Question about the Sit Down

[Daveman]

Not sure if this was covered before, but I always wondered What was meant when at the sit down, and after coming to terms, Tony mentioned to Butchie that he wanted to know Phil's location, and Butchie replied " I can't do that, but do what you gotta do".
Was he somehow telling Tony that even Phil's Capo's were somewhat against him and the way he changed since becoming boss? Did they also want to see Phil get clipped?

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

Hi, Daveman, and welcome to the forum.

Yes, that is how I interpreted Butchie's remarks. I forget which scenes and episodes, but there were at least a couple where Butchie was rolling eyes or otherwise subtly expressing just how totally off the rails Phil had become. While it wasn't enough for Butchie to actually cooperate or conspire with Tony to kill him, he let Tony know there would be no retribution afterward if Tony did it on his own.

[SilvioMancini]

This brings up an interesting question... Supposing Tony gets killed, who else but Phil wouldve ordered the hit now that Phil is gone? Was the hit made by other soldiers in the crew or was it from somewhere outside of New York? Did Butchie want Tony to clip Phil for him and then Butchy clipped Tony to take over both family's? Just random thoughts......... Any other ideas?

[conkom]

Probably the biggest argument against Tony being killed is that the most obvious person who would have organised a hit on Tony was himself hit. Since Butchie "washed his hands" over Phil it would seem that the threat to Tony was now eliminated.

Perhaps.

Now it has been eloquently argued by others that as far as the denoument is concerned who killed Tony or had Tony killed is not as important as the the fact that Tony finally met his fate.

Now Butchie could have decided to have Tony hit even though they came to a agreement. Maybe Butchie had sold Phil out but no-one said anything about having Phil shot in front of his wife and grandchildren (let alone having his head crushed in front of a crowd). Maybe Tony's crew stepped over the line there. The only revenge would be to have Tony killed in front of his family.

And if he sold Phil out why wouldn't he sell Tony out as well? And whose to say that someone else in New York loyal to Phil might not have sort revenge on Tony anyway?

On the other hand there are plenty of enemies closer to Tony who might have been biding their time waiting for the opportune moment to hit him.

I strongly suspect it was someone very close for reasons that I won't elaborate on, other than this person always had the motive, and of all of Tony's crew I thought he had the ruthfulness, cunning and intelligence to eventually take over as the Boss.

But in the end I don't think that even that matters. The show was about Tony and it ended the way it began. The first shot in the pilot episode probably reveals more than anything else what was in store for Tony. Tony's destiny was ordained. Chase said early on that he had envisaged how it would all end.

And what can be more appropriate than in the 86th episode?

[richjcrouch]

Am I missing something Conkom?

What is the connection/appropriateness of the 86th episode?

Also, please do elaborate on your theory of someone closer to Tony.

As for the meeting, I took it that Butchie didn't want to appear disloayal, which makes me think he is aware that Tony won't be killed.

He wants this taken care of, but isn't willing to give up Phils location. I think that is something that would be remembered by Tony when thinking about how much he can trust Butchie in the future.

[conkom]

Am I missing something Conkom?

Not for me to say.


What is the connection/appropriateness of the 86th episode?

I would have thought that this would have been discussed on this message board in the past. The number 86 in American slang has been used to describe something that has been terminated, ceased to be made, or killed off.

Also, please do elaborate on your theory of someone closer to Tony.

This deserves another thread altogether. However I do think that it is in the end a moot or academic point. It doesn't really affect the outcome one way or another.

As for the meeting, I took it that Butchie didn't want to appear disloayal, which makes me think he is aware that Tony won't be killed.

He wants this taken care of, but isn't willing to give up Phils location. I think that is something that would be remembered by Tony when thinking about how much he can trust Butchie in the future.

After the sit-down what you said is true. However the way Phil was disposed off changed everything. With Phil's wife witnessing her husband's brutal slaying and the babies in the car I suspect that all bets were called off as far as Butchie was concerned.

But I don't think Chase was telling us outright that Butchie himself was behind Tony getting hit. It just becomes another academic point. There are many other individuals with their motives to get rid of Tony.

Someone probably hired an unfamiliar hitman in Member's Only jacket (probably from Italy. Why not? It's happened before!) to find and assassinate Tony.

The point is Tony (and the series) was 86ed.

[Irishwiseguy]

86ed, lol.

Great catch, I never even thought that the number 86 could be somewhat relevant. Remember that the second part of season six was supposed to have 8 episodes? But that was bumped up to nine, maybe thats why "Chasing It" is so bad:icon_biggrin: . Doubt it, but I still don't get that episode.

