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.
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...)
Chase and What's His Statement
Jonathan Kleier
The episode shown last night, if it had been any other time in the series (i.e. earlier in the season or another season), it would be an outstanding episode. But there was something, as a series finale of the greatest show in the medium’s history, there was something that didn’t feel right. There was nothing special. It was just another episode. Some might like that, and indeed Chase probably did this with great calculation. It disappointed, though. But maybe anything would have.
I think had they edited the final scene in a more traditional way, we might not be talking about this. But the fact that they literally went to total black – for many seconds – I think that editing decision altered my perception of the entire show, and I can’t figure out yet why Chase did it, I can't figure out if it is brilliant, if it is dumb, maby it was lazy, maybe it all makes sense. I don’t know. It just doesn't make sense in any way that I can tell.
Maybe David Chase just didn’t know how to end this series. After all, Samantha and I had been discussing how we could watch this series every week forever and still enjoy it. Maybe this series has no ending and therefore how does one end a series that is un-endable? But thousands of years have gone into studying storytelling – a beginning, middle, end. But we didn’t get an end in any traditional sense. Certainly, storylines were tied up and concluded, but still, it seems Chase chose to fly in the face of all traditional storytelling theory and give us a non-ending ending. Yet, as an audience, there must be a definitive ending, etc., we need it, and we didn’t get it last night.
I really do not know what Chase intended to achieve by edited the final scenes the way he did, but perhaps, after things sink in, maybe we will come to appreciate it.
I entered last night wondering, “What is Chase going to say? What profound comment on society or life will Chase show us, the audience." He has the stage to do this, with the whole world watching. Surely an artist like Chase has things to say about life, and he has made many of these statements throughout the series. But as the FINAL Final episode, I had expected to get a much clearer understanding of his message. Possibly I am knee-jerking, but I cannot figure out what this show means or what to take away from it. Chase always seemed to have some opinion, although often times it seemed he himself wasn't quite sure what the answers of life are. I wanted him to give us some meaning, a view that the world hadn't seen yet. He didn't do that, and I’m guessing many others feel as I feel.
Life goes on, we know. Life is messy. Chase likes to make that point, repeatedly. However, there is a grammar, so to say, a clearly established structural method to tell a dramatic story layed out by Aristotle and refined over the a few millennia. Chase may understand his decision, but I think maybe even he is unsure why he edited it as he did. As a writer, there's no one better than Chase... however, perhaps he should have allowed a more seasoned director handle the finale of the greatest series yet seen.
Friday, May 11, 2007
"Remember When" as end of Act 1 Season 7
Jonathan Kleier
Originally written following week 3 of the season, "Remember When." However, for posterity...
With this episode, I think The Sopranos end is shaping up. I see obvious connections to the season's first episode, and the ripples that follow all the way back. No doubt complexities abound, but there is an emerging theme we cannot ignore.
Very deliberately in 7.1 "Sopranos Home Movies" we're told that Bobby has not popped his cherry, and then that point is driven home when we witness Bobbie's popping his cherry. In 7.3 we are for the first time made aware of Tony's cherry popping. More importantly, the circumstance: Tony's father orchestrating it. In 3.13 Tony expresses sincerely that he A.J. will not be lead down this path. In somewhat parallel, Tony decides that his (other) son, Chris will take the Family into the new Millennium.
Chris is a drug addict. He was even high when Tony told him that he would become Boss. He was high later when Tony called him to dispose of Ralphie. That was, more or less, the end of Chris as potential leader. Not that Tony explicitally telegraphs it, but I'm sure Chris still believes that he can be Boss. For us the audience, it's assumed Tony simply reassessed the situation, checked his mental list, and moved on.
In parallel Tony began to lose interest in A.J. In season 6 there was a glimmer of "I want a better life for my son" in his quite sincere speech post A.J.'s botched attempt at revenge on Junior. Then, Tony explicitly hates A.J. which is followed by A.J. landing a construction job. If Finn is any indicator, construction is bad news. Now A.J. works at a pizza parlor but doesn't go to work. As Carmela says in Test Dream, "the dye is cast."
So with issues of legacy, Tony must find someone that he can trust. Tony only trusts blood relatives, and unfortunately the only blood relative available is A.J.Tony is going to orchestrate a situation that will allow A.J.'s cherry to pop. Afterall, the ducks are back. Tony's greatest fear is losing his family (not clear blood or other) and his bread and butter is hooking "degenerates" and then milking them for the rest of their lives.
It's difficult to tell if Tony is malicious or simply a victim of circumstance. Tony's genes have mafia written all over them. Obviously, nurture considered, he had a pretty bleak and narrow path. He enjoys violence, he loves being on T.V., he loves that his kid's friends compare him to The Godfather. Tony is sinister, he likes being sinister, and will always be.
While Tony's moral compass has been eroding, it has stayed its lane. Tony mostly plays in his own walled garden of a universe. But increasingly, Tony is knowingly harming innocent civilians. I fear it will begin to and I fear Tony will maliciously punish A.J. in a way described above.
