Where does the story's text end?

[jkleier]

I have wondered for a while where and when The Sopranos story/plot/universe officially ends.

In other words, what constitutes the text? The show's end credits? Pointing out that the man in the "Members Only" jacket as an obvious "hint" of Tony's ultimate fate? What would the audience think had the end credits not identified the members only guy?

So, is the cut-to-black the end of the series and story? If the end credits had information pertinent to the scene and story, then that's part of the text? Almost the entirety of the theory that Tony dies is linked to that credit, and that end credit's importance is linked to the title of episode 6.1.

In deed Chase blurs lines, disregards established conventions -- and that is partly why his show is such a masterpiece. However, conventions do exist for good reason.

Where does The Sopranos conclude?

[richjcrouch]

It's an interesting point.

The end credits have always given extra info about the episode or what it may mean as the final song of each episode is usually quite important to the plot.

I take your point regarding the Members Only Guy. Without direct reference to that, people would probably still be believing that he was 'Nikki Leotardo'!

Contrarily, Chase did request special dispensation so as not to have to show any credits, which he was denied, so how important are they to Chase?

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

You ask an interesting question, jkleier. I personally think the credits are a bit like metadata, not really something that has a purely literary parallel but has plenty of analogs in more modern forms of media. One prime example of the importance of a credit was Steve Buscemi's credit as "man" in Mayham, even though the audience had to think -- and even though the ultimate intention, IMO, was to have him represent -- Tony B. But his crediting as "man" did something to help frame the issue of loss of identity at death that Chase was exploring.

In the case of "man in members only jacket", I presume that was the name given to the character in the script and not reworded in any way for the credits. Obviously having it spelled out in the credits helps. But I don't think the Members Only symbolism is dependent upon the credits since the observant could clearly see that he was wearing a Members Only jacket. I'm certain many would have picked up on that even without the credit to amplify it.

I don't recall offhand how the two black guys were identified in the credits. Anyone recall? There's a similar phenomenon there, as they immediately conjured "unidentified black males" in my mind as I watched the episode.

[Universal Polymath]

I don't recall offhand how the two black guys were identified in the credits. Anyone recall?

"African American Man #1 in Diner" and "African American Man #2 in Diner".

Unidentified Black Males, indeed!

[dsweeney]

I t is a very interesting point you raise and one I have stressed to people who think Tony doesn't necessarily die.The final ten seconds of black are crucially part of the episode.It doesn't end at the cut-to-black.It is interesting that David Chase wanted no credits at all but maybe once he had to have them he put in the extra hint by calling him "Man in Members Only jacket". Everyone else is credited as ".....in diner",".....so-and-so in diner". MOG seems to be given special attention.
I would imagine the actual text would finish with something like "Tony hears the bell at the door and looks up.Screen cuts to black for ten seconds.Credits roll." I'm no scriptwriter so I could be way off.
Just something on the more general point about the ending.Like I say to people,"of all the jackets in all the world,you had to put him in this one".In 6.1 we see a guy in a Members Only jacket (Eugene) walk into a diner and shoot a guy dead.Why even make an issue of what jacket the guy is wearing unless it means something? It is surely to direct us back to 6.1 which acts as a kind of fore-shadowing of what is to come-Tony getting whacked.

[badabellisima]

Finally i get it: when you said 'text', you meant 'script'!

[dsweeney]

Not sure what you meant by that Bada but you're probably insulting me again.If you want to split hairs over "text" and "script" then that's fine.But my basic point about the deliberate mid-scene cut to black and the subsequent ten seconds of nothing being crucially part of the episode still stands.I took the point of discussion to be about how the script/text would appear on the written page.

[SilvioMancini]

Not trying to play mediator here but I personally didnt feel Bada was trying to insult you dbsweeney I read that as being earnest and non-sarcastic. We have all agreed in the past to keep at least a cordial tone in here when discussing or even arguing about topics. I think Bada would agree that no offense was meant as the topic you bring up is intriguing and worthwihle. Please let us all remember nor to be rude to one another or take anything anyone says to personally unless its clearly meant to be. In which case I hope we can all agree to at least keep it respectful.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Not sure what you meant by that Bada but you're probably insulting me again.If you want to split hairs over "text" and "script" then that's fine.But my basic point about the deliberate mid-scene cut to black and the subsequent ten seconds of nothing being crucially part of the episode still stands.I took the point of discussion to be about how the script/text would appear on the written page.

dsweeney, I don't even think bada was addressing you but rather the original poster who asked the question, "Where does the story's text end?" I took it as her genuinely having some "that's what he meant" moment. Even if she was addressing you, I see nothing insulting about it, nor do I recall her leveling any insult toward you in any other thread. (If you feel I've missed such an instance, please direct my attention to it as the mods and I try diligently to curb such behavior here.)

The vast majority of your recent posts in some way express that Tony dying in the diner that night is some kind of undeniable, unequivocal, or objective truth with no room for reasonable minds to differ. That constancy of theme, even when slightly off topic, reflects a subtle provocation on your part towards those with a different view. If I'm reading you accurately, you may also be experiencing some mild frustration since no one seems to be taking the bait.

I haven't taken it, nor do I intend to, since I still believe the question of Tony living or dying (that night or any other) to be pretty unimportant in terms of why I watched the show or what it was about to me. I also think Chase's post-finale interviews, as a whole, have provided ample evidence that, while he definitely intended to raise the specter of Tony's imminent death, he had had no intention of portraying it to a certainty or unequivocally. By his own words, it was quite the opposite. So, at least to the extent that a viewer wishes to have the creator arbitrate the issue via extraneous commentary (and I'm not really one of those, although many who share your view are), there is little upon which to sustain a debate.

I think you will find your experience here most rewarding if you are open to the notion that a work as complex and as intellectually demanding of its audience as the Sopranos is bound to elicit many different interpretations in that audience, many of which are intellectually viable despite their real or seeming contradictions. Having once been incredibly opinionated myself in matters like this, I'm grateful for what years of online interaction deconstructing dramatic works (the Sopranos and others) have taught me: you get broader illumination when you are willing to use the light from a lot of bulbs.:icon_wink:

[CamMan]

I haven't taken it, nor do I intend to, since I still believe the question of Tony living or dying (that night or any other) to be pretty unimportant in terms of why I watched the show or what it was about to me. I also think Chase's post-finale interviews, as a whole, have provided ample evidence that, while he definitely intended to raise the specter of Tony's imminent death, he had had no intention of portraying it to a certainty or unequivocally. By his own words, it was quite the opposite. So, at least to the extent that a viewer wishes to have the creator arbitrate the issue via extraneous commentary (and I'm not really one of those, although many who share your view are), there is little upon which to sustain a debate.

Not to get off topic but do you have a link where Chase actually says his intentions were "quite the opposite" regarding the viewers interpreting the ending to mean Tony's demise?

I do find dsweeney's approach annoying, but I also firmly believe Tony died although it's silly to say it's unequivical. From what I read in a Chase interview in the HBO tie in book it seemed Chase was strongly suggesting, in his own coy way, that Tony died. I did read a more recent interview where he says the ending can be interpreted in more than one way but he was laughing when he said it and was responding to the idea that Tony saw himself aging in the final scene like Bowman in 2001.

Someone really needs to create a page with all of Chase's comments about the finale.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Just to clarify, what I said (or was trying ineptly to say) was that Chase's own words provide "ample evidence" that his "intentions were quite the opposite" of "portraying Tony's death to a certainty or unequivocally". The opposite of certain and unequivocal is uncertain and equivocal. In other words, I was saying his post-finale comments suggest he meant to make Tony's death (or survival) ambiguous or uncertain, to suggest the death without definitively portraying it. Your recharacterization was substantively different, i.e., that I contend Chase meant to portray the "opposite" of Tony's demise . . . which would mean his survival beyond the cut to black.

Give me a few minutes and I'll link a few quotes that are already in other threads.:icon_wink:

[badabellisima]

Not sure what you meant by that Bada but you're probably insulting me again.If you want to split hairs over "text" and "script" then that's fine.But my basic point about the deliberate mid-scene cut to black and the subsequent ten seconds of nothing being crucially part of the episode still stands.I took the point of discussion to be about how the script/text would appear on the written page.
Whoa dsweeney! i most definitely didn't have any intention to insult you now or ever! i truly am often so deef i don't realize the obvious point- like text vs. script. Sometimes i am way to literal initially. i was reading along in the thread and just wasn't quite grasping the point until i got it and said so in my post. Sometimes i'm just not clear enough.
---However- if you honestly feel insulted, please do pm Fly (not directly to me) so it can be ironed out- i have no desire to have you feel that way. Your posts are excellent and very valued.

Actually, this very topic of trying to figure out where the script ends/credit included or not... was discussed in the past many months ago, so i thought that maybe by someone posting about the 'text', maybe a new concept was coming up. But alas, so far its the same old theme and argument....but its still relevant and important, and i hope some new insights come about from the discussion. Doesn't anyone have access to an actual finale script so we can see how it was visually portrayed?

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Camman, this is to follow up my previous post. From the "latest comments" thread: (http://%22http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=2232) (interviewer's remarks in italics)

There was so much more to say than could have been conveyed by an image of Tony face down in a bowl of onion rings with a bullet in his head. Or, on the other side, taking over the New York mob. The way I see it is that Tony Soprano had been people's alter ego. They had gleefully watched him rob, kill, pillage, lie, and cheat. They had cheered him on. And then, all of a sudden, they wanted to see him punished for all that. They wanted "justice." They wanted to see his brains splattered on the wall. I thought that was disgusting, frankly. But these people have always wanted blood. Maybe they would have been happy if Tony had killed twelve other people. Or twenty-five people. Or, who knows, if he had blown up Penn Station. The pathetic thing- to me- was how much they wanted his blood, after cheering him on for eight years.

You know there were many people who thought the end was brilliant.

Sure. But I must say that even people who liked it misinterpreted it, to a certain extent. This wasn't really about "leaving the door open". There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view- a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter.The bold comments are pretty straightforward support for the idea that he intended to create something indefinite [time/manner of death] as well as something definite [the general outlook for Tony and Carmela's lives: bleak]. The "it" -- the time of Tony's death -- he expressly states "doesn't really matter". He speaks of the possibility of Tony's death after the diner in terms of "sides", as though there are two "sides" to the question of his survival, i.e., that he may have or may not have. Again, this posture underscores the inherent ambiguity of what he created while simultaneously (and somewhat paradoxically) reinforcing his view of its unimportance.

From the EW interview reproduced in this thread: (http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=2391) (and also in a thread by you, camman, here: http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=2392)


EW: You've been mum about the ultimate meaning of the show's finale. But in the DVD supplements you do admit that you were partly invoking the finale of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where Keir Dullea's character watches himself age. Does that onion-rings-at-the-diner scene even actually happen, or is Tony just ruminating?

DC: [Long pause.] There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say. [Laughs]That's pretty explicit support for the idea that Chase self-consciously created an ending with duplicity/ambiguity.

From an LA Times article in this thread http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=2388, the following comment:

"You asked if I wanted to comment about the ending and I said, 'I don't want to make things worse,' " said Chase, speaking from his second home in France. "But then I thought, 'Well, worse for who?' It's not worse for me. There are just people who want this closure and I don't have that."Here he's revealing what may be his real motive for doing what he did, and you must place it in context with the many remarks he's made through the years decrying television for telling an audience what to think or feel all the time, for spelling things out instead of making allusions or suggestions, for answering questions instead of asking them. It's the same aversion to the need for "closure" that led him to be perplexed that his first season audience credited him with the "brilliant cliffhanger" of Pussy's disappearance (it was no such thing in that Chase never even though about where Pussy was nor did he foresee that the audience would care). You can almost feel Chase bristle every time he is asked, for the umpteenth time, whether in a taped or print interview, "What happened to the Russian?" Chase's fundamental annoyance at the sensibility reflected in that kind of question could hardly be clearer. And no matter what he says, I think a certain motive in his ending was to take the ultimate "black or white" question of death and turn it into an uncertainty just to irritate the faction of his audience who would demand a black or white answer to that question (and, no, the 10 seconds of black isn't IMO meant to convey "when" Tony dies but what he can expect when he does.)

His part jocular/part serious(?) comments at the TCA awards last year are also (possibly) relevant:

http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=2168

I've never seen "Planet of the Apes," and I'm not nearly versed enough in Beatle's lore to offer my own take on what these "hints" by Chase meant, but others in that thread offer some interesting ideas.

[dsweeney]

Camman says he finds my approach annoying. Firstly,I wasn't aware I had an approach,I thought I was expressing my opinion. Someone else says I speak as if the finale is unequivocal and that I should be more open to other interpretations.If as you say,the ending is open to different interpretation, am I not entitled to mine? The same as anyone else? The fact that I have come down on one side of the argument as to the ending, shouldn't mean I can be put down as narrow-minded. For me,Tony getting one in the head is the only thing that makes sense.To all those "attacking me",could one of you give another explanation for the final ten seconds of black? Please? If you can I will certainly take it on board. Some of you say the ending is ambiguous-I say you're ignoring what's in front of your eyes!
I apologize to Bada if I over-reacted.No offence taken.It might help if we knew someone in the Screenwriting business who could maybe help on this point.The scripts for earlier seasons of the show are available so I would imagine the final 9 episodes will be as well.

[dsweeney]

Whoops! Too late I saw Flyonmelfiswall's post,re the final 10 seconds of black.Interesting and I agree with you in part,it is symbolic in a way of what he can expect I think.At various points in the show there are references to the after-life,parallel universes etc.Tony saying "this? This is not all there is". David Chase himself apparently said in interview that during the coma sequences Tony wasn't just in a dream state but that he "went somewhere else".I think that because Tony was given a second chance to change,to redeem himself somehow and that he didn't,he has gone to hell. Black.Nothing.No after-life.
Sorry I realise this has strayed a little from the point about where the text/script ends but clearly the final 10 seconds are crucial to this.

[CamMan]

Sorry dsweeny, no offense. Fudamentally, I'm in agreement with you that Tony died. I think your assertiveness just rubbed some people the wrong way. Then again, there is something to be said for having the courage of your convictions.

Thanks Fly for the links. I have read most of those comments. You're right, it really doesn't get much more clear then "there is nothing definite about the end.." What is strange is he later talks about the murder of Jerry "The Hairdo" to all but imply that Tony died. Even that Planet of the Apes stuff seems to indicate one end and seems to scoff at people who don't "get it". He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.




EW: You've been mum about the ultimate meaning of the show's finale. But in the DVD supplements you do admit that you were partly invoking the finale of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where Keir Dullea's character watches himself age. Does that onion-rings-at-the-diner scene even actually happen, or is Tony just ruminating?

DC: [Long pause.] There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say. [Laughs]

That's pretty explicit support for the idea that Chase self-consciously created an ending with duplicity/ambiguity.

From an LA Times article in this thread http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=2388, the following comment:

"You asked if I wanted to comment about the ending and I said, 'I don't want to make things worse,' " said Chase, speaking from his second home in France. "But then I thought, 'Well, worse for who?' It's not worse for me. There are just people who want this closure and I don't have that."

