Don't stop believing in even more 'The Revolution Was Televised' link-blogging
A 'Sopranos' excerpt, a public radio interview and a Deadspin chat highlight recent coverage
James Gandolfini, Edie Falco and Robert Iler in "The Sopranos" final scene.
My improvised publicity blitz continues for "The Revolution Was Televised: The Cops, Crooks, Slingers and Slayers Who Changed TV Drama Forever," and here are the latest links, including one that I suspect will prompt more discussion here. (You can find all the review and interview links at AlanSepinwall.com, along with a FAQ, a list of links to all my online writing about the shows in the book, purchasing links to all the different formats, and more.)
On Tuesday, I was a guest on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show" (with guest host Mike Pesca) yesterday. Here's the segment. And yesterday, I participated in a long Deadspin live-chat (which they accompanied with a very old Star-Ledger column photo that mainly makes me want to hit the gym).
But the discussion starter, I'm guessing, is the Slate excerpt from near the end of "The Sopranos" chapter, touching on both the averted fate of the missing Russian and Chase's motivations for making the final scene the way he did. (One thing that doesn't come up in the chapter, but that I've been asked about often enough to mention here: I explicitly asked Chase if he had read the Masters of Sopranos essay, describing it in a lot of detail, and he said, "I have not read that.") I've laid out my Tony Lives theory before, but never in as much detail as I do in the part of the book that Slate excerpted. I think this subject may be reaching Democrats/Republican territory where the two sides are getting too entrenched to make debate worth the trouble, but we can always give it one more try.
Onion rings. Journey. Go.
And, as always, if you have any questions about the book, you can either ask them in the comments here, or e-mail me at sepinwall@hitfix.com.
News From Our Partners
-
Kendall Schmidt of Big Time Rush Loses $7,000 Worth of Gifts for Fans [Video]
Kanye West to Drop New Album 'Yeezus' on June 18
Justin Bieber + Selena Gomez Will Sit Together at 2013 Billboard Music Awards
-
Weekly Ketchup: Will Smith to Star in Wild Bunch Remake?
Critics Consensus: Star Trek Into Darkness is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Roundup: Star Trek Into Darkness Edition
-
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
The Telefile - Modern Family: The Best Lines of the Night
The Telefile - Fall TV 2013: What's On When
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Three: Cheers for the young stars of The Selfish Giant, jeers for the new films by Hirokazu Kore-eda and Arnaud Desplechin
Hear This: Destroy This Place shows how press releases can get it right
Watch This: With Beavis And Butt-head Do America, Mike Judge skewered the idiocy of cinematic adventures
-
The 'Doctors' Unite
'We Are Men' In 4 Words
MTV Legend Recalls Heavy Metal Frontman's Anti-Gay T-Shirt Controversy
-
What to Watch This Weekend: The Season Finales of Nikita, Doctor Who, The Simpsons, and Family Guy
The Office Series Finale Review: That'll Do, Show. That'll Do.
Syfy Renews Warehouse 13 for a Fifth and Final Season
-
The Wrap Up: Remember 'The Office' With the Ultimate Blooper Reel
The Sims 3: Island Paradise's Producer Walkthrough Shows Us the Finer Points of Tropical Life
'Man of Steel' Featurette: Reinventing Superman
-
Beyonce Pregnant Again? Sources Confirm 'Epic' Star Is Carrying Baby No. 2
'Hangover 3' Red Band Trailer: Take a Walk Down a NSFW Memory Lane (VIDEO)
Why 'Man of Steel' Didn't Use 'Superman' in the Title
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
The Doctor uncovers Clara's secret and comes face-to-face with a surprising figureSaturday, May 18, 2013
-
Dan and Alan also discuss the recent finales of 'Survivor' and 'The Amazing Race'Friday, May 17, 2013
-
Dwight gets married and the staff revisits the documentary in a lovely farewellThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Lecter becomes interested in a local killer, and Will begins hearing thingsThursday, May 16, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signuprobert_j._cervantes
December 6, 2012 at 11:08AM EST Reply to CommentI'm of the school that our time with the Sopranos family was over. Nothing happened. He simply saw Meadow come in and that was it. There was never any indication or any noise leading to us to believe a bullet hit Tony. All the worrying of who's coming inside Holsten's was simply Tony being a high profile mob boss and wanted to know who is coming into his space. Nothing more, nothing less.
JerseyRudy Agree with Robert. To me the point of the scene is that anyone could take Tony out at any time and he would spend his remaining time worrying about it. He could never have peace of mind.