On the other hand, Tony has made some pretty good progress in his therapy. He has learned to control impulses (violent, at least) at that is the 2nd reason Tony continued the therapy. Panic attacks disappeared other than the David Chase psyche out blowjob.
I really do not want this because I really like Tony. Chase would damage my feelings, but dramatically it's all clean.
ADE Matters A lot:
Carmela will not drop the Adriana issue. Morality not the issue, if Carmela can prod enough and ultimately piece together Adriana's story, it will bring down the thin veil of "knowing" and now she will know murders, specifics. Tony has specifically never given Carmela any detail at all that could ever "make you an accessory after the fact."
She would now know details of Adriana's death, and in that process, becomes what Adriana was. A federal target. A candidate for murder, to prevent her becoming a federal target. FBI wanted Ade for much less.
If Carmela discovers that, an outsider like Adriana, who Carmela is almost the same as, is murdered; then Carmela realizes that Carmela can be murdered. Changes the whole dynamic I think.
She is already paranoid. In Season 6's premiere we see the montage sequence with William Burroughs "7 Souls" on top. Close to the end, Adriana and Carmela, with Ade puffing a cig and passing it to Carmela. Yeah, it's symbolism bullshit that I usually like to not discuss, but this time I cannot, given Carmela's persistence on the subject.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Sopranos Episode #82 "Walk Like a Man"
Jonathan Kleier
05.09.2007
Incomplete Rough for The Sopranos Episode #82
We have discussed Tony’s recent break in morality – his willingness to sell expired medication to innocent civilians, etc. However, it is very shocking that he spoke to agent Harris and in Harris’s words, Tony “cooperated.” The mafia does not cooperate with the government. I think it’s been made very clear that, despite Tony’s and the feds symbiotic, love-hate relationship, ratting is ratting. A few episodes ago when Harris confronted Tony in the driveway (it’s too dangerous, has been for years), Tony said in response, “There’s a word for that,” which I thought very obviously meant that word is rat.
Even more, Tony implicated Christopher. He told them one of his “associates” had provided some fake credit cards (he also sold them guns).
This storyline places us, the audience, in a moral dilemma. We love Tony and do not want to see him cooperate. To cooperate is to betray both his loyalty to his oath of the mafia, yet not to cooperate is disloyal to the thousands of innocents who would be victims to terror attacks.
Tony's Affinity for the Fearless:
Tony loves the tough, the strong silent type... he has an interesting obsession with Gary Cooper, the strong silent type. He was so impressed when Paulie showed balls to the Cubans in "Remember When." That’s who Tony is and always has been. He loves that Carlo Jr. and Patsy Jr. (whatever their names were, Jason, I think?) enjoyed the strippers, he loved that they “major in cash and minor in ass.” He wished AJ would major in ass. His advice on getting over depression was to get a blowjob. Tony is correct on a level. Certainly, the best cure for whatever AJ went through is to go hang out with his friends and find some girls.
And Tony’s idea of normal and good is certainly skewed. He was happy that Meadow was dating Jackie Jr. because at least Jackie Jr. was one of them and he came from “good stock.” However, by no means did Tony demonstrate wanting that type of life for Meadow. He values good stock, and as we see he values good genes.
It might be the same situation with Carlo Jr. and Patsi Jr. They are one of them, they come from, what Tony assumedly considers, good stock. So, the point is, it’s difficult to say if Tony was sending A.J. down the path of mobster or just encouraging him to hang out with what he considers normal kids. He definitely likes the traits that go with that path, majoring in cash, minoring in ass… being a man’s man, a masculine man; however, in Tony’s world, these personality traits are synonymous with the mafia career.
We also see again just how important gestures are to these people. Paulie, I think, tried to reconcile with Chris at the beginning of the episode when Paulie invited him to have a steak. Paulie even offered to pay for the steak – that is a big deal, historically for the two of them. A lot of their beef comes from a dinner where Paulie forced Chris to pay for a 1200 dollar meal. Which lead to an argument, which lead to their shooting and killing the waiter. However, Paulie’s joke that Chris’s daughter would one day be a stripper at the Bing, which seemed out of line. It went too far, but so too did Chris when he rejected the steak. When Ralphie rejected Tony’s offer for a drink it turned into a 2-episode plot line that added a lot to their beef.
With that said, Paulie very inappropriately terrorized Chris’s wife and child. It’s one thing to retaliate against Chris, but there has always been a wall between wives and children.
Let’s talk for a moment about who Christopher is. Christopher is, like most of these characters, very complex. He shows strength in circumstances many would not, yet he is a complete bitch (by Mafia standards) in others. For example, Adriana should be a non-issue. She was a rat and therefore Chris didn’t do anything noble by choosing Tony over Ade in "Long Term Parking." He merely did as he is expected. This mafia thing punishes disloyalty, but they do not necessarily reward loyalty because loyalty is a prerequisite for becoming a made guy. So it’s somewhat confusing why Chris makes an issue of this. It no doubt makes him look very weak. In this world, one’s spouse/girlfriend is mostly a direct reflection of the man. Men are supposed to keep their women under control and punish them when they get out of control. When Janice made the 5 o’clock news in season 4 or 5 for beating a civilian mother at Sophia’s (Bobby’s daughter) soccer game, Tony told Bobby that to get his wife under control. Christopher’s inability to control his woman, followed by his inability to punish her (he outsourced that to Tony/Silvio) is a reflection on his weakness of character.