[conkom]

86ed, lol.

Great catch, I never even thought that the number 86 could be somewhat relevant. Remember that the second part of season six was supposed to have 8 episodes? But that was bumped up to nine, maybe thats why "Chasing It" is so bad:icon_biggrin: . Doubt it, but I still don't get that episode.

I don't think that Chase left anything to chance. The whole point of that episode was Tony chasing his luck to recoup his run of losses.

That of course can be read on a number of levels.

What is intriguing about "Chasing It" (as well including the name of the show's creator in the title) is the Twilight Zone reference by Carlo to Tony. It was about a dead gangster who thought he was in heaven but was actually in hell.

[richjcrouch]

Not for me to say.
I would have thought that this would have been discussed on this message board in the past. The number 86 in American slang has been used to describe something that has been terminated, ceased to be made, or killed off.

Great catch, never even occured to me! Interesting, I wonder how intentional it was.


This deserves another thread altogether. However I do think that it is in the end a moot or academic point. It doesn't really affect the outcome one way or another.


I am genuinely intrigued to hear your thoughts. Perhaps you could start a relevant thread. A kind of 'hypothetically, if Tony was killed, whodunnit' sort of thread! :icon_wink:


After the sit-down what you said is true. However the way Phil was disposed off changed everything. With Phil's wife witnessing her husband's brutal slaying and the babies in the car I suspect that all bets were called off as far as Butchie was concerned.

I can't see that being the case. Butchie knew it would be done in front of them, as he must have known they were there, and Phil was hardly likely to be wandering the streets alone. Frequently these guys have been seen to use their families as shields. I think it was beyond that with Phil.


But I don't think Chase was telling us outright that Butchie himself was behind Tony getting hit. It just becomes another academic point. There are many other individuals with their motives to get rid of Tony.

As you know, I don't believe Tony got whacked. Hypothetically speaking, if he did, my money would be on something a little more left field. Perhaps just a mad man with a gun. It would probably nicely fit into the Chase mould of controversial and real to life criticism of the society we are all a part of. Where would one put themselves, morally speaking, if a lunatic with a gun took out a mob boss? Would we have the same level of sympathy as we do for the people Columbine, Dunblane, Virginia Tec, or that school in Finland?


Someone probably hired an unfamiliar hitman in Member's Only jacket (probably from Italy. Why not? It's happened before!) to find and assassinate Tony.

The point is Tony (and the series) was 86ed.

It certainly has happened before, and is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The series was definitely 86ed :icon_wink:

[conkom]

I am genuinely intrigued to hear your thoughts. Perhaps you could start a relevant thread. A kind of 'hypothetically, if Tony was killed, whodunnit' sort of thread! :icon_wink:

rich I think there might already be a thread regarding who had Tony killed.

If you can be so gracious and allow me the indulgence in saying that my theory over who did it is no more than a hunch and I confess a pretty subjective one at that. I could try to argue all the indicators which seem quite obvious to me. But I know someone will flame me down ad hominem if I tried.

Even so I don't think there is much point debating who anymore since I think Chase probably wanted to leave who had Tony killed open. He left us with a lot of likely suspects as to who would have and could have had it done. And you could be right maybe it was "a lunatic with a gun".

I still think the main point Chase was telling us that for whatever virtues and humanity Tony displayed he was still a gangster and his fate was already written. The only way the ongoing cycle of violence ends is by a violent means.

I think the debate we should be asking ourselves now, and it might even deserve a new thread is what kind of eternal hell would Tony Soprano be experiencing after his death?

We have had a few glimpses of "gangster hell" in the past. Christopher's and Tony's coma dreams. I still think the Twilight Zone references are not accidental, especially Rocky Valantine's version of hell.

I kind of think that Tony's hell is to constantly relive the Holsten scene where he will literally be "looking over his shoulder" ad infinitum.

And think about it, imagine having to listen to "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey for eternity.

Scarey thought!

[richjcrouch]

rich I think there might already be a thread regarding who had Tony killed.

If you can be so gracious and allow me the indulgence in saying that my theory over who did it is no more than a hunch and I confess a pretty subjective one at that. I could try to argue all the indicators which seem quite obvious to me. But I know someone will flame me down ad hominem if I tried.

Even so I don't think there is much point debating who anymore since I think Chase probably wanted to leave who had Tony killed open. He left us with a lot of likely suspects as to who would have and could have had it done. And you could be right maybe it was "a lunatic with a gun".

