> > But I disagree with your characterization of the ending as unambiguous.
> > And, frankly, since you carefully (and convincingly) lay out the logical
> > steps that you use to infer that Tony is dead, I cant see how you can
> > possibly deny ambiguity. WIthout ambiguity, the very analysis and
> > inference
> > you employ would be unnecessary.
>
> What appeared ambiguous to Watson was actually elementary fact, as
> Holmes often patiently explained.
I dont know why you continue to insist that the strength of your inference
makes it something other than inference.
And Holmes nearly always drew conclusions where the evidence supported more
than one reasonable possibility. Arthur Conan Doyle just bailed him out
every time.
"Yea, well that sounds reasonable, Mr Holmes, except that I found this hat
in the coach on the way over here. It's not my hat, Dude. Im not a banker
from Boston with at least two unruly dogs and a wife who recently died of an
infectious disease while travelling. Nice try, though... I guess."
steve
On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> If there's ever a movie I'll be first in line to buy a ticket and I'll
> gladly purchase a big bucket of buttered crow
Bad idea. It's not real butter.
Bill Anderson
>
> And Holmes nearly always drew conclusions where the evidence supported more
> than one reasonable possibility. Arthur Conan Doyle just bailed him out
> every time.
>
> "Yea, well that sounds reasonable, Mr Holmes, except that I found this hat
> in the coach on the way over here. It's not my hat, Dude. Im not a banker
> from Boston with at least two unruly dogs and a wife who recently died of an
> infectious disease while travelling. Nice try, though... I guess."
I remember that one! "The Problem of the Obdurate Viewer."
Bill Anderson
> On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson<billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> If there's ever a movie I'll be first in line to buy a ticket and I'll
>> gladly purchase a big bucket of buttered crow
>
> Bad idea. It's not real butter.
Heh. Good one.
moviePig
The photographic inference is cute, and even close to being
persuasive. Still, I'm rather more inclined to see Tony there as an
isolated cork bobbing in a sea of indifference (unlike Christ at the
center of His shindig). But I suppose you'll note how the spotlight
picking Tony out of the crowd confers a heavenly nimbus...
Bill Anderson
>
> The photographic inference is cute, and even close to being
> persuasive. Still, I'm rather more inclined to see Tony there as an
> isolated cork bobbing in a sea of indifference (unlike Christ at the
> center of His shindig). But I suppose you'll note how the spotlight
> picking Tony out of the crowd confers a heavenly nimbus...
>
> --
Do you suppose this because you read my sig on tha post?
I am the Mighty Amused by the Holy Light on Tony's Face Favog
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Curious Favog
herbzet
steve wrote:
> Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> > I once read a fascinating novel in which slowly over the course of the
> > book it became more and more obvious that the protagonist, the hero,
> > the good guy was really a double-dealing, backstabbing, murderous,
> > devoid-of-conscience bastard, a betrayer of family, friends and
> > homeland. When it was all over and I'd turned the final page, I kept
> > telling myself this can't be so ... there must be some mistake ...
> > he's really a good guy who's been misunderstood. It was very hard for
> > me to let go of this mistaken notion, even though the author had made
> > the truth quite unambiguous. It took a while, but eventually I
> > accepted reality.
> >
> > Give it time, Steve.
>
> No time necessary. I agree with your interpretation and your reasoning.
> But I disagree with your characterization of the ending as unambiguous.
> And, frankly, since you carefully (and convincingly) lay out the logical
> steps that you use to infer that Tony is dead, I cant see how you can
> possibly deny ambiguity. WIthout ambiguity, the very analysis and inference
> you employ would be unnecessary.
Without addressing the point of whether the ending was/wasn't ambiguous,
ambiguity is of course a perfectly legitimate tool in the writer/director's
toolbox.
However, in this case, the ending fails as drama, leaving one with
an intellectual parlour-game of interpretation.
I agree with you -- the post-hoc analysis and inference (which I find
convincing, so far as that goes) is an inferior substitute for the
powerful dramatic conclusion -- or perhaps the decisively indecisive
conclusion -- that was called for.
Of course it may be that I'm just slow -- perhaps some viewers
"got it" in real time, and had their socks knocked off.
Anybody?
--
hz
moviePig
> On 8/13/2010 9:06 PM, moviePig wrote:
>
>
>
> > The photographic inference is cute, and even close to being
> > persuasive. Still, I'm rather more inclined to see Tony there as an
> > isolated cork bobbing in a sea of indifference (unlike Christ at the
> > center of His shindig). But I suppose you'll note how the spotlight
> > picking Tony out of the crowd confers a heavenly nimbus...