Here he's revealing what may be his real motive for doing what he did, and you must place it in context with the many remarks he's made through the years decrying television for telling an audience what to think or feel all the time, for spelling things out instead of making allusions or suggestions, for answering questions instead of asking them. It's the same aversion to the need for "closure" that led him to be perplexed that his first season audience credited him with the "brilliant cliffhanger" of Pussy's disappearance (it was no such thing in that Chase never even though about where Pussy was nor did he foresee that the audience would care). You can almost feel Chase bristle every time he is asked, for the umpteenth time, whether in a taped or print interview, "What happened to the Russian?" Chase's fundamental annoyance at the sensibility reflected in that kind of question could hardly be clearer. And no matter what he says, I think a certain motive in his ending was to take the ultimate "black or white" question of death and turn it into an uncertainty just to irritate the faction of his audience who would demand a black or white answer to that question (and, no, the 10 seconds of black isn't IMO meant to convey "when" Tony dies but what he can expect when he does.)



The quote about 2001 is the one I mentioned in the post above and I'm not sure he's being serious as he laughs at the idea of Tony watching himself aging or he's acknowledging that anybody can read something (no matter how outlandish) into the ending.

I do disagree with you about the closure remark. I think you're offering your own interpretation. I for one do not think the final scene is to "irritate" the audience. I don't see Chase selling out his vision just to annoy those fans. The analogy to the "Russian" is IMO a weak analogy. The Russian was a peripheral character and his fate was something that was not important to the text, while IMO the ultimate fate of Tony would be a major concern that Chase wouldn't leave totally hanging. I think he showed us enough to make us believe he died but came just short of showing us so nobody can say it's unequivocal or "definite" as Chase says.

I think when Chase is talking about "no closure", he is really talking about no closure about Tony's death. His death doesnt give closure because it provides no answers.

I think Chase is expressing human narcissism common to all of us. The narcissist believes he is the main character in his life or his movie. In any movie or show, even when the main character dies, the movie continues. It is still about him and you see the reactions of other people to his death, you see consequences.

But in reality, when you die, it ends. There's no more; you don't get to see the reactions of other people to your death. You don't get to do anything. There is no denouement, no winding down, no exposition, no resolution. Not even a struggle for survival as Tony doesnt even see his attacker fire the bullet. Most importantly, the death didn't seem to flow logically from the show. Death doesn't always flow logically from our own lives. The death made no sense, it was arbitrary. It was unsatisfying. So there is "no closure", so to speak, for his death.

In other words, his death was too real.

Part of having an identity is having narcissitic tendencies. However, except for heroes and suicides, no one gets to choose the time and place of their death, nor the manner. Nor can we control people's reactions to our death.

The scene was the ultimate realistic death. Just black and 10 more seconds to emphasize the point.

That is what death is like, it's like that when someone suddenly dies. You don't believe it at first, then you realize they're gone. There is no opportunity to say anything more. The ending was very like how it would be from Tony's point of view but also impacted the viewer because that's what's it's like when you suddenly realize someone died and didn't expect it.

This feeds into the "closure" thing Chase was talking about. I think perhaps we have ideas of what "closure" should be - that we should see or know what happened, see what happens afterward. That last scene left the viewer with the beginning of the process - the sudden shock, the disbelief, the lack of knowing the details. The finality and our struggle to actually accept it. Ending the show at the exact same time Tony's life ends offers no closure.

Then again, I'm fascinated by your suggestion that the black screen indicates "what Tony can expect" not "when" he dies. Actually, I think it's both.

[badabellisima]

...
[quote]
But in reality, when you die, it ends. There's no more; you don't get to see the reactions of other people to your death. You don't get to do anything. There is no denouement, no winding down, no exposition, no resolution. Not even a struggle for survival as Tony doesnt even see his attacker fire the bullet. Most importantly, the death didn't seem to flow logically from the show. Death doesn't always flow logically from our own lives. The death made no sense, it was arbitrary. It was unsatisfying. So there is "no closure", so to speak, for his death....
Well, there's thousands of posts from many of us who believe there is something more after physical death than your description, so i won't go too far on that subject. Yet its interesting that you and others who are quite sure Tony died that night seem to talk of how "unsatisfying" the ending is, and seem to have no closure on it! The subject just keeps on coming back with a similar take month after month.


...Ending the show at the exact same time Tony's life ends offers no closure.


i'm starting to wonder what percentage of people who think Tony died that night share other common worldviews. i know for myself, i am not sure if he died that night, i think probably not, but i think it is possible. And i truly don't have even the teensiest bit of feeling of non-closure about it. In fact, i feel kind of fulfilled like i just finished reading a great work of literature, even though i don't know how all the characters fared. Yes, i'm still hungry for more, like for a truly decent sequel to Gone With the Wind- but i am completely satisfied with the first complete work.

i cannot help but notice how many of the hardcore believers that think Tony died that night seem to share this need to prove and explain their position, and convince others of it as well; and/or demand an explanation of their "opposite" position. Why so unfulfilled about the ending? Why no closure?

And to repeat your quote, to consider just the cinematic side of things-

...Ending the show at the exact same time Tony's life ends offers no closure.

-it seems to me that if indeed the show ended exactly as Tony's life ended, that would be so cheesy-- like a hollywood B movie ending--, that there is no way i can imagine Chase doing that! And when a hollywood tv sitcom/B movie employs that technique, it usually is supposed to imply Closure, not lack of closure: The vampire gets a stake driven thru his heart at the movie's end, and the survivors limp away-traumatized ,but safe, as the sun rises again.

So i still don't get how if you think Tony dies at the same time as the series dies, then how come you don't have closure? Shouldn't you have relief of some sort?

[CamMan]

badabellisima,

Don't get me wrong, I find the ending entirely satisfying and actually, perfect. But no, I don't think it provides "closure" and I think that's what Chase was getting at with those words that Fly quoted. I just think in this instance the lack of closure makes perfect sense within the context of the final scene and what I think Chase was saying. It's just a feeling about the final scene that Chase couldn't express through actually showing Tony get shot and the horrific reaction to that. The suddeness of instant death; Some things are just beyond words and Chase knows that. I also believe there is something more than physical death but I don't think that's something Chase was really concerned with when expressing Tony's death. I don't see the ending as a treatise about Chase's views on religion or the afterlife. In a show that has been obsessed with death, especially the way death cut through just about everyone in the final season, I think it makes a lot of sense to end the show the way he did-with the most "realistic" possible way to express death (independent of any views on the afterlife).

I am also not demanding any alternative views from anyone. I haven't pressured anybody to tell me anything.

it seems to me that if indeed the show ended exactly as Tony's life ended, that would be so cheesy-- like a hollywood B movie ending--, that there is no way i can imagine Chase doing that! And when a hollywood tv sitcom/B movie employs that technique, it usually is supposed to imply Closure, not lack of closure: The vampire gets a stake driven thru his heart at the movie's end, and the survivors limp away-traumatized ,but safe, as the sun rises again.

True, but what if you were the vampire in the story? Read my prior post again I think you'll get what I'm trying to say.

[SilvioMancini]

Camman I found your ideas around closure to feel so true to me or anyone who has experienced the death of a loved one. You can't believe it! It's so sudden and closure is part of a process not just an end. Maybe what we have been going through on these posts is some sort of grieving over the death of a loved one if not loved ones. And just like real life we got all the home movies of there most intimate moments to watch over and over (hence the episode "Sopranos Home Movies"). I think there is really so much "meta" data in the last two seasons that points to the blackout ending scene as death. The Jerry the Hairdo killing in front of Sil was one time the point was made as you see blood splattered first in super slo mo then you hear the shot which Sil later goes on to explain to Tony as "the weirdist thing" . Also, I might be wrong but I think the background music in the scene b\w Sil and Tony is "when the music's over" by the doors whose title lyrics' answer is "turn out the lights". Then there is the scene in the replica wooden motorboat (very GFII like visual scene too I might add) where Tony and Bobby discuss how there is only two ways out of this thing death or jail. Then Bobby says to Tony about getting whacked "You probably never hear it coming" to which to Tony replies "Like those unlucky pricks you got hanging on the wall?" meaning the stuffed deer. I think there are all kinds of Easter Egg type clues or meta data that over the last two seasons especially are laid out to explain the final cut to black. Remember how the trailer for season 6b had "Paint it Black" as its soundtrack? I'm just saying....

[dsweeney]

I think you make a great case about the ending Silviomancini.You see, to me,to reach any conclusion other than Tony's death in the finale is to ignore all these subtle clues and hints in the subtext of the show. This, I believe, is how Chase prepared us for "the end" without us actually seeing it.
To get back to the question of where the text/script ends could I bring up the dreaded anagram? I'm risking the ire of all of you I know but while I'm happy in my own mind that Tony died the question of the fate of the family bothers me.In the final credits it states:
Paolo Coleandrea Man in members only jacket.

These letters can be re-arranged to read:
A man kills Tony Carmela AJ don become prone.
Now I can't believe this is pure coincidence but David Chase said something about there being "no esoteric clues" or a "Da Vinci code" type ending.So is this entry in the credits part of the script/text? If it is indeed a clue as to their fate then it must be part of the overall text no?

[turangawaewae]

I think you make a great case about the ending Silviomancini.You see, to me,to reach any conclusion other than Tony's death in the finale is to ignore all these subtle clues and hints in the subtext of the show. This, I believe, is how Chase prepared us for "the end" without us actually seeing it.
To get back to the question of where the text/script ends could I bring up the dreaded anagram? I'm risking the ire of all of you I know but while I'm happy in my own mind that Tony died the question of the fate of the family bothers me.In the final credits it states:
Paolo Coleandrea Man in members only jacket.

These letters can be re-arranged to read:
A man kills Tony Carmela AJ don become prone.
Now I can't believe this is pure coincidence but David Chase said something about there being "no esoteric clues" or a "Da Vinci code" type ending.So is this entry in the credits part of the script/text? If it is indeed a clue as to their fate then it must be part of the overall text no?

Maybe I can't count, but aren't you missing a letter?
I count 37 letters in the credit, and 36 in your anagram....
If you don't have to use all the letters I have one. What about "Tony no die"

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

I for one do not think the final scene is to "irritate" the audience. I don't see Chase selling out his vision just to annoy those fans.

I don't think he would sell out his vision either, but I didn't say that he did. I am saying that I think his vision was influenced to some extent, unconsciously or otherwise, by a deep resentment for audience blood lust and for those that complained all those years that "nothing happened" unless someone got killed. Tell me, is his disgust at these kinds of people not manifest in the following quote, where he essentially accuses his audience (without qualification or limitation) of being closet sociopaths and moral hypocrites:

The way I see it is that Tony Soprano had been people's alter ego. They had gleefully watched him rob, kill, pillage, lie, and cheat. They had cheered him on. And then, all of a sudden, they wanted to see him punished for all that. They wanted "justice." They wanted to see his brains splattered on the wall. I thought that was disgusting, frankly. But these people have always wanted blood. Maybe they would have been happy if Tony had killed twelve other people. Or twenty-five people. Or, who knows, if he had blown up Penn Station. The pathetic thing- to me- was how much they wanted his blood, after cheering him on for eight years.Honestly, Chase's psyche on this is so clear that I don't even feel the energy (or need) to annotate it very much. It's manifest in literally dozens of print and taped interviews over the years. He HATES the sensibility -- and, by extension, those who possess it -- that equates action with violence or purely physical, external events. Listen to the commentary for Kaisha. Could his vitriol and bitterness be any clearer? "The Sopranos. The show where nothing happens," he begins. While the opening credits are running, he comments how much he still enjoys the shots and editing of the opening, then gets in a dig that he's sure those shots would not be enjoyed by people who think "nothing happens" on the show. He carries it forward to the shots of the head being dumped, once again lashing out at the "nothing happens" crowd. So he literally spends the first few minutes of that commentary going off on people who criticized season 6A as slow moving because it lacked violence or traditional action.

Remember Lorraine Colluzo? Chase remarked that there was a female critic of season 4 who complained vociferously how slow that season was and how not enough people got "whacked", so he created a female character that looked like her and had her whacked in season 5. There, in his own words, you have confirmation that he actually allowed his "vision" for events on the show to be influenced by his bitter resentment of at least a faction of his audience/critics. And there are other examples where he admits zigging when he might have zagged just to confound his audience. (I recently mentioned one that goes back to season 2 when he thought better of a plan to make Tony have a certain breakthrough in therapy that year because he "got tired of all the moralizing" from certain circles about Tony and decided, you know what, "He's a gangster.")

The analogy to the "Russian" is IMO a weak analogy. The Russian was a peripheral character and his fate was something that was not important to the text,Agree that the Russian's fate was not important to the show, but the analogy holds, I believe, as an indication of how unconcerned Chase is with traditional notions of "closure" in drama (and life) and how determined he is to challenge it from his perch as architect of the most closely scrutinized TV show in history.

while IMO the ultimate fate of Tony would be a major concern that Chase wouldn't leave totally hanging. I think he showed us enough to make us believe he died but came just short of showing us so nobody can say it's unequivocal or "definite" as Chase says.Where I think your reasoning fails is that you are imputing to Chase the common sensibility that equates knowing details of when/how Tony dies with the issue of Tony's "ultimate fate". By his own words (and, I believe, by the totality of dramatic values evident onscreen over the course of the series), Chase has essentially stated that "when/how" Tony dies is irrelevant. What IS relevant, to Chase, is what the outlook is for the rest of Tony's life and what he can expect when he dies. If THAT is Chase's definition of "ultimate fate" (and I believe it is), then you are correct that he would not (and did not) leave that hanging. Tony faced a life of constant anxiety and betrayal, prosecution, suspicious strangers with possible motives to kill him, and a death at the end of it all that was just what his mother told him it would be and what he dreamt back in Funhouse: "all black, a big nothing."

But in reality, when you die, it ends. There's no more; you don't get to see the reactions of other people to your death. You don't get to do anything. There is no denouement, no winding down, no exposition, no resolution. Not even a struggle for survival as Tony doesnt even see his attacker fire the bullet. Most importantly, the death didn't seem to flow logically from the show. Death doesn't always flow logically from our own lives. The death made no sense, it was arbitrary. It was unsatisfying. So there is "no closure", so to speak, for his death.Those are all excellent points about what death presumably holds or means to an atheist or to someone who doesn't believe in a realm of consciousness beyond the one we know presently in "life". And they may also, therefore, be very indicative of what Chase feels death is like for the one dying (although Tony's coma sequence was clearly Chase's indulgence in another possibility). But ultimately I find the points unpersuasive in terms of demanding (rather than merely suggesting or permitting) an inference of Tony's immediate death, partly because I can't accept that the ending was ever about the viewer suddenly taking on only Tony's POV (the sequence itself negates that fully) or that conveying true "nothingness" as a POV is even possible since the audience is perceiving and experiencing the blackness (i.e., as "something") and is further trying to reason out what it means. The very consciousness of the audience is an insurmountable obstacle to them experiencing the POV which many purport the blackness represents.