I still think the main point Chase was telling us that for whatever virtues and humanity Tony displayed he was still a gangster and his fate was already written. The only way the ongoing cycle of violence ends is by a violent means.

I think the debate we should be asking ourselves now, and it might even deserve a new thread is what kind of eternal hell would Tony Soprano be experiencing after his death?

We have had a few glimpses of "gangster hell" in the past. Christopher's and Tony's coma dreams. I still think the Twilight Zone references are not accidental, especially Rocky Valantine's version of hell.

I kind of think that Tony's hell is to constantly relive the Holsten scene where he will literally be "looking over his shoulder" ad infinitum.

And think about it, imagine having to listen to "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey for eternity.

Scarey thought!

It probably does deserve a thread of it's own.

I seem to recall a thread listing a few suspects, but they were a bit tongue in cheek, rather than serious suggestions.

I am willing to suspend my disbelief here, and discuss who killed Tony, whilst maintaining that I don't think he was killed that night, if that makes sense.

For me New York retaliating is way too obvious for the uninitiated viewer. We know Chase doesn't like to write for the masses who don't want to look beneath the surface. Secondly, I don't think it could have come from New york, as, with Phil gone, there was no boss over there, and nobody to havbe the 'authority' to sanction a hit on a boss. These guys may be criminals, but they live by a very strict code. It was that code that allowed Tony to go to Holstens, that code that got Phil killed and that code that meant Tony couldn't kill Carmine at Johnnys request.

There are a lot of suspects. A lot of people are hurt by the mob. It's possible that Adrianas mother could have paid someone to kill him.

Of course your theory is a hunch, we all share the same facts, and fill in the blanks with our own hunches. hunch away, my friend. You will face no ill judgment from me for airing a hunch.

I think you're right about a gangsters fate already being written. I think I've posted before that I believe Tony wasn't killed that night, but his life was over the minute he was made. He would be killed some time, or go to jail.

If neither happened he would forever be looking over his shoulder. He mayy still be alive, but I don't think he would ever have a 'life', if that makes sense.

Apologies for this post being a bit all over the place!

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

I think the debate we should be asking ourselves now, and it might even deserve a new thread is what kind of eternal hell would Tony Soprano be experiencing after his death?

To me, that was the point of the extended black, particularly in contra distinction to the gradual fade to white and, indeed, the vivid experiences Tony had in his coma metaphysical journey toward death (Chase himself disputed the notion that it was a "dream"). Tony had a chance at a white death, a death of something, and he refused it and never wanted to go back there again. Even though his desert epiphany convinced him and comforted him that "there's something else out there [beyond this life]", what he would find at death, whether it came at Holsten's or years later, was "a big nothing", the infinite black that he feared after his Funhouse nightmare.

[harpo]

Compare with Vito's death. From Vito's perspective, Tony welcomed him back into the business and he was safe. But unbeknownst to him, Tony ordered Vito's execution for the sake of business. Then when Phil went ahead and did what Tony was going to do anyway, Tony still succumbed to pressure to retaliate, as a statement to NY and to his own family, that Phil's taking a piss on NJ will be answered.

Butchie didn't want to outright betray Phil by giving away his location but OKed it with language he could at least ambiguous enough to rationalize. Presumably, there would have been some pressure within NY from captains we don't see for Butch to not let the offense of murdering their boss go unanswered. From cold self-interest, which often drove all these characters, the best deal for Butchie is for Phil to disappear opening up the boss job for himself and then if killing Tony secures his own power and gives him a more favorable business partner in NJ, it's hard to argue he wouldn't do it.

We're not privy to any of this but to rule it out makes little sense too. The finale seems to hint something odd is going on with Patsy. There's a shot of him beckoning over his son Jason (the business partner of Carlo's son) at Bobby's funeral. At the drinks at the house, Tony brings up that Carlo's son, who ends up being in trouble, and Patsy's son were close. Patsy is definitely uncomfortable about this and shuts his wife up when she comments on Carlo's kid. Time in the finale wasn't wasted on this for no reason. Their fumbled response when Tony asks where he is shows that Patsy is avoiding a problem. He's nervous about the whole situation. We can skip to the conclusion that Patsy is afraid of being partly blamed for allowing his kid to put Tony in his legal predicament. And if Carlo's kid's arrest leads to Carlo flipping, what if Jason's kid ends up facing charges too and Tony starts worrying about Patsy flipping?

