A Two Tony Ending????

[EdaMaria]

Tony enters Holsten's in leather jacket and does a double take when he sees himself sitting at one of the booths in a bowling shirt .

Cut to bowling shirt Tony looking up at door and someone other than leather jacket Tony walks in

discuss

[Krakower Thing]

Was it the same actor whose picture was Kevin Finnerty perhaps? What might have been had Tony rebelled and been a patio furniture salesman: a man enjoying some food in a diner who, unlike Tony, has a lot more life to live. Depending on his diet I suppose. Didn't get a good look. Hopefully it was canteloupe, wheat toast, and herbal tea. Unless he's allergic to wheat in which case... ah, too many questions left unanswered. After 8 years, Chase doesn't show the other guy's meal? Hopefully,it will be in the movie.

[thedust2020]

It is TONY! I've been watching over and over... SO WEIRD!!!

[EdaMaria]

seriously, did nobody see this? i am not finding talk of it out there yet and it seems like a big deal. at the very least it's very chilling and changes the entire last 2 min. for me -

my initial thought, after the shock and angst after the screen went black -was that this was an existential ending that totally fits the series. it's also an ending that will allow me to continue to enjoy the whole series for years to come without thinking - oh man this is a great old episode but now that i know that tony dies/turns govt. witness/kils his family - whatever - i can't enjoy it the same way I used to when I didn't know wheere this was all going

but now that i'e rewatched (several times) the shot of Tony entering the diner my mind is swimming with possibilities


anyone?

[Mikey]

isnt that just tony when he sits down and takes his jacket off? lol

[EdaMaria]

dust: thank you!!!!!!


I've been waiting for SOMEONE to agree with me on the weirdness factor !!!!!


I think a lot of people just haven't noticed it yet - it changes the entire last scene

[The Truth]

You guys are seeing things that aren't there.

It's the EXACT same shirt! The coat he wears as he enters is covering the lighter part of the shirt. It's a black collar (which is seen under his coat's collar) and around the buttons it is grey...it looks darker as he enters, but as just enters his coat moves and you can see the white of the shirt. It's the same shirt-no conspiracy here. Freeze it and watch.

The bigger question is what this will lead to-which is why Chase did the ending as such. Another season down the road? A mini series? A movie? Syl still alive? The ending was perfect in that it could go on. A little Seinfeld really-which pisses people off, but leaves him open to something down the road. Brilliant really.

It left you wanting more, which is why The Sopranos has always been so great.

[Universal Polymath]

Yeah, Mikey and The Truth have the right idea here. As much as I want to see an extra, weird little nugget there, there's just nothing there to see.

Tony comes in, the camera shows the restaurant from the point-of-view of Tony. The scene cuts to Tony's face again, and then cuts to Tony sitting down at the table - after he's been seated, has taken his jacket off, and a bit of time has gone by. The fact that this little shot of Tony at the table after the jump-forward in time is from the exact same angle as the previous shot in which the booth is empty is what's throwing people off here.

[thedust2020]

Yea I can pretty much confirm it's the same shirt, now that I look at it. It looks different when the coat is off and the lighting is a little different.

[EdaMaria]

the shirt seems different to me - but even if it's not, I think it looks like he's doing a double take of himself when he walks in. and i'm sticking to my story.

[The Truth]

I have no idea what you are watching, it's the same shirt. Your speculation makes no sense at any rate to back up it being a "slightly different shirt with a different collar".

[PFloyd69]

I'm pretty sure it's just a fastforward to Tony sitting down after he's been seated and takes his coat off. It's just an odd editing choice.

[EdaMaria]

well to continue the now tedious discussion of the shirt (totally my fault I realize) my 'slightly different shirt' observation was based on going back to the jr. meeting - (a similar colored shirt there) and the collar IS different there for sure. but now i see his pants are diferent too so obviously he changed before going to the restaurant.


soooooo putting the shirt thing aside. I'll assume I'm wrong for sake of stopping the laughter in my direction (I have a hard enough week coming up without dealing with already irate Sopranos fans making fun of me)


but I do think the shot is ambiguous and personally I think it seem like a Chase-like move - which is maybe why I was so qiuck to see it after it was pointd out to me (I didn't see it initially - it was pointed out by someone else)


but going back to me being wrong. this is the ultimate multilayered show. we know Chase loves symbolism, has penchant for the supernatural/metaphysical and is anything but conventional

so is it so crazy to believe there's more going on in this last scene than initially meets the eye? I mean beyond the 'is there a gun in the bathroom?'stuff

[pheenix11]

Its the same shirt, but did anyone notice the big picture on the wall as Tony walked in? It said Bloomfield, NJ beneath it. Isn't that where Melfi told Tony to go to see another therapist?

[d4rko]

I would have been delighted to find something right about your story EvaMaria. I think your interpretation would have open many possible ways of understanding the ending and also the whole series. Also, it would have been great keeping us thinking about other things apart from the "is he dead? is he not?" of it.

I noticed something in that scene when I watched it but I realized it was just the odd editing. Anyway, nobody tells us what the ending is so I would keep wonder if I feel like it... :icon_wink:

[peeayebee]

Well, I went back -- again -- to watch, and you're certainly right that he's wearing different pants (black when he walks into the restaurant, khaki when he's visiting Junior). I just can't be sure about the shirt. It looked the same to me, though it's very difficult to see clearly, but since the pants are different, the shirt very well could be too.

It was a very odd edit. When we first see him sitting in the booth, I thought Tony was imagining what was going to happen. I can see that as a possibility -- Tony imagining what his life is going to be like, looking over his shoulder for assassins, yet having a happy family with him -- but I'm not - yet -- convinced that is what's happening.

[Feral]

The scene before with Junior begins in the same way, it's like Tony's standing by the door watching himself

[peeayebee]

True! Duh that I didn't tie the two together, because I also got confused at that scene.

So is there significance here? Is it a deliberate pattern, a theme? Or is it simply the result of editing out the pointless stuff of Tony walking into a room?

[Rockford]

I've got to say that I really don't understand why this topic isn't getting more interest. I do notice that it is one of the more popular threads on this site even though it has only had 17 responsesI was the one that got Eda Maria to start this thread. Tony's double take in Holsten's was so clear to me. I wasn't the only one to notice it. It's on TV w/o Pity. Someone mentioned it on the NY Times blog. But no one's is responding to it. To me it changes the entire nature of the ending giving it a kind of surreal beauty that is just amazing. Someone said it was just "a weird edit." Since when does David Chase, the king of the symbol, do anything accidentally. I stand by it. He is watching himself. I didn't notice it in the prior scene with Jun. I didn't tape it but I will watch the rerun tonight.

[FlyMeToTheMoon]

I watched the scene frame by frame this afternoon. Tony walks from the street into the restaurant and then stops once inside. The next scene is from Tony's perspective looking into the restaurant. We see the diners and an empty table in the middle of the restaurant. A man walks across the restaurant, from left to right. Next shot is Tony still looking into the restaurant, then the scene after that is shot from the same spot where Tony was standing, except he is now seated at the table he was looking at from the door. What makes it appear that he's looking at himself is that the distance of the camera does not change and it does seem that he is still standing at the door, watching himself, but he is not.

[Rockford]

Well, on a second viewing it is definitely more ambiguous then I remember but I still stand by it. There is definitely a remoteness about Tony. Regardless of the intention of the editing Tony is standing outside watching.

[eganoipse]

Seems like a double take, but couldn't he just be looking for an empty table to seat four. I have the same look when I walk into a crowded restaraunt and wonder if I can find a place to sit.

What a great scene - so simple, yet it has a million different possibilities.

[alysomji]

He was looking for a table where he could sit such that he would be able to directly see who walks into the restaurant each time the door opens.

[pheenix11]

Hi, table for 4, mob view please.

[EdaMaria]

well, even though i realize no one will see this (i'm back on the site after 4 years as i'm rewatching series) i am compelled to note how satisfying it was to learn that Chase deliberately had several 'jump cuts' --- a la '2001 Space Odyssey' -- in the final episode, including, of course, the final scene.

2001 has astronaut Dave Bowman watching himself in the famous last scene. 4 years ago I wanted to find some overarching - maybe even paranormal significance to Chase's editing choice - but now I agree with others out there who believe it's meant to put viewer in Tony's POV.

[conkom]

Hi EdaMaria,

I think you might have stopped posting around the same time I joined this group way back in 2007.

Over the past year I too have rewatched the Sopranos from the beginning. The knowledge of the final episode and scene gives the re-viewing a totally different perspective and arguably forewarning for what's in store for Tony and his families.

I have probably seen Made in America a dozen times and have watched the Holsten scene hundreds if not more.

Interestingly this latest time it evoked the memory of when I watched it the first time as instead of analysing it too closely I let the episode unravel naturally.

It was once again, in my eye, uneventful and any omenous signs I allowed myself to let them slip through.

One thing that did jar again was the sudden jump cut you discussed. I momentarily forgot about the POV signals that it introduced and thought the oddness of Tony watching himself.

Interestingly Little Feat's All That You Dream on the jukebox played seamlessly from when Tony was looking at the table, to then us suddenly seeing him sitting and examining the songs on the contraption.

As the scene slowly progressed I remembered how I had an inkling about what to expect as I was in Greece at the time of the original screening and read a spoiler in the International Tribune about the torrent of complaints to HBO about the inexplicable long black silence that followed the diner scene.

When I did first see it I thought - no resolution! - it must mean a movie or a sequel is on the way. Then I thought about the jump cut after he entered Holstens and wondered whether Tony imagined the whole scene.

Of course subsequent viewings and realising the subtle signals embedded in the scene made it quite clear that this wasn't a mundane family gathering.

I like the 2001 Space Odyssey parallel you mentioned as it makes All That You Dream more of an overarching soundtrack to the scene rather than simply background music.

And it's a much better song than Don't Stop Believing. Apologies to all the Journey fans.

To paraphrase the Comic Book Guy's oft used signature call "best finale scene ever".

[EdaMaria]

Hi Conkom. I'm so happy you posted bc 1) your post was quite interesting; and 2) i'm selfishly dying for this site to be fully active again as I closely rewatch season 6. I should amend my prior post to say that I *think* Chase himself said the final scene included camera work modeled after "2001." I know for sure one of his assistants has said this. My main takeaway so far in reviewing Season Six is that it's much more rich and layered and just plain GOOD than I even remembered (which is saying a lot) Also, in 2007 I was so eager to look deeply for connections, symbolism, etc. I find now that if I watch it less intensely I pick up a lot I missed the first time around (it's as if I was looking so hard at first time for 'clues' that I missed things right in front of me) Also, just fyi, I recently listened to DVD commentary of "The Blue Comet.' The actor who played Carlo says that during the table read of the final scene, Gandolfini asked Chase why he ended the series the way he did. Chase, according to the actor, said it was because he didn't want to show that cry pays or doesn't pay. (maybe one day Chase will publicly elaborate on this point ....)

[conkom]

Yes that comment about crime paying, or not, was itself interpreted every which way by all, but I think Chase's later comment about "not hearing it coming" is about as definitive as he would ever be about Tony's fate.

Perhaps Chase was suggesting more about the randomness of existence. Why does an innocent person suffer tragedy while others who have committed real crimes seem to experience life's fortunes.

Let's not forget as much as we loved Tony and related to most of his everyman trials and tribulations throughout the series, he was a gangster and a murderer.

The probabilty of him dying at a time not of his choosing (and a violent demise at that) would have been considerably higher than the average person. And we know that he accumulated many enemies along the way waiting for the moment to finally eliminate him.

It would make sense that he would be hit at a time we (let alone him) would least expect it. And no one was expecting a sudden cut to black and silence. While people tried to argue that it was ambiguous you can't deny that at that instance the Sopranos universe ceased to exist.

If Tony was killed by the mysterious man wearing the Member's Only jacket (who looked uncannily like his father) then it reinforces the randomness of his existence. However if we use the analogy of Game Theory or Chaos Theory sometimes ones actions set of a chain of events that may lead to unexpected outcomes but when reviewing the course of events you can see the linkages that were made along the way.

It can be argued that had he lived Tony would have finally been arrested and would have ended up like Johhny Sack. Carlo rolling over to the Feds made this more than likely. The look on Carmella's face and the realisation that she would end up like Ginny was a credit to Edie Falco's brilliant acting. (Heads up everyone she is just as good in Nurse Jackie!)

Maybe Tony got lucky with a quick painless death.

I have often mentioned that the final scene seems to be an homage to the Twilight Zone. Expect the unexpected. Life is full of twists and turns. Sometimes good and sometimes bad. By the same token Chase could be telling us that crime does pay and it doesn't. And in Tony's case all that was true throughout the life of the series, which really wasn't just about him. Tony Soprano was the series.

[Mikey]

I still have lots of questions about the ending...

One thing I would like to point out is in re watching the series there are 4 times i've noticed where Tony looks up at the trees swaying... the first one being in season 1 before he gets shot at, then in season 6a when "Kevin Finnerty" is standing out side of his family reunion, then again in 6a after coming home from the hospital he looks up while sitting out in his backyard, then once more in the final episode a little bit before the final scenes. This always seems to indicate problems for Tony in the past. So is this telling us anything this time?

Also in the first episode of 6a entitled "Members Only" they make fun of Eugene for wearing a members only jacket, then the "man in the members only jacket" appears in the final scene... this must hold some significance?

Why was Meadow late (parking difficulties), and never actually seen coming into the restaurant? Obviously theres more to it than her inability to parallel park..

edit: In the scene where Tony (Kevin Finnerty) is about to die meadows voice is what brings him back... is it possible shes late to A: Either warn him of something (save him again) as she opens the door and can maybe see something the rest of the family cant? or B: saved him once but is "too late" to warn him this time?

What is the significance of the onion rings... and again why was meadow left out?

I have more to, just need to think about them...

edit: another thing comes from the second last episode and i've brought this up before but never really got a satisfying answer from anyone else i talked to but when they enter the safe house and are inside if you pay attention you can see a cardboard cut out of silvio standing in the corner.... theres could be many reasons for this the obvious one is simply a bad mistake (very unlikley for this show to make this kind of mistake IMO) Or is this just simply some sort of joke? (again IMO I find questionable)... or what?

[BobbyBacala]

Mikey,

I read your post and I'm going to see how many of your questions I can answer. I've watched the episodes many times on DVD so hopefully I can help to give you some satisfying answers.

First, Tony looking up at the trees in the final episode definitely seem to be suggesting something. My feeling about it, however, is that it's almost as if Tony is at peace. I just get that impression every time I watch that scene. I have even gone back many times specifically to analyze that scene after others have expressed the significance of it. To me, it has always just felt like a moment of peace for Tony. He knows Carlo is going to testify and he will probably be facing jail time, but for the moment he is at peace. It's a nice scene IMO. That's just always been my take on it though.

The member's only jacket has been talked about to death and I think it's ridiculous to think there is no significance to it. David Chase directed both "Members Only" and "Made In America" in season 6 and only those two so that has to mean something. Plus the opening of "Members Only" has probably one of, if not the most, memorable opening in the entire series. Then to have the man in Holsten's, not only wearing one, but being referred to in the credits as "Man in Member's Only Jacket," when they could have had him wearing anything else seems to stand out like a sore thumb to me. I think that is one of the key elements that David Chase is referring to when he said "it's all there." I think the problem is, some people just refuse to see the clues. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put anyone down... everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I have no problem with people believing that Tony lives on. It's the discussion and debate that still keeps the show alive and makes it so interesting. I, however, do believe that Tony was killed in Holsten's.

As for Meadow, I agree with the point about her not being able to save Tony this time. I've always viewed her as a protector or guardian angel for Tony in a way... again, this is referenced in the opening to "Members Only" as well. Also, keep in mind, had she not had trouble parallel parking and made it into the restaurant, she would most likely be sitting on the outside of the booth next to Tony in the way of any easy shot that MOG would have therefore saving her father again for the time being.

The onion rings... many view them as symbolic communion wafers because of their shape and because of the way all three characters are shown eating them. To this day I'm still not sure if I see it exactly this way, but I definitely wouldn't count the theory out. If anything, I guess it really does seem like a symbolic last supper for Tony with his family minus Meadow. Why is Meadow not included? As I mentioned, had she been, MOG would have difficulty getting a clear shot at Tony with her in the way. Meadow has always seemed like the outsider anyway. She always seemed to be the least influenced by her father's lifestyle. Carmella, despite the arguments and worry she felt for her husband at times, was in fact a part of the life now. She loved Tony, but it was her love of money and security that ultimately kept her satisfied despite Tony's adultery and the dangers he had to face on a day to day basis. Again, I do believe she loved him, but the money and thought that she would be "taken care of" kept her satisfied. AJ, I believe, was heading on the same path as Tony. It may not have been as one direction as Tony's path was to the top, but in the end, I got the impression that AJ would eventually become Tony. This was hinted at during that scene of AJ in the bathrobe at the kitchen table among other things. Meadow though... she was going to do big things. Protecting criminals may have been a part of the life she would build for herself, but at least it would be legitimate.

Finally, the Silvio cut out in the safe house has no significance other than just being a way for Silvio to appear, in some form, in that scene. I don't remember if I had read that or if it was talked about in the audio commentary on the DVD. The cut out was intentionally included in the background just as a "shout out" and a way of saying Silvio was there with them. This is the definitive answer and not just my opinion so I hope that satisfies you. As I said, I believe this was talked about in the DVD audio commentary.

Hopefully that answers all of these questions. If you have anymore or even have something to add to these, please don't hesitate to ask. I visit this forum daily and I'd be happy to help.

[Mikey]

Ha, forgot I made that post haha

Thanks for getting back

I agree any time they show the trees like that, there seems to be a peacful moment.... its the aftermath I guess that can go either way.

As for Tony being killed, I have to agree that all signs point to that also, but if we were to absolutely know he was dead then we would have seen him die... so I think the intention here was to keep us talking about it, keep us thinking etc etc... the lyrics in "Don't stop believing" say "Some will win, some will lose, some were born to sing the blues, oh, the movie never ends, it goes on and on and on..." This is exactly how this final scene plays out to me, there really is no definite resolution the movie just goes on and on... Maybe members only guy killed him, or maybe Carlo ends up causing him to go to jail, or maybe nothing at all happens and it really does just go on from there....

Regarding Meadow, I remember back in season 2 when Tony decided he wanted to spend more time with AJ and Carmela asked him about Meadow and he said something like "dont worry about Meadow, she can take care of herself" then later in that same episode he told Melfi something like "I need to be around for my kids until they're out of the house, then I dont care what happens to me, they can put me away for life, give me the chair" etc.. It took until the final episode before AJ seemed to be "set" with his new job, and Meadow was set by this point to, so was that scene in season 2 telling us anything about the final episode?

Yeah I never fully bought into the onion/sacrament thing either, but it is a legitimate theory.. And you can go all day researching things about the real last supper and comparing it to the show, this is a bit "out there" but just for fun i'll throw out a new question..... theres always been controversy as to the possibility of John the disciple not being painted into the last supper by Leonardo Da Vinci so is there a play on names in the sopranos here that links something to their own "last supper" did this have something to do with John Sacramoni (first name John like the disciple last name similar to sacrament) and Phil Leotardo (originally Leonardo)? Johnny Sack died in the final episodes giving way to Phil to do as he pleases... who knows. (even though Phil died, did his contract still get fulfilled?) Also its been said that in the last supper the painting is actually of Mary Magdelene at the table where John was supposed to be, Jesus cleansed Mary of her 7 demons before he died...... The memorable opening that you refer to in season 6 was playing out "7 deadly sins", interesting.

Anyway im just throwing random facts out there to look at, nothing serious..

as for AJ I agree he could still very well end up the same as Tony we saw the mysterious angry/satisfied look on his face when him and the other guys poured acid on that guys feet... and the thrill he was getting out of the whole "lifestyle" when he was hanging out with carlo and patsy's sons... AJ even physically looked like tony through out the series, when he was younger he was chubby like Tony was then we saw the clips of him when he was tall and thin with long hair, same as AJ in season 6A...

As for the Sil cut out, I never did think it was anything serious, good to know the truth behind it though!

[BobbyBacala]

No problem about responding. I wish more people still posted on this forum. Discussion for this show is endless.

The last supper references you bring up are interesting, especially about the John and Phil's names. There is so much in that final scene, let alone the whole series, that can be dissected in so many different ways. That's the beauty of it.

The “ambiguous” ending is a masterpiece in itself because it left me satisfied but wanting more at the same time. IMO, as I previously stated, I whole-heartedly believe Tony was killed in Holsten's, but other questions are still left unanswered such as who ordered the hit, how did Tony's family react to seeing him clipped, does Sil ever wake up, who is the boss of the family now, etc. The questions, like “the movie” never end, they go on and on and on. They should be left unanswered though. It feels real that way. Nothing in life is ever truly complete and there are always questions left unanswered. This is what makes the finale so satisfying to me.