That is what death is like, it's like that when someone suddenly dies. You don't believe it at first, then you realize they're gone. There is no opportunity to say anything more. The ending was very like how it would be from Tony's point of view but also impacted the viewer because that's what's it's like when you suddenly realize someone died and didn't expect it. Is it really, though? We DID expect Tony's death (or something equally momentous at that table), didn't we? Think about the factors that Chase used to raise the specter of death/extreme action at the end and how many of them are "meta" factors/subtext and how many are actually internal, concrete plot factors:
audience knowledge that this was the last episode of what many regard as TV's finest ever series and rampant speculation about what general kind of ending would be appropriate to its diverse characteristics, i.e., a violence-filled, taught, heart-pounding ending or a quiet, understated one meant purely to comment upon Tony as a person;
the years-long media/audience message board preoccupation with whether or not Tony would survive the series, complete with CNN and other news coverage of the question in the days before the finale and active betting/odds-making in Las Vegas;
Chase's confession of the pressures he felt as the creator/writer of having to bring the show in for a "safe landing", so to speak, amid untold personal and audience pressures, evident in the lyrics of the Bob Dylan song and in the Twilight Zone dialog in the safe house regarding the value of Hollywood writers;
the funereal overhead shot and funeral home-style organ music that started the ep;
the presence in the diner of individuals who, in a vacuum, presented absolutely no menace to Tony but who resonated subtextually and symbolically with "unidentified black males" who first tried to kill Tony in season 1 (and were scape goats for other crimes at other times) as well as Members Only-wearing mafiosi who whack guys in diners in the same episode where Tony gets shot in the gut;
the prominent Godfather cues (hilighted in Test Dream before) of an assassin going into a bathroom before coming out and blasting someone with a bullet to the head;
Bobby's "you never hear it coming";
the fact that the MO guy was featured prominently in several cutaways looking in Tony's direction while Tony was clearly oblivious to him, suggesting an interest in and awareness of Tony on MO Guy's part that was not reciprocated (and completely undercutting the notion that the audience's knowledge or POV was somehow coextensive with Tony's POV that evening);
and the escalating pace of the editing, switching increasingly back and forth to various people and events in and around the diner, ala all 3 Godfather penultimate sequences (which all featured major violence and "mayham"), set to match the escalating prominence of the Journey song that accompanied the sequence.These, and all the other meta/subtextual factors that many have listed in great detail to describe why Tony MUST have died that night, are, in fact, all there is to indicate he MIGHT have died. There was not one shred, one iota of objective evidence that anyone wanted to kill Tony that evening in terms of plot, impending threat, or even motive. If you think about the objective evidence customarily used in drama and in every other instance of a bona-fide death on the Sopranos to convey that a character has died (let alone the evidence required in real life to even declare that a homocide has occurred), NONE of it was offered in this episode.

We didn't see Adriana get shot, but all reasonable folk knew she did. Why? Because Tony just found out she was a rat, set her up to ride with Sil, who took her to an isloated, wooded area, called her a cunt, and drew his gun as she was crawling away and as we heard a gun fired. Did we ever have to wonder if Tony B died? If Ralph died? If Raymond Curto died? If Bobby died? If Pussy died? No, because in every instance Chase offered us ample objective evidence that it happened, even in the rare instance where he didn't show us directly. The only "death" that was never resolved was the Russian, and that was quite an intentional statement on the anomalies that sometime happen in life where things go unexplained. One thing is for sure, though: we don't have to guess whether the Russian was shot (we saw his blood spatter when Chris fired) or whether someone MEANT to kill him in those woods.

In view of this, I ask the same question I've asked before: If it was Chase's intent to definitively portray Tony's murder that evening rather than to suggest it, raise it as an unanswered question, or leave it as a mere possibility, why did he not offer a single shred of objective evidence arising in concrete words, actions, planning, or deeds of another character? A simple phone call at the counter from MOG saying "He's here. His family is at the table. Want me to go ahead?" would have been enough to tip the scales. But NOTHING like that was offered. A simple look inside the bathroom showing MOG readying his weapon would likely have been enough for most folks to make the Godfather subtext determinative. NOTHING on those lines was offered. A conversation between Butch and a crony after Phil was mangled under that car would have been enough, something like, "A hit is one thing, but taking out a boss like that in front of his wife and grandbaby, that can't go unanswered." NOTHING like that was offered.

And then you have to ask why Chase chose not to make it at least that clear? He could have kept the abstract, symbolic appeal of the death virtually in tact even with the addition of something like I proposed above. But he chose not to. And the only answer as to why he chose not to, it seems to me, is because he didn't want to answer the question, only to ask it.

[turangawaewae]

Maybe I can't count, but aren't you missing a letter?
I count 37 letters in the credit, and 36 in your anagram....
If you don't have to use all the letters I have one. What about "Tony no die"

My last message was a wind up by the way. I just can't believe people are still debating this issue.
OK. This might be controversial, but here goes. Is this whole Tony lives Tony dies a cultural thing? I am from New Zealand, and American television is definately a different beast to British television in the eyes of the majority of NZ'ers. The major difference is irony. In NZ, American television has a reputation for spelling out the obvious, using either the speech of the actors, or the use of devices such as canned laughter. Are Americans conditioned to the Hollywood style of ending where everything is spelled out? And when this doesn't happen, they still strive for that closure?

[Irishwiseguy]

I don't know if it is a culture thing. I know a lot of people who were incredibly annoyed by the ending, who obsessively wanted a simple cohesive answer. I think by this stage, at least here in Ireland and Britain, everyone expects a hollywood ending. Simple because thats what they are used to, and woe betide a film that contradicts the norm.

From the Irish and British Tv shows that I have watched, they are just as formulaic and obvious as the normal American show.

[turangawaewae]

I don't know if it is a culture thing. I know a lot of people who were incredibly annoyed by the ending, who obsessively wanted a simple cohesive answer. I think by this stage, at least here in Ireland and Britain, everyone expects a hollywood ending. Simple because thats what they are used to, and woe betide a film that contradicts the norm.

From the Irish and British Tv shows that I have watched, they are just as formulaic and obvious as the normal American show.

It's an interesting one. I still stick to my guns that there is a difference between most American made shows and British made shows. I'm talking TV shows more than films probably. I remember reading concerns about whether a comedy like The Office would work on the American market. The same with Flight of the Conchords, which has a real NZ humour flavour to it.

We have a show every Sunday night called Sunday Montana (a type of NZ wine) Theatre, which has british drama. You can definately tell the difference between those shows and most American ones. I am completely unqualified to debate this issue however, so please feel free to disagree.

[Detective Hunt]

As per usual, Fly - outstanding post. I do think there was some definitive answer from the finale - not necessarily a life or death type definitive, but one that surely suggests Tony had made a decision in his life - being left by his own therapist merely followed his own seeming revelation after he killed Chris. Whether the ending was to suggest what lay ahead for Tony (which I tend to think it does), there was clearly little more that Chase cared to show us, even if he could (and still can.) There is certainly an ambiguity to the finale that can be parsed many different ways but few can say, from the "text", that Tony has a bright future, Bada's wish he'd find some truth later notwithstanding. :icon_wink: When and how he brought himself down seems simply a matter of time. I guess that's why the discussion of his death seems so tiresome. It'll happen eventualy and will likely be gruesome. There seems far more to the point than just a simple murder. But maybe I give Chase too much credit.

As for a cultural thing, there may be something to that but certainly not in this show. As Fly has ably stated, Chase has never been one to give the neat and tidy ending. Anyone expecting that of him has not read enough of his own words, IMHO.

[CamMan]

[QUOTE] I don't think he would sell out his vision either, but I didn't say that he did. I am saying that I think his vision was influenced to some extent, unconsciously or otherwise, by a deep resentment for audience blood lust and for those that complained all those years that "nothing happened" unless someone got killed. Tell me, is his disgust at these kinds of people not manifest in the following quote, where he essentially accuses his audience (without qualification or limitation) of being closet sociopaths and moral hypocrites:

I totally agree and you cite some great examples. However his disgust at the fans wanting to see blood is not irreconcilable with Tony dying. Remember, we don't see it happen.

Agree that the Russian's fate was not important to the show, but the analogy holds, I believe, as an indication of how unconcerned Chase is with traditional notions of "closure" in drama (and life) and how determined he is to challenge it from his perch as architect of the most closely scrutinized TV show in history.

Agreed. Read my post again, the way Tony died (with most of the audience not even aware of it, at least not the first time they see it) offers no closure for reasons I previously stated.

Where I think your reasoning fails is that you are imputing to Chase the common sensibility that equates knowing details of when/how Tony dies with the issue of Tony's "ultimate fate". By his own words (and, I believe, by the totality of dramatic values evident onscreen over the course of the series), Chase has essentially stated that "when/how" Tony dies is irrelevant. What IS relevant, to Chase, is what the outlook is for the rest of Tony's life and what he can expect when he dies. If THAT is Chase's definition of "ultimate fate" (and I believe it is), then you are correct that he would not (and did not) leave that hanging. Tony faced a life of constant anxiety and betrayal, prosecution, suspicious strangers with possible motives to kill him, and a death at the end of it all that was just what his mother told him it would be and what he dreamt back in Funhouse: "all black, a big nothing."

Interesting and well said. Maybe it isn't important to Chase whether Tony died "that night" but I still think his personal interpretation is that he did die in Holsten's because all of his clever foreshadowing (including the "Hairdo" hit which he talks about) imply that Chase built Tony's death into the fabric of the final season. For him (at least), Tony not dying that night makes all of the work he did to "set up" Tony's death for nothing. I just don't buy that.

Those are all excellent points about what death presumably holds or means to an atheist or to someone who doesn't believe in a realm of consciousness beyond the one we know presently in "life". And they may also, therefore, be very indicative of what Chase feels death is like for the one dying (although Tony's coma sequence was clearly Chase's indulgence in another possibility). But ultimately I find the points unpersuasive in terms of demanding (rather than merely suggesting or permitting) an inference of Tony's immediate death, partly because I can't accept that the ending was ever about the viewer suddenly taking on only Tony's POV (the sequence itself negates that fully) or that conveying true "nothingness" as a POV is even possible since the audience is perceiving and experiencing the blackness (i.e., as "something") and is further trying to reason out what it means. The very consciousness of the audience is an insurmountable obstacle to them experiencing the POV which many purport the blackness represents.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it demands an inference of Tony's death because, like you said, a dead person has no POV. I do think it's a very strong suggestion created logically when (I think this is what you're referring to) we see what Tony is seeing when he looks up at the door ringing. That sequence is clearly thought out and deliberate. I also think it would be incredibly impractical to have the whole sequence in Tony's point of view. I think Chase gets the point across with that sequence, it cuts to black right at the time we normally see what Tony sees. That's enough and I don't think we need to be in his eyes in every second of the scene to convey that concept. You cite that MOJ is shown several times glancing at Tony which is clearly not from Tony's point of view. How else does Chase film the idea that Tony isn't paying attention (which may lead to his murder) and MOJ is a threat if he shot the entire sequence through Tony's eyes? It just wouldnt be practical.

it really, though? We DID expect Tony's death (or something equally momentous at that table), didn't we? Think about the factors that Chase used to raise the specter of death/extreme action at the end and how many of them are "meta" factors/subtext and how many are actually internal, concrete plot factors:
audience knowledge that this was the last episode of what many regard as TV's finest ever series and rampant speculation about what general kind of ending would be appropriate to its diverse characteristics, i.e., a violence-filled, taught, heart-pounding ending or a quiet, understated one meant purely to comment upon Tony as a person;
the years-long media/audience message board preoccupation with whether or not Tony would survive the series, complete with CNN and other news coverage of the question in the days before the finale and active betting/odds-making in Las Vegas;
Chase's confession of the pressures he felt as the creator/writer of having to bring the show in for a "safe landing", so to speak, amid untold personal and audience pressures, evident in the lyrics of the Bob Dylan song and in the Twilight Zone dialog in the safe house regarding the value of Hollywood writers;
the funereal overhead shot and funeral home-style organ music that started the ep;
the presence in the diner of individuals who, in a vacuum, presented absolutely no menace to Tony but who resonated subtextually and symbolically with "unidentified black males" who first tried to kill Tony in season 1 (and were scape goats for other crimes at other times) as well as Members Only-wearing mafiosi who whack guys in diners in the same episode where Tony gets shot in the gut;
the prominent Godfather cues (hilighted in Test Dream before) of an assassin going into a bathroom before coming out and blasting someone with a bullet to the head;
Bobby's "you never hear it coming";
the fact that the MO guy was featured prominently in several cutaways looking in Tony's direction while Tony was clearly oblivious to him, suggesting an interest in and awareness of Tony on MO Guy's part that was not reciprocated (and completely undercutting the notion that the audience's knowledge or POV was somehow coextensive with Tony's POV that evening);
and the escalating pace of the editing, switching increasingly back and forth to various people and events in and around the diner, ala all 3 Godfather penultimate sequences (which all featured major violence and "mayham"), set to match the escalating prominence of the Journey song that accompanied the sequence.

Yes, we did expect something big to happen, most likely Tony's death. However, that's not what most of the audience thought happened. They thought "nothing happened" when in fact, everything happened. He found a way to kill Tony without making it a cliche. It was a bold choice and exactly the opposite of what anyone was expecting.

A lot of the textual examples you cite are only harbingers of Tony's death after you look back at the text to figure out what happened. Nobody said "Tony will die like that" after Bobby told Tony the "never hear it" line or even thought that after the flasback to the very same scene. Nobody thought "Tony will die like that" after the Hairdo hit. Nobody thought "Tony will die that way" after they saw Eugene/MOG killing a guy in a diner in the "Members Only" episode. Chase did those things because he knew his ending would be ambiguous. He wanted people to look back to find those things and put the pieces together so create more emotional resonance to the final scene.

These, and all the other meta/subtextual factors that many have listed in great detail to describe why Tony MUST have died that night, are, in fact, all there is to indicate he MIGHT have died. There was not one shred, one iota of objective evidence that anyone wanted to kill Tony that evening in terms of plot, impending threat, or even motive. If you think about the objective evidence customarily used in drama and in every other instance of a bona-fide death on the Sopranos to convey that a character has died (let alone the evidence required in real life to even declare that a homocide has occurred), NONE of it was offered in this episode.

We didn't see Adriana get shot, but all reasonable folk knew she did. Why? Because Tony just found out she was a rat, set her up to ride with Sil, who took her to an isloated, wooded area, called her a cunt, and drew his gun as she was crawling away and as we heard a gun fired. Did we ever have to wonder if Tony B died? If Ralph died? If Raymond Curto died? If Bobby died? If Pussy died? No, because in every instance Chase offered us ample objective evidence that it happened, even in the rare instance where he didn't show us directly. The only "death" that was never resolved was the Russian, and that was quite an intentional statement on the anomalies that sometime happen in life where things go unexplained. One thing is for sure, though: we don't have to guess whether the Russian was shot (we saw his blood spatter when Chris fired) or whether someone MEANT to kill him in those woods.