There's also a conspicuous shot of Patsy reacting to Tony pouring him a drink and another of Patsy's wife ogling the china. We see how the women push the men as when Gab Dante was greedily encouraging Sil he could be boss. I thought Patsy was enjoying the powerful feeling of Tony pouring him the drink. This life can be mine. And his wife thinking the same thing. At Satriale's Tony gives a job to Paulie instead of Patsy and we can imagine Patsy's displeasure at that without seeing it. And of course, he likely never forgives Tony for killing his twin.

We don't see and have no basis to know anything but that's how intrigue looks from the perspective of the victim: it blindsides. But the idea that a plot was hatched to get rid of Tony isn't far-fetched and for to focus on a suspicious guy glancing at him tells us enough to know Tony's in trouble.

[conkom]

And of course, he likely never forgives Tony for killing his twin.

Which always made him in my mind the likeliest of likely suspects. And you have picked up on a lot of little subtle clues that makes for a likely scenario.

However I still think that the speculating over who done it is secondary to the denouement that Tony and his story (which began with an extended black after the opening credits) were 86ed.

I still contend that the Holsten scene had a Twilight Zone feel about it. (Someone should start a thread on all the TZ references in the series.) People who vaguely looked like people in Tony's past and the instance where Tony seems to be looking at himself sitting at the table add to the eeriness.

I agree with Fly that Tony's vision of hell could be eternal blackness. But at least he won't have to be listening to Journey.:icon_mrgreen:

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

However I still think that the speculating over who done it is secondary to the denouement that Tony and his story (which began with an extended black after the opening credits) were 86ed.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is what I would term a customary interval of black separating the quick fade of the credits and the cut to the inside of Melfi's waiting room. Not what I would deem "extended" at all. Are we talking about the same thing?


I agree with Fly that Tony's vision of hell could be eternal blackness. But at least he won't have to be listening to Journey.:icon_mrgreen:That's just mean.:icon_mrgreen: Forgive the following, good-natured rant in advance.

I'm an unabashed Journey fan and think Steve Perry's was the greatest male voice of the rock era (all due respect to my favorite rock songwriter and musician, Elton John). Neal Schon and Steve Smith are both in the upper echelons of virtuosity and musicianship within the rock world on their respective instruments.

I'm sure a lot of those associated with the Sopranos (including Stevie Van Zandt and Chase himelf) don't put much value on little details like a singer's intonation, timbre, phrasing, range, and vocal facility or in a songwriter's command of melody, harmony, and general musical aesthetics, else I don't think we would have gotten quite so much definitively ugly music on the show over the years and Van Zandt wouldn't have had much of a musical career at all.:icon_razz: But I'm happy that Tony Soprano's musical tastes, and not Van Zandt's or Chase's baser inclinations, won the day for the final scene. As Chase said, Tony is a classic rock guy and would have listened to Journey as a young adult. So if "Don't Stop Believing" is on permanent loop in Tony's hell, it's because he preferred it to an eternal bombardment from Dylan, Springsteen, or some other musically-challenged artist with a cooler reputation in certain circles.:icon_mrgreen:

[conkom]

For some reason I thought the black sequence that opened the pilot episode was longer than normal which gave the series a symmetry especially as the first POV frame we see from Tony is a black statue of a naked female before the door opens to reveal Melfi. You are right after looking at some other episodes the black opening sequence is more or less the same length.

Regarding the song I wholeheartedly agree that it was a most appropriate choice for the last scene for all its significations and especially when it stops ironically at the line "Don't stop!"

I like to think that it might not have been Tony's choice. Anyone who has picked a song on a jukebox knows that more often than not you have to wait for others songs selected earlier by other patrons to do their run.

Or maybe he did pick it, although I think the track "All That You Dream" by Little Feat which was playing when he entered the diner was more Tony's (and Chase's?) taste of music.

Either way hearing the same track of your most favourite song for eternity would be hellish after a while.

[turangawaewae]

I kind of think that Tony's hell is to constantly relive the Holsten scene where he will literally be "looking over his shoulder" ad infinitum.

And think about it, imagine having to listen to "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey for eternity.

Scarey thought!

In my opinion, that is the crux of the connection to the myth of sysiphus(sp?) that Chase referred to. As Rich has pointed out in the past, Chase's techniques in Holsten may have been to show the life of fear Tony has to LIVE.
Tony's hell is to NOT get shot in Holsten's and to keep on living.

