Letters to the Editor
-
Made in America, we're all Tony
As I've read everyone's anger at the blank ending, or the desire to see Tony (and even the family) die, I wonder whether in the moment at the end when we thought it was going to happen, if everyone else didn't feel as sad and scared as I did. Why? Tony's a criminal who has killed innocents, certainly. But we identify with him. We identify with his weaknesses, his struggle to keep his power, keep his possessions, fight off people worse than him, and keep his family together and safe (or what passes for safe in his world). Mostly, we identify with a flawed guy whose subjectivity we've been given a window into (and what a window -- only Proust and Faulkner have given me as vivid views into a character's mind). He is deeply selfish and deeply immoral, but we identify with those failings. His crimes are, after all, motivated by things we understand -- greed, inertia, fear of losing control, fear of danger.
The other thing that bothered me is the seeming "red-herring" nature of the entire terrorism/FBI plot. So much screen time has been spent on discussing terrorism -- from the FBI agent, to AJ, to Tony's alarm after discussing terrorism with the FBI agent in the last episode. I came to the conclusion that we are being led to a metaphor here -- the question of whether Tony will get whacked stands for the question of whether we, Americans, will get whacked. I'm not saying this is the only meaning here, but I think it is a big one, and an intentional one. I think the FBI agent is a bit of a Greek chorus here, and he has blurred the line between mafia and terrorism. He is on the side against terrorists, and on Tony's side in many ways (even turning informant on Phil Leotardo -- as a federal prosecutor myself, I can say that this is a most dramatic breach of duty and law). What does he say when he finds out Phil's been killed? "We just might win this thing!" Who's the "we" here? The agent is supposed to be the U.S., not the mafia, but he's performing his Greek chorus role -- telling us that "we" (the Americans) are Tony.
The show also elided the line between mafia and terrorism in the last scene. Was anyone NOT nervous that the entire family (or at least Meadow) would be killed? If we think this is truly just about the mafia, that would make no sense. We know they don't get families -- that was proven in Phil Leotardo's hit when they had to try NOT to hit his wife. But we all felt that the family was in mortal danger. From what? the hit on Tony? Or a greater danger that threatens all of us but has been symbolized in this little microcosm of NJ mafia?
After all the time spent this season talking about the failings of American capitalism, our dependence on foreign oil, our complicity or negligence in keeping ourselves safe and unconnected from crime/terrorism, we are clearly being told that we are closer to Tony than we would like to think. We met Tony as he was seeking to be content, not to panic, and he has always returned to his own quest for happiness. Our failings share the same motivations as his -- a dysfunctional history, greed, lust, selfishness, a desire to keep our power, to protect ourselves, and a tremendous tendency toward short-sightedness (Tony's been driving an SUV since the beginning of the show, after all, and Carmela's reading right-wing hack books that justify the war in Iraq). Tony doesn't kill for pleasure, but to meet these needs/desires. Most of the victims are involved or compromised themselves -- others are collateral damage.
I think Chase's ending is loyal to this metaphor. We don't know what happens to Tony, but there are a lot of reasons to think he either just got killed or will. I can't imagine Chase is an optimist on the future of Americans. His perceptions about the FBI struggle to investigate/halt terrorism are dark (FBI agent is always sick, overworked, marriage failing; the discussion of the constant threat in the last episode). It went dark with many wolves coming through the door. Chase tells us that we don't know what will happen to us, but we know that we have left ourselves open to many forms of danger. We sit at our table and engage in denial and try to enjoy the good times, and we probably won't even hear it when it happens. I don't agree with Chase entirely -- I'm in Tony's "don't stop believing" camp. But I fear Chase has a point.
This is the only show I've ever seen that I thought measured up to great literature.
-
For Arteberry . . .
Regarding the ambiguous jump cut you speak of where Tony is suddenly seated . . . Okay, we're at the front door now watching Tony in his booth. It's my feeling that Chase is giving us Meadow's exact point of view when she enters the restaurant. And this is why Meadow's whole ordeal with the parking situation matters, timing-wise. Chase is letting us now that Meadow will not be spared this ultimate horror.
Penway
-
What's Up with No Body Guards?
I've watched only 2 or 3 episodes of the Sopranos, but saw clips this evening on the final episode.
My question about the final diner scene is this: how realistic is it that a Mafioso of Tony's rank would be out in public without some bodyguards?
I hope the rest of the series enjoyed quite a bit more verisimilitude, or I'm at a loss to understand the show's stature in the public mind.
Jerked in Jersey
-
Chase: ambiguous about Tony's death, but not about his life
Many great writers conjure up ambiguity, and for many reasons. It serves mystery plots well, if temporarily. It serves moral relativists as the 'point'.
For Chase, the very ambiguity of the 'going dark' moment proclaims, loudly and with moral certainty, the tragic day-to-day existence of mob life, particularly that of a man as thoughtful as Tony.
All that emptiness -- the vacancy of Uncle Junior, who should be exhibiting proud satifaction, and bequeathing his stash to his progeny; Paulie, driven to bad business decisions, spooked by a domestic animal and astute statistical analysis; Meadow lowering her sights; AJ, after twisting in the mental, moral and career planning winds, landing in the shoes of none other than Christopher, who drove Tony mad by precariously toying with mob greatness like a catnip doll; and as many have cited, the endless, nauseating stress of every family outing being a life & death drama.
The final episode was an ideal venue in which to suck us all in - heart, mind, eye and instinct - to Tony's daily drama. ...Into the hell that living in the world of "kill or be killed" represents. Only in the final episode would our eyes be that wide open to realize what every dinner has been like for Tony, and to varying degrees his family. To realize that they may live on in the cushy home, driving Beemers and reading Oprah picks, but Tony's life is and always will be hell.
I don't think Chase went after some of the other things we might read into the script, but, well, who could be sure? A number of folks, including Heather in her terrific article, have mentioned the the show's commentary on its own audience, caring more about its TV fix than doing something about the actions of its government.
Chase could be saying quite a bit about America's national moral posture.
America - as a country - in 2007 is not unlike Tony Soprano and his gang of thugs. There was tenuously justified collateral damage in Bagdad, and in front of the Bada-Bing last week. Can a trigger-happy America enjoy its onion rings any more peacefully than Tony?
Well, like I said, I think I'm stretching beyond Chase's intentions here, but as many have cited before, excellent art such as Chase's long series and its rich ending tends to have that effect.