In view of this, I ask the same question I've asked before: If it was Chase's intent to definitively portray Tony's murder that evening rather than to suggest it, raise it as an unanswered question, or leave it as a mere possibility, why did he not offer a single shred of objective evidence arising in concrete words, actions, planning, or deeds of another character? A simple phone call at the counter from MOG saying "He's here. His family is at the table. Want me to go ahead?" would have been enough to tip the scales. But NOTHING like that was offered. A simple look inside the bathroom showing MOG readying his weapon would likely have been enough for most folks to make the Godfather subtext determinative. NOTHING on those lines was offered. A conversation between Butch and a crony after Phil was mangled under that car would have been enough, something like, "A hit is one thing, but taking out a boss like that in front of his wife and grandbaby, that can't go unanswered." NOTHING like that was offered.

And then you have to ask why Chase chose not to make it at least that clear? He could have kept the abstract, symbolic appeal of the death virtually in tact even with the addition of something like I proposed above. But he chose not to. And the only answer as to why he chose not to, it seems to me, is because he didn't want to answer the question, only to ask it.

Once again, I'm saying he suggested Tony's death, although a very strong suggestion. I don't think he definitively portrayed Tony's murder. I think a lot of what your asking I already indirectly answered in my last post about death and closure. If Chase followed all of the other examples of other character's deaths on the show then the ending would be entirely conventional and with closure which you said (and Chase implies) he was not going for.

I talked about the effect I believe Chase was going for. How does Chase create that with all of the examples you cited? This isn't a "customary drama". If we saw the set up of Tony's murder that ruins the vicarious experience he was going for. The after shock of his murder also ruins that effect. Not only that, it cheapens his death because it turns it into a "Law and Order" procedural. All of those other deaths effected Tony in some way but perhaps the Sopranos narrative ends when Tony dies. Chase had to come up with something original for the most important death of a character. He couldn't follow his same rules. Chase said something like (in the interview you linked) that "all I had to do was get them to that diner" which to me says that the scene stands apart from the conventional narrative of the story (i.e. all the Phil stuff, etc).

That being said, there are tiny bits of clues that may logically tell us who did it. How do you explain the strange Patsy moments in the final episode? Does Tony dying in front of his family possibly suggest it was revenge by NY for taking out Phil in front of his family? Was his murder some sort of revenge for Eugene's death and hence the "Members Only" Jacket?

Of course there is not nearly enough there to draw a real conclusion. But maybe the answer is simply Chase doesn't care who killed Tony. It's just not important because he was doomed anyway to die in a violent way by someone seeking revenge or someone trying to replace him. Tony would certainly never know who killed him. Just like in real life (and death) there isn't always closure.

[turangawaewae]

As for a cultural thing, there may be something to that but certainly not in this show. As Fly has ably stated, Chase has never been one to give the neat and tidy ending. Anyone expecting that of him has not read enough of his own words, IMHO.

DH
The brief discussion on culture did not suggest Chase subscribed to the nice and tidy Hollywood packaged movies. It was a possible explanation as to the monotonous obsession some fans have with the ending. The cultural thing was mooted as a possible explanation for the reaction to the ending by some fans, rather than shaping the ending in any way.

[SilvioMancini]

CamMan, I have to say that what you are saying resonates with me as I too see things left throughout the last season(s) that at the very least suggest his death. This is the way IMO Chase killed Tony. It set up the "all I had to do was get them to that diner". That was the ultimate manifestation (aka Twilight Zone style) IMO of the long and winding road to his death. The pulling of the plug. The smashing of the guitar before the song actually ends to the dislike of your listeners. He killed Tony by setting up the scene in "that diner" to be his death IMO. Because there is so much reference to death in the last season, especially the second half of it. Also there is a genuine theme of luck turning bad for everyone. I see it as the killing off of the show. And the cut to black was Tony getting whacked at what I think was his most vulnerable moment on the entire history of the show. He whacked a Boss of a NY family!! Granted not many liked him, but given the sitdown, even Butchie still seems reluctant. And then the way the hit went down was one of the most violent moments on the show. You almost felt bad for Phil! On top of that you have the Patsy Parisi storyline showing a clear trend on hatred and even disgust with Tony (similar to Furio IMO). It also could've been Eugenes' Wife, or Vitos', or etc., etc., etc. I personally think NY would use the opportunity to get rid of Tony and Phil taking over a signifigant part of NJ and NY. Hence Tony and Phil being the cosmic twins. The boxers in the ring, a clear trend.......

[badabellisima]

badabellisima,

... I think it makes a lot of sense to end the show the way he did-with the most "realistic" possible way to express death (independent of any views on the afterlife).

Maybe its possible to express death that way, but i don't think i could interpret or receive the expression independant of some sort of view of the afterlife.


I am also not demanding any alternative views from anyone. I haven't pressured anybody to tell me anything.


i agree- i don't think you in particular are doing that.



True, but what if you were the vampire in the story? Read my prior post again I think you'll get what I'm trying to say.


Sorry- but i continue to be very deef lately! i tried reading your prior post and putting myself in the vampire's shoes, but i still don't get your point!! Could you give me another try with a bit more explanation?!

--Now i keep thinking of the old "Dark Shadows" gothic soap opera which i loved, where the main vampire character, Barnabus Collins- was also very beloved and sympathetic, even though he reluctantly had to kill or convert victims to vampirism in order to survive. Sound familiar? And i think there would have been riots back in the late sixties-early 70's when the show finally ended, if the writers did not provide obvious closure and a clear sense of what became of Barnabus. Its a fantastic series, imo. SPOILER: hint on ending: Barnabus lives happily ever after! :icon_mrgreen:

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Once again, I'm saying he suggested Tony's death, although a very strong suggestion. I don't think he definitively portrayed Tony's murder.

If we stop here, and can fudge just a little on "strong", we're at a meeting of the minds.:icon_biggrin:

I talked about the effect I believe Chase was going for. How does Chase create that with all of the examples you cited? This isn't a "customary drama". If we saw the set up of Tony's murder that ruins the vicarious experience he was going for.That experience was ruined the instant he included any shot in the sequence that did not reflect Tony's contemporaneous perception, and those were many and varied, from the black guys ordering at the counter to the cooks out of Tony's view to the MOG looking at Tony unnoticed to Meadow's parking woes. Including some few seconds of information confirming at least a motive or intent to kill Tony (the Phil conversation I proposed could have taken place 15 minutes prior in the episode, offering a cleansing "buffer") would not, in my judgment, have significantly altered the audience's experience of the end.

The cut to black would still have infuriated the blood thirsty crowd because the murder would have happened offscreen (or at least out of view). The lack of a definitive murder depiction means some would not have accepted it anyway (the "show me" crowd). The extended black (the nature of death, Tony's in particular) would still be up for debate and discussion (the crowd of which I'm a member). The failure to provide aftermath and diner reaction and a sense of consciousness post-murder would have accomplished the same things you pointed out with regard to a lack of "closure" inherent in a sudden death. The only thing that really would have changed is that (most of) the audience would have known or believed to a high degree of certainty that Tony did in fact die in that instant. And there's the rub.

[badabellisima]

...
And then you have to ask why Chase chose not to make it at least that clear? He could have kept the abstract, symbolic appeal of the death virtually in tact even with the addition of something like I proposed above. But he chose not to. And the only answer as to why he chose not to, it seems to me, is because he didn't want to answer the question, only to ask it.

Superb post. One of your finest. i am speechless.

[dsweeney]

This is to turangawaewae.I spelt coleandrea wrong.It should have been colandrea.OK? Try counting them now.
This is not about some need for closure more about knowing how a story ends.Why bother with the last scene in a Shakespearean play if you don't care what happens?
There are people in my opinion who are living in denial and because we didn't actually witness it can't accept that Tony is gone.David Chase didn't want the usual "bad guy gets it in the end",so we don't see it,but let's be clear,Chase pretty much says Tony dies.There is no other way for this to end.The world he lives in? He's already survived two gunshots,come out of a coma.He's not Superman for heaven's sake.Everyone else dies so why not Tony Soprano?

[turangawaewae]

This is to turangawaewae.I spelt coleandrea wrong.It should have been colandrea.OK? Try counting them now.
This is not about some need for closure more about knowing how a story ends.Why bother with the last scene in a Shakespearean play if you don't care what happens?
There are people in my opinion who are living in denial and because we didn't actually witness it can't accept that Tony is gone.David Chase didn't want the usual "bad guy gets it in the end",so we don't see it,but let's be clear,Chase pretty much says Tony dies.There is no other way for this to end.The world he lives in? He's already survived two gunshots,come out of a coma.He's not Superman for heaven's sake.Everyone else dies so why not Tony Soprano?

Of course Tony would eventually die. Everybody does. But it was a FICTIONAL story!! Tony Soprano doesn't actually exist. So why the obsession with whether or not a fictional character lived or died??

[dsweeney]

I say again,why bother watching the final scene in a play,reading the last chapter in a book if you don't care what happens? Do you leave 10 minutes before the end of a movie turangawaewae? Maybe you do because it's only fiction! If you don't care what happens to fictional characters why did you watch the show at all?

[dsweeney]

Great post again Flyonmelfiswall,wonderful.But could I make one comment? With all due respect and I mean that sincerely,I think you're still slightly missing the point of the "never hear it when it happens right?" ending.If,as you suggest Chase had given any dramatic signal of what was coming or character motivation in killing Tony,the desired effect would not have been achieved.The whole point is that Tony has no idea who or what hit him-so we,the viewer,can't have any warning either.Enjoy your posts very much.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Great post again Flyonmelfiswall,wonderful.But could I make one comment? With all due respect and I mean that sincerely,I think you're still slightly missing the point of the "never hear it when it happens right?" ending.If,as you suggest Chase had given any dramatic signal of what was coming or character motivation in killing Tony,the desired effect would not have been achieved.The whole point is that Tony has no idea who or what hit him-so we,the viewer,can't have any warning either.Enjoy your posts very much.

Thanks, dsweeney. I sort of feel like addressed the bold part of your question in my previous post, as Camman was making substantially the same point as you. And if you re-read the latter portions of the post I made before that one, I talk about all the factors that clued the audience, and the audience alone, that something big was about to happen -- symbolic, subtextual, or meta factors -- which immediately eliminate any possibility of a vicarious experience on our part.

Let me try putting this another way. Was your heart pounding as you watched that sequence for the first time? Did you find yourself anxious or uneasy? Did you literally sit forward on your couch in anticipation of something calamitous happening? Did you ever glance at the clock and wonder, my God, it looks like something huge is about to occur and it will probably have to be the very last scene because the hour is almost up?

I did all of these things. The tension of that scene was almost unbearable on first viewing and for many of the highly abstract reasons that people cite as proof that Tony in fact died (and for some not often cited, which I mentioned in post #22). The "you never hear it coming" thing was not part of my thinking on that first viewing, but I immediately made the "unidentified black males"/Isabella connection and the Members Only connection and noticed that guy was looking at Tony more than anyone else. I immediately got the Godfather/bathroom parallel, as well as Tony's "best in the state" parallel re the onion rings. And I wondered on that first viewing if MOG was going to come out of the bathroom and pop Tony in the head with one.

Now contrast all this apprehension, anticipation, anxiety, rapid hear rate, and foresight of the audience with Tony's state of mind at that table. He was of normal, calm demeanor, eating in a restaurant like he'd done thousands of times before. He was visibly down about his pending legal problems but otherwise trying to make the most of a dinner with his family, all but oblivious to the other patrons and certainly not apprehending that any of them posed any threat to him or that his onscreen life was about to end, one way or another.

With this unavoidable dichotomy between audience cognition and Tony's cognition in those moments, there was literally no way for the audience to "not hear it coming" in the sense that Tony didn't hear it coming, if in fact he was shot in the head that night. We can only appreciate that HE didn't hear it coming. It was not in the least vicarious, nor could it ever have been.

The one thing you can say with near-certainty that the audience never saw coming was a black screen at a seemingly climactic moment. And if you take that black to represent Tony's consciousness at that instant, then we never saw the precise manner or depiction of his murder coming, but we knew, in the end, that he was murdered, which was apparently a lot more than Tony knew.

[SilvioMancini]

I think that when Fly finally decides to end this blog site, she just does it suddenly eithout warning or ambiguity.........Ha Ha! Just teasing...

[turangawaewae]

I say again,why bother watching the final scene in a play,reading the last chapter in a book if you don't care what happens? Do you leave 10 minutes before the end of a movie turangawaewae? Maybe you do because it's only fiction! If you don't care what happens to fictional characters why did you watch the show at all?

There is a difference between obsession and entertainment.

My question for you is why focus on the last ten minutes? Why not the other 85 and eight tenths episodes? I watched the show for entertainment. I don't give a toss if Tony died or not. If the series had of ended on the last episode of season five, I would not have given a toss. As Chase has subsequently said, requiring finality in the ending is quite childlike. I watched the ending because it was fictional entertainment. I'm not interested in anograms of credits over a year later though!!

[CamMan]

Now contrast all this apprehension, anticipation, anxiety, rapid hear rate, and foresight of the audience with Tony's state of mind at that table. He was of normal, calm demeanor, eating in a restaurant like he'd done thousands of times before. He was visibly down about his pending legal problems but otherwise trying to make the most of a dinner with his family, all but oblivious to the other patrons and certainly not apprehending that any of them posed any threat to him or that his onscreen life was about to end, one way or another.

With this unavoidable dichotomy between audience cognition and Tony's cognition in those moments, there was literally no way for the audience to "not hear it coming" in the sense that Tony didn't hear it coming, if in fact he was shot in the head that night. We can only appreciate that HE didn't hear it coming. It was not in the least vicarious, nor could it ever have been.

Some great points here Fly, as usual. I think we have a disagreement over (if we just assume for a second that the black screen was Tony's point of view) whether Chase successfully coveyed the vicarious experience of death. You see it as a failure. I disagree.

Every thing you said may be true but I think it works (and is supposed to work) on a much more subconscious level. That is the exact reason why so many viewers thought they saw Meadow walk through the door as the last shot. The point of view sequence obviously had a subconscious effect on them. It works more on that level upon the first viewing. I don't think Chase necessarily wants us to consciously realize Tony's point of view in that scene. It is more for the jarring, disorienting effect of the final shot working on a subconscious level (while Tony's consciousness is sent into oblivion). The audience sharing Tony's point of view is subconsciously drilled into us throughout that episode. It happens when Tony "sees himself" in the diner and in three other scenes before in the final episode where Tony walks into his own point of view.

It's a matter of faith. Watch the scene again and take note of the bell ringing Tony point of view moments. Watch those moments knowing it's Tony's point of view. When you finally see the black screen as Tony's point of view, you'll see how frightening it really is. That's why it holds for 10 seconds. The idea that you can be gone in a second and not even know it is chilling. I think the scene works.

