Written by:
Jonathan Kleier
Under the guidance of David Chase, The Sopranos as an epic has influenced the very fabric of television programming, and further. The NY Times reported shortly after the show's finale that "writers of other hot series were watching," and explicitly stated the extreme influence of cutting-to-black had on profound superstar writers of series like Lost, and many others.
But this isn't particularly the influence I refer to. I think writers of Lost see this as an opportunity to be lazy -- an opportunity to let the audience decide the show's ending, it's a cop-out. You, J.J. are the writer and I want you to decide the ending, I, as the audience, do not want that responsibility because simply, it is your show, story and vision. Not mine. Conclude definitively, please.
The Sopranos influence I refer to is far more profound. There's the cliche in writing stories, "if you show a gun in Act 1, that gun damn well better show up in Act 3, and preferably as a major plot point. In other words, the conventional thinking is that every word, every object, every action must -- no matter what -- ultimately effect the 3rd Act or effect the following scene, which must effect the next scene, until ultimately it ends at the same outcome of, it better relate to ACT 3.
The Sopranos, David Chase and HBO, I feel, both followed this convention, yet they broke it in ways not previously done in mainstream storytelling -- successfully. Underrated in The Sopranos was the meticulous, pacing, misdirection, etc.? How can you make the great scenes impact the audience without adequately pacing (whether slowly or not) previous scenes. The writers understood tension and they were superb. To bash certain episodes or certain parts of a given episode as too slow is to, in my opinion, not appreciate that the pacing and the craft of slowing and speeding it is tough. Perhaps the fast action scenes would not be as impactful as they were had certain other scenes not been "slow."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Chase's Cut-to-Black: 1 Year Later
Jonathan Kleier
08/15/2008
As is widely known, The Sopranos concluded with an obscure, rare, and maddening cut-to-black -- mid-scene. Indeed, at the time, Chase's bizarre choice of edit was baffling, meaningfully unclear, and confusing with respect to its intent.
But after one year of Chase's bizarre cut-to-black, after allowing that jarring moment its year to marinade in my brain, perhaps there is meaning. I intend to extract meaning from that infamous last scene, new meaning that most, myself included, didn't have the capacity to understand 1 year ago.
What did Chase intend to say when he abruptly and unconventional cut-to-black? Certainly, we the audience will never ever know the real answer – perhaps not even Chase himself has that solved. However, after a year of thoughts festering, the cut-to-black began seeping into my brain and it developed -- in a weird way -- in me, a somewhat life-changing outlook on the world.
While I do not believe that Tony is dead, I do believe that The Sopranos is dead -- and it dies abruptly and without warning.
Soon after, a close friend of mine died... abruptly, and without warning. Hit by a bus never to again exist in this world.
The world is indifferent and unknowable; it does not care about life or emotion, it just turns and turns as we go on day to day. Though it can be said that much of life is predictable, which it is, -- we wake up every day, go to work, sit at the same desk, do the same monotonous tasks, brush our teeth, take a shower, then go to bed. Then we wake 6 hours later and repeat. We go to lunch at places that we know what to expect and when we get the unexpected, we frown. And this is why McDonalds is what it is.
When one dines at McDonald's, no matter what state or country, we have an expectation that we can accurately predict that our Big Mac will always be the same Big Mac served to us locally -- and it always is the same. Predictability is comforting in this way, it is routine, it is knowing what to expect in a world that changes quickly and a world where we cannot always exert our control.
So, The Sopranos conclusion ruffled some feathers. It did not finish in any predictable way. If I were a betting person, I would bet that zero viewers in the whole world would have predicted Chase's ending. Thus, we as viewers felt a little uncomfortable. Chase did not give the typical happy Hollywood ending, the predictable one.
08/15/2008
As is widely known, The Sopranos concluded with an obscure, rare, and maddening cut-to-black -- mid-scene. Indeed, at the time, Chase's bizarre choice of edit was baffling, meaningfully unclear, and confusing with respect to its intent.
But after one year of Chase's bizarre cut-to-black, after allowing that jarring moment its year to marinade in my brain, perhaps there is meaning. I intend to extract meaning from that infamous last scene, new meaning that most, myself included, didn't have the capacity to understand 1 year ago.
What did Chase intend to say when he abruptly and unconventional cut-to-black? Certainly, we the audience will never ever know the real answer – perhaps not even Chase himself has that solved. However, after a year of thoughts festering, the cut-to-black began seeping into my brain and it developed -- in a weird way -- in me, a somewhat life-changing outlook on the world.
While I do not believe that Tony is dead, I do believe that The Sopranos is dead -- and it dies abruptly and without warning.
Soon after, a close friend of mine died... abruptly, and without warning. Hit by a bus never to again exist in this world.
The world is indifferent and unknowable; it does not care about life or emotion, it just turns and turns as we go on day to day. Though it can be said that much of life is predictable, which it is, -- we wake up every day, go to work, sit at the same desk, do the same monotonous tasks, brush our teeth, take a shower, then go to bed. Then we wake 6 hours later and repeat. We go to lunch at places that we know what to expect and when we get the unexpected, we frown. And this is why McDonalds is what it is.
When one dines at McDonald's, no matter what state or country, we have an expectation that we can accurately predict that our Big Mac will always be the same Big Mac served to us locally -- and it always is the same. Predictability is comforting in this way, it is routine, it is knowing what to expect in a world that changes quickly and a world where we cannot always exert our control.
So, The Sopranos conclusion ruffled some feathers. It did not finish in any predictable way. If I were a betting person, I would bet that zero viewers in the whole world would have predicted Chase's ending. Thus, we as viewers felt a little uncomfortable. Chase did not give the typical happy Hollywood ending, the predictable one.
The good guy did not win, per say. In fact, we have little idea who in fact did "win." Did anyone even "win"? Who exactly was the “good guy”? Tony? Because we know him, or Dr. Melfi? The F.B.I.? Try figuring it out.
And the lesson I learned from the abrupt conclusion is that anything in the world can come to an end. No warning, no indication. People sadly can just drop dead with a brain aneurism, undetectable to the best doctors. The Sopranos, autered by David Chase, is undoubtedly the greatest television show/novel/film yet to be written. College classes will form so that deeper readings can take place, and millions will, regardless of college, will engage in their own deep reading.
Thank you Mr. Chase for demonstrating with simply a canvas and words, multi-dimensional characters, and a show we love and cannot forget, thank you for instilling in me and millions that nothing is safe. To me, I have learned an important lesson: cherish every minute with your friends and your loved ones, because the world is simply too unpredictable and the cut-to-black can come to anyone and anytime, without warning, without indication or signal. It can just end, period.
Written by Jonathan Kleier
jonathankleier@gmail.com
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why this Charade Exists
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)
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)