[turangawaewae]

By the way, if we are playing the hypothetical game, when Tony and his crew were in the safe house. Someone came in with an envelope and said it was light, some people are already kicking up to New York. In my opinion, that would have been the main motivation for Butchie, to keep up with the plan of "severing the head", especially after he starting getting a taste from the NJ envelopes.

[FlyOnMelfisWall]

I like to think that it might not have been Tony's choice. . . .

Or maybe he did pick it, although I think the track "All That You Dream" by Little Feat which was playing when he entered the diner was more Tony's (and Chase's?) taste of music.

Chase had some interesting comments post finale about the Journey choice. He first ran it by members of the crew that were riding around with him scouting locations, popping the song on the CD player as they drove. All kinds of exclamations of disbelief and disapproval greeted him, and he encouraged them to give it a chance and hear him out. He explained how the sequence would be shot and edited and said, after a while, people where tapping their feet and rocking out to it and saying "this is a great fucking song!"

That in a nutshell shows how Journey is really a guilty pleasure for a lot of folks and not something they want to admit to liking. Perhaps that's why Chase himself "defended" the Journey choice in an interview on the basis that "Tony is a classic rock guy" and would have listened to bands like Journey. Those are actually his words, not mine. That combined with the fact that that title was one of a handful Tony was considering on the jukebox makes it pretty clear that Tony chose the song.

I know what you mean about old fashioned jukeboxes that serve an entire restaurant. This one, however, was like those little TV sets you see at booths in Whataburger. Each table had its own private jukebox, so whatever Tony chose would immediately come up.

[conkom]

In my opinion, that is the crux of the connection to the myth of sysiphus(sp?) that Chase referred to. As Rich has pointed out in the past, Chase's techniques in Holsten may have been to show the life of fear Tony has to LIVE.
Tony's hell is to NOT get shot in Holsten's and to keep on living.

Camus imagined that despite the eternal monotony of his task, Sisyphus the ultimate absurd anti-hero was happy. Therefore in effect he accepts his condition. Unlike Rocky Valantine, Sisyphus was not bored with his fate. Therefore it was not hell.

If Tony did survive Holsten's I would think he might be thankful for being alive. His family are together, he seemed to have sorted out his differences with Carmella, AJ has come to terms with his problems, his daughter is about to get married to a handsome and successful young Italian-American. He clearly believes the threat from New York has been dealt with. His only real concern is a possible RICO indictment with Carlo testifying. But he probably thinks his lawyer might still get him out of it, like he had umpteen times before.

If anything there is a sense of complacency by which he is quite oblivious to the potential danger posed by the stranger in the member's only jacket.

It would be appropriately tragic in the classical sense (hubris perhaps?) that at a moment when he might finally be content with life Tony is killed.

Pussycat Dolls singing and dancing to "Sway" on an endless loop. Just an idle thought.

[conkom]

I know what you mean about old fashioned jukeboxes that serve an entire restaurant. This one, however, was like those little TV sets you see at booths in Whataburger. Each table had its own private jukebox, so whatever Tony chose would immediately come up.

In Sydney years ago there was a cafe which had jukeboxes at each table similar to Holsten's (and in Hillary's campaign clip). However the music played was not private as it was played through a single sound system. Your choice was still placed on a queue.

I do agree with you though, Tony probably did select the Journey song.

Buble's version of "Sway" is pretty good too. (Another idle thought!)

[turangawaewae]

The piano constantly hanging over Tony's head is his hell. Sure, like Sysiphus, he can find MOMENTS of happiness, but the piano still looms....

[badabellisima]

The point of the Sysiphus Myth is that Sys made peace with the whole deal, not just 'moments' while on the downhill run, etc.

And i guess i shouldn't be TOO surprised that a thread on the Sitdown has become yet another discussion of 'The Ending'! It just keeps us coming back!

[conkom]

The point of the Sysiphus Myth is that Sys made peace with the whole deal, not just 'moments' while on the downhill run, etc.

That was Camus' take on Sisyphus. On another level Tony's inability to break away from the cycle of violence and crime despite the several instances and life-changing events where he could have chosen to and redeem himself. For Tony the cycle of violence ended at the diner with a violent act.

On the other hand maybe Tony did make "peace with the whole deal" by which he resigned himself to his inevitable fate.


And i guess i shouldn't be TOO surprised that a thread on the Sitdown has become yet another discussion of 'The Ending'! It just keeps us coming back!

It might also be someone's version of hell.

