I'm Not Crazy. Adam Salm, future DDS, is... He's my ghostwriter. Anyone one offended, it was him. I'm a nice guy. So here's how this game came to be:
Many months ago, I googled my name, you know, to see what's out there. There wasn't much. In the top ten search results, only one of them was me. Well, apparently I owed a collection agency $10's and they decided to pursue a way to get that 10, though, I wonder why they neglected to just contact me. I mean, I contacted them which I thought the courteous thing to do. I only wish that this had been a legitimate company, oh well that could act in good faith; but they refused.
These are the things that can cause much unwanted effects. If I'm sending my resume to a few companies, I presume an obligatory googling of names. This $10 nightmare could kill me. If your hiring, what does this debt signal? Responsibility????
I was scared. So, I made a note to self: Get this thing off of Google and do it now with swift and decisive swordsmanlike movement. Rhis is not simple. I mean, Google isn't known as a company that's easy to get a phone call into. I could politely ask Google to help me, sure, but pragmatism is important.
So I took my own action. I'm on a mission they say is impossible, but once I swing my sword it's all choppable. Light Bulb... I know!
#2 Well The Sopranos final season was just underway and let's just say that the show is familiar to me. Or is it me who's familiar with the show? Yes.
So I wrote and wrote, and as the writing piled up, so too did my name move up the ranks of Google's omniscient Search results. And I wrote more and more and more until that collection agency no longer existed in Google; just my Sopranos blog which rambled on and on, similar to what I'm doing here.
Anyway, future friends, I'm not a leech, I'm a psychotic H.B.O. Stalker, one who has been vindicated. Mission accomp...
Now I control my name for searches (well, to an extent). Damn it feels good to be a gangster.
I hope that all those who contributed had fun, and I hope we were able to provide insight. Thank you to anyone who read and participated, especially my beautiful and lovely sisters, Samantha Kleier Forbes and Sabrina Kleier Morgenstern.
Jonathan Kleier (Ghostwritten by Adam Salm, Clifford's Son)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Black as Symbol of Death! Tony's Dead!
Wow, those symbols, so subtle we almost miss them. I just noticed there was a cat?? Must have meant Christopher haunting from the grave.
A conversation came to mind the other day. It occurred in the 2nd season. I am quoting loosely... A.J. is trying to interpret some literary tale for a school paper, and he can't understand it. Meadow tells him, "Snow, get it? Snow is white. White means death."
A.J. responds, "I thought black is death?"
Meadow says, sometimes it is, not always, and sometimes sometimes white is birth, it all depends. It was, at the time an interesting discussion, self-conscious of the show.
In light of The Sopranos conclusion, Chase may have really manipulated symbolism, implying meaning when there was none. Of course, symbolism is that, symbols for other things they might represent, and so symbolism is very much in the viewers' perception.
However, Chase certainly made the audience hyper-aware that he was aware of symbolism. It seemed to make sense that the audience deduce the show, too, could be read and mined like classic literature has been. Unfortunately, it seems, Chase and team abused the audience's willingness to believe. Even to the end, somehow he did it with that cat, all sarcasm earlier aside. A lot of people have asked what the cat means, as we've been so obediently trained to wonder these things by Chase. It was probably a big nothing.
Jonathan Kleier
A conversation came to mind the other day. It occurred in the 2nd season. I am quoting loosely... A.J. is trying to interpret some literary tale for a school paper, and he can't understand it. Meadow tells him, "Snow, get it? Snow is white. White means death."
A.J. responds, "I thought black is death?"
Meadow says, sometimes it is, not always, and sometimes sometimes white is birth, it all depends. It was, at the time an interesting discussion, self-conscious of the show.
In light of The Sopranos conclusion, Chase may have really manipulated symbolism, implying meaning when there was none. Of course, symbolism is that, symbols for other things they might represent, and so symbolism is very much in the viewers' perception.