On the other hand, in season 5's "Irregular Around The Margins," a rumor goes around that Ade went down on Tony. It leads Chris to empty a round of bullets into Tony’s SUV (balls). When Tony is about to shoot Chris in the head, Tony says something like, if you drop this, if you can tell me you believe I didn’t do this then we can all go home and be cool. If you cannot drop the issue, you are dead right now. Chris believed Tony was guilty and thus his refusal to say otherwise -- out of principle. He was ready to die defending his girl’s honor (very manly)… or it might be he was defending his honor; either way, he was very ready to die for that cause.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Salm's Response:
"radam@pobox.upenn.edu"
to: Jonathan Kleier
date: May 1, 2007 11:32 AM
subject : Re: sopranos
Anyone who enjoys Sopranos does so cause they love Tony Soprano. Very little
could undo that at this point. My take on this episode is that Tony is lacking
excitement in his life, and also his crime family is not meeting his
expectations. Both of these things will contribute to his willingness to
enter into a war with Phill and the NY family (especially the resurfacing
resentment he has to what phill did to the gay guy)
to: Jonathan Kleier
date: May 1, 2007 11:32 AM
subject : Re: sopranos
Anyone who enjoys Sopranos does so cause they love Tony Soprano. Very little
could undo that at this point. My take on this episode is that Tony is lacking
excitement in his life, and also his crime family is not meeting his
expectations. Both of these things will contribute to his willingness to
enter into a war with Phill and the NY family (especially the resurfacing
resentment he has to what phill did to the gay guy)
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Elliciting Response from Salm
Jonathan Kleier
to: radam@dental.upenn.edu
date: May 1, 2007 3:51 AM
subject sopranos
mailed-by klizer47@gmail.com
I'm gonna take a stab at how things might turn out... risky, but risk
is what's exciting right? I'll have some fun...
I have a thought that Tony is NOT falling apart. He is, in fact, very
tuned in and very very aware. "All my friends, Paulie, Chris, my
brother in law are murders" and they have an "agenda" that Tony seems
concerned with.
Also, the episode ends with what seems Tony settling his debt with
Hesh. A degenerate gambler doesn't pay in full that quickly. Tony
"chased it" while it was fun, got his high, then rethought things, got
himself together and wiped out his entire debt. That's the smart move.
He could have continued paying the vig each week, but that's what the
degenerate gambler would do. Tony is not.
Here's how things will unravel: we will be made to dislike Tony more
and more. We will see more and more "innocents" (Vito Jr., A.J., the
victims from the expired cancer medication that Tony bought from the
Canadians, etc.) whose life has been ruined by Tony, the mafia or
both. The writers started turning the audience against Tony in the
season premiere, and that has continued I think. By the end, I see
Chase turning the audience on Tony to a point where people will
strongly dislike TS.
At that point, Tony will walk away smiling, the big winner.
to: radam@dental.upenn.edu
date: May 1, 2007 3:51 AM
subject sopranos
mailed-by klizer47@gmail.com
I'm gonna take a stab at how things might turn out... risky, but risk
is what's exciting right? I'll have some fun...
I have a thought that Tony is NOT falling apart. He is, in fact, very
tuned in and very very aware. "All my friends, Paulie, Chris, my
brother in law are murders" and they have an "agenda" that Tony seems
concerned with.
Also, the episode ends with what seems Tony settling his debt with
Hesh. A degenerate gambler doesn't pay in full that quickly. Tony
"chased it" while it was fun, got his high, then rethought things, got
himself together and wiped out his entire debt. That's the smart move.
He could have continued paying the vig each week, but that's what the
degenerate gambler would do. Tony is not.
Here's how things will unravel: we will be made to dislike Tony more
and more. We will see more and more "innocents" (Vito Jr., A.J., the
victims from the expired cancer medication that Tony bought from the
Canadians, etc.) whose life has been ruined by Tony, the mafia or
both. The writers started turning the audience against Tony in the
season premiere, and that has continued I think. By the end, I see
Chase turning the audience on Tony to a point where people will
strongly dislike TS.
At that point, Tony will walk away smiling, the big winner.
So... It's Almost Over, Thoughts?
Jonathan Kleier
to: radam@dental.upenn.edu
date: May 1, 2007 3:51 AM
subject sopranos
mailed-by klizer47@gmail.com
I'm gonna take a stab at how things might turn out... risky, but risk
is what's exciting right? I'll have some fun...
I have a thought that Tony is NOT falling apart. He is, in fact, very
tuned in and very very aware. "All my friends, Paulie, Chris, my
brother in law are murders" and they have an "agenda" that Tony seems
concerned with.