I'm not sure how much better he could've done it without HBO hiring killers to break into our homes and shoot us in the back of the head at the exact moment the screen cuts to black!!

[dsweeney]

There is a difference between obsession and entertainment.

My question for you is why focus on the last ten minutes? Why not the other 85 and eight tenths episodes? I watched the show for entertainment. I don't give a toss if Tony died or not. If the series had of ended on the last episode of season five, I would not have given a toss. As Chase has subsequently said, requiring finality in the ending is quite childlike. I watched the ending because it was fictional entertainment. I'm not interested in anograms of credits over a year later though!!
No-one here is "obsessed" as you put it.Are fans of Shakespeare "obsessed"? No. If you watched the show for the killings and the girls and for "entertainment" then good for you but let the rest of us appreciate it for the high art it is.I do not focus on the last ten minutes.I think the show was superb from start to finish.As for not giving a toss,you spend a lot of your time on a Sopranos chat -site.Oh and by the way,you spelled ANAGRAM wrong.

[harpo]

If you take the letters of Edie Falco, it spells "ol' face die" as in, Tony doesn't die with that still young face looking at the door. Put another way, I am avoiding my work.

Remember Lorraine Colluzo? Chase remarked that there was a female critic of season 4 who complained vociferously how slow that season was and how not enough people got "whacked", so he created a female character that looked like her and had her whacked in season 5.

That's the best thing I've ever heard.

I have to agree on the lack of objective evidence for Tony's death but don't think creating ambiguity was necessarily the purpose (or sole purpose) of leaving it out. From a dramatic standpoint, it's a much better twist to think Tony is free of threat and then have this guy come in and start eyeing him. And it was fun to pick up on a threat but not know what was going to come of it. Is it possible that Man in Members Only Jacket was just trying to get a Larry Craig thing going with Tony? Watch him tapping his foot desperately as he walks past the table.

I think this was vicarious death- a visceral disappearance of the show and these characters from our lives. Obviously, the experience was more virtual for those who thought their cable went out and as a result went into cardiac arrest. I don't get why the existence of limitations- some of them legal- on making us feel the death doesn't mean it wasn't an artistic representation of death.

The show was always concerned with credibility. I think we see what is it like for Tony to die. But we also have to see stuff Tony doesn't or we have nothing to entertain us in that last scene and no info to process what happened. It's imperfect and inconsistent sharing of Tony's perspective but that doesn't mean no sharing. The conversation between Tony and Bobby that's called back at the end of Blue Comet, is not just a hint to interpret "You probably don't even hear it when it happens." Beyond that, it's speculation about the first person experience of death. Bobby is wondering what it feels like to be killed, with the hopeful guess basically that you're never even aware it happened. If there is ambiguity crafted in the end, maybe it's about the ultimate loose end of life, after a life of not knowing what the hell is going on, the dead don't even know they are. Bruce Willis doesn't anyway.

I think Chase acknowledges the lack of objective evidence by saying "There's nothing definite about what happened." Then saying there's a clean trend on view and his answer when directly asked in the other interview if the final scene even really happens makes me think he's open to the interpretation that the final scene is a symbolic presentation of Tony's fate. He's replaced by a new king of the mountain. Here's a clue. The final episode aired the night of the Tonys (plural). As in, there's more where he came from. Which reminds me, rearrange the letters of this post and you can spell out the text of Ryan Seacrest's acceptance speech for Long Days Journey Into Night. You can tell without even doing the jumble, too long.

[Detective Hunt]

I'm just going to say this once. Keep it polite, folks! Discussion is what this place is all about but there is absolutely no reason to question the motives of other members. We all love the show and clearly the complexities of Chase's vision allows for multiple points of view. Let's respect that. Keep it civilized and not petty. Those that do not can leave. I'll make sure of it.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

I'm just going to say this once. Keep it polite, folks! Discussion is what this place is all about but there is absolutely no reason to question the motives of other members. We all love the show and clearly the complexities of Chase's vision allows for multiple points of view. Let's respect that. Keep it civilized and not petty. Those that do not can leave. I'll make sure of it.

Ditto.

[badabellisima]

One thing i've noticed in this latest round of discussions about how to understand that final scene- is that its more clear to me that by far, most people seem to base their interpretation as coming from their stated- or kinda mutually agreed upon- position that they watched the last scene(s) with this very heightened tension, anxiety, sense of expection, or whatever, in anticipation of The End. Whether they expected Tony to maybe get shot,or escape on a jet to Witness Protection Land, or something else. They speak as though they were actually IN Tony's body, sharing his Point of View throughout the scene, hence the obvious conclusion- that if the screen goes black, then Tony's POV and conciousness must've gone black.

But is'nt that a bit like making the tail wag the dog? - in the sense that if you step back, its pretty clear to me that Tony was not portrayed in the scene as being filled with severe high tension or anxiety or worry about MOG, etc. He was just living as usual, checking out if his expected family members were arriving at the door, ordering onion rings. I think we have to be careful not to assign our own biases to how Tony might have been experiencing the show's end.

Maybe i am one of a very tiny minority, but i did not have the huge ramp-up of tension in the last scene. i didn't have the big expectation of the potential for a bloodbath ending. i had hopes for his redemption throughout the show, and felt some redemption was in fact shown, -but no certainty how it might be shown or revealed more fully at the end, if ever or at all. The black screen in no way changes the feeling of hope i had, since nothing conclusively destroyed it.

Granted, the "trend-on view" is there, per Chase. The odds aren't looking good for his physical presence for much longer even if he doesn't die that night. But odds are meaningless! He could step out of the diner and get hit by a bus! Catholicism- which was Tony's cultural/spiritual background- teaches us to 'live a life prepared'- "for you never know when that day is coming" (actual biblical verse, can't remember the name). But we are taught to learn to live with that concept, since "death comes like a thief in the night". We learn to relax more with it.

To choose to live your life regardless of "your odds" is to be really evolved and free of the cards you are dealt at birth. I've lost three siblings in less than 3 years. My brother who died just a few months ago- he was laughing in the midst of terrible pain, right up to the end- confident he was going to be with his Creator. He helped teach us around him to be with him on that level. My personal "odds" aren't so good for certain life-threatening conditions. And no way am i gonna lay down and just resign myself to "fate". I plan to live fully and keep my chin up until I don't hear it coming! Thats living.

i figure Tony probably had similar upbringing and approach to life and death, so therefore, i just don't buy into these morose interpretations about the cut to black.

And btw, lots of us who have been clinically dead before, know that there's a tunnel with extremely bright light, right after you 'die', so the long blackness just doesn't have the ring of truth to it as to what he would probably see or experience. i have posted so much on this before that i won't belabor those points again- i do realize i am in the extreme minority of most posters on this subject, for some strange reason!

[turangawaewae]

Nice post Harpo.
Do you have a copy of Ryan's anOgram??

[dsweeney]

Would it be possible for Detective Hunt to adjudicate on whether,in a supposed forum,a 36 letter anagram in the final credits stating the fates of three of the main characters in the show,is not at least worthy of a mention,if maybe nothing more than that? I fail to see the need for the endless ridicule.I,for one would abide by your decision.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Would it be possible for Detective Hunt to adjudicate on whether,in a supposed forum,a 36 letter anagram in the final credits stating the fates of three of the main characters in the show,is not at least worthy of a mention,if maybe nothing more than that? I fail to see the need for the endless ridicule.I,for one would abide by your decision.

dsweeny, your saracsm toward the moderators of this forum is completely unwarranted. Obviously you posted your anagram theory more than once here without incident. If it didn't receive the discussion or response you desired, please don't insinuate that it was because your were somehow censored.

No one, other than turangawaewae (who is on the threshhold of permanent, irreversible ban from this forum), has ridiculed you in the least. DH was responding to the escalating personal jibes you and turangawaewae were exchanging and telling you both to cool it.

We have seen this before, particularly with regard to people arguing about the ending and using it as some kind of litmus test of other posters' intelligence or worthiness. Take that attitude over to the IMDB forum, where you can get the action you're seeking.

[badabellisima]

NAME! (anagram for AMEN!) sorry...couldn't help it... :icon_rolleyes:

i do hope we can resume our civility and get on with it-...

dsweeney, i truly do not want you to leave. Your Oracle thread shows great insight and i'd like to hear more of your views on that subject, over in your proper thread.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

I have to agree on the lack of objective evidence for Tony's death but don't think creating ambiguity was necessarily the purpose (or sole purpose) of leaving it out.

Whatever the purpose, the fact of the omission of objective evidence necessarily makes the sequence more a gestalt than a narrative and empowers audience subjectivity at the (possible) expense of creator's intent. Of course I think Chase is plenty smart enough to know this, thus I tend to think, without being certain, that he never intended to answer the question about whether Tony died in the diner, only to abstractly raise the specter of Tony's death and show you what awaits him when he does die. If he did mean to convey immediate death, I think he got way too cute and abstract.

I don't get why the existence of limitations- some of them legal- on making us feel the death doesn't mean it wasn't an artistic representation of death.Excellent point. And I'm not really even arguing about the blackout representing death. There's plenty enough about blackness itself and about its mention in connection with death throughout the series (Meadow, Livia, Tony) to permit that inference.

But why does the death necessarily have to have occurred that night? We all know that Tony is going to die someday in some manner. Is it more important to know how or when or to know what will comprise his death once it happens, especially since we were given a different view of what might await him when he flatlined in his coma (a fate he later repudiated and wished not to experience again) and since his peyote trip left him convinced of the fact that "there's something else out there", some realm of consciousness beyond this one? Is the irony of a "black" death for him more important than whether he died by gunshot in the diner that night?

The Sopranos Director of Photography with the Russian name (Alex something) did an interview after the finale (he was DOP on the last episode). As part of his preparation for the shoot, he would have had a meeting with Chase where they went over the entire shot list for the episode with Chase telling him, where appropriate or particularly relevant, what he wanted to achieve onscreen. This guy said that, for him, the black represented death, not necessarily that night, but death.

I don't know whether his interpretation was entirely self-derived or was significantly influenced by the conversations he had with Chase in shooting prep. But if trying to determine Chase's intent, rather than simply interpreting what he put onscreen, is the goal, I would think his DOP's opinion is worth considering, and that guy didn't think the death necessarily occurred that night.

The conversation between Tony and Bobby that's called back at the end of Blue Comet, is not just a hint to interpret "You probably don't even hear it when it happens." Beyond that, it's speculation about the first person experience of death. Bobby is wondering what it feels like to be killed, with the hopeful guess basically that you're never even aware it happened. If there is ambiguity crafted in the end, maybe it's about the ultimate loose end of life, after a life of not knowing what the hell is going on, the dead don't even know they are.I like the way you put that.:icon_wink:

[badabellisima]

Me too! - and , your next reference in that quote (not mentioned in Fly's reply) to the "Sixth Sense"- priceless! One of the best movies ever- surley will stand the test of time, unlike so many movies. Imo, even so many of Bruce Willis' other movies! :icon_mrgreen:

[harpo]

Zooksas! I may be in a minority of viewers who interpreted the cut as Tony's actual death when I first saw it and found it bonechilling and incredibly satisfying from a dramatic/artistic standpoint. Since reading the Chase interviews you cited, I've retreated from viewing it as definitively as I used to, but even when I was more married to the idea of it as the literal death, I never found it fancy just for the sake of it but in line with the show's brilliant storytelling style and very connected to the theme of loss, disconnection and Oedipal stuff that was the essence of the show. Maybe it's been unfairly sullied by byzantine interpretations by people like me.

For people interested in all this, I recommend the new Charlie Kaufman movie with a warning that it's not so cheery. But I read an interview where Kaufman is reluctant to talk specifically about his movies in order to protect the viewer's right to react to it however they want to. It reminded me of an interview I once read with Michael Stipe where he defends REM not including the text of the lyrics he mumbles (more in the 80s than now). Stipe suggests if someone mishears the words but it's meaningful for them, he didn't want to deprive them of that. That seemed too extreme for my taste. Chase's Planet of the Apes joke is making fun of the missing of an obvious but implied ending. Unless I'm misinterpreting the joke. And then, how long are we gonna do this for, man? Chase could do a modern dance piece to explain the Planet of the Apes joke.

But Chase refers to people "misinterpreting" the ending as leaving the door open in the same answer where he says there's nothing definite about what happened. So he sounds moderate to me on the question- not as libertarian as Michael Stipe or Charlie Kaufman on freedom to read art's meaning but still acknowledging ambiguity and some room for interpretation. My take was always that we "see" Tony die and I still subscribe to that but I guess I have to admit it's not confined to a literal moment in Holsten's, especially in light of Chase's seeming reluctance to commit to the scene in Holsten's even literally happening within the Sopranos universe. I think someone else suggested Members might not even be real but just a personification of Tony's inevitable demise which works for me too.

But why does the death necessarily have to have occurred that night? We all know that Tony is going to die someday in some manner. Is it more important to know how or when or to know what will comprise his death once it happens, especially since we were given a different view of what might await him when he flatlined in his coma (a fate he later repudiated and wished not to experience again) and since his peyote trip left him convinced of the fact that "there's something else out there", some realm of consciousness beyond this one? Is the irony of a "black" death for him more important than whether he died by gunshot in the diner that night?

I don't see Tony as punished for his immorality with empty oblivion if that's what you're driving at. I always thought the show itself was agnostic on the question of God, whatever God would be. But I'm agnostic myself and like Chase saying he can't separate his own feelings from Tony's, maybe my evaluation of the show's perspective is too vulnerable to the prejudice of my own beliefs. I've wondered if my own skepticism of a life after death influenced my interpretation of the ending too. A few years ago, I stayed in the Oberoi, one of the hotels in Bombay that was just attacked. Not exactly a brush with death but I've been thinking the last couple days about eating in the restaurant there, how horrible and absurd it would be to be eating noodles with my girlfriend and suddenly be ended because of a maniac. And probably those thoughts led me back to a Sopranos conversation. And you know, someone who's had a closer experience with dying than I've had or a stronger belief in something beyond, maybe viewing the Sopranos ending as death doesn't jibe with their personal experience and conceptions and I wouldn't have any inclination or personal knowledge to dispute that. Or maybe they are reconcilable. Maybe if one were inclined, they could argue the black symbolizes the end of Tony's life without specifically suggesting anything beyond that.

But I want to disagree about it not mattering when Tony dies or at least if it's premature or not. Without that, murder sort of stops being a bad thing if that makes sense. Is my logic broken? I'm just waxing philosophical by the way. No need to call the authorities on me. Also, I'm not sure what awaits Tony after death looks different in "Made in America" than it did in "Mayham" since in the coma he was between life and death which is different from having died. I don't think we see what awaits Tony should he die in "Mayham" and I guess arguably not even in "Made in America". I think the key quality of the death whenever it happens is the separation of Tony from his family. And I think the whole series, not just the end, shows Tony tragically precipitating his greatest fear- without judging him for doing so if that makes sense.