However, Chase certainly made the audience hyper-aware that he was aware of symbolism. It seemed to make sense that the audience deduce the show, too, could be read and mined like classic literature has been. Unfortunately, it seems, Chase and team abused the audience's willingness to believe. Even to the end, somehow he did it with that cat, all sarcasm earlier aside. A lot of people have asked what the cat means, as we've been so obediently trained to wonder these things by Chase. It was probably a big nothing.
Jonathan Kleier
Monday, June 18, 2007
What is the Text? How Should The Sopranos be Read?
Jonathan Kleier
What can be considered the "text" of some work of art? Do the commentaries from The Sopranos DVDs -- from Chase, or other writers and directors -- does their commentary become part of the art? Certainly, I have heard "revelations" on these DVDs or at least statements that do add or alter some meaning of what is shown on screen. And, thus, must we purchase DVDs, lest we miss out on the "real" meanings? I don't think DVD purchase should be required. What happens on Sunday nights during that original airing, that is the text, because that is what viewers have bought. HBO never said that DVD purchases are required for full understanding. In other words, the author's commentary is meaningless in that it cannot add or alter anything.
Chase's day-after-finale interview he gave us, "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there." Well, I admire the hell out of David Chase and am grateful for what he has given us for 8 years, but his decision to conclude with a mid scene cut-to-black is a`bizarre gimmick ending. A story must end, I cannot understand otherwise. Is it acceptable for a novel in its final chapter to end mid sentence, followed by 4 blank pages? It needs to end, no matter how it does it, it needs to end somehow. The Sopranos does not end, and Chase's decision to do this needs to be scrutinized.
Especially,with that said, it is not all there in front of us, despite Chase's claim. There is not any ending. Arguments, plausibly, can be made for almost anything to have occurred in the blackout, and so fine, if it's all there, I guess perhaps his definition of "all" is that all possible outcomes are there -- choose one. Unfortunately, I had hoped that Chase would be the one to choose the ending, or an ending. I do not want to choose the ending; it is not my show and perhaps had HBO paid me millions, perhaps, I would have dreamed something up. It would not, however, be Chase's ending, the only one that matters.
While Chase's interview is interesting, it's irrelevant in terms of the show's meaning. Chase is not part of the show's text, and I don't believe most of his "insights," ever, nor many other author's. Partly because I think they deliberately lie or are vague, or because perhaps the author's subconscious is responsible for some of the text, and even he or she cannot know what is meant.
Anyway, Chase's first quotation from the article, about his final scene, "I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting, or adding to what is there." Then why are doing an interview where you defend the end of the show?
Thanks for the help.Personally, I'm glad Chase said nothing, to me, the text should reveal its meaning, not the author. But why, why give an interview? Chase, with his bizarre cut to black sucked most attention away from the text, Tony, and aimed it at himself. So many wonder, why did you do that Chase? Why, Chase, didn't you provide something of some sort of ending? let Meadow walk in, perhaps sit, fade out with a nice dissolve over meaningful music, and life goes on. Or, show Tony dead, or show anything, just so long as a proper fade out is provided. Instead, he provided nothing. Black. The majority of viewers thought,rightfully so, that the cable went out. Why would Chase want the audience to not even realize. Just blackness without sound, perhaps there is symbolism in the black. Black is death, no?
In a way, Chase seems to have used symbols for the sake of using them and therefore abusing them. Throughout 6 seasons, so many seeming "clues." Symbolism is always risky to interpret, but it is used often and often by the best writers of literature, and these authors do it in some sort of honest way. But Chase gave symbolism, hinted some meaning, then later hinted some other meaning, then said, no I was kidding, first time I meant it. Actually, it wasn't symbols, it was part of the plot, and now people wonder what the cat symbolizes...
So what constitutes text? The show's end credits? Pointing out that the man in the "Members Only," obviously a "hint" (though, is it relevant because the show doesn't end and we will never know. The title episode of the 6th Season's Opener is "Member's Only." In that episode, outside Satriales, Vito (I think) asks one of the rats -- either Ray Curto or Eugene specifically about the "member's only" jacket.
So, then the cut to black was not the end of the series? If the end credits had information, pertinent to the scene, then that's part of the text? Almost the entirety of the theory that Tony dies is linked to that credit.
Since the end credit's are a part of the text, can we consider the "Scenes from Next Week" as well? How about HBO's spokesman, speaking to Reuters, said that the flashback in the penultimate episode is a very "legitimate" theory. As evidence, the article quotes, incorrectly, the flashback's dialogue, "At the end, you probably don't hear anything, everything just goes black." To be clear, this is a complete misquote. Bobby says, "You'll probably never hear it when it happens." No mention of anything going "black." Why is HBO deliberately misleading its audience?
It's so trendy to say at this point, but to quote the New York Magazine titled article, it seems like a "long con." In time, I hope that is found untrue. The Sopranos does stand as a series, with meaning, every episode, every season. Every scene written with craft and calculation, every gesture revealing intent. Even the final episode was quite wonderful,if only Chase would tell weather it ended. Cut-to-black, credits? Chase's interview??
What can be considered the "text" of some work of art? Do the commentaries from The Sopranos DVDs -- from Chase, or other writers and directors -- does their commentary become part of the art? Certainly, I have heard "revelations" on these DVDs or at least statements that do add or alter some meaning of what is shown on screen. And, thus, must we purchase DVDs, lest we miss out on the "real" meanings? I don't think DVD purchase should be required. What happens on Sunday nights during that original airing, that is the text, because that is what viewers have bought. HBO never said that DVD purchases are required for full understanding. In other words, the author's commentary is meaningless in that it cannot add or alter anything.
Chase's day-after-finale interview he gave us, "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there." Well, I admire the hell out of David Chase and am grateful for what he has given us for 8 years, but his decision to conclude with a mid scene cut-to-black is a`bizarre gimmick ending. A story must end, I cannot understand otherwise. Is it acceptable for a novel in its final chapter to end mid sentence, followed by 4 blank pages? It needs to end, no matter how it does it, it needs to end somehow. The Sopranos does not end, and Chase's decision to do this needs to be scrutinized.
Especially,with that said, it is not all there in front of us, despite Chase's claim. There is not any ending. Arguments, plausibly, can be made for almost anything to have occurred in the blackout, and so fine, if it's all there, I guess perhaps his definition of "all" is that all possible outcomes are there -- choose one. Unfortunately, I had hoped that Chase would be the one to choose the ending, or an ending. I do not want to choose the ending; it is not my show and perhaps had HBO paid me millions, perhaps, I would have dreamed something up. It would not, however, be Chase's ending, the only one that matters.
While Chase's interview is interesting, it's irrelevant in terms of the show's meaning. Chase is not part of the show's text, and I don't believe most of his "insights," ever, nor many other author's. Partly because I think they deliberately lie or are vague, or because perhaps the author's subconscious is responsible for some of the text, and even he or she cannot know what is meant.
Anyway, Chase's first quotation from the article, about his final scene, "I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting, or adding to what is there." Then why are doing an interview where you defend the end of the show?
Thanks for the help.Personally, I'm glad Chase said nothing, to me, the text should reveal its meaning, not the author. But why, why give an interview? Chase, with his bizarre cut to black sucked most attention away from the text, Tony, and aimed it at himself. So many wonder, why did you do that Chase? Why, Chase, didn't you provide something of some sort of ending? let Meadow walk in, perhaps sit, fade out with a nice dissolve over meaningful music, and life goes on. Or, show Tony dead, or show anything, just so long as a proper fade out is provided. Instead, he provided nothing. Black. The majority of viewers thought,rightfully so, that the cable went out. Why would Chase want the audience to not even realize. Just blackness without sound, perhaps there is symbolism in the black. Black is death, no?