>
>
> I am the Mighty Amused by the Holy Light on Tony's Face Favog
Hah, how did I miss that?... or maybe it's my Subconscious at work...
or maybe just Great Minds thinking aloft...
Bill Anderson
Well I certainly didn't. I immediately thought my cable TV service had
gone dead, which apparently was the initial reaction of most of the
viewers that night. It was only the next day -- really during the weeks
that followed -- that it all started to come clear.
IIRC, David Chase was in Paris the night the final episode was aired,
and when he was reached by the press for comments on the puzzled
reaction of fans, he professed not to understand. He has never, as far
as I know, made a definitive statement like, "Look, you dummies, I
killed him off; are you happy now?" Instead he has expressed bafflement
at the inability of so many people to grasp the message in the cut to
black. What he did say was, "It's all there."
And indeed it is all there. There is no ambiguity in Tony's fate. I
thought there was at first -- I mean, I'm no different from most people
in this regard. I sat there wondering what happened next. Then I spent
a couple of glorious weeks wallowing in the final scene, watching it
over and over again, reading comments on the web -- some of which go far
further into parsing hidden meanings than I care to go. (Did you see
the sign on the wall in Uncle Junior's nursing home that told when the
last supper was scheduled? That sort of thing.) And then it all became
clear. Of course it's all there. Of course there's no doubt what
happened. Prisoners have been sent to the chair on less evidence. It's
all as clear as can be if you just observe and think. There's no need,
as Chase has helpfully pointed out, to actually SEE Tony's brains
spattered all over the wall.
So I suppose we just disagree on whether a satisfactory ending
absolutely MUST consist of a stunning dramatic payoff. You saw a
failure of drama and were disappointed. I saw a puzzle to be solved and
I loved it. Heck, it's been over three years now and I'm STILL loving
it. I think it's a brilliant ending for one of the best dramatic series
ever on television. How many other endings keep people chattering long
after the show is over? Gone with the Wind. The Sixth Sense. Citizen
Kane. Well, I suppose there are lots. And the Sopranos ranks right up
there with the best of them.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Bill Anderson
> On 13-Aug-2010, moviePig<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Tony's alive. So there.
>>
>> In support of that contention, I ask both of you to consider how Chase
>> would have filmed the ending to convey that Tony's every waking
>> instant henceforth will be spent in imminent fear of it being his
>> last, until one of them finally -- and indeed inevitably -- delivers.
>> Afaics, that'd look pretty much like the ending we saw. The main
>> difference between our interpretations is that mine replaces Chase's
>> narrative ambiguity with Tony's existential uncertainty. I'd like to
>> think that such a good, explicit series didn't exit by ripping/riffing
>> off 'The Lady Or the Tiger'...
>
> My wife is also unconvinced of his death. She and I both noticed something
> odd; Early in the same scene, it appears that Tony looks across the Diner
> and see's himself seated (a la the 2001 jupiter sequence). She thinks it
> could indicate that this is one of Tony's dreams (and there were many dream
> sequences in the series...too many). Im not sure what to make of that.
> Given so much empahsis on the editing, I cant believe that Tony loking at
> himself was just a sloppy cut. So..I dunno. Any theories?
Why yes, of course:
On the “Supper with Sopranos” extra on the Sopranos complete series DVD
collection, Chase talks about a huge influence on the final episode:
Chase: Filmically, that show [Made in America] had a lot to do with our
favorite scene in 2001 when the astronaut wakes up, that episode was
believe it or not sort of based on that..
Terrence Winter [writer/producer]: [you mean] seeing himself in the frame…
Chase: Projecting himself into his own future.
Also:
There were 3 other “seeing yourself” type 2001 moments in the final show
... they are:
1) Airport scene where Tony meets Harris: Tony stares, cut to Tony POV
of Harris in his car, cut back to Tony’s face staring, cut to the
previous Tony POV shot and Tony walks into the frame towards the car.
2)Tony visits Janice scene: Tony stares, cut to Tony POV of Janice on
lawn chair, cut back to Tony’s face staring, cut to the previous Tony
POV shot and Tony walks into the frame towards Janice.
3)Tony visits Junior. Tony stares, cut to Tony POV of Junior in the
corner of the room in his wheelchair, cut back to Tony’s face staring,
cut to the previous Tony POV shot except now Tony is practically
standing by Junior.
**This is the closest to the jarring jump cut in Holsten’s. We never
actually see Tony walking towards Junior.
4) Final scene. Tony stares, cut to Tony POV of the diner, cut back to
Tony’s face staring, cut to the previous Tony POV shot except Tony is
now sitting down.