The Sopranos Director of Photography with the Russian name (Alex something) did an interview after the finale (he was DOP on the last episode). As part of his preparation for the shoot, he would have had a meeting with Chase where they went over the entire shot list for the episode with Chase telling him, where appropriate or particularly relevant, what he wanted to achieve onscreen. This guy said that, for him, the black represented death, not necessarily that night, but death.

I don't know whether his interpretation was entirely self-derived or was significantly influenced by the conversations he had with Chase in shooting prep. But if trying to determine Chase's intent, rather than simply interpreting what he put onscreen, is the goal, I would think his DOP's opinion is worth considering, and that guy didn't think the death necessarily occurred that night.

Alik Sakharov. Here's good stuff on him from the website.
http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/dpfeature/index.shtml
I'd say Chase didn't interpret his meaning even for his DP, the other writers or the show's stars. But maybe he explained it to the stuntman on the bike who goes down outside the Bing because, come on, give that guy something.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

But Chase refers to people "misinterpreting" the ending as leaving the door open in the same answer where he says there's nothing definite about what happened. So he sounds moderate to me on the question

Some additional context for that comment is probably in order. The first guy to interview Chase post finale was Alan Sepinwall of the Ledger. He's been a favored press contact and critic of the show for years (and why not, since he works for the newspaper that Tony reads!) Per Alan's appearance the day after the finale on MSNBC, he personally loved the ending, explaining his view that nothing untoward happened that night, Tony lived beyond the diner, and that the ending was very smart because it also "left the door open" to a movie or sequel in case Chase ever wanted to do that. I remember many others, in those first few days after the finale, thought the lack of objective resolution was precisely done to permit a movie down the road while still permitting an inference that he got whacked.

Given that I'm sure Chase read or became aware of Sepinwall's interpretation, my impression was that Chase was referring to it (or to like interpretations proffered elsewhere) with the "even those who liked it misinterpreted it to some extent." In that light, the correction makes much more sense and is much more consonant with the idea that "there was nothing definite" and that "whether it happened that night or another night doesn't really matter".

I don't see Tony as punished for his immorality with empty oblivion if that's what you're driving at. I always thought the show itself was agnostic on the question of God, whatever God would be. I don't see it as intended as that by Chase (though I do personally choose to view it as the consequence of an unrepentant life of sin and repudiation of the notion of redemption.) Rather I think Chase meant to contrast the black death of nothing, in an ironical way, with the white death of something, of some kind of vague, eternal union with family that was offered and rejected at the Inn at the Oaks. You are correct that the metaphysical journey of Join the Club/Mayham largely takes place while Tony is comatose, but the part taking place in front of the Inn at the Oaks takes place after his tachycardia has caused him to flatline. He is clinically dead, or at least has no heartbeat, when he approaches that front door. The nearer he got to the front door, the brighter the white light became. It was gradually dissolving into total white (the 180 degree opposite of a sudden cut to balck) the instant before the paddles restored his heartbeat and he found his "family reunion" completed in the hospital room instead of inside that Inn.

Recall what Tony told the physicist . . . that he never wanted to go back to that place he went ever again. In other words, he didn't want to enter into an eternity with the likes of Livia and Tony B, even though his greatest fear, expressed in the dream he narrated in the pilot, was about "losing his family". In effect, Tony had a chance to spend eternity with his family (the "(in)Finnerty Family Reunion"), and he rejected it. This fits very well with a crpytic comment Chase made to the aforementioned Sepinwall in an interview following the airing of Join the Club: "Tony's already made his choice." It only made sense at the close of the next episode.

Though his peyote trip convinced him there was "something else out there", he had already forfeited his chance at it. Whether he realized it or not, when he failed to let go of the briefcase and die the white death he was offered, he doomed himself to its opposite. That's what I think Chase was trying to say.

[turangawaewae]

Though his peyote trip convinced him there was "something else out there", he had already forfeited his chance at it. Whether he realized it or not, when he failed to let go of the briefcase and die the white death he was offered, he doomed himself to its opposite. That's what I think Chase was trying to say.

This has been mentioned before, and one aspect of it which I don't understand, is what happened between the white death opportunity and the black death to take the white death oportunity from Tony? When he failed to let go of the briefcase he was doomed? What if after that point he had come back and turned over a new leaf? Would he have still been doomed? Tony had been a bad buggar before the coma, and after. But as long as he was still alive, he still had the chance of redemption (or that is at least how most religions interpret the afterlife).

On the house in the coma dream, were Tony B and his mother credited as their characters in the credits? From memory, she was woman in the house. Tony (as finnerty) also didn't recognise her or Tony B. I don't think it was as straight forward as Tony would spend eternity with his family if he entered the house.

[badabellisima]

This has been mentioned before, and one aspect of it which I don't understand, is what happened between the white death opportunity and the black death to take the white death oportunity from Tony? When he failed to let go of the briefcase he was doomed? What if after that point he had come back and turned over a new leaf? Would he have still been doomed? Tony had been a bad buggar before the coma, and after. But as long as he was still alive, he still had the chance of redemption (or that is at least how most religions interpret the afterlife).

On the house in the coma dream, were Tony B and his mother credited as their characters in the credits? From memory, she was woman in the house. Tony (as finnerty) also didn't recognise her or Tony B. I don't think it was as straight forward as Tony would spend eternity with his family if he entered the house.

I agree. As long as he physically lives, he has the chance at redemption, and possibly even after he physically dies.
Fly said:
Though his peyote trip convinced him there was "something else out there", he had already forfeited his chance at it. Whether he realized it or not, when he failed to let go of the briefcase and die the white death he was offered, he doomed himself to its opposite. That's what I think Chase was trying to say.
I don't think the pre-"doomed" concept fits, imo; even though, like you said, at one point Chase tells us "Tony has already made his choice".

His bad choices do lead to probable consequences. But until he runs out of chances/time to reverse his choices, or even continue making choices at all, then there's always a chance for a new choice. Right up until the end, and maybe after.

In Godfather I, there is the intense, horrific scene where Kay tells Michael Corleone that she chose to purposefully abort their boy baby- thereby killing off a member of their blood family (which btw i see as Kay being every bit as evil as Michael Corleone in that scene). Then later, Michael has a very important short scene with his mother by the fireside (out in her separate cottage on a snowy night in Tahoe). He is very worried, agitated and uptight. His biggest worry was "Ma, can you ever lose your family?" He means he's worried if he could actually truly lose their Love, such as he seems to have lost Kay's love. She misunderstood the basis of where he was coming from, and answered about how he and Kay could always have another baby. He repeats the question more emphatically. She tells him: "NO- you can never lose your family..." Imo, its a very underrated and important scene, in terms of understanding Corleone's character. And of course we know how the movie proceeds, where ultimately, Michael makes certain choices, and indeed loses his blood family on some level, but gains his Mafiosi family on another.

i think that Tony is deliberately portrayed as grappling with this similar theme, such as in the many other references to GF throughout the Sopranos. But imo, it would be way to schmaltzy for Chase to repeat the "lost his family" schtick. In fact, imo (!), in the last scene especially, Chase is showing Tony as having already made the choice to go with choosing for his blood family, over and above his mafiosa family. He acts like a man who has made a decision, who is okay with it, calm and at peace with it. Not agitated and worried like Michael Corleone; not afraid he could lose his blood family.

Carm was remarkably calm about the flipping Carlo discussion. Clearly, her and Tony have been sharing on a deeper level about this. In the past, she would have been more hysterical about the betrayal. She was not locked out like Kay Corleone.

Her and Tony are now on the same page, imo. - Carm doesn't have to feel left out of "Family" (Mafiosa Family) discussions like the end of GFI when Kay is shut out of the Godfather's office and everyone is kissing the new Don's (Michael's) ring like he's the pope. Michael Corleone chose Mafia Family over blood family and paid the sad consequences. Imo, Tony brought his life partner, Carmela, into his world, but not to make her a made-gal, but rather to share his new life as an "un-made guy". A guy who is leaving that Mafia world before he loses his true family- blood family.

The last scene,to me, is about how his new life is now - all about his blood family. Sure. he could get shot any minute due to his past life. But so what? He's living life the way he ought to, the way it was meant to be lived. And without looking back too much or with too much worry about sins of the past. Not that those sins won't nip him in the a$$, but he'll just do the work of facing them and dealing with them, such as his resigned attitude about dealing with Carlo, confident to face it because his wife is right there with it. I think Tony has achieved some measure of success by the end of this show. I truly do not have this bad feeling about the end whatsoever. Thats not an opinion, it really is the fact of my feelings! :smile:

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

what happened between the white death opportunity and the black death to take the white death oportunity from Tony? When he failed to let go of the briefcase he was doomed? What if after that point he had come back and turned over a new leaf? Would he have still been doomed?

That really is "the" paradox of the situation. I should distinguish between what I think Chase was trying to say and how I personally view the story (as sometimes it's not clear which I'm proferring). Chase's "Tony's already made his choice" comment was offered at a time when he obviously knew the ultimate outcome of the series (he knew it when he was writing season 5, in fact). He knew at the time of Join the Club that Tony would not meaningfully change or reform his life and would in fact commit arguably the worst crime of his life in killing his nephew. So in Chase's mind, I don't think it was necessary to really confront the issue of "what if Tony reformed" because he knew Tony was NEVER going to reform.

But to entertain your hypothetical, I view the Finnerty alter identity as a Christian-inspired opportunity for pardon and redemption (as opposed to pardon as a fait accompli). And I think that Christian subtext and symbolism is objectively quite strong. For extensive argumentation on that point, see the following posts from the coma dream analysis thread (no located in the Subtext and Symbolism forum):

http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=698&page=23 (post # 230)

http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=698&page=25 (post #250)

http://thechaselounge.net/showthread.php?t=698&page=27 (post # 268)

Tony's wallet and briefcase represent his identity and his life and sin up to that point, respectively. They were picked up by a mysterious intervenor who thereby wound up literally carrying the burden of Tony's identity and sin as well as "paying for" Tony's life-extending stay in Costa Mesa (recall the use of Finnerty's credit card at the hotel and health insurance card at the ER).

Now Tony could have gone ahead and died when he was at the Inn. He would have died a white death in infinite reunion with his family while the intervenor would have presumably suffered the consequences for Tony's sin on Tony's behalf. Tony chose not to die and to thus to claim the Finnerty briefcase (life and identity) as his own in his return to life.

But the gift of that new identity/life was not without strings, just as Christian salvation is only offered to those willing to admit and ask forgiveness for their sins. Finnerty was under vigorous pursuit by the monks to "take responsibility" for the defective solar heat ("son love") he had been peddling. As he was beginning to accept that he was, in fact, Finnerty, ComaTony told Carm, "I got involved in a lawsuit. It could cause problems later."

And it did. The Sopranos post-coma was dominated by the relationships of fathers and sons and all their surrogates: Tony's repressed and unacknowledged rage against his own real and surrogate fathers; Christopher's rage at Tony; Tony's contradictory disgust and gratitude that AJ was not more like him; Tony as two different kinds of fathers, a horrendous father to Chris, having brought him into the same lifestyle he hated his own father for bringing him into, and a commendable father to AJ, insulating and steering him away from that lifestyle, as Tony wished his own father had done for him.

So if Tony's task was to "take responsibility" for his defective solar heat and provide the monks (his sons) with proper warmth (love and guidance), he succeeded in part and failed miserably in part. He literally killed one son and saved the life of the other. And he never took the ER doctor's advice and "talked to his docs (Melfi) back home" about his "Alzheimer's" (identity crisis). He never got to see that the real motive behind his killing of Chris and lack of remorse afterward was the righteous anger of a wounded child who hated his own father for channeling him into a life of murder and violence.

While his handling of AJ (especially in Johnny Cakes and Cold Stones) is his triumph, you don't almost or partially qualify for redemption. The metaphorical lawsuit may have been a split verdict vis-a-vis Chris and AJ, but Tony still wound up with a judgment against him. He never wanted to return to the Inn at the Oaks when his time came, and he didn't (or won't).

On the house in the coma dream, were Tony B and his mother credited as their characters in the credits? From memory, she was woman in the house. Tony (as finnerty) also didn't recognise her or Tony B. I don't think it was as straight forward as Tony would spend eternity with his family if he entered the house.She wasn't billed at all (an extra with no lines, billing not required). Tony B was billed as "man" or "man at house" I believe. But I think that's to underscore that Tony was having an identity crisis and didn't recognize either himself or the man he once thought of as a brother. It's the worst kind of game-playing on the audience to have the clearly recognizeable face and voice of an actor that played a major role in the series appear as anything other than the character he played (or, in this case, his spiritual essence). I've no doubt that if Nancy Marchand were still alive, we would have seen her clearly on the porch rather than the shadowed, sillouhetted allusion to Livia that was necessary because Marchand had passed away.

Even so, the Livia connection was clear enough that you'd probably have to look far and wide to find someone who DIDN'T think it was her, especially since this scene was foreshadowed in the dream from Calling All Cars.

As regards the eternity question, the name play on Kevin Finnerty goes back to Join the Club. It's a proxy for "infinity". It was the "infinite family reunion" taking place at the Inn . . . or maybe the "Inn (at the Oaks) Finnerty Family Reunion."

[turangawaewae]

I'm not so sure about the whole christian redemption thing. Someone with a little more knowledge of Christianity may correct me here, but isn't a fundamental of Christianity accepting Jesus Christ? The ticket to heaven is not how good a life you lead, but your acceptance of JC. An American I work with believes that no matter how many "good" things you do, no JC=no heaven.
So Tony leading a "good" life doesn't necessarily equate to a positive afterlife (ie the white death). Or is this just one religous interpretation?

[conkom]

I'm not so sure about the whole christian redemption thing.

I don't think that if there was a message of redemption in the text that it would necessarily be Christian. The Buddhist monks in Tony's coma dream suggest something more akin to that faith. There are also references to native American symbols of spirituality in the last season. And don't forget Burrough's loose interpretation of Egyptian religious symbols at the beginning of season 6.

Then there is Chase's quite ambivelent attitudes towards Catholicism although he was apparently of an Italian protestant background although I suspect a lapsed one at that.

If I had to hazard a guess regarding Chase's belief system which might manifest itself within the text (and at the text's end - disregarding the end credits) I would assume IMO that he is an agnostic who dabbles in existentialism. And I agree it's a very simplistic assumption to make.

But does it really matter?

Trying to read too much into the symbology seems to be trying to unravel the Da Vinci Code (and what a silly tale that was!*) and I think that it is getting too far away from the text and Chase's intent.

Whatever ambiguous statements Chase made after the conclusion of the show regarding Tony's fate does not diminish or negate his one declaration that in the denoument it was "all there".

Re: the text: The story of Tony Soprano (alive or dead) ended when it did.