Also, the episode ends with what seems Tony settling his debt with
Hesh. A degenerate gambler doesn't pay in full that quickly. Tony
"chased it" while it was fun, got his high, then rethought things, got
himself together and wiped out his entire debt. That's the smart move.
He could have continued paying the vig each week, but that's what the
degenerate gambler would do. Tony is not.
Here's how things will unravel: we will be made to dislike Tony more
and more. We will see more and more "innocents" (Vito Jr., A.J., the
victims from the expired cancer medication that Tony bought from the
Canadians, etc.) whose life has been ruined by Tony, the mafia or
both. The writers started turning the audience against Tony in the
season premiere, and that has continued I think. By the end, I see
Chase turning the audience on Tony to a point where people will
strongly dislike TS.
At that point, Tony will walk away smiling, the big winner.
to: radam@dental.upenn.edu
date: May 1, 2007 3:51 AM
subject sopranos
mailed-by klizer47@gmail.com
I'm gonna take a stab at how things might turn out... risky, but risk
is what's exciting right? I'll have some fun...
I have a thought that Tony is NOT falling apart. He is, in fact, very
tuned in and very very aware. "All my friends, Paulie, Chris, my
brother in law are murders" and they have an "agenda" that Tony seems
concerned with.
Also, the episode ends with what seems Tony settling his debt with
Hesh. A degenerate gambler doesn't pay in full that quickly. Tony
"chased it" while it was fun, got his high, then rethought things, got
himself together and wiped out his entire debt. That's the smart move.
He could have continued paying the vig each week, but that's what the
degenerate gambler would do. Tony is not.
Here's how things will unravel: we will be made to dislike Tony more
and more. We will see more and more "innocents" (Vito Jr., A.J., the
victims from the expired cancer medication that Tony bought from the
Canadians, etc.) whose life has been ruined by Tony, the mafia or
both. The writers started turning the audience against Tony in the
season premiere, and that has continued I think. By the end, I see
Chase turning the audience on Tony to a point where people will
strongly dislike TS.
At that point, Tony will walk away smiling, the big winner.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Sopranos "Remember When"
The Sopranos Episode 80 “Remember When”: An Analysis
Jonathan Kleier
04/23/07
Jonathan Kleier
04/23/07
Why is it nerve racking to see Tony fight Bobby? Or even Tony fight Ralph in Season 4? Why did Paulie immediately begin lifting weights after he’s made aware of his possible demise on the boat? At the end of the day, they’re all “just assholes in the woods.” There was the Russian who may or may not be dead in the woods, but that seems irrelevant. After all, what if he did, in fact, die? Then how could that story line comeback -- he's dead. But maybe he's not, and for Christopher and Paulie, the uncertainty rooted in "Pine Barrens" is visible in every episode, especially #82.
It reminds us that so much of what we do everyday is heavily reliant on established social rules and norms. Tony should be able to walk down his driveway peacefully, but with the rules breaking down, it’s too dangerous. Without these social norms we are vulnerable to threats everywhere. When Tony kills Ralph he is, in the scene, vulnerable because all established customs are irrelevant. Tony’s status as Boss, usually protection enough, is not protection. Ironically, his only protection is the medium that he comes to us through, television and its established rules. So, his only protection in his fight scene is because it is in the middle of the 4th season, in the middle-to second act of (at the time) a 5 or 6 season T.V. show. Tony being our protagonist is the olny comfort the audience has. Also, no matter how much Chase has and will mind fuck us, we were reasonably confident Tony would remain alive in the Bobby fight scene… after all, there’s 8 more episodes left, and you cannot kill the most interesting character that early, can you?
Some of the biggest critisisms shot at David Chase is "What happened to the Russian? We all know the rules of film, right? You wouldn't dare show the gun in Act 1 but not pay it off in Act 3 when that gun is the murder weapon?" How dare Chase.
But then there are the stories, or more accurately, the one liners, that Chase does quickly pay-off. Tony coming up the driveway, "it's too dangerous to pick up the newspaper, has been for years" is felt as Paulie brings Tony the morning paper.
So for the mob, appearances are so important because they are indicative of larger implications: will this person follow established protocol in the more important situation? Ralphie turned down Tony’s offer for a drink, a seemingly minor if meaningless issue, yet this plot-line became the focus of at least a full episode plus. The espresso maker Paulie sends tonight speaks volumes, as does his “hey skip” as Tony walks into The Bing. Likewise, when Doc asked Phil for a bite of food off of Phil’s plate, we knew something was awry. These little social norms that say so much, seem meaningless alone, yet without them, what would we have?
But what is the mafia? If it is nothing else, it’s a deliberately anti-establishment, anti-social norm structure. Yet, it is dependent on mostly the exact same need for “rules” as any other organization. Tony reminds Ralph in S3.13, “Chain of command is very important in our thing," yet the so-called chain of command is ignored numerous times.
So we must keep in mind, at any moment, any random "jerk-off" could pull the trigger on Tony and end it all. That is, if Chase chooses to deliberately buck the medium. Tony is so vulnerable, which he knows, yet so brazen. Does that Miami gang respect who Tony is? Tony and Paulie were outnumbered like 8 to 2.
Tony said that things are going great and he wonders if all his worry is just a matter of his “Waiting for the other shoe to drop.” Are things going great? I was under the impression that there is a building crisis. In S7.1, Tony is beaten by Bobby. As we learned in S6.5, appearance is quite important in the mob (and real life, clearly). So Tony appears like a weak boos as a result of physical shortcomings, and what recourse does he have? Chris writes a fantasy film ending in Tony’s death. How does Tony deal with that? Kill Chris for a subconscious unconfirmed desire? Let him live knowing Chris, at any moment wants Tony dead and that could manifest anytime? Then, Tony probably mean by saying, "things are going great," that "things are deteriorating." Tony lies. A lot.
Tony’s using a new cell phone which we can assume is just a “dumb” phone to be used in the interim.
Watching Paulie laughing, alone, laughing at Three's Company, a look of disgust graces T's face. Tony hates people who laugh at inanimate objects. He told Melfi in “Cold Stones,” “How about the fact that I hate my fucking son? I come home, and he's sitting on the computer in his fucking underwear, wasting his time in some chitchat room, going back and forth with some other jerk-off, giggling like a little schoolgirl. I wanna fucking smash his fucking face in. My son. What do you think about that?” Paulie laughing maniacally at the T.V. triggered that feeling.
Tony is now, for the second week in a row, placing sporting bets (I just read this is a big part of the coming attractions. I fucking hate coming attractions, goddammit). Isn’t he too smart to be a degenerate gambler? That's certainly possible given the high level of stress lately. However, I think Tony is "gambling" away his money to some possible offshore spot to be laundered. It's not a matter of if, but when will the FBI finally get its case, and Tony is extra aware of this.
Beansie’s name is Peter, Paulie’s name is Peter. There may have been some confusion by the girl Tony slept with, since both the characters are Peter.
Tony is as complex a hero as television/film has shown. The past means a lot to Tony, he/it carries a certain sentimentality that oh so delicately can be eradicated if needed, yet still carries meaning. He had serious problems killing Big Pussy, but Pussy was a rat so rat outmatches sentimentality. He hates Paulie in so many ways, but kill him? Possible, but not an easy choice. We could argue Tony's reasons all day though and if his hatred warrant Paul's murder.
Also, Paulie is ruthless as they come and one would think once he realized that his life was in danger (immediately once Tony mentioned to go fishing) that he would maybe kill Tony in self-defense. In retrospect he seemed accepting of his possible end. Paulie is old school. However, his big mouth is antithetical to everything Tony believes as good traits, i.e. Gary Cooper, "the strong silent type."
Chase's instincts are usually perfect. He releases and withholds information better than most, however, sometimes he reveals more than I think he needs to. I’m not the normal viewer, so perhaps I cannot comment here, but I needed nothing more than Tony’s asking Paulie to go fishing to know what was going on. Paulie’s uneasiness is a nice touch as well. But why the flashbacks to Big Pussy? We got the intended parallels already. Ultimately, in Chase I trust. Far be it for me to criticize this most brilliant art of our time, but it’s still curious why he wraps up major plot-lines with a couple of words, while treating others so differently. Of course, each strand stands on its own merits and thus needs to be treated uniquely, but I’m just thinking aloud here.
Tony said the one thing that bothered him is that he was never sure where he stood with his father. In Season 1, Vin, the crooked cop who commits suicide, said that at least with Tony, you know where you stand (Vin was also Finn’s father, Annette Benning’s husband and AJ’s “father” in “The Test Dream,” Season 5 episode 10). Tony once wished Paulie was his father, and until last week considered Christopher his son. Junior calls the Asian kid Anthony.
Tony doesn’t seem at all concerned with all the recent New York activity, but how could he not? If all these high level people are eligible for killing, then what is he? And Jesus, we just witnessed 2 potential bosses assassinated, and really is New York any weaker? Imagine Silvio and Paulie gone. What remains, Tony, Christopher, Carlo? How could there ever be a war between New York and NJ when it is so obvious that NJ is just a “glorified crew.” The highest earning Soprano Family crew no longer exists (The Aprile crew, with Ralphie gone, Eugene, then Vito), anyway.
Side note, everything in this final season is an allusion or reference to events occurring earlier in the series. Paulie at the buffet taking the rolls to some might be meaningless, but to others we might remember that butter roles were his mother’s favorite left overs. Tony Mentions Gary Cooper, Tony's long time hero for his "strong, silent, type" qualities. It had been a while since hearing Tony mention Gary Cooper. More obvious is the Ginny Sack 90 pound mole joke. I mean, I could go on, but finding them oneself is more fun.
Oh and Junior’s letter to Dick, come on, if The Sopranos isn’t the best comedy on T.V., I don’t know what's better (besides Curb Your Enthusiasm).
Jon Kleier with help from Samantha Kleier
Monday, April 16, 2007
"Stage 5": An Analysis
Sopranos Season 7 Episode 2 “Stage 5”
Written by Jonathan Kleier
04.15.07
Legacy seems quite important in The Sopranos tonight, though of course it always has been. Everyone wonders what their legacy will be. Tony tells Christopher that no matter what, in 100 years he’ll have made a movie and can be remembered even after death. After Tony realizes that Chris’s depiction of the boss is embarrassing, he’s pissed because that’s how Tony’ll be remembered.
John Sack asks Ginny’s brother, the lord of the lenses, “How will I be remembered?” Phil ends that convo saying, no one knows what it is to be boss, it’s a thankless job. Tony has said lots of similar stuff. Tony has expressed he is lonely on top. He explains to Syl, every decision, every so and so impacts every facet of everyone else's life. “Sometimes, it’s almost too much to handle… at the end of the day, it’s just you, alone with your decisions.”
Phil’s pissed that his legacy will be that he’s named after an outfit ballerinas wear. “Leotardo, that’s my fucking legacy.”Also his decision to not kill Tony Blundeto or Chris back in season 5 makes him weak (by the way, it was not his decision to make. Johnny Sack was the Boss and he is the one who made the decision).
“This is the image of me he leaves for the world,” begins Tony’s session with Melfi. Then Tony’s lamenting about his memories of Chris as a child, all he did and “for what?” Tony also says, “I think he fucking despises me. Wants to see me dead.” Poor Tony. The sad clown.
What makes Tony happy? Torturing Janice, playing with ducks, I’m not sure what else, but not much. He is the sad clown, as discussed with Melfi. Crying on the inside while laughing on the outside. I think this was the episode, “The Happy Wanderer” from season 4.
Not sure what the protocol is, but I can’t imagine Tony won’t take pre-emptive action, if Phil doesn’t get to Chris first. And Christopher is the one Phil would choose. In season 5, Phil asked Tony if he’d ever held a dying family member in his arms? Tony says no, and Phil says, “Well we’ll see if we can make that happen,” and Phil looks specifically at Chris.
Chris cannot let go of Adrianna. Since her murder, Chris has brought her up many times. Clearly he blames Tony for it, and clearly that feeling will never go away.
For what? For what? Every boss asks in this episode.
John Sack tells one of the prison guards that he worked out, ate healthy, quit smoking, etc, and “for what?”
Phil Leotardo says “Twenty years inside, protecting the likes of so and so, and for what?”
Certainly there’s a lot of contemplation happening. What-if’s. There’s no happiness in their world, and I think they all now realize that. Who would have thought Carmine Jr. would be the smartest of the bunch.
Anyone else find the birthday celebration for Phil’s dead brother slightly bizarre? Is it common practice to celebrate dead people’s birthdays like that? Oh, and it would have been his 47th birthday, same as Tony last week.
Tony is falling apart. His mental health and physical are issues. There was a time when Tony would have had a wise crack and a smile with a big “fuck you” for the FBI agents. But Tony is different now. He feels the impending doom, and he doesn’t know what to do about it and that scares him. He’s also not nearly as sharp as he usually is. How could he miss the fact that the boss in Cleaver is Tony, and the boss ends up with his head cut in half. Carmela was smart to point it out, but should that have been needed? Tony should have known. Ultimately he realizes that it’s not fiction, it’s Christopher’s sub conscious.
OFF TOPIC:
As an aspiring screenwriter and what-not, I want to offer a thought on how a writer’s subconscious affects a work. It does, and it probably reveals a lot about the writer. This is why I sometimes don’t like to have other’s read my work. I’m scared it will say something about me that I hadn’t intended or ever realized existed in my subconscious. This is where writing partners are convenient. You see, anything from my scripts that you think is bizarre, A.S. wrote that scene. I had nothing to do with it.
I yell at Sabrina when she makes a judgment about me based on something Dave does. Well, usually, I’m sure she’s right, but I will deny that forever. And A.S. wrote that part anyway.
In fact, for future reference, I never wrote this paragraph, I have a ghostwriter. Erase this off-topic admittance and honesty from your memory, immediately.
OFF TOPIC, BUT SOPRANOS RELATED:
I have long wondered what kind of twisted disturbed world view David Chase has. “Poor you” originated with Livia, but it is a phrase repeated so many times, and by almost every Soprano family member (A.J. says it to Meadow, Meadow says it, Janice, Tony, they all do.) that the question arises… How much of that comes from intentionally trying to demonstrate Livia’s influence throughout everyone she touches… and how much of it is from the writer writing his/her characters without properly separating each individual’s own personality.
As a writer, and lots of what I’ve read, I can say that differentiating characters is among the most difficult aspect of screenwriting. It’s something that I have extreme trouble with (I mean me and AS). Generally, the Sopranos is very very successful at doing this, but at times, I catch what I think is a misstep from a particular writer who didn’t adequately study the different personality and character traits of the people they are writing.
BACK ON TOPIC:
Tony’s tantrum regarding his getting the paper every morning. “It’s too dangerous.” Again, Tony is scared and is being threatened on every front. The thing is, we don’t really know if Tony is an “untouchable.” Is Tony at risk of assassination? Internally, Silvio would have to orchestrate it, and he would need the support of, at least, Paulie, maybe Chris, and I don’t know who else. I mean, he’s not in danger from the FBI. They will just knock on the door instead of meet him at the driveway. Tony’s crew would also need support from a New York boss, but NY doesn’t have a boss.
If it’s NY that acts against Tony, what happens to the rest of Tony’s crew? Could they even retaliate if they wanted to? Johnny Sack was, first, Carmines underboss. John visited NJ to do the necessary business, and then when John went away, Phil took that over. I always wondered if something similar was happening the other way around. Was Silvio going to NY to discuss business with NY capos? Tonight he was. This is where that whole on-screen/off-screen text is interesting. Can we infer from Sylvio’s meeting with the NY guy who was shot that Similar meetings had been happening all along? I mean, Meadow and Finn broke up and we find out with less than one line… which is enough, because the writing is so good they can pull it off. I wonder how the breakup happened, who did what to who. Etc.
And what’s the deal with the terrorism stuff? An entire scene tonight with Agent Harris asking Tony if he knows anything about terror funding, ports, containers, etc. The terror angle has seeds sprinkled throughout a couple of seasons, so there is something like this isn’t totally out of left field. Is it possible they’ll end up bringing down Tony on a terror related charge (Tony is, of course, very patriotic and wouldn’t be doing this knowingly). Go read the Patriot Act… it could without a doubt cover some of the things Tony has done.
“No more of this” fill ends the birthday party scene, but no more of what? No more compromise, it’s time to strike hard and kill Chris? Or is he saying no more of this mafia bullshit?
Tony doesn’t like Phil, but he thinks Phil is a boss who Tony can manage. I think Tony is scared of what will happen if that other guy becomes NY's boss, which is why he tried to convince Carmine Jr. to go for it, to "wrap his hands around" the situation.
Re Re Carmela
Jonathan Kleier
In a general sense, your (Samantha) descriptions are pretty accurate. However, if you look back to the earlier seasons and get into specifics, Carmella was not blind or nilly to Tony at first. In Season 1 there's a sequence where the Family gets word that the FBI of an upcoming FBI raid. Tony, with the explicit help of Carmela, transport guns, large large guns from a hidden door in their house. Tony tells her he needs to hide all her jewelry also, cause since it's stolen and he can't provide receipts, the govt. will confiscate. Carmella understands. Then Tony asks for her engagement ring... this is where Carm draws the line. Shocked, she asks if he stole something so important as their engagement ring! Tony, of course, did steal it, but he just let's it go and Carm keeps the ring. This is the first season.
I would argue that Carmela's growing distaste for Tony had less to do with Tony, than it had to do with her falling in love with Furio. When the Russian goomba calls Carm (season 4 finale) and explains that she'd been fucking tony, Carmela's reaction had more to do with her depression at Furio's disappearance.
Throughout season 5 she was outsmarted by Tony all the way through. Tony strategically consulted every good divorce lawyer thus leaving them unable to represent Carmela. The one lawyer who could take the case dropped her when he realized who she was. Carmela's options in life were none existent. Even AJ hated her and wanted to live with Tony.
Melfi once said to Tony, "She might leave you, but you'll never leave her." And Melfi is correct. Tony is a strict traditionalist with these matters.
In a general sense, your (Samantha) descriptions are pretty accurate. However, if you look back to the earlier seasons and get into specifics, Carmella was not blind or nilly to Tony at first. In Season 1 there's a sequence where the Family gets word that the FBI of an upcoming FBI raid. Tony, with the explicit help of Carmela, transport guns, large large guns from a hidden door in their house. Tony tells her he needs to hide all her jewelry also, cause since it's stolen and he can't provide receipts, the govt. will confiscate. Carmella understands. Then Tony asks for her engagement ring... this is where Carm draws the line. Shocked, she asks if he stole something so important as their engagement ring! Tony, of course, did steal it, but he just let's it go and Carm keeps the ring. This is the first season.
I would argue that Carmela's growing distaste for Tony had less to do with Tony, than it had to do with her falling in love with Furio. When the Russian goomba calls Carm (season 4 finale) and explains that she'd been fucking tony, Carmela's reaction had more to do with her depression at Furio's disappearance.
Throughout season 5 she was outsmarted by Tony all the way through. Tony strategically consulted every good divorce lawyer thus leaving them unable to represent Carmela. The one lawyer who could take the case dropped her when he realized who she was. Carmela's options in life were none existent. Even AJ hated her and wanted to live with Tony.
Melfi once said to Tony, "She might leave you, but you'll never leave her." And Melfi is correct. Tony is a strict traditionalist with these matters.
Re: Carmela
Sunday, April 15, 2007 9:02 PM
Samantha Kleier
Oh no – I disagree! Interestingly enough, I could have seen Carmela perhaps playing a role earlier, when she was weaker and oblivious. Now that she has grown into a stronger woman, I think she (like you said) very much enjoys her role as a mob wife, and I agree, part of her main attraction to Tony is his power and maleness. But I think she actually truly loves him now. I think their marriage has weathered the storm, so to speak, and she is wiser. But I think her knowledge has made her appreciate him more. The book “Paradise Lost” (for which I wrote a most brilliant paper in college, I must say), is all about temptation, and the forbidden fruit – the apple. When Eve bites the apple (she is tempted by a serpent) her and Adam fall out of paradise. They are no longer innocent. She is blamed for the “fall” of Adam and Eve and also of mankind. I think Chase in the Sopranos – which on an obvious level is all about the power of men and guns (the ultimate phallic symbol) is portraying a similar theme. It is the women of the sopranos who are actually the stronger ones, the more manipulative ones, the ones who succumb more to temptation (Jonathan, if you agree, you could fill in examples here). But look at his women – Livia, Janice, Carmela, Adriana, even Gloria. I do not think though that Carmela will have a hand in his murder. I think she really really loves him. and may be the one who saves him too (as you pointed out –she now is aware that he is weak and vulnerable). Love you, and totally agree – we have a Sopranos book club. I love it. so stimulating and exciting.
Samantha Kleier
Oh no – I disagree! Interestingly enough, I could have seen Carmela perhaps playing a role earlier, when she was weaker and oblivious. Now that she has grown into a stronger woman, I think she (like you said) very much enjoys her role as a mob wife, and I agree, part of her main attraction to Tony is his power and maleness. But I think she actually truly loves him now. I think their marriage has weathered the storm, so to speak, and she is wiser. But I think her knowledge has made her appreciate him more. The book “Paradise Lost” (for which I wrote a most brilliant paper in college, I must say), is all about temptation, and the forbidden fruit – the apple. When Eve bites the apple (she is tempted by a serpent) her and Adam fall out of paradise. They are no longer innocent. She is blamed for the “fall” of Adam and Eve and also of mankind. I think Chase in the Sopranos – which on an obvious level is all about the power of men and guns (the ultimate phallic symbol) is portraying a similar theme. It is the women of the sopranos who are actually the stronger ones, the more manipulative ones, the ones who succumb more to temptation (Jonathan, if you agree, you could fill in examples here). But look at his women – Livia, Janice, Carmela, Adriana, even Gloria. I do not think though that Carmela will have a hand in his murder. I think she really really loves him. and may be the one who saves him too (as you pointed out –she now is aware that he is weak and vulnerable). Love you, and totally agree – we have a Sopranos book club. I love it. so stimulating and exciting.
Carmela
Sunday, April 15, 2007 7:02 PM
Jonathan Kleier
Samantha, your thoughts on Carmela bring up interesting ideas. Carmela can hold her own, she even bitch slapped (metaphorically) Janice last week. Carmela is also very very loyal to the ideals of the mafia. I think she desperately does want grow independent (of course, the spec house) but she is yet to be successful, and I have a feeling Tony likes it that way.
In the end, I can see Carmela playing some role in Tony’s murder. What does she gain by keeping him around? With him dead, She gets all the money (though Tony I’m sure has lots hidden) and does she really love him anyway. I think as you said, she’s manipulative and plotting so maybe her seeming love is a manipulation.
Also, I think her witnessing Tony getting beat by Bobby is very important, and Tony knows it. Carmela, though she denied it, is attracted to Tony for 1 reason: he is an alpha male who has power and until last week, he was the toughest of 'em all. Evolutionary psychology, as far as I know. Now that Tony is weak, and he’s certainly not good looking, Carmela will be over him.
I will read Macbeth (though, as you said, cliffs notes). I really enjoy thes back and forth conversations. It makes the show so much more fun. It’s like our own book club. I’m gonna be paying more attention to Carmella.
Jonathan Kleier
Samantha, your thoughts on Carmela bring up interesting ideas. Carmela can hold her own, she even bitch slapped (metaphorically) Janice last week. Carmela is also very very loyal to the ideals of the mafia. I think she desperately does want grow independent (of course, the spec house) but she is yet to be successful, and I have a feeling Tony likes it that way.
In the end, I can see Carmela playing some role in Tony’s murder. What does she gain by keeping him around? With him dead, She gets all the money (though Tony I’m sure has lots hidden) and does she really love him anyway. I think as you said, she’s manipulative and plotting so maybe her seeming love is a manipulation.
Also, I think her witnessing Tony getting beat by Bobby is very important, and Tony knows it. Carmela, though she denied it, is attracted to Tony for 1 reason: he is an alpha male who has power and until last week, he was the toughest of 'em all. Evolutionary psychology, as far as I know. Now that Tony is weak, and he’s certainly not good looking, Carmela will be over him.
I will read Macbeth (though, as you said, cliffs notes). I really enjoy thes back and forth conversations. It makes the show so much more fun. It’s like our own book club. I’m gonna be paying more attention to Carmella.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)