Letters to the Editor
-
Salon vs. Televisionwithoutpity
anonymous says
"The discussion on Televisionwithoutpity.com is like an honors graduate course compared to Salon's remedial freshman summer school."
So I went to check it out. Here's a sample:
I understand Lorraine Bracco had recently been on Conan and appeared to be drunk. Can't find a clip, but can someone who saw it recap/confirm this?
ejluther
I didn't see her on Conan - but I have noticed that she's always kind of "loopy" on talk shows. I think it's just her way. Speaking of her being on THE VIEW, she also mentioned something like, "David Chase wrote another scene for Melfi and Tony". I wonder if he's changing the ending around...
alsep73
i remember reading an interview saying that when she was a teen she drank alot of wine. when her friends wanted to drink pop she wanted to drink wine
smellyvalentine
Thanks for the great tip, anonymous, but I think I'll stick with Salon.
-
Dream sequence
As far as the room goes - we don't know if the room was freshly painted at first or not,, really. And we have no real idea how long he was in there - Phil's impatience and a few comments about missed events indicate it was more than a couple of days. The only thing that might seem a little odd at first is the coat rack, but Tony has had a coat rack every where that was his the entire show, and one of his quirks was that it obviously irked him to have to put his coat or jacket on a chair.
Someday someone associated with the show is going to make millions off a book about this episode.
-
Definitive News On The Ending? not so much
Not to throw a monkey wrench into anyones theory, but follow this link and you will have a clearcut answer to what really happened in the diner.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1562298/20070612/index.jhtml
Meaningless article, actually.
I'm still not sure about all the things I think the ending implies, but I'm sure about one thing: David Chase isn't letting a has-been rock-star dictate terms to him. If Steve Perry wants to think he negotiated to spare us all the gory trauma of an on-screen slaughter, that's kinda sweet, but who in their right mind would ever think that kind of denoument was a possibility?
But then the whole bombastic ego-tripping delusions-of-grandeur thing is why Tony would like Steve Perry.
-
Dreams
Of course we can dream scenes in which we play no part. Dreams are representations of our unconscious hopes and fears.A lovely dream I had after the death of my mother involved scenes from stories she told me of her youth. I was reassuring myself that she had a good life, despite the protracted illness she suffered from at the end.
As for the scene with Sil, I still say it represents Tony's former coma and being alseep. In Tony's mind, Sil is like him, and will come out of it just like he did.
The room. Yes it is quite possible that days have gone by since Tony first went into the bedroom. Maybe someone put sheets on the bed. But can you imagine Tony saying to someone "Hang me a little coat rack on the wall" and then not putting his jacket up there? What about the nice shiny dust free lamp in that long neglected house? And there IS a fresh coat of paint. All of it represents the comforts Tony is used to, not the reality of the room. Watch the end of 85 again.
-
That's not what the article said
"I'm still not sure about all the things I think the ending implies, but I'm sure about one thing: David Chase isn't letting a has-been rock-star dictate terms to him. If Steve Perry wants to think he negotiated to spare us all the gory trauma of an on-screen slaughter, that's kinda sweet, but who in their right mind would ever think that kind of denoument was a possibility?" -- rollerboyz
The article didn't say Mr. Perry negotiated to prevent a whacking in the Sopranos, what it says is that Mr. Perry did not want his song used in a scene where Tony gets whacked, and refused to grant rights until he received assurances as to how the song would be used. By that argument David Chase volunteered the reality of the scene, not rewrote it to use the song. Clearly Mr. Chase has a great deal of respect for the song and the artists that created, otherwise he wouldn't have used it. Since music rights are a particularly sticky whicket in the television industry, any aspect of the granting of rights would have been stipulated in writing by the lawyers, and as such, the statement that Tony isn't whacked in scene is pretty much gauranteed.
Now of course, that doesn't mean Tony isn't dead, since the song was not used after the screen goes blank, and tony could have been whacked after the scene went black, but given the fact that no other aspects of the scene (when viewed dispasionatly) imply that Tony got whacked it is doubtful that he was.
-
dawdler: I guess a hit dog DOES holler.
dawdler:
"I am one of those (I guess "haughty" and "above-it-all" types) who think most of the "we got cheated" type criticism is misplaced."
What you perceive of the critcism is one thing. What you perceive of the critics is another. My problem isn't with the disagreement about the nature of the ending, it is with those who seek to make value judgments about those who feel cheated by the ending.
"I certainly never argued the "importance" of the show either way. I just think getting angry because The Sopranos, which has really never been conventional in the sense of TV or mob dramas, didn't end with a neat little bow just shows an amazing lack of imagination on the part of the viewing public."
The fact that people feel cheated about the ending of a particular show doesn't speak to their capacity to imagine. That's a gross overgeneralization.
"This is not to say that The Sopranos is somehow better or more important for it. But simply different. And people just can't take different, I guess."
People are simply complaining about being misled. And, if the ending is left to interpretation, who is to say that their interpretation is less valid than yours?
"I guess your argument stands on the assertion (unstated) that this is a "genre" show and thus should follow some formula. But I disagree. I don't think it's ever been a genre show or formulaic. True, it's based on a genre."
I think expecting a "genre" ending (or a conventional TV ending) is just surprisingly naive."
So . . . the Sopranos is a non-formulaic, non-genre television series, but it is based on a genre that employs certain formulas. It's still a television series.
Anyways, if the finale was written to allow one to take away from it what (s)he will about the meaning of the show and the message conveyed by the writer, then a viewer who felt that the finale and the writer displayed contempt for the audience, or fear of providing a more determinative outcome, then who exactly are you, or anyone else, to pass judgment on that perspective?
"And also, I truly don't understand how so many people actually perceived this as an "insult" from David Chase. I guess if challenging people to appreciate new and different approaches to something is insulting, then consider me happily insulted."
David Chase can challenge people all he wants, but he has to be ready to accept the responses that he gets. Amusement, admiration, interpretation, these are certainly legitimate responses. Outrage or offense is no less legitimate a response. My reaction was a combination of all of the above, though at different times. But can you, or I, really pass judgment on a different point of view, when the finale was clearly desiged to provoke different points of view?
Chase crafted an ending designed to allow people to reach their own understanding about how it ended. Many believe that his ending was, in and of itself, a display of insecurity and cowardice that the main character embodied for nearly a decade. You don't have to accept this point of view or agree with it, any more than you might agree with any theories about the plotlines themselves. But you definitely shouldn't pass judgment on it.
Don't get me wrong, I felt the episode, on balance, was superb, and the ending was undeniably creative. But the naysayers could be right. David Chase could be playing us all for suckers.