* IMO

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

I'm not so sure about the whole christian redemption thing. Someone with a little more knowledge of Christianity may correct me here, but isn't a fundamental of Christianity accepting Jesus Christ? The ticket to heaven is not how good a life you lead, but your acceptance of JC. An American I work with believes that no matter how many "good" things you do, no JC=no heaven.
So Tony leading a "good" life doesn't necessarily equate to a positive afterlife (ie the white death). Or is this just one religous interpretation?

What I read to be Christian redemption symbolism is covered in the posts I linked. I didn't feel like recapitulating it again here, but it's covered in a lot of detail there. I certainly don't contend that the religious symbolism or doctrine alluded to in the coma is exclusively Christian (or even very formally religious). Easter (Buddhist) philosophy is obviously also very obvious.

[CamMan]

I also have to disagree with this idea of "white death". If anything, IMO the "white" represents life or a rebirth of some sort. Throughout the Finnerty sequence we see the current events of real life Tony manifesting itself in the coma sequence. The helicopter light from above looking for Tony turns out to be the white light in the eyes of Tony the first time he wakes up in the hospital. In one really cool scene, Tony looks at the Finnerty family reunion flyer which starts to go white. We then see the bald Asian doctor putting a small light in Tony's eyes. Even the Asian doctor seems to manifest himself in the Monks Finnerty meets. Tony's annoyance at Paulie's bedside speech manifests itself in noise that Finnerty hears in the next room over ("would you shut up in there!")

When Tony is flatlining and trying to be revived we cut to the Inn at the Oaks scene. It appears the white light is coming from the door almost like it's escaping. The whoosh! sound of the defibulator is heard just as the white increases in intensity and fills the screen. Even before the white light, we hear the little girl "Daddy" screams. As the white light fills the screen, we realize it's Meadow's voice calling to him. The "white" is the bright lights of the hospital manifesting themselves as Tony comes out of the coma. Finally, as Tony's eyes are fully aware and able to percieve clear images, the white dissipitates and he looks over to see Carm and Meadow.

The rebirth should give Tony enough to realize that he must change and never put his family through that experience again; which of course he ultimately fails to do. Besides, how do you reconcile the "white death" as being something good when it appears that his mother awaits him there? It's ulitmately his fear of separation from his "family" (as Harpo so nicely put it), his real family that he truly loves-Carmela, Meadow, and AJ that keeps him from taking those final steps through the door.

[badabellisima]

...
As regards the eternity question, the name play on Kevin Finnerty goes back to Join the Club. It's a proxy for "infinity". It was the "infinite family reunion" taking place at the Inn . . . or maybe the "Inn (at the Oaks) Finnerty Family Reunion."

btw, in one of my more 'recent' posts- maybe the past few months or so, i show a current quote from Chase where he definitively says that he did NOT intend the name of Finnerty to actually represent "infinity". However, he has acknowledged in so many words (not quoting verbatim), that sometimes he could have been influenced somehow and his subconscious may have led him to portray certain parallels that were there and he didn't notice them...

[dsweeney]

dsweeny, your saracsm toward the moderators of this forum is completely unwarranted. Obviously you posted your anagram theory more than once here without incident. If it didn't receive the discussion or response you desired, please don't insinuate that it was because your were somehow censored.

No one, other than turangawaewae (who is on the threshhold of permanent, irreversible ban from this forum), has ridiculed you in the least. DH was responding to the escalating personal jibes you and turangawaewae were exchanging and telling you both to cool it.

We have seen this before, particularly with regard to people arguing about the ending and using it as some kind of litmus test of other posters' intelligence or worthiness. Take that attitude over to the IMDB forum, where you can get the action you're seeking. I wasn't in anyway being sarcastic Fly,it was a sincere attempt to put an end to the vitriol.That's my last word on the subject and hopefully that's the end of it.I certainly wasn't being sarcastic to any of the moderators.

[dsweeney]

NAME! (anagram for AMEN!) sorry...couldn't help it... :icon_rolleyes:

i do hope we can resume our civility and get on with it-...

dsweeney, i truly do not want you to leave. Your Oracle thread shows great insight and i'd like to hear more of your views on that subject, over in your proper thread.
With all due respect you and others are missing the point with this.It's not simply a case of plucking any four-letter word out of the sky and making something else with it.This 36 letter anagram is the EXACT credit for the MOG character and is in the context of where the text/script of the finale ends.In a show with,we all agree, "no coincidences",this is one hell of a coincidence.

[harpo]

With all due respect you and others are missing the point with this.It's not simply a case of plucking any four-letter word out of the sky and making something else with it.This 36 letter anagram is the EXACT credit for the MOG character and is in the context of where the text/script of the finale ends.In a show with,we all agree, "no coincidences",this is one hell of a coincidence.

But then if Chase had cast an actor with a different name, to preserve the anagram, he would have to change the character name so it still worked and then change their wardrobe so the character name made sense. And then after years of waiting to see how the show ends, we'd see an astronaut in a sombrero following AJ into the diner, and then Tony throws him a dismissive glance as the astronaut passes him on the way to the bathroom and so as not to arouse suspicion, casually doffs his sombrero as he passes.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Besides, how do you reconcile the "white death" as being something good when it appears that his mother awaits him there? It's ulitmately his fear of separation from his "family" (as Harpo so nicely put it), his real family that he truly loves-Carmela, Meadow, and AJ that keeps him from taking those final steps through the door.

Part of the difficulty in discussing abstractions like this is that it's hard to keep straight when one is giving one's own interpretation and when one is trying to read the mind of the creator to see what they intended. I don't personally circumscribe my own interpretations by what Chase intended, to the extent it's possible to even know that from his mostly vague, cryptic hints in interviews. I am willing to let his intentions sway me if they resonate enough with my own experiences and philosophy, however. So bear that in mind as you read some of my earlier posts. It's not always clear when I'm interpreting as opposed to trying to mind read.:icon_biggrin:

I once thought the death represented at the Inn at the Oaks was meant to convey "hell". I no longer believe that.

The interpretation that I believe most closely reflects Chase's intent (which is not necessarily what I adopt as my own interpretation) involves neither descriptions of "good" nor "bad", "heaven" nor "hell". A "white death" simply is what it is, a death of "something" as opposed to "the big nothing" or "all black" death that Tony and his mother talked about at various times in the series. Light is a quintessential form of energy with particle elements that also cross into concepts of matter. White light is formed by the simultaneous presence of all frequencies of light and, as such, is a "union" of disparate elements. It is about the whole, about being one, about unification.

Blackness or complete darkness, on the other hand, means a complete void of light, the absence of any frequency or particle of it. (It could also represent something much more sinister if you start contemplating dark matter and energy, but I'll put that aside.) If white light suggests presence and unification, blackness suggests void/ultimate isolation, "the big nothing" that Livia and Tony feared.

Now Tony (as distinct from Chase or me) certainly seemed to perceive the Inn as his own personal hell, and we know that not only from his reluctance to enter and his emphatic "I never want to go back there" to the physicist but from the eerily similar foreshadowing in Calling All Cars, complete with a hot, stuffy car, Tony waking up sweating and gasping for breath, and the orange-red heat lamp he flipped on in the bathroom after waking that fairly suggested "hell". (I started a much more detailed thread on the symbolism of that dream elsewhere.) So it seemingly represented "hell" to Tony, even though it paradoxically also contained the common (good) near-death elements of a bright white light getting ever stronger and the presence of deceased family.

In the end, Chase is much less judgmental than I think I am or certainly than any religious philosophy is in terms of assessing who is going where. He seemed to be offering the contrast of the two concepts of death to suggest that people have a choice as to which one they want, an eternal consciousness and unification with family (and, indeed, with the universe) or an eternal segregation from the universe and/or oblivion. While Tony didn't want eternal separation from his beloved family (Carm, Meadow, AJ), he also didn't want eternity with his other family (Livia, Tony B, etc.). There will presumably come a point in time (after Carm and his kids die) where, to get eternity with them he must also endure eternity with his other family. And he "made his choice", as Chase put it, when he refused entry into the Inn.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

tolbtw, in one of my more 'recent' posts- maybe the past few months or so, i show a current quote from Chase where he definitively says that he did NOT intend the name of Finnerty to actually represent "infinity". However, he has acknowledged in so many words (not quoting verbatim), that sometimes he could have been influenced somehow and his subconscious may have led him to portray certain parallels that were there and he didn't notice them...

I now recall that, bada. Thanks for the reminder.

I dunno about Chase. Sometimes I think he tries to fool even himself. Does he not recall the play on words that he had the bald guy say at the bar? The "drives a Lexus" comment? And then had the guy spell it out: "Kevin Finnerty. Infinity, Lexus, get it?"

If he didn't mean for there to be a connection between the name and "infinity", why include that (unfunny) joke? This episode showed a guy grappling with his true identity and having to confront whether to live or die and being told by monks he would lose his consciousness of self after death and become one with the universe (eternity certainly a subtext in all those things). It showed him being called to long-delayed, true reckoning of self by that beacon, the "Two Tony's" theme being symbolized literally when Tony B greets him. Now why bring audience attention to the "infinity" name play unless to underscore that this is about an ultimate or eternal choice or identity resolution?

I have no problem believing he thought up the name without conscious connection to the word "infinity". But, at some point during the writing, it obviously occurred to him in order to account for the line at the bar.

[badabellisima]

i totally agree with you. And i realize that you are making alot of your points as your understanding of how Chase means them- not necessarily your own personal view- it is hard to separate sometimes when talking about such complex subjects. Hard to imagine why Chase denied his own personal awareness of the "infinity" connection. Maybe he just really is fruitloops! -certainly he is contradictory. :icon_mrgreen:

[conkom]

Maybe he just really is fruitloops! -certainly he is contradictory. :icon_mrgreen:

Or maybe just a bit disingenuous.:icon_mrgreen:

[dsweeney]

But then if Chase had cast an actor with a different name, to preserve the anagram, he would have to change the character name so it still worked and then change their wardrobe so the character name made sense. And then after years of waiting to see how the show ends, we'd see an astronaut in a sombrero following AJ into the diner, and then Tony throws him a dismissive glance as the astronaut passes him on the way to the bathroom and so as not to arouse suspicion, casually doffs his sombrero as he passes.

Yes but Chase DIDN'T cast an actor with a different name,OPRAH.He cast this one.You may or may not be aware of this but interestingly,IMO, prior to The Sopranos,Paolo Colandrea never acted before in his life.Surely some actor out there could have used the work?

[richjcrouch]

Yes but Chase DIDN'T cast an actor with a different name,OPRAH.He cast this one.You may or may not be aware of this but interestingly,IMO, prior to The Sopranos,Paolo Colandrea never acted before in his life.Surely some actor out there could have used the work?

I think you're over reaching.

Firstly, if the anagram thing was real, then the actor would have been billed using a pseudonym.

It's a pure coincidence that an anagram could be created that fits with some peoples' views.

Had the actor been called something else, it is feasible another anagram could have been created.

Secondly, the story of how he got the part isn't really that remarkable at all. I believe he was working in a restaurant visited by one of the casting crew, who asked him to audition owing to his 'authentic Italian look'.

Over 30 people auditioned for the role in New York. Did they just pick this one guy based solely on the fact that his name, coupled with the role title, was an anagram of some spurious link to something that may or may not have happened?

Like I said, it's an interesting quip, but not something that is wholly relevant to the story.

Perhaps you should focus more on the bits Chase decided to 'slap us in the face' with.

There are loads of slightly misplaced bits in the final series. The fact that they don't seem natural makes it look as though they are designed to tell you something.

Things that immediately spring to mind are:

Tony eating an orange in MIA
The reactions of those who saw Phils head crushed in MIA
The fact that Chase hand picked the pictures to adorn the walls fo Holstens
Meadow suddenly deciding to become a lawyer

All of these things could offer more in the way of clues than a tenuous anagram.

What other anagrams can you come up with?

James Gandolfini - Anthony Soprano

Maybe someone could come up with a decent anagram for that.

[conkom]

What other anagrams can you come up with?

James Gandolfini - Anthony Soprano

Maybe someone could come up with a decent anagram for that.

See http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=James+Gandolfini+-+Anthony+Soprano&t=1000

to name just a few thousand, but none of them make any remote sense. Unless there was a salamander in the scene.

I don't think that the anagram in question is tenuous. In fact it is quite eerie that it does describe a possible scenario especially as Meadow is out of the picture.

I also think that the actor who played man in Member's Only Jacket also looked similar to the actor who played Tony's father Johnny Boy Soprano. The symbol of the father-figure being responsible for Tony's fate should also be considered.

It is conceivable and not impossible that Paolo Colandrea was chosen and somehow his name and his role did play a purpose that all conveniently (in a meangingful coincidental way) tie up those loose ends. I would not discount it at all. Synchronicity maybe? Why not?

Incidentally Rich those other things you listed are just as useful, especially the orange. I don't think Chase left anything to chance.

[dsweeney]

See http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=James+Gandolfini+-+Anthony+Soprano&t=1000

to name just a few thousand, but none of them make any remote sense. Unless there was a salamander in the scene.

I don't think that the anagram in question is tenuous. In fact it is quite eerie that it does describe a possible scenario especially as Meadow is out of the picture.

I also do think that the actor who played man in Member's Only Jacket also looked similar to the actor who played Tony's father Johnny Boy Soprano. The symbol of the father-figure being responsible for Tony's fate should also be considered.

It is conceivable and not impossible that Paolo Colandra was chosen and somehow his name and his role did play a purpose that all conveniently (in a meangingful coincidental way) tie up those loose ends. I would not discount it that all. Synchronicity maybe? Why not?

Incidentally Rich those other things you listed are just as useful in especially the orange. I don't think Chase left anything to chance.

Thanks for that bit of support conkom and great spot about Meadow by the way,hadn't thought of it myself.A perfect anagram of the credit for the MOG character stating the fate of only the THREE FAMILY MEMBERS who we know are in Holsten's. I'm no mathematician but what are the odds of that would you think? As you say,eerie,and IMO must be considered part of the text.

[harpo]

Yes but Chase DIDN'T cast an actor with a different name,OPRAH.He cast this one.You may or may not be aware of this but interestingly,IMO, prior to The Sopranos,Paolo Colandrea never acted before in his life.Surely some actor out there could have used the work?

Maybe since his actor was a novice, Chase put the cat up as an anagram hint in case Paolo forgot what he was supposed to be doing mid-scene. Explains all Paolo's uncertain glances in that direction.

The light atop the vital signs monitor was the source of the beacon?

We can claim interpretive license as viewers, but nothing I get from Chase in the show or in interviews suggests to me he's interested in tidying up the turbidity of human experience for us by presenting a confident, precise theological vision of reward or punishment after death, as opposed to kicking around the emotional essence of contemplating leaving the world. In interviews about Tony's fate, he sounds allergic to any idea of a morally just Universe but pretty open to a vision of the natural consequences of indulgence.

[turangawaewae]

See http://www.wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=James+Gandolfini+-+Anthony+Soprano&t=1000

to name just a few thousand, but none of them make any remote sense. Unless there was a salamander in the scene.

I don't think that the anagram in question is tenuous. In fact it is quite eerie that it does describe a possible scenario especially as Meadow is out of the picture.