Dean Martin's version of "Sway" would go down well. (Another idle thought!)

[badabellisima]

That was Camus' take on Sisyphus. On another level Tony's inability to break away from the cycle of violence and crime despite the several instances and life-changing events where he could have chosen to and redeem himself. For Tony the cycle of violence ended at the diner with a violent act.

On the other hand maybe Tony did make "peace with the whole deal" by which he resigned himself to his inevitable fate.




It might also be someone's version of hell.

Dean Martin's version of "Sway" would go down well. (Another idle thought!)

Whaddaya mean Camus' "take"?! He's the guy who wrote it! And he directly explains his take on it in his essay! And most importantly, Chase directly referenced it in terms of understanding the final episode!

Re, the Dean Martin Sway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsgL35RCGcc

Huh?!! :confused:

[conkom]

Camus didn't create the myth of Sisyphus. He wrote a philisophical treatise in 1942 where he likened modern man's condition with the the punishment handed by the gods to the mythical king of Corinth.

Camus' absurdist perspective is but one of a long line of interpretations of this myth. Robert Graves accounts for a lot of them in his "Greek Myths" volumes.

Chase refers to Camus' "take" I won't argue but I did suggest that Tony "accepts" being part of the gangster cycle (Kevin Finity - Kev Infinity) even though he was given the option of breaking away. But I don't think Chase is commending Tony for his apparent contentedness.

Tony might have "made peace with the whole deal" but that doesn't redeem him for his crimes. And I do not think that Chase had any intent of doing that either.

Perhaps therein lies the answer as to who really had Tony 86ed.

Of course had Tony chosen to play Dino on the jukebox he might have survived the night (idle thought!).

[badabellisima]

Chase has specifically stated there was no connection between Kevin Finnerty's name and the term "infinity".

re- these various 'idle thoughts'. Sounds just a tiny bit like you are inferring that you have some inside knowledge or understanding about who "really" had Tony killed (per your take on the ending), and you want others to drag it out of you, somewhat like the discourse we all had over the inside knowledge you thought you posessed regarding which door the courtier chose in "The Lady or The Tiger" tale. If so, i will spare myself the game of the long discourse and just ask you to plainly put out your thesis up front (in the proper thread). Could be an interesting discussion! :icon_wink:

[conkom]

Sorry bada, no inside information here. More to do with musical tastes following a discussion with fly. What would be a preferable song to have to listen to on an endless loop in hell?

But I do agree Journey's song was most appropriate "swan song" for Tony and the series.

I have seen the interview regarding Chase's comments on Kevin Finnerty but I think this is one more time he was playing it coy (though he always denies it), like he was about the Russian in "Pine Barrens".

For all intents and purposes Tony is "dead" as a character but more importantly as a fictional construct. 86ed, so to speak. The Sopranos universe is over.

But I also think Chase has left an opening which he might exploit if he does end up making a Sopranos movie and then we can be sure that Tony wasn't killed that night at Holsten's. The Sopranos universe sans Christopher and Bobby, perhaps without Silvio and Junior, is back. At a cinema near you.

And like you I will be waiting with anticipation (but some trepidation) in a queue to see it.

[turangawaewae]

Tony might have "made peace with the whole deal" but that doesn't redeem him for his crimes. And I do not think that Chase had any intent of doing that either.



Didn't Chase say in an interview "he didn't want to show crime pays, and he didn't want to show crime didn't pay" hence the subjective rather than difinitive ending?

[conkom]

Didn't Chase say in an interview "he didn't want to show crime pays, and he didn't want to show crime didn't pay" hence the subjective rather than difinitive ending?


Yes this was true throughout the series there was quite a deliberate ambivelence towards Tony's means of earning a living. Which was what the whole show was about.

Tony's demise isn't necessarily about him getting his "just desserts" but an inevitable outcome from living the rather dangerous life of a gangster. Both the innocent and the guilty are part of this cycle of crime and death.

Tony spent his life chasing his luck. In the end his luck ran out.

[dsweeney]

Well said conkom.David Chase didn't want a cliched "crime doesn't pay" ending with a Scarface-like bloodbath (Mink trying and failing to get Tomato ketchuo out of the bottle is a nod to this I think) but that doesn't mean Tony gets out alive.There were two attempts on his life already and to survive again would be ridiculous.He may be street smart but he's not Superman.The violent world he lives in could only lead to one conclusion-he's gone. Like he says himself "there are only two kinds of endings for a high-profile guy like me,dead or in the can".We know he's not in jail so....