thank you and goodnight.
So i was wrong about the sopranos. but you know what? i loved the last episode - particularly the ending.
it seems like many people were disappointed with the way it went out - with some promises of a bang, but in the end, a whimper. and maybe david chase did do it that way to leave open the possibility of a movie, and if that comes to pass, i'll be disappointed. but until then, bravissimo.
i think the ending - or non-ending, as some might say - was very much intentionally left up to multiple interpretations, and im gonna present three of the better interpretations ive heard below. but first, my own take.
life is prosaic, more than it is poetic or episodic. and the best thing about the sopranos was that the lives the characters all led seemed so viscerally real.
(somewhat ironic that i should say this, b/c a tv show, by definition, is literally episodic. on the other hand, not so ironic. a movie is more episodic; a tv show, which can stretch on for years, and gradually grow and change in the process, is more prosaic.)
fitting then that we should leave tony sitting in a diner, listening to journey, waiting for his family to coalesce, rather than meeting some ignominious, 'poetic' fate. (even if it's possible we left tony the nanosecond before he got whacked - as it happened, we didnt see that.)
the fittingness of going out with a whimper is best illustrated in one of my favorite short stories, from - as it were - ray bradbury's the illustrated man. the story is called the last night of the world. i read it in sixth grade, and i'll never forget it. you should read it too. it'll take all of three minutes.
now, for the other sopranos interpretations i mentioned:
it seems like many people were disappointed with the way it went out - with some promises of a bang, but in the end, a whimper. and maybe david chase did do it that way to leave open the possibility of a movie, and if that comes to pass, i'll be disappointed. but until then, bravissimo.
i think the ending - or non-ending, as some might say - was very much intentionally left up to multiple interpretations, and im gonna present three of the better interpretations ive heard below. but first, my own take.
life is prosaic, more than it is poetic or episodic. and the best thing about the sopranos was that the lives the characters all led seemed so viscerally real.
(somewhat ironic that i should say this, b/c a tv show, by definition, is literally episodic. on the other hand, not so ironic. a movie is more episodic; a tv show, which can stretch on for years, and gradually grow and change in the process, is more prosaic.)
fitting then that we should leave tony sitting in a diner, listening to journey, waiting for his family to coalesce, rather than meeting some ignominious, 'poetic' fate. (even if it's possible we left tony the nanosecond before he got whacked - as it happened, we didnt see that.)
the fittingness of going out with a whimper is best illustrated in one of my favorite short stories, from - as it were - ray bradbury's the illustrated man. the story is called the last night of the world. i read it in sixth grade, and i'll never forget it. you should read it too. it'll take all of three minutes.
now, for the other sopranos interpretations i mentioned:
∞ the tiger or the lady? (go here to get the background on this one.)
thank you david chase.
3 Comments:
I agree that the finale was brilliant. I LOVED it. But I didn't think it was a whimper in any way. That last scene with the Sopranos at the diner had me LITERALLY on the edge of my seat the entire time. My heart was racing, and my brain ran the gamut of complex emotions that I have pent up for these characters - affection, disgust, fear (of and for), pity, etc. And I think that was some portion of the point - the viewer was made to feel what they feel, and what they will keep feeling day in, day out, until the moment when the shit hits the fan (if and when it does). (So manipulative - I LOVE IT. I love being manipulated like that, it just makes my respect for the manipulator (i.e., David Chase) grow exponentially.)
This is a somewhat pedestrian interpretation, I acknowledge, but nevertheless, I think that it illustrates the following: the distinction to be drawn between this finale and the finale of, let's say, Six Feet Under (which I also thought was absolutely brilliant), is not the distinction between a bang and a whimper, but rather the one between resolution and ambiguity.
I think that both types of endings have their merits. I felt so satisfied at the end of Six Feet Under, knowing the ultimate fate of each and every character. But I was equally as satisfied with the Sopranos ending, not only because I appreciate it when someone is able to manipulate me like that, but also because sometimes, the potential fates of characters resonate more than actual ones.
nora, i actually think your take is brilliant. particularly this:
'sometimes, the potential fates of characters resonate more than actual ones.'
bravo.
I also loved the finale's finale. Some notes about it:
1. I'm convinced that nothing happens to the main characters, for what it's worth - so much of the series has been about the "mundaneness" of their Mafia lives, that there's alot more manigott and shrub-trimming than there is guns and ammo. Consistent with this view is that for all the finale's build-up...nothing happens. They have their meal in peace. Even if you don't buy that, why doesn't anyone mention that from a practical point of view, there's no one out there with a motive to whack Tony, after the sit-down in the blue warehouse? It was all called off, and there is actually peacetime when the episode closes.
2. I've heard "Don't Stop Believin'" a couple times since the finale, and each time it's triggered the closing scene for me - that's success, Pop.
Post a Comment
<< Home