In a way, Chase seems to have used symbols for the sake of using them and therefore abusing them. Throughout 6 seasons, so many seeming "clues." Symbolism is always risky to interpret, but it is used often and often by the best writers of literature, and these authors do it in some sort of honest way. But Chase gave symbolism, hinted some meaning, then later hinted some other meaning, then said, no I was kidding, first time I meant it. Actually, it wasn't symbols, it was part of the plot, and now people wonder what the cat symbolizes...
So what constitutes text? The show's end credits? Pointing out that the man in the "Members Only," obviously a "hint" (though, is it relevant because the show doesn't end and we will never know. The title episode of the 6th Season's Opener is "Member's Only." In that episode, outside Satriales, Vito (I think) asks one of the rats -- either Ray Curto or Eugene specifically about the "member's only" jacket.
So, then the cut to black was not the end of the series? If the end credits had information, pertinent to the scene, then that's part of the text? Almost the entirety of the theory that Tony dies is linked to that credit.
Since the end credit's are a part of the text, can we consider the "Scenes from Next Week" as well? How about HBO's spokesman, speaking to Reuters, said that the flashback in the penultimate episode is a very "legitimate" theory. As evidence, the article quotes, incorrectly, the flashback's dialogue, "At the end, you probably don't hear anything, everything just goes black." To be clear, this is a complete misquote. Bobby says, "You'll probably never hear it when it happens." No mention of anything going "black." Why is HBO deliberately misleading its audience?
It's so trendy to say at this point, but to quote the New York Magazine titled article, it seems like a "long con." In time, I hope that is found untrue. The Sopranos does stand as a series, with meaning, every episode, every season. Every scene written with craft and calculation, every gesture revealing intent. Even the final episode was quite wonderful,if only Chase would tell weather it ended. Cut-to-black, credits? Chase's interview??
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Cut to Black: Why?
Apparently every major newspaper and critic think that Chase's end cut to black, with no music or credits, is supposed to mean that Tony was shot and killed. This is in the New York Times, New York Post, and on.
OK, I guess this theory was well thought out (probably not, though), but I just don't think that's what happened.
The Sopranos has been using a lot of cinematic editing tricks lately, and I think that's all this scene was: some bizarre editing. Actually very bizarre...
In the last scene, Tony walks into the diner, wearing a dark colored jacket, and a shirt. The camera is on Tony, he looks around the diner where the camera shows Tony Soprano
sitting at a table, in a slightly different outfit.
In other words, Tony walks into diner, surveys the area, and Tony "sees"
Tony sitting at a table in the diner. I put "sees" like that because Tony doesn't necessarily see himself. But we do. This isn't novel in any way. It's standard shot-reverse-shot editing that viewers are "trained" to understand from the thousands of films we've watched. Chase subverts the tradition, and he edits to confuse, manipulate and play with the audience. How 'bout that? Were there actually two Tony's? An alternate universe as has been mentioned in this final season? Was Kevin Finnerty Tony Soprano's coma dream, or some meta-physical other world? It seems obvious those are ridiculous thoughts, and I think they are. Yet in the Sopranos universe they play with that idea, occasionally. Here it was with clever editing.
Back to the shady truck driver and the two black guys. I think there's nothing to it, they are nobodies, and Chase edits his shots to seem like they might be someones. So the shots of the guy going to the bathroom, the 2 black guys, sure, anything is possible. But they edit like this often, comparing and contrasting, etc. and many times it is a manipulation to increase tension, and nothing else. Other times, 1 of the black guy's guns might all of a sudden be edited into the back of Tony's head. But that was not going to happen here.
Then again, they also concluded the show with an edit that, to my knowledge has never
ever been used like that. They seem to like using editing to confuse our perceptions, and they've done that for the whole series. Only the final cut to black was beyond what anyone could have ever expected or understood, maybe never will it be made clear what Chase meant. The end.
Jonathan Kleier
OK, I guess this theory was well thought out (probably not, though), but I just don't think that's what happened.
The Sopranos has been using a lot of cinematic editing tricks lately, and I think that's all this scene was: some bizarre editing. Actually very bizarre...
In the last scene, Tony walks into the diner, wearing a dark colored jacket, and a shirt. The camera is on Tony, he looks around the diner where the camera shows Tony Soprano
sitting at a table, in a slightly different outfit.
In other words, Tony walks into diner, surveys the area, and Tony "sees"
Tony sitting at a table in the diner. I put "sees" like that because Tony doesn't necessarily see himself. But we do. This isn't novel in any way. It's standard shot-reverse-shot editing that viewers are "trained" to understand from the thousands of films we've watched. Chase subverts the tradition, and he edits to confuse, manipulate and play with the audience. How 'bout that? Were there actually two Tony's? An alternate universe as has been mentioned in this final season? Was Kevin Finnerty Tony Soprano's coma dream, or some meta-physical other world? It seems obvious those are ridiculous thoughts, and I think they are. Yet in the Sopranos universe they play with that idea, occasionally. Here it was with clever editing.
Back to the shady truck driver and the two black guys. I think there's nothing to it, they are nobodies, and Chase edits his shots to seem like they might be someones. So the shots of the guy going to the bathroom, the 2 black guys, sure, anything is possible. But they edit like this often, comparing and contrasting, etc. and many times it is a manipulation to increase tension, and nothing else. Other times, 1 of the black guy's guns might all of a sudden be edited into the back of Tony's head. But that was not going to happen here.
Then again, they also concluded the show with an edit that, to my knowledge has never
ever been used like that. They seem to like using editing to confuse our perceptions, and they've done that for the whole series. Only the final cut to black was beyond what anyone could have ever expected or understood, maybe never will it be made clear what Chase meant. The end.
Jonathan Kleier
Nearly Identical to Last Season... Here's that Analysis
Jonathan Kleier
June 5th 2006This was written last year immediately following the season's finale (or as HBO calls it, Season 6A) It seems Season 6B was just a repeat. Sorry, I couldn't help putting this up. Chase is a mysterious man.
For the most recent Finale, here.
The Sopranos is essentially the only film or T.V. show with the balls to set-up major things and leave those things unresolved. And that's part of what makes this show so spectacular. But this time it was different. Maybe for the reasons of wasted time on unimportant characters, maybe because the show is winding down to its end, and here with the season finale, NOTHING happens, NOTHING important gets paid off. Not only not paid-off, but in fact nullified... War with New York? Nah, Phil has a heart attack. Fine, these things happen in real life. But drama need not and should not be reality, it does, though, need to be authentic. Such a coincidence is an unacceptable plot device. It's one thing if this were the first time a heart attack saved the day, but it's the 3rd that I count -- Carmine senior, the rat in the first episode of this season, and Phil. Each conveniently averting major disaster for Tony.
I'll say this, in retrospect, the only way this episode could have provided satisfaction is if either Chris, Paulie, Silvio, or Tony had died or been murdered. Not because of some primal urge for blood and guts as a lot of other fans might want, but because one of their deaths is both the logical climax, and the ultimate set-up for this bullshit "bonus" season.
This episode had no dramatic tension. No consequences (negative or positive). Just more of the same. More of the same bullshit. Christopher's identical 30 minutes of drug induced coma a month ago was boring, but because it was early in the season, there was potential for it to have meaning because of what it would eventually lead to, yet it didn't. Nothing happened.
And so on, no consequences for anyone. No consequences for Tony’s shooting, no mention of it. Tony has not changed. He has not and will not. He’s a Mob Boss, and that’s how he likes it.
It all comes down to Tony as he's the only character that matters. What defines a protagonist are the decisions he makes in the face of pressure or crisis. There was none of that last night. As opposed to, for example, season 5. Some would argue that the main dramatic tension was the penultimate episode where Adrianna is murdered. But really, that season's finale is what this show is all about, and the manifestation of it with Tony's coming to understand that he must act on his cousin or else face severe consequences from his crew, or from NY. He quarreled with it for a lot of the season, and completely resisted it up to the penultimate episode where he told Johny Sack to "go fuck himself." Then in the finale, after seeing his mistakes, and the mounting pressure from all sides, he makes a choice that goes against everything he wants, and blows a hole in his cousin's face.
This is similar to the Vito situation, but he got to keep his hands clean for that one. Which is fine, because the Vito thing was not the necessarily the drive of the season, but in light of the season finale, one wonders what was the point? Just to demonstrate more inaction by the only character, Tony, who by definition must be the one who perpetrates the action, yet does not. Phil does.
Chase has painted himself into a corner now. He set us up to think Christopher was gonna get it. It wouldn't have mattered if the set-up made it somewhat predictable, because no matter what, if Christopher were killed, it would have been utterly tragic and surprising no matter how much he has become irrelevant lately, he is 1 of 4 of the original crew that we have known for 7 years.
Paulie has faded into irrelevancy as well, but more tragically as he has cancer and looks to be dying anyway. Silvio is still a major player, and one who has always been loyal to Tony. So if he gets killed, that would be big, same with Tony. But that ship has sailed.
Now Phil is either dead, and thus the only connection we know of between NY and NJ is dead. Or Phil recovers, and his heart attack becomes a joke of a plot device. They might as well tell us that the whole show was a dream. Tony Soprano is really Kevin Finnerty, a patio salesman. There's misdirection (good film-making), and there's utterly fake, and inauthentic (the worst film making possible). (Bold below was added today).
Maybe that's how it will end, like it began. Tony's own family cannibalizing itself... Junior's ordering the hit on Tony, Tony retaliating and taking out Junior's entire crew, ultimately concluding the first season with a quaint family dinner on a stormy night.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sopranos Ending, Sabrina
From: Sabrina Kleier Morgenstern
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:54 PM
To: Jonathan Kleier; Robert Morgenstern; Samantha Kleier Forbes
Subject: RE: Sopranos ending...
In a way it was in fact neatly wrapped up with us getting a sense of what is to become of each of the important characters, except Tony. It is confirmed that Junior is either senile, or is so good at pretending that he is that noone will ever know otherwise. Janice is shown as the opportunist she has always been- dramatic in her lounge chair in her sprawling house with her hair and make up done up- she was always an opportunist and will continue to be -making the most of Bobby's death, the money she will try to get her hands on, and the (not really) joke of a new husband. Terrified for his future but nevertheless conceding to Tony's offer, Paulie will take on captain. AJ's future seems to be clear-- in theory he might be depressed and anxious to do something for the world, but when it comes down to it driving a beamer, dating a model and being supported by his parents is certainly more convenient. Carmella will do her real estate and Meadow will become a wife and attorney. The big question mark, is Tony. Will he, like the eeery cat, have 9 lives? We certainly thought he was going down by the way the second to last episode ended but, now, here he is, noshing at an old fashioned diner with his family (do you remember when he said to his family "Out there it might be 2000 but in this family it is 1950). The very obvious song blasting seemed to suggest that ("Don't Stop Believing"). Will he be brought down by Carlos? Or one of the suspicious and menacing patrons at the restaurant? Or might he exist in alternate universes with different endings (Kevin Finnerty certainly alludes to that and I think that the Twilight Zone was playing in the background of the safe house)?
Sabrina Kleier Morgenstern
Executive Vice President
Gumley Haft Kleier
415 Madison Avenue, 5th floor
New York, New York 10017
P- 212-371-2525 x300
F- 212-202-5146
sabrina@ghkrealty.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:54 PM
To: Jonathan Kleier; Robert Morgenstern; Samantha Kleier Forbes
Subject: RE: Sopranos ending...
