comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

Can't be definitive. Whole fucking point. Honestly, you know this. Has it been a year already?

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

From the blog:

"Part V: How 9/11, terrorism and the U.S. war in Iraq unlock the keys to the final scene in Holsten’s."

Jesus christ.

comment #3

tophertilson says ...

Seriously? Brings all new meaning to the phrase "get a life." In the time it would take to read that, you could watch the whole damn series from beginning to end. Quite frankly, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea right now.

comment #4

KeithNYC says ...

As if there was any doubt. It may be long but it's worth it if your a real Sopranos fan. Thanks for posting it Jeff.

comment #5

supertaster says ...

that's a long article....way more complicated than necessary...to me it was never more complicated than simply following the logic established by the POV shots upon the door-opening, with the last one being the 5 (or 10, whatever) seconds of blackness.

comment #6

George Prager says ...

Actually what happened is that Tony had a heart attack and died after eating one onion ring too many.

comment #7

George Prager says ...

"Part 19: How Gumby, Viv Thomas and the war on trans-fats unlock the keys to the final scene in Holsten’s."

comment #8

T. Holly says ...

Dude, this is great, you know I'm obsessed, but let me give you a hand.

Tony's POV = diner.
Our POV = Tony's face.
Then, what the fuck, Tony's POV = Tony.

You are right dude, "We now see exactly what Tony sees." But face the fact man, Tony sees Tony. I ask you, how often do you see yourself? How often do you appear in your own POV?

Mr. Chase could not be making it any more plain that from that point forward, you are witnessing events not just from Tony's POV, which is always the case, but from inside his head, or more sophisticated, from his mind's eye.

You are absolutely right about the cutting pattern and the significance of the black, and it is without question, the end of events for as far as Tony can see, like a crash victim, dead or alive.

comment #9

MAGGA says ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC3WoTVp6IU&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=david+chase&sitesearch=

comment #10

swordandpen says ...

Or maybe there is no definitive explanation and it may just be David Chase ending the show on an intentionally ambiguous note.

Wait a minute! No catharsis?! How dare he?!

comment #11

EOTW says ...

Christ, the show (after the first season) was shit. It's over and not even watchable at all (unlike the superior THE WIRE!). SO, to sum it up, who gives a fuck?

comment #12

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

And then they'll announce a Sopranos movie and all of this will prove to be untrue.

That's the reality. Chase gave us an ending that suggests a hit, but left a little wiggle room for a movie. THAT'S the only thing we can say we know for sure.

comment #13

Arran says ...

People who come up with "definitive" explanations are about on a par with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They're seeing stuff that's not even there and drawing fanciful conclusions from it.

It was intentionally ambiguous, if there's a definitive answer only Chase knows it, and any attempt to say otherwise is just so much hot air.

comment #14

Richardson says ...

I didn't even watch the show, and I didn't like the bits of it that I saw, but I do think that Chase managed to create a brilliant final scene, just judging from the continuous reaction to it. Like it or not, he came up with something that became the most talked about moment in the history of the show, and he did so by providing something for which every viewer has their own "definitive read" on.

There's something very, very uniquely brilliant about that ending. I wish that the bits of the show that I had seen were more in line with that... but I guess it's really something you can only pull off once.

I do have to say, though, in response to this post -- right in the beginning, the guy says that Chase spent two years working on all this. Now, I remember Chase specifically saying that the *final* hiatus, after the season had started, was specifically spent mostly figuring out how to do the ending, because he never knew what was going to happen. In light of this guy ignoring that statement, and making conclusions based on Chase having planned it all out from some point prior to that, how am I supposed to take anything he says seriously?

comment #15

supertaster says ...

Arran...

...they taught logic as part of the math curriculum in either 7th or 8th grade, can't remember precisely which one...now I know that's a long time ago, but the base principles of logic have stuck with me ever since...there's no rationalizing, grasping, or corruption of truth to fit some obtuse conspiracy, there is a very simple, very logical progression that is not ambiguous whatsoever, and even Chase confirms there is only ONE correct interpretation...

...I'm sorry you just don't see it...blame your 7th grade math teacher, not those of us who do get it...

comment #16

Richardson says ...

I'm skimming through that dissrotation about the ending of the show, and I think it's incredibly ironic how often he dismissives other theories as "This is pure speculation."

comment #17

Richardson says ...

I stand corrected. By far the funniest part is that he uses this quote from David Chase to prove his point:

"There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view — a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela’s future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn’t really matter."

Man, that thing is hilarious!

comment #18

Richardson says ...

"they taught logic as part of the math curriculum in either 7th or 8th grade, can't remember precisely which one"

You should take a refresher course and ask the teacher if it's logical to assume that an artist would be deliberately ambiguous if he actually intended there to be one definitive interpretation.

comment #19

americanrat says ...

I've never had a problem with the idea that Tony dies in the final episode, but I always thought the ambiguity concerned how he dies. Tony doesn't know and neither do we.

I have always leaned towards the idea that Tony keels over into his onion rings, the victim of some massive stroke or aneurysm. I could even point to stuff like how many of the mobsters or their kin died suddenly from natural causes, like that guy on the toilet and Heshie's wife. But there's no way for me to prove anything - - just like the various mob hit theories or Members Only crowd can't prove their views.

comment #20

Richardson says ...

I want bmalen3@gmail.com to explain 'John From Cincinnatti' to me. I think he could make some good sense out of it.

comment #21

T. Holly says ...

It's entirely possible he shot a big bloody ending too (didn't the non-actor playing MOG say they did, or was that a goof item in a newspaper?) and said, no fuck it, I'm doing this. It's so easy to do, perfectly classical except for the black and that one cut that ought to smack you up the head if it hasn't already. "I remember coming in, then we were waiting for Meadow, this guy at the counter, I don't know, then nothing. There was this young couple and an old guy with boy scouts and some black dudes and a trucker and these great onion rings like communion wafers. I'm too young to be dead and too old to do this part again."

comment #22

KeithNYC says ...

To the posters who are criticizing this thing:

Did you ever actually watch the show?

Everything that this guy says is perfectly logical within the world of the Sopranos. We don't (unlike here) get empty conclusions by people who never watched the show (I truly love the idiotic "catharsis junkies" nonsense).

Richardon,
The guy is correct. There were 2 years between season 5 and 6. So no, he doesn't lose credibility.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"The guy is correct. There were 2 years between season 5 and 6. So no, he doesn't lose credibility."

But Chase himself has said he didn't come up with the ending until the hiatus in the middle of season 6.

comment #24

Richardson says ...

Anyway, I love it when people insist that there's only one valid interpretation of the show. It seems incredibly reductive, and seems (to my eye) to be completely ignoring what is truly unique and brilliant about that ending, but if you say that, they just get louder and more belligerent about how NO THERE IS ONLY ONE VALID INTERPRETATION.

comment #25

Richardson says ...

I want bmalen3@gmail.com to explain to me the only possible interpretation of the symbology in 'Moby Dick'. I always figured the whale had something to do with 9/11, terrorism, and the war in Iraq.

comment #26

KeithNYC says ...

Richardson,
Totally agree that there can be more than one valid interpretation. However, why does the dissertation ruin "what is truly unique and brilliant about that ending"?? If anything it has only increased my appreciation for Chase as a storyteller. He brings together so many events and themes which clearly lead to how the show was meant to end, and how it eventually did end.
It's already forced me to get out my DVD's of the show. I'm also pretty sure it was the hiatus between 5 and 6 where Chase came up with the ending.

comment #27

T. Holly says ...

And in retrospect Richardson, when did the show start winding toward it's conclusion, in your opinion?

Americanrat, I'm not too big on the shot from behind theory, because we'd see a piece of the shooter, if it were in real time, which we know it's not, even though we are deceived to think it is because it's so classical. If you count footstep and seconds, it would be more of a side deal, but who's counting?, the show and what-happened is never coming, unless on someone's dying bed, they decide to tell-all.

comment #28

Arran says ...

"...I'm sorry you just don't see it...blame your 7th grade math teacher, not those of us who do get it..."

Like I said, "definitive conclusion"ers are about the same as 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They believe what they believe and will try and call you stupid if you don't think the same.

By the way Supertaster, the sentence "if you look at the final episode really carefully, it’s all there" does not explicitly indicate that there is only one explanation. You're interpreting the sentence to support your own thoughts, when it's really as ambiguous as the ending itself.

I'm not even saying that mammoth interpretation is wrong. Just that no one, no matter how much logic they perceive they are bringing to it, can say that it's definitively right. Is it really that hard to swallow?

comment #29

Richardson says ...

"when did the show start winding toward it's conclusion, in your opinion?"

As I said, I wasn't a fan of the show. Didn't like what I saw of it. But the ending, as conceived, seems brilliant to me, just because he figured out a new way to end it that was better and more interesting than anything anybody could've predicted, without actually doing *anything* onscreen.

comment #30

Richardson says ...

"However, why does the dissertation ruin "what is truly unique and brilliant about that ending"??"

The dissertation itself doesn't; the belief that there is one definitive ending and all other interpretations are wrong does. It seems incredibly unique to me that he managed to end the show without explicitly killing Tony, but at the same time leaving it hanging there in the table, always the next moment away, possibly (but not definitely) literally so. To take what's there and say that the only way to interpret it is that it is, in fact, explicitly saying that Tony was killed, seems to ignore how much more powerful the ending was by reducing it to just "Tony *was* killed, right then, fersure".

And, if you want to speak logically, it doesn't seem to make sense to say that he would explicitly say that Tony was shot, but only in the most roundabout way possible, if he truly meant it to be definitely that Tony was explicitly shot.

"I'm also pretty sure it was the hiatus between 5 and 6 where Chase came up with the ending."

That wasn't the quote that was going around right after the final hiatus... I remember, the hiatus got extended because Gandolfini got hurt, right? And, right around the premiere of the first one back, they asked Chase about whether that was bad, and he said it was okay because he had spent most of the alloted hiatus just figuring out how to end it.

comment #31

T. Holly says ...

Well David Chase really was between a rock and a hard place. Afterall, how do get something to take place in black without showing what leads up to it? Poor guy. But wait, you put him in his POV at the top and you're fixed. Dollars for donuts, it went down something like that, and that's why it's cut that way. These guys really aren't as bright as you think, and you're all missing the tree for the forest, but boy is David Chase lucky or not that his fix didn't play. Maybe he could have sold it with a sound effect lifted from The Twilight Zone.

comment #32

WilliamShake says ...

I find it amusing that Richardson is so offended by the idea that people are throwing one interpretation down his throat yet here he is endlessly posting his own opinions. Now he concedes he wasn't a fan of the show. Talk about no credibility. I don't want to speak for the writer of the piece but I think he clearly knows it's just one interpretation. I think he uses "definitive explanation" to get people to read the damn thing. Maybe if he retiitled it "I think this is what happened", people wouldn't be so offended.
All that matters is the text and the guy makes a very convincing argument. It's all supported by words by Chase himself and endless references to dialogue and specific scenes and themes.
I think he puts the whole 'this is how Tony will have to live the rest of his life" argument to rest. There is nothing in that scene to suggest that viewpoint. It was a lazy interpretation by t.v. crtitics trying to meet the morning deadline after the finale aired.
I also initially rolled my eyes when I saw the part about how the war in Iraq and 9/11 connect to the final episode. Then I actually read the whole thing(including what Chase himself said about the theme) and the argument actually makes perfect sense. It's perfectly consistent with the 'never hear it' theme.
By the way, Chase is quoted as far back as before Season 5 that he knew exactly how the show would end. He never said he conceived the ending in between 6a and 6b. That's why the last nine episodes are titled Season 6: part 2. Chase wants fans to see the final season as one unifying and coherent whole.

comment #33

supertaster says ...

Richard, I don't really want to get into an entire debate with you about the unique principles of art, but one of them is interpretation...every piece of art is open for interpretation and can satisfy any viewer on a personal level...however, there is usually *one* intepretation that matches that of the artist's vision, no matter how *ambiguous* or difficult he or she may make it to see...

...you're right...I can't say exactly what Chase WANTED to show, I can only say with certainty what he DID show, which is Tony Soprano staring into the black void of death...

...a more interesting debate, I think, one much more ambiguous (as Chase does not construct a logical path for us to follow), is whether that blackness signifies Chase's belief, or lack thereof, in an afterlife...

...ps....Arran, I didn't mean to come off smug in my response to you, but did anyway...apologies...

comment #34

T. Holly says ...

So, can we just hate Jamie Stuart for making me waste time with yous? Next Sunday's my birthday, I expect many wishes whence we meet were again.

comment #35

Arran says ...

Cheers, Supertaster. Hope I didn't come across as smug myself.

comment #36

Richardson says ...

"Now he concedes he wasn't a fan of the show."

??? Huh?

I said it in the first sentence in the first post I made in the thread, it wasn't something that was dragged out of me. I'm not a fan of the show. I am a fan of the ending.

"yet here he is endlessly posting his own opinions"

Most of my posts are just mocking the person who wrote a novel about how there's only one possibly valid interpretation of a deliberately ambiguous piece of art. I guess that's an opinion.

"I don't want to speak for the writer of the piece but I think he clearly knows it's just one interpretation."

It's pretty funny that you require a literal interpretation from your art, but are so free in interpreting his response. He makes it pretty clear that he thinks it's the only possible ending.

"It's all supported by words by Chase himself"

Especially when he says that Chase confirms his interpretation is correct by saying, regarding the ending, "There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view, a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter."

I admit, I didn't read the whole thing, maybe there's all sorts of hidden brilliance in it, but when that statement is being used to prove that he was killed right then, you have to admit it's pretty ridiculous.

comment #37

Richardson says ...

"however, there is usually *one* intepretation that matches that of the artist's vision, no matter how *ambiguous* or difficult he or she may make it to see..."

I wouldn't exactly agree with that.

I can't speak for Chase, but I think it's reasonable to say that, generally speaking, when an artist chooses to be ambiguous about something in their art, when they choose to leave something open to interpretation, they are doing so because it brings the audience closer to the material. Rather than telling the audience everything, you present things in a certain way, and allow the audience to fill in the blanks from themselves. This has a personalizing effect, because personal point of view changes how you interpret the ending.

I just think it's funny, in general, any time people's response to something deliberately ambiguous is to try to lay out all the clues and "deduce" what Chase "meant" by them all. But, like I say, it's a valid enough response, since that's the way a certain personality type responds to that sort of ending. That's how bmalen3@gmail.com fills in the blanks that were deliberately left vague.

comment #38

WilliamShake says ...

"I said it in the first sentence in the first post I made in the thread, it wasn't something that was dragged out of me. I'm not a fan of the show. I am a fan of the ending."

Exactly, that's why you'll have a diffcult time understanding Part 2 and consequently lose all credibility. Part 2 of the "novel" is probably foreign to you but argues that Chase created an ending that would only be truly understood by true fans of the show. He created an ending that would require people to think a little and use their brains.

"He makes it pretty clear that he thinks it's the only possible ending."

No, go read the actual piece. He makes it clear it's Chase's personal interpretation.

"Especially when he says that Chase confirms his interpretation is correct by saying, regarding the ending, "There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view, a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter."

No, go read the piece. He offers a very logical explanation for this. This is the same interview where Chase drops an huge hint that suggests Tony dies by drawing the analogy to Silvio's experience during Gerry Torciano's murder. I think "Bmalen3" is correct, "Tony dies" is Chase's personal view, otherwise he has undermined his own narrative. The writer uses many other quotes to support his conclusion and even concedes that the scene could be read as the symbolic end of Tony Soprano.

"I admit, I didn't read the whole thing,..."

Exaclty. Nuff said.

comment #39

supertaster says ...

"Rather than telling the audience everything, you present things in a certain way, and allow the audience to fill in the blanks from themselves. "

You said it....and in that scene things are presented in a way that there's very little need for intepretation, as it's a logical CONCLUSION based on the way things are presented by Chase....

...forget all of the superimposing of quotes and earlier episodes to try to prove it...this is what Chase shows us:

...bell rings, tony looks up, cut to tony's POV (of the door)....
bell rings, tony looks up, cut to tony's POV...
bell rings, tony looks up, cut to tony's POV...
bell rings, tony looks up, cut to tony's POV...
bell rings, tony looks up, cut to tony's POV (black screen)...

...the only thing to intepret is what the blackness means, as there is no room to debate what Tony's final POV is...as you say, things are presented in a certain way and the audience must piece it together...

...again, I don't know what Chase really *meant* to show, but I do know what he *did* show, and it's Tony's empty, black point of view...if that's not death, then i'll be a sonofabitch...

comment #40

KeithNYC says ...

"I just think it's funny, in general, any time people's response to something deliberately ambiguous is to try to lay out all the clues and "deduce" what Chase "meant" by them all.

Huh??

Of course it's intentionally ambiguous. Are you saying that Chase didn't want us to find the answer (or answers)?

"But, like I say, it's a valid enough response, since that's the way a certain personality type responds to that sort of ending. That's how bmalen3@gmail.com fills in the blanks that were deliberately left vague."

There is also another "certain personality type" who has makes up their mind about something and refuses to acknowledge alternative views no matter how logical and persuasive. They then mock others on blogs to feed their sense of denial as the truth may upset their very insecure id. They post comments with no substance and vapid conclusions and therefore bore us all.

comment #41

Richardson says ...

"Part 2 of the "novel" is probably foreign to you but argues that Chase created an ending that would only be truly understood by true fans of the show."

I don't like the show, but I'm not ignorant of pop culture. I've watched enough people argue over this ending while laughing from the sidelines to have a basic understanding of the clues. It's not really that deep -- "Hey, remember that time my friend said that when you die, you don't hear nothin'?" I do understand the clues, but thanks for the lovely condescension, it certainly doesn't play exactly into what Arran said of you "definitive-enders".

"No, go read the actual piece. He makes it clear it's Chase's personal interpretation."

Is that before or after he dismisses every other possible interpretation as "pure speculation" and attempts to debunk them with things like, "Obviously, this shot of Tony looking at his menu proves that he is not paranoid at all and, therefore, PURE SPECULATION!"

"No, go read the piece. "

HAHAHAHA! You defended that quote! Touche, sir, I can't possibly argue with somebody who has drank the Kool Aid to the point where "It doesn't matter whether it happened then or not" is proof that Chase's interpretation is that it does matter, and it was then.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure bmalen3@gmail.com meant that post as a joke. There are enough clues in it that he's totally fucking with you, and that only smart people can understand that he means it that way.

comment #42

Richardson says ...

"There is also another "certain personality type" who has makes up their mind about something and refuses to acknowledge alternative views no matter how logical and persuasive. They then mock others on blogs to feed their sense of denial as the truth may upset their very insecure id. They post comments with no substance and vapid conclusions and therefore bore us all."

I know you are but what am I!

comment #43

Richardson says ...

Just pointing out to anybody still reading, not a single one of the people arguing me has offered any sort of explanation as to why Chase would go out of his way to make the ending as ambiguous as possible if he intended there to be one definitive answer. Though, I grant, supertaster is not arguing that there is any ambiguity in his mind (and that's a perfectly valid interpretation of what we're shown), so obviously the question is moot to him.

But the rest of them haven't addressed that simple logical question, yet are calling *me* illogical for daring to suggest he is deliberately ambiguous.

comment #44

supertaster says ...

oh boy...you know what gang? it's no great crime if Richard doesn't get it....let him stew in his own stubborness...

...most people, after progressing through the logic of the scene agree, as if a light bulb is going on, that yes, Chase shows us Tony's death...if you want to argue what the final 10 seconds mean, do that, don't allow yourself to get tripped up by a guy like Dickson, who's more interested in distracting someone to the point of looking foolish than actually resolving any kind of disagreement...

comment #45

Richardson says ...

supertaster - even you must agree, even saying for a moment that "Tony dies" is the only possible way to interpret the blackness, even then you can't prove in any way that he is assassinated.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

"Are you saying that Chase didn't want us to find the answer (or answers)?"

To be clear, one more time, I am saying that, in my opinion, looking for answers and seizing on one definitive interpretation is missing the entire point of why he ended it the way he did, and what seems (to me) to me most of the emotional power of the moment and the scene. That's all. It's really a simple idea. But, please, keep arguing.

comment #47

T. Holly says ...

I take it back, the people who make this stuff are as smart as you think they are, or smarter, because none of them would ever consider blackness to be a POV, except in a movie about blindness.

Blackness is the end of events. It's not Tony's POV because he hasn't experienced what would cause it yet. What happens at the top of the scene isn't an awkward edit to tie our POV with Tony's, it is a signifier of what's going on. Name one other instance in a movie where you cut from a character to that same character in the same scene on a different axis. It's not a connecting device, it's a signifier of the state of visual perception of the character.

comment #48

JohnCope says ...

LOL. T. Holly is right.

comment #49

messiahcomplexio says ...

I always thought it would be interesting to switch the seinfeld and soprano's finale's.

Tony is arrested, confronted by his victims and put away and Jerry is wacked in the diner by Newman.

comment #50

moorish says ...

Wells and sad blog dude - GET OVER IT. YOU WILL NEVER KNOW! There is no "definitive" explanation! That is the whole point! You can take it one way or another but there is no answer. Listen carefully: There. Is. No. Answer. People who need to have a definitive "he's dead/He's not dead" statement are totally missing the point. You'll never know. You'll. NEVER. Know. Get over it!

comment #51

BurmaShave says ...

As loathe as I am to admit, I would have loved to have seen Dennis Miller's idea for the finale- Carmela's spec house collapses and kills its residents and she is arrested for fraud on the inspections, meanwhile Tony turns in Christopher's Muslim friends who turn out to be terrorists, becoming a national hero. Probably end with Tony visiting Carm through a pane of glass, confused, and then emerging to throngs of supporters cheering him on. This of course would probably be hated, and this thread would be 300 posts long.

comment #52

swordandpen says ...

And now I await the definitive explanation for "2001: A Space Odyssey".

comment #53

WilliamShake says ...

"And now I await the definitive explanation for "2001: A Space Odyssey". "

So now Chase intended his ending to be just as abstract as "2001". Yeah, I remember that "its all there" comment from Kubrick about the end of "2001".

Seriously, anymore vapid comments that fail to address anything said by "Bmalen"?

comment #54

bb says ...

Such passion from everybody. I liked the piece, at least the 1/10th of it I read. I'd have to take some personal time to read the entire essay.

I don't understand the anger at the guy for writing it though. Just because he calls it "definitive" or whatever doesn't make it so. I've argued passionately with friends over various similar issues with each of us claiming definitive answers but nobody getting pissed off.

And by the way, I do have a definitive explanation for 2001, Mulholland Drive etc for myself and anybody unlucky enough to be trapped with me when I get the urge to spew them out.

comment #55

lionsfan says ...

I think the someone who wrote that tortured "explication" greatly both misses graduate school and seriously wonders how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And that Jeff Wells should get back to movie reviewing instead of touting this crap.

comment #56

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

"not a single one of the people arguing me has offered any sort of explanation as to why Chase would go out of his way to make the ending as ambiguous as possible if he intended there to be one definitive answer."

Exactly. It's the tiny difference between "Did Tony just get whacked" and "Tony did just get whacked," but you'll never convince me that that little bit of doubt isn't exactly what Chase intended.

Until the movie comes out, and "proves" it.

comment #57

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

And why should we assume that an episode that's about aging and memory loss and life flitting by and one generation moving out of the way of the next, as much as it's about sudden violent death, is, in the end, only about the latter and not the former?

comment #58

corey3rd says ...

There is only a few people who can really tell us what really happened at the end of the Sopranos. They are the production crew who know exactly what was shot that night and the editing room folks who figured out what to use of that footage. They know what really was supposed to happen.

Anyone else is tossing chicken bones.

comment #59

Mgmax, le Corbeau says ...

No, even that's not true. Because multiple endings were probably shot.

What was really supposed to happen is ambiguity. And endless discussion. Success!

comment #60

tfresca says ...

Isn't it possible that David Chase really only had one season of the show in mind, the only really brilliant season anyway, as a way to get into the movie game and once it hit big has been playing catch up since that season? Chase seems to have contempt for the world he created and even though it made him obscenely rich I believe he hated this show making him just a "tv guy". So he gives a big FU to the fans for even opining to like the show. Funny thing though this bad ending may have left a bad taste in people's mouths for a potential movie career for him as a director.

comment #61

tfresca says ...

Isn't it possible that David Chase really only had one season of the show in mind, the only really brilliant season anyway, as a way to get into the movie game and once it hit big has been playing catch up since that season? Chase seems to have contempt for the world he created and even though it made him obscenely rich I believe he hated this show making him just a "tv guy". So he gives a big FU to the fans for even opining to like the show. Funny thing though this bad ending may have left a bad taste in people's mouths for a potential movie career for him as a director.

comment #62

Dave Polands Gut says ...

That article was a complete waste of time and the writer really needs a real job.

comment #63

Richardson says ...

"So now Chase intended his ending to be just as abstract as "2001". Yeah, I remember that "its all there" comment from Kubrick about the end of "2001"."

You're interpreting "It's all there" to mean "There are a bunch of clues in this and other episodes which are intended to provide the full explanation of the meaning only to the 1% of viewers who will dig and do the work." Which is kind of an arrogant assumption, that Chase is making the show for the small minority of viewers, not the vast majority who watch it once, enjoy it, then flip over to something else.

However, "it's all there" could very easily mean: "I put everything I wanted to show in the ending and refuse to explain any more because I have nothing to say about it which wasn't said in the ending." Which is exactly the sort of thing Kubrick said at times about '2001'.

I'm curious -- are the people who insist that there's only one interpretation the same people who insisted that the show HAD to deal with, for instance, the Russian guy that Tony didn't kill? "He *has* to come back because the show can't leave any loose ends!" I remember people saying that for years and always thought they were missing the point, and it seems like you guys are missing the point in the same way, so I'm just curious. Or have you constructed some elaborate roundabout way that this ending actually *does* tie that up?

comment #64

supertaster says ...

...except no one's even bothering to deconstruct the scene, they're only interested in slapping on an "ambiguous" label and walkign away...back it up, convince us, because simply repeating "ambiguous" over and over is just lazy...

When did ambiguity become some confounding? If everything ever written was so literal there would be no "art" to literature...

Ever complete a crossword puzzle?? What can be more ambiguous than clues given in the Sunday Times...and yet, there is one and ONLY ONE right answer for each clue...amazing!!

comment #65

Richardson says ...

"If everything ever written was so literal there would be no "art" to literature..."

As far as I can tell, you're the one arguing that it's literal, that everything HAS to be interpreted strictly through story, as opposed to thematic relevance, tone, character... no, it's ONLY the story, and it's ONLY about Tony being killed.

"Ever complete a crossword puzzle??"

Personally speaking, I find art more fulfilling than puzzles, but if all you want out of your art is a puzzle, the ending to 'The Sopranos' supplies enough for you as well.

comment #66

Richardson says ...

"What can be more ambiguous than clues given in the Sunday Times"

Off-hand, I would say that something which deliberately provokes different thoughts and ideas *without* having one definitive answer would be more ambiguous than the clues in a crossword puzzle, which are meant to have one specific correct interpretation.

Does the DVD set for the final season come with an answer key?

comment #67

T. Holly says ...

Who put my comment in the Seven Months thread? It belongs here.

You have to assume Tony's dead or dying. If he were fine, there would be no motivation to withhold a shot of him crossing the room to his table and no motivation to end abruptly.

Ambiguous does not equal random.

comment #68

Richardson says ...

"there would be no motivation to withhold a shot of him crossing the room to his table and no motivation to end abruptly."

Well, that certainly is a convenient assumption, that the only possible motivation for a certain thing is to affirm what you already believe. Of course, logically speaking, that is "begging the question".

"Ambiguous does not equal random."

I agree with you. But I have yet to hear an explanation as to why deliberate ambiguity does equal "there is only one definitive answer, you just have to dig and dig more than 95% of the viewers ever will."

To draw an analogy, I like that, in the old version of 'Blade Runner', there was ambiguity as to whether Deckard was a replicant or not. I hate that, in the new version, they have added a few clues that make it so that it is the only possible explanation, because the ambiguity allows for a lot of interpretations which are interesting which the "definitive" take does not allow for. I think it's unfortunate that Ridley Scott chose to remove the ambiguity, and I'm glad that Chase has, so far, not done so with any statement, let alone re-edit.

comment #69

Joshua Mooney says ...

The bottom line is, there's no way a guy who writes that much about that little is going to convince me of fucking anything. Q.E.D.

And I'm a guy who's read "High Treason 2" by Harrison Edward Livingston. Well, parts of it. Inarguably, it is on my bookshelf.

comment #70

T. Holly says ...

We're not talking about a few clues in a storyline, we're talking about reading a scene, cut by cut by cut. Focus dude, on what cutting from a character to the same character on a different axis in the same scene means. Are you accepting this other dudes analysis that it ties POVs together (which is a fake revelation) or are you accepting that it represents the state of visual perception of the character (that is, I see myself doing such and such). And please, it's not a jump cut. If you're going to give it a name like that, then it's "time cut" (a break in the linear progression of shots, in this case, the connecting action that gets him from standing to seated). You're a thinking dude, tell me why in the world it's cut like that?

comment #71

Richardson says ...

"Focus dude, on what cutting from a character to the same character on a different axis in the same scene means."

If you're going to assume that it's not just Chase getting fancy, that it has some narrative meaning (which is reasonable enough -- but still an assumption), it could just as easily be Tony having a vision of what the rest of his life is going to be like as Tony seeing a vision of what his specific death looks like.

"And please, it's not a jump cut."

I agree; I don't think anybody here has called it one. When I was in school, it used to bug me to no end when the professor would call the bone-to-spaceship transition in '2001' a "jump cut" when it is, properly speaking, a "graphic match".

comment #72

Richardson says ...

But now you have to answer me one. If you are reading a book written from the first person, when you get to the last page, and there is white space after the last word, do you interpret that white space to mean that the character died immediately after writing that last sentence?

comment #73

supertaster says ...

Richard, until you stop deconstructing the arguments of others (and constructing strawmen)and actually put forward a thoughtful one of your own you'll have no credibility...

...

comment #74

T. Holly says ...

Of course it's Chase getting fancy. It doesn't serve a lot of narrative meaning because it's just an arrow pointing to the psycological state of the character. You're saying it's, "There I am." I'm saying it's, "There I was."

There's no motivation to cut that way for "There I am." A cut is a commitment. Where's the commitment for "There I am?" If the only thing you want to say is "there he is," and it's not a premonition, you let him walk over.

Cutting to white in a first person narrative book? I don't know.

comment #75

supertaster says ...

sorry Richard, I can't discuss the show with you anymore...I'm being punished...Wells banned me for giving him some affectionate ribbing about his old crotchety views...he doens't know I'm till here...shhhh....just wanted to say that a literal ending would have shown the gunshot...watch it a few times, you'll get it...

comment #76

Richardson says ...

"and actually put forward a thoughtful one of your own you'll have no credibility"

You keep saying that I have not put forth an argument; that's simply not true. My argument is simple -- Chase deliberately kept the ending vague, and deliberately did not show Tony getting killed at the end, and I think that all of the fancy talk to say how he meant it to be that he was literally killed, he was just saying it in as roundabout a way as possible -- is reductive and misses the layered complexity of the ending that he did show.

I don't need to construct much of an argument to defend the fact that Chase deliberately did not show Tony being killed, since it is prima facie obvious, but it's worth pointing out that the quotes cited in that dissertation -- all of the quotes, not just selectively choosing whether to take something he says literally or wildly over-interpret it -- support the fact that Chase did not think that the power of the ending came from Tony being defintely absolutely killed in that moment.

comment #77

Richardson says ...

"You're saying it's, "There I am." I'm saying it's, "There I was.""

Not true; I'm saying it's "There I will be."

"If the only thing you want to say is "there he is," and it's not a premonition"

That's why I said that even if you interpret it as a premonition, even if you strongly believe that the only possible interpretation is "premonition", it still leaves the question of what it is a premonition of. Now, if it is a premonition, I think there is a lot more evidence in that scene and in David Chase's quotes that it is a premonition for how the rest of his life is going to feel and how he is going to spend the rest of his life, rather than that it is a premonition of his death.

Frankly speaking, I don't completely understand how you can simultaneously believe that the ending is Tony witnessing his own death as a spectator via premonition, while at the same time saying that the actual "death", the black screen, and the fact that we the audience never see the gun, is all because the death is "POV". Those two ideas seem to be incompatible to me.

comment #78

Richardson says ...

"just wanted to say that a literal ending would have shown the gunshot"

But if you honestly believe that the entire thing can only have one possible interpretation, how is it any less literal than actually just showing the gunshot?

I'm saying that the ending was deliberately designed and crafted to illicit an *emotional* response (an especially unconventional emotion to end a series on when an audience is used to catharsis and expected blood), and you're coming at it strictly from a story level, insisting that this is the only level that it be discussed on. That's why I say you're being more literal than I am. This in spite of Chase's quote that the specific "what happens, exactly" of the ending is secondary and beside the point.

Sorry Wells banned you. He can be unusually sensitive. Try registering under a different E-mail account.

comment #79

Richardson says ...

But I will concede (which you were kind of getting at), I have no personal interpretation of the ending because I'm not a fan of the show. I am a huge fan of the ending because it leaves so much open and allows for arguments between people who do passionately believe that Tony was killed, or wasn't killed, or will be killed, or won't be killed, because the actual ending as-transmitted allows for all of those personal interpretations to be equally valid, managing to be that ambiguous and still satisfy most people. If I were into the show, I would almost certainly have my own personal interpretation of what the ending meant, but I'd like to think I'd still acknowledge that, by the nature of the ending, there can be no "definitive" answer.

comment #80

swordandpen says ...

"So now Chase intended his ending to be just as abstract as "2001". Yeah, I remember that "its all there" comment from Kubrick about the end of "2001".

Seriously, anymore vapid comments that fail to address anything said by "Bmalen"?"

posted by WilliamShake

Or maybe some of us consider it vapid to come up with a definitive explanation, excluding all other opinions, for something that was meant clearly to have different interpretations?

It's as if people think they're going to win a prize if they come up with the "right answer".

comment #81

T. Holly says ...

Um actually yes, thanks to Richardson playing along, we now have the answer, and my final word.

When Tony sees himself, in an unprecedented cut to himself across the room, the meaning is "there I was, and this is all I remeber before events go blank for me" -- maybe he died, maybe he survived.

Or the cut means "there I will be living out my days" and Mr. Chase will decide when the audience, takes a hike, gets lost and buts out.

There's no reason for a detailed premonition, so i don't believe it, and the black is unmotivated, so I don't buy it. The amount of detail for memory is corectly fleshed out, and the black is motivated, so I believe it.

You have to think like Chase did and understand how large a commitment it is to break the covenant of continuous action and commit the ripple ravages to seemless editing by putting someone in their own POV and cutting from same character to same character on a different axis in same scene. How many more rules could he break to get your attention? But, for some reason on the small screen, he's the bad kid who's parents don't notice what he's doing.

comment #82

Richardson says ...

T.Holly - your final word is kind of rambling and unclear, I'm sorry to say. I don't really understand the points you're trying to make, but it sure seems like "you have to think like Chase did" and "There's no reason, so I don't believe it" "is motivated, so I believe it" are a lot of assumptions to make. You have a conclusion, and you are making assumptions about earlier bits based on your conclusion, and then using those assumptions to justify the conclusion that you had already reached. That's called "begging the question". It's a logical fallacy. You have done a good job of convincing me that you believe that interpretation, though.

comment #83

T. Holly says ...

Au contraire, I'm letting Chase's choices speak to me, I'm not imposing my view on them.

I don't think you've really looked at it

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rnT7nYbCSvM

Everytime that cut goes by of Tony standing to Tony sitting, I get whiplash. Maybe I'm the victim of an incident at Holsten's.

comment #84

Richardson says ...

"I don't think you've really looked at it"

Oh, you meant the *final* scene. All this time, I had no idea what you were talking about!

Talk about condescending...

"I'm letting Chase's choices speak to me, I'm not imposing my view on them."

no, "You have to think like Chase" is making an assumption that Chase agrees with you because it makes you right. Using your own interpretation of what Chase wanted, colored by your interpretation of the scene, in order to justify your interpretation of the scene being correct is "begging the question". I'm sorry you don't like that, but it's the truth.

Can you point out a quote from Chase where he says "The only reason to show Tony having a vision is that it's his death"? (In fact, I know of several instances on the show where Tony had visions ("I wouldn't exactly call it a dream") that were not about his death.)

Because I can point to a Chase quote where he says that Tony's death is beside the point of the scene.

comment #85

Richardson says ...

"I don't think you've really looked at it"

Oh, you meant the *final* scene. All this time, I had no idea what you were talking about!

Talk about condescending...

"I'm letting Chase's choices speak to me, I'm not imposing my view on them."

no, "You have to think like Chase" is making an assumption that Chase agrees with you because it makes you right. Using your own interpretation of what Chase wanted, colored by your interpretation of the scene, in order to justify your interpretation of the scene being correct is "begging the question". I'm sorry you don't like that, but it's the truth.

Can you point out a quote from Chase where he says "The only reason to show Tony having a vision is that it's his death"? (In fact, I know of several instances on the show where Tony had visions ("I wouldn't exactly call it a dream") that were not about his death.)

Because I can point to a Chase quote where he says that Tony's hypothetical death is beside the point of the scene.

comment #86

Richardson says ...

Sorry for the double post; I thought I stopped it in time to make that one correction.

comment #87

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of sql server high availability