I also think that the actor who played man in Member's Only Jacket also looked similar to the actor who played Tony's father Johnny Boy Soprano. The symbol of the father-figure being responsible for Tony's fate should also be considered.

It is conceivable and not impossible that Paolo Colandrea was chosen and somehow his name and his role did play a purpose that all conveniently (in a meangingful coincidental way) tie up those loose ends. I would not discount it at all. Synchronicity maybe? Why not?

Incidentally Rich those other things you listed are just as useful, especially the orange. I don't think Chase left anything to chance.

The anagram states :

A man kills Tony Carmela AJ don become prone

Yet Chase has said in a post series interview that AJ would go on to be a low level movie producer. He certainly wouldn't be like his father. It was reinforcing the idea of incremental improvement from generation to generation. How can that be so according to the anagram which states man kills AJ??

[conkom]

I am not suggesting that AJ was definitely killed, nor Carmella (although he half implied in that same interview that she somehow deserved that fate). And we cannot categorically assert that Tony was shot either.

But I also think that Chase is being disingenuous here. If anyone or everyone did survive that night, this is what life would be for each of them.

It would be like hypothesising what it would it have been like if JFK wasn't shot.

When he is interviewed he chooses his words carefully, but he never categorically denies that (at least) Tony was shot dead.

But I think Chase clearly sees Tony as dead, both as a character in his universe and as a fictional construct.

The lights went out, but this time for good.




Unless of course someone convinces him or he convinces himeself, to make that movie.

[turangawaewae]

I am not suggesting that AJ was definitely killed, nor Carmella (although he half implied in that same interview that she somehow deserved that fate). And we cannot categorically assert that Tony was shot either.

But I also think that Chase is being disingenuous here. If anyone or everyone did survive that night, this is what life would be for each of them.

It would be like hypothesising what it would it have been like if JFK wasn't shot.

When he is interviewed he chooses his words carefully, but he never categorically denies that (at least) Tony was shot dead.

But I think Chase clearly sees Tony as dead, both as a character in his universe and as a fictional construct.

The lights went out, but this time for good.




Unless of course someone convinces him or he convinces himeself, to make that movie.

But my point is the anagram says AJ is dead. Doesn't Chase's comments then invalidate the anagram??

[conkom]

No.

[badabellisima]

But my point is the anagram says AJ is dead. Doesn't Chase's comments then invalidate the anagram??
Yes.

[conkom]

Yes.

Between us we should have the answer.

[dsweeney]

Maybe since his actor was a novice, Chase put the cat up as an anagram hint in case Paolo forgot what he was supposed to be doing mid-scene. Explains all Paolo's uncertain glances in that direction.

The light atop the vital signs monitor was the source of the beacon?

We can claim interpretive license as viewers, but nothing I get from Chase in the show or in interviews suggests to me he's interested in tidying up the turbidity of human experience for us by presenting a confident, precise theological vision of reward or punishment after death, as opposed to kicking around the emotional essence of contemplating leaving the world. In interviews about Tony's fate, he sounds allergic to any idea of a morally just Universe but pretty open to a vision of the natural consequences of indulgence.

It's an interesting point you raise but I don't think it's a case of Chase saying "this is a bad man and should therefore die and spend all eternity in darkness",like some classroom morality lesson.I think it's more that because of the extremely violent world Tony lives in it could only realistically end one way for him.He has already survived two gunshot wounds don't forget.He has had ample opportunity to change,to go straight (not that he would be let of course,as he said as much to Eugene).As Carm says "everything comes to an end".

[dsweeney]

Actually,re-reading your post above I think we're in agreement on this.Not so much a morality play more a case of if you play with fire,you'll get burned.

[dsweeney]

I am not suggesting that AJ was definitely killed, nor Carmella (although he half implied in that same interview that she somehow deserved that fate). And we cannot categorically assert that Tony was shot either.

But I also think that Chase is being disingenuous here. If anyone or everyone did survive that night, this is what life would be for each of them.

It would be like hypothesising what it would it have been like if JFK wasn't shot.

When he is interviewed he chooses his words carefully, but he never categorically denies that (at least) Tony was shot dead.

But I think Chase clearly sees Tony as dead, both as a character in his universe and as a fictional construct.

The lights went out, but this time for good.




Unless of course someone convinces him or he convinces himeself, to make that movie.

In the context of the fate of AJ,maybe others have noticed the parallels between him and Tony but it's only lately fully hitting me.They are both identified with the Seven souls monologue,AJ (the devil,dies just past the point of adolescence) and Tony (remains).Both have two near brushes with death (three strikes and you're out).For all you Godfather fans in the first sighting of AJ in 6a.1,after the seven souls sequence,he has a glass of orange in front of him.Tony eats an orange early in 6b.9.And,less importantly I admit,both make it to Holsten's and are named in the anagram for death.In light of David Chase's comments I'm going to look closely for hints to the fate of Carmela.She,for instance was equally given the chance to change,to take her children and leave but no,she can't,she chooses the easy way and possibly her son dies as a result.Anybody have any hints as to Carm's fate I have missed?

[conkom]

The clue to the story text's end can be found in the opening "7 Souls" sequence in "Member's Only".

When we first see Carmella she is in the unfinished spec house where she is talking to Adriana. We are surprised because we remember Adriana being shot like an animal by Silvio under Tony's orders. For a moment we think that maybe she wasn't killed when she was off screen.

Adriana asks Carmella who will live in the house, and she replies, "a family".

When Carmella reveals she is worried all the time, she takes Adriana's cigarette and smokes it. Then Adriana vanishes and we realise that it was Carmella dreaming.

Then we hear about the final soul, Sekhu, the Remains where we watch Tony digging in Junior's backyard.

This was clearly a premonition of death generated from Carmela. Adriana's presence in this dream is no accident. Carmela will once again dream about Adriana when she is in Paris in the episode "Cold Stones".

The family destined for this spec house in the netherworld was none other than the three participants sitting around the table at Holsten's.

[conkom]

Of course someone will argue that it doesn't necessarily mean this, it's too obvious, too much is being read into it, it was probably just a dream, all those symbols and images and clues were red herrings, the show was really about nothing at all, Tony will live to a ripe old age, and Sara Palin wll be the next VP.

:icon_mrgreen:

[dsweeney]

Of course someone will argue that it doesn't necessarily mean this, it's too obvious, too much is being read into it, it was probably just a dream, all those symbols and images and clues were red herrings, the show was really about nothing at all, Tony will live to a ripe old age, and Sara Palin wll be the next VP.

:icon_mrgreen:
I think it's a brilliant spot about Carm and the spec house and a family living there,brilliant.Don't forget also that Carm, unlike us, doesn't know she's talking to a dead person in her dream,which makes it all the more pointed,IMO.
I don't think Chase's comments about AJ's future negates the anagram at all.After all,we all have hopes and dreams and future schemes,that don't always pan out or come to pass.That's life.Just because AJ has settled on a career in the movie business doesn't mean it will work out that way for him.If anything,for me it makes what I believe happened that night in Holsten's all the more poignant.To hell with Tony and Carmela,AJ is a child.In keeping with the idea of the sins of the father passing on to the son,I think Tony passed on more than "this sick putrid Soprano gene".Both Tony and Carmela were unrepentant in their life choices and I believe all three perished for this.

[dsweeney]

Don't forget conkom,THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WON'T SEE.Ours is the true vision in the spirit of the show.If MOG wore a balaclava and a jacket with" I am a hitman" on it there would still be some viewers who couldn't accept the ending because we don't actually witness it.DON'T BE SWAYED!

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Don't forget conkom,THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WON'T SEE.Ours is the true vision in the spirit of the show.If MOG wore a balaclava and a jacket with" I am a hitman" on it there would still be some viewers who couldn't accept the ending because we don't actually witness it.DON'T BE SWAYED!

dsweeney, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop your provocations and condescension toward those who do not agree with you. That kind of posting is not welcome here.

And, btw, the degree of arrogance in your statement is staggering.

[aprilemoney]

Per Mafia Rules....families are never, ever touched! Throughout the entire series, anyone who got "whacked"-never was an innocent family member involved. Phil's killing...his wife and grandchildren lived.

No way MOG would shoot at AJ, Carm, and Meadow after shooting Tony in the head.

"Two shots to the head, drop the gun, and a car will be waiting outside."

[conkom]

Actually I've also been on the record saying that nothing is definitive either, even though I tend to favour the
Tony was 86ed side. As a literary device the sudden cut to black representing Tony's final POV suggests he got whacked. But we don't see a smoking gun either. This allows for an ambiguity of outcomes. Or maybe even more.

And I have read some very good arguments to suggest otherwise. I do think that Chase is placing a little each way bet for the viewers.

But for now Tony, his family and his world are dead, irrespective of whether or not anyone shot him. 7 Souls tells us that much when we are hear about Ren, the first soul. He can just as likely reanimate the whole construct.

But I doubt it.:smile:

[conkom]

Per Mafia Rules....families are never, ever touched! Throughout the entire series, anyone who got "whacked"-never was an innocent family member involved. Phil's killing...his wife and grandchildren lived.

No way MOG would shoot at AJ, Carm, and Meadow after shooting Tony in the head.

"Two shots to the head, drop the gun, and a car will be waiting outside."

I wonder sometimes how fixed these rules are among brutal gangsters. If it is always true then maybe they were collateral damage. Or maybe Ren had it in for the three of them. Meadow, the "guardian angel" is not shot at all.

[badabellisima]

Of course someone will argue that it doesn't necessarily mean this, it's too obvious, too much is being read into it, it was probably just a dream, all those symbols and images and clues were red herrings, the show was really about nothing at all, Tony will live to a ripe old age, and Sara Palin wll be the next VP.

:icon_mrgreen:

Ya know- are you guys ever going to use the 'ole "imo"? Or stop continually insulting anyone with a different view? i actually voted for Sarah Palin! i guess i just got tired of the same old thing. --Looking for a real change, not a repeat of the Clinton administration.

hmmm- maybe i need a break from the re-tread of the same 'ole "Tony Dies so don't bother discussing any other aspect of it" threads...:frown:

[badabellisima]

I wonder sometimes how fixed these rules are among brutal gangsters. If it is always true then maybe they were collateral damage. Or maybe Ren had it in for the three of them. Meadow, the "guardian angel" is not shot at all.
Meanwhile, i am heartened that all a yous are starting to discuss the Seven Souls stuff. Fascinating, and i hardly know how to understand it, but i'd like to hear more.

[conkom]

Ya know- are you guys ever going to use the 'ole "imo"? Or stop continually insulting anyone with a different view? i actually voted for Sarah Palin! i guess i just got tired of the same old thing. --Looking for a real change, not a repeat of the Clinton administration.

hmmm- maybe i need a break from the re-tread of the same 'ole "Tony Dies so don't bother discussing any other aspect of it" threads...:frown:

bada, I like to think that I acknowledge a good argument even if I don't agree with it. Both you and richjcrouch posted some very good points in the past. So much so that i have conceded that Tony's death is not beyond reasonable doubt even though I still think on balance he was 86ed.

I also like to think that when I discuss an issue that it is clearly an opinion but a carefully considered one. But I try not to assert that it is a fact. I am enough of a sceptic to doubt the notion of absolute truths.

We might differ over a lot of things including politics but with our shared love for the Sopranos (and Mad Men) and despite being on opposite sides of the planet, I like to think after all this time on these boards, we are friends.:smile:

[dsweeney]

dsweeney, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop your provocations and condescension toward those who do not agree with you. That kind of posting is not welcome here.

And, btw, the degree of arrogance in your statement is staggering.

I was merely supporting conkom's viewpoint Fly that people will still say all of this is coincidence and that nothing in the show means anything.I don't think people who have a fixed opinion on this are arrogant at all but I apologize if it comes across that way.

[dsweeney]

This is just for conkom and not meant to insult anybody else.I noticed something last night you may already know but I certainly didn't.When Eugene executes Teddy guess how many shots there were?You got it.THREE,not one,not two but three. Clear as day.One for each family member who makes it into Holsten's.Quite chilling when you watch it with this in mind.

[dsweeney]

Per Mafia Rules....families are never, ever touched! Throughout the entire series, anyone who got "whacked"-never was an innocent family member involved. Phil's killing...his wife and grandchildren lived.

No way MOG would shoot at AJ, Carm, and Meadow after shooting Tony in the head.

"Two shots to the head, drop the gun, and a car will be waiting outside."

It's a very good point you raise.But firstly I don't think anyone is suggesting that Meadow gets killed,as symbolizing the Guardian Angel in the seven souls monologue she is special and survives.Families not being touched is,you're right,one of the "rules". But remember,Carm and AJ are sitting at the table with him and therefore eye-witnesses.Any hitman worth his salt would do the job thoroughly and take no chances.It's also possible,if a little unlikely,that he didn't know who Carm and AJ were,just who his intended target was,i.e. Tony.

[turangawaewae]

[QUOTE=dsweeney;24563]Any hitman worth his salt would do the job thoroughly and take no chances.QUOTE]

Just off the top of my head, the following people were killed by a hitman, that didn't shoot the witnesses:
Bobby
Phil
Sil (possibly)
Forget his name but the one shot at the table when eating with Sil

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

dsweeney, I've sent you a private message. You should see a notification and link to your inbox in the upper right corner of your browser window.

[conkom]

This is just for conkom and not meant to insult anybody else.I noticed something last night you may already know but I certainly didn't.When Eugene executes Teddy guess how many shots there were?You got it.THREE,not one,not two but three. Clear as day.One for each family member who makes it into Holsten's.Quite chilling when you watch it with this in mind.

There are several parallels. One scene does seem to mirror the other. The name of the victim was Terry Spirodakis and he was shot because of outstanding debts. He was of course shot by a man in a Member's Only jacket.

One could surmise that Tony Soprano had accumulated considerable debts during his time as a mobster. This was his "payback".

But why his family? (If we assume that they too were shot.)

Perhaps they were collateral damage or maybe who ever wanted Tony dead wanted to eliminate the whole family. Maybe he or she hated Carmella and AJ just as much as Tony.

The mafia rule is apparently true between the Families however is there always honour among thieves? A moral code does sound somewhat of a paradox.

Maybe somebody wanted the family house?

Or maybe Ren had enough of the lot of them.

[badabellisima]

bada, I like to think that I acknowledge a good argument even if I don't agree with it. Both you and richjcrouch posted some very good points in the past. So much so that i have conceded that Tony's death is not beyond reasonable doubt even though I still think on balance he was 86ed.

I also like to think that when I discuss an issue that it is clearly an opinion but a carefully considered one. But I try not to assert that it is a fact. I am enough of a sceptic to doubt the notion of absolute truths.

We might differ over a lot of things including politics but with our shared love for the Sopranos (and Mad Men) and despite being on opposite sides of the planet, I like to think after all this time on these boards, we are friends.:smile:
Oh of course we are still friends! Haven't you noticed how i whine sometimes!? :icon_biggrin: