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??