2001 is heralded for the way Kubrick experimented with POV in the final
third of the movie (first with the Stargate sequence and then the
younger Bowman “seeing” his older self). I don’t believe that the
meaning of the ending of 2001 (still debated to this day) is the key to
the end of the Sopranos. Chase said it was “filmically” related, not
“thematically” related. But what is important is Chase was clearly
playing around with subjectivity. I think it was to set us up for the
buried money shot of Tony’s final “nothingness” POV.
All 4 examples put us into Tony’s immediate future. The first two take a
little longer to get there (i.e. we see Tony walking into the shot). The
third skips most of Tony’s walk to Junior. The final shot cuts
immediately to Tony sitting down (i.e. his immediate future).
Logically, the next shot would cut even faster into his immediate
future. Those final seconds could be read as Tony “seeing” his
“immediate” future, which is a black screen, i.e. death.
Or time (past and future) and space all fold into nothingness at the
moment of death. Tony can’t “see” his future because it’s no longer there.
Perhaps it’s way more simple than that. The final scene does not tell us
that Tony is watching himself-after the jump cut to Tony sitting at the
table, the next shot is a close up of Tony looking through the jukebox
selections. We don’t cut back to Tony at the door to confirm he sees
himself. In contrast, in 2001, it is made clear in one shot that the
younger Bowman is watching his older self. Chase ‘s use of “seeing
yourself in your POV” technique was simply to put us in Tony’s head. Its
purpose, in the three previous scenes prior to Holsten’s, is to
subliminally set us up for the final shot. The final “seeing yourself”
jump cut in Holsten’s is to remind the viewer (perhaps subconsciously)
that, in certain instances, we will be sharing Tony’s POV. It’s the
signal to follow the POV pattern and ultimately, the final, defintive
POV shot signifying death.
All of that comes from this web page:
http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/page-4/
Bill Anderson
> On 13-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson<billan...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> There is ambiguity in many areas regarding the final scene. But I do
>> not have to "admit" there is ambiguity regarding Tony's death because
>> Chase showed us he was dead.
>
> That is a credible and defensible interpretation of what he did show.
>
>> He didn't say it in the English language
>> because, I think, he believed his audience was smart enough to
>> understand the language of cinema.
>
> Just as the english language can be convey ambiguity, the language of
> cinema, in this case, was used to imply.
>
>> You said in an earlier message
>> that the cut to black "was not particularly cinematic." Wrong,
>> Steve. It's a perfect example of how editing film is an art form --
>> how a single cut can make a statement as clearly as dialogue.
>
> You make a very good point, BA. But dialog and editing can both be
> ambiguous.
>
Of course they can, but in this case they are not. If I classified
Tony's fate as ambiguous I'd be saying I am uncertain about whether
Chase indicated Tony had died. I am not uncertain, therefore the ending
is not ambiguous. It seemed ambiguous to me initially, but after a good
bit of earnest Searching and Digging and Pondering, the Great Light of
HBO shone down upon me, I lifted up my face and shouted "D'oh," and now
I am embarked upon a great Evangelical Mission to bring Truth to the
puzzled masses.
Starting with Steve.
David Oberman
>"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>> Bill Anderson <billander...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
You guys are having an excellent discussion of ambiguity in film. I'm
proud of all of you!
steve
On 14-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My wife is also unconvinced of his death. She and I both noticed
> > something
> > odd; Early in the same scene, it appears that Tony looks across the
> > Diner
> > and see's himself seated (a la the 2001 jupiter sequence). She thinks
> > it
> > could indicate that this is one of Tony's dreams (and there were many
> > dream
> > sequences in the series...too many). Im not sure what to make of that.
> > Given so much empahsis on the editing, I cant believe that Tony loking
> > at
> > himself was just a sloppy cut. So..I dunno. Any theories?
>
>
> Why yes, of course:
>
> On the “Supper with Sopranos” extra on the Sopranos complete series DVD
> collection, Chase talks about a huge influence on the final episode:
>
> Chase: Filmically, that show [Made in America] had a lot to do with our
> favorite scene in 2001 when the astronaut wakes up, that episode was
> believe it or not sort of based on that..
After reading this full post, BA, my first and foremast thought is that way
too many people have spent way too much time and energy on the Sopranos.
That being said..Im about to respond to another of your posts.
steve
steve
On 14-Aug-2010, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Of course they can, but in this case they are not. If I classified
> Tony's fate as ambiguous I'd be saying I am uncertain about whether
> Chase indicated Tony had died. I am not uncertain, therefore the ending
> is not ambiguous. It seemed ambiguous to me initially, but after a good
> bit of earnest Searching and Digging and Pondering, the Great Light of
> HBO shone down upon me, I lifted up my face and shouted "D'oh," and now
> I am embarked upon a great Evangelical Mission to bring Truth to the
> puzzled masses.
>
> Starting with Steve.
You do realize, dont you, that I believe that the directors intention was to
suggest tony's death? What we're arguing about is not our shared general
conclusion, but the question of whether or not the ending is ambiguous.
This may just seem like two intransigents butting heads, but I think the
question of ambiguity can actually be a bit complicated and is worth
discussing. For example, I noted that the Sopranos is littered with dream
sequences, and these are often presented deceptively; we dont necessarily
know it's a dream until we see the dreamer wake up in a cold sweat. The
dreams often have clues (some subtle, many overt), and we usually picked up
on it before the awakening...but not always. And on more than one occasion,
an odd sequence (something that didnt feel right to me...like Steve
Buscemi's meltdown) had me guessing momentarily that we might be in another
dream sequence. Given that, and given the dream-like moment in the final
scene where Tony see's himself, why wouldnt it be a logically defensible
position to say that the final scene may be a dream (from which Tony will
awaken in the movie or the next sopranos HBO series)? The broad context
(dream sequences common) together with the dream-like clue (and are several
things that could be called dream like, including the editing patterns you
observed) certainly support a dream theory. I dont adopt that theory, but I
see no reason to dismiss it as nonsense.
Of course, an alternate theory isnt necessary to conclude that there is
ambiguity. The mere fact that no death is explicitly shown or established
through dialog (or other direct narrative means) is enough. If you have to
take steps to infer something, then there is necessarily ambiguity in the
presentation. Your inference, no matter how strong or convincing, is not on
screen, but in your head. What is on screen is ambiguous, which is the very
reason that you have to infer. I dont see how you can get around that by
arguing the strength of your inference.
BTW, Steve Schirripa (Bobby Bacala) was on Huckabee the other night, and was
asked about the ending. He said "As far as Im concerned, Tony Soprano is
alive and well." Interesting.
Bill Anderson
If you want to argue that everything in literature and the movies is
ambiguous then I have no comeback. I know Tony isn't dead -- he can't
be because he never existed. He's an imaginary character created by
David Chase. As far as Tony is concerned, Chase is God. If Chase says
Tony's dead, then Tony is dead. If Chase later decides to bring him
back by having him wake up taking a shower on a fancy TV ranch in Texas,
then he comes back to life. Or maybe in 10 years Chase dies (in the
real world) and some rip-off artist writes a script about the power
outage that occurred that night when the Soprano family was dining on
Holsten's famous onion rings and voila, we have our movie. Of course
it's possible to show that Tony is alive, because he's a product of
storytelling. All Chase has to do is change his mind and suddenly all
my arguments about imaginary people will have no basis. It's also
possible to show that Huckleberry Finn changed his name to Jesse James
and robbed banks. We're talking Burger King fiction here; you really can
have it your way.
So sure, Chase can tell us tomorrow that the entire Holsten's sequence
was a dream and that he's been laughing at people like me for the past
three years because everybody knows he's the author and he can write
anything about the Sopranos anytime he wants and therefore there CAN'T
be any finality. Sure. But I don't buy it. I'm not going to spend my
time imagining a myriad of possible story progressions from the final
scene; I'm going to focus on what Chase showed and told me.
Like many (most?) people my initial reaction was that we'd been given an
ambiguous ending and I felt cheated. Then David Chase insisted it's not
ambiguous -- that in fact when it comes to understanding what happened
at Holsten's, "everything is there." (Remember, this is God talking.)
So the question for me became not, "Is Tony dead?" but "Where is this
finality Chase says is there?" Then I looked carefully and sure enough,
there it was.
I have said repeatedly that "Tony is dead." Now I will modify that to
"Chase told us Tony is dead." Happy now? No? Well, go right ahead and
argue back, but it really makes no difference. What I wanted to know was
whether all the ingredients for an unambiguous ending were there in the
final scene, and I have proven to my satisfaction and beyond a
reasonable doubt that they are. If there's ever a movie, I'll buy you a
ticket.
Oh, and one last thing: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Bill Anderson
>
> After reading this full post, BA, my first and foremast thought is that way
> too many people have spent way too much time and energy on the Sopranos.
>
I agree completely and I think I mentioned in my first post to this
thread that some people have really gone overboard. So tell me -- did
you click on the link I provided and look at all the pictures of 2001
and Holsten's and all the rest? My eyes glaze over at that stuff. But I
do find it reassuring that others have been more obsessive about all
this than I.
herbzet
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
--
hz