In a way it was in fact neatly wrapped up with us getting a sense of what is to become of each of the important characters, except Tony. It is confirmed that Junior is either senile, or is so good at pretending that he is that noone will ever know otherwise. Janice is shown as the opportunist she has always been- dramatic in her lounge chair in her sprawling house with her hair and make up done up- she was always an opportunist and will continue to be -making the most of Bobby's death, the money she will try to get her hands on, and the (not really) joke of a new husband. Terrified for his future but nevertheless conceding to Tony's offer, Paulie will take on captain. AJ's future seems to be clear-- in theory he might be depressed and anxious to do something for the world, but when it comes down to it driving a beamer, dating a model and being supported by his parents is certainly more convenient. Carmella will do her real estate and Meadow will become a wife and attorney. The big question mark, is Tony. Will he, like the eeery cat, have 9 lives? We certainly thought he was going down by the way the second to last episode ended but, now, here he is, noshing at an old fashioned diner with his family (do you remember when he said to his family "Out there it might be 2000 but in this family it is 1950). The very obvious song blasting seemed to suggest that ("Don't Stop Believing"). Will he be brought down by Carlos? Or one of the suspicious and menacing patrons at the restaurant? Or might he exist in alternate universes with different endings (Kevin Finnerty certainly alludes to that and I think that the Twilight Zone was playing in the background of the safe house)?
Sabrina Kleier Morgenstern
Executive Vice President
Gumley Haft Kleier
415 Madison Avenue, 5th floor
New York, New York 10017
P- 212-371-2525 x300
F- 212-202-5146
sabrina@ghkrealty.com
Samantha's Idea of Finale's Meaning
From: Samantha Kleier Forbes
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Jonathan Kleier; Sabrina Kleier Morgenstern; Robert Morgenstern; 'jpforbes@sunshinegroup.com'
Subject: Re: Sopranos ending...
I think that it actually did end, with the family back together, Phil being killed, Tony announcing he is to be indicted... But the key was that the family was back together. Then suddenly, with the fade to black, Chase makes us question whether it did indeed end (and it seemed, then, in light of the blackness, that it didn't... That meadow seemed to be running in to tell them something, or that they were going to be killed (all the weird angles, tony sitting there by himself, the focus on each character at the restaurant - as though chase was telling us to watch those people, they have some significance - the air was so heavy in the final scene. I felt when that scene began, and he was scrolling the juke box, and he puts on "don't stop believing" and then Carmela comes in, and then AJ (and I didn't look at the time the whole episode because I didn't want to be focused on the fact that there was 20 or 1 minute left - what was going to happen?) - I felt and even said to JP this is the end. But then all the focus on meadow not being able to park, and then her running in with that look, and then the very last shot of chase looking at her, and then the sudden blackness - well that seemed to say this didn't end. Maybe what chase was doing was saying - yours - the viewers- experience with the sopranos is ending- but theirs is not ending. Their life is going on. (Hopefully also he left us open for a movie...)
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Jonathan Kleier; Sabrina Kleier Morgenstern; Robert Morgenstern; 'jpforbes@sunshinegroup.com'
Subject: Re: Sopranos ending...
I think that it actually did end, with the family back together, Phil being killed, Tony announcing he is to be indicted... But the key was that the family was back together. Then suddenly, with the fade to black, Chase makes us question whether it did indeed end (and it seemed, then, in light of the blackness, that it didn't... That meadow seemed to be running in to tell them something, or that they were going to be killed (all the weird angles, tony sitting there by himself, the focus on each character at the restaurant - as though chase was telling us to watch those people, they have some significance - the air was so heavy in the final scene. I felt when that scene began, and he was scrolling the juke box, and he puts on "don't stop believing" and then Carmela comes in, and then AJ (and I didn't look at the time the whole episode because I didn't want to be focused on the fact that there was 20 or 1 minute left - what was going to happen?) - I felt and even said to JP this is the end. But then all the focus on meadow not being able to park, and then her running in with that look, and then the very last shot of chase looking at her, and then the sudden blackness - well that seemed to say this didn't end. Maybe what chase was doing was saying - yours - the viewers- experience with the sopranos is ending- but theirs is not ending. Their life is going on. (Hopefully also he left us open for a movie...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)