December 6, 2012 at 11:16AM ESTJames
December 6, 2012 at 11:17AM EST Reply to CommentMeadow opens the door, it rings, Tony looks up, and that's it. Nothing happens, he's with his family. Remember how AJ referenced the end of the first season, when they were all together in Vesuvio (remember the times that were good)? Tony shedding a tear after visiting Junior? Tony, evil as he is, does love his family, and to me, thats what the finale/closing scene was about.
When David Chase says its all there, he doesn't mean you need a frame by frame 10,000 word essay to figure it out.
BaconAndWaffles
December 6, 2012 at 11:28AM EST Reply to CommentOkay, Alan, you win. I caved and bought your book. I had planned to wait till after finishing my embarassingly long back log of books, but you have been too successful of a media whore. Between Twitter and various podcats and web sites that I frequent, you are everywhere. Well done!
ahorwitt
December 6, 2012 at 11:56AM EST Reply to CommentAlan! Loved the book. But, why no mention of the Chase/Belzer interview?
BELZER: I was working with Steve Schirripa recently. We were judging Last Comic Standing for NBC and we were talking about a lot of different things, obviously. And he was saying that he heard all these theories about the show that weren't, had nothing to do with what your intention was or what any of the actors thought. Like little hints along the way. Like a word. Like when Tony and Steve are on the boat at the lake and they say "you can never know it's gonna happen" or "you never know when it's gonna hit you."
CHASE: That was part of the ending.
BELZER: Oh, it was? You see, what do I know? Are there other things that were in previous episodes that were a hint towards it?
CHASE: There was that. And there was a shooting to which Silvio was a witness. Well, he wasn't a witness, he was eating dinner with a couple of hookers and some other guy who got hit and there was some visual stuff that went on there which sort of amplified Tony's remarks to Bacala about, you know, "you don't know it's happened" or "you won't know it happens when it hits you." That's about it.
I also don't think your point about the Sopranos' narrative "rules" and supposedly always playing fair is quite right. I recall from your recaps that you were annoyed with the S6 episode where Tony developed a gambling habit. You thought the show wasn't playing fair to give him this character trait so suddenly. But
Chase wanted to make some thematic points about risk and death, so he bent his narrative rules.
Same with the ending. If Chase wanted to creatively portray the abruptness and finality of death, I don't think he'd limit himself by saying "Oh, I've previously always showed the other characters hatching their plots, so I have to do the same now." I've been reading the new AVClub recaps this year and there is just so, so much there thematically about the approach of death (as you do acknowledge).
ahorwitt :crickets: Alan, I'm honestly asking why you didn't mention the Belzer interview in your chapter. Chase has only talked about the ending 3 or 4 times and the comments he made to Belzer are quite specific and unique. Did you have a reason for leaving them out, or did they just slip your mind?
December 6, 2012 at 11:47PM ESTberzurcher
December 6, 2012 at 12:38PM EST Reply to CommentThis argument is fascinating for reasons outside of THE SOPRANOS. We could contend that Tony didn't die because we didn't see him die. We could content that Tony didn't die because THE SOPRANOS is a piece of fiction and Tony was never real in the first place, it's just JG reading Chase's lines.
That 20,000 word tome on the Death of Tony is incredible, but mostly gibberish. And Alan, your argument rests heavily on the simple belief that Chase wouldn't do something like kill off Tony with such abstract or oblique technique/timing. I am convinced that, on a strictly filmic level, the fictional Tony dies at the end of THE SOPRANOS -- simply because of the POV that Chase does an impressively unsubtle job establishing, that after the bell rings we switch to Tony's subjective POV. There are other reasons that seem thoroughly convincing -- the obvious GODFATHER reference built into the Members Only Guy being one.
But no argument can be as interesting as the questions that this finale raises about the role serialized fiction plays in our lives. Chase probably had no idea that he was elevating THE SOPRANOS to the sublime platform that it's on when he made that last scene. It was an artistic move. An ambiguous, challenging answer to the hordes of viewers who had come to love a killer. That some viewers believed that their cable cut out doesn't surprise me -- I was hardly old enough to watch the show when the finale aired. But the "revolution" that Alan seems to be talking about is partially rooted in the idea that these fictional figures and these ideas being communicated by Chase are *meant to stay with us when we're not watching*. The greatest ambition of THE SOPRANOS, above all else, was to make television that people would talk about like they might talk about a movie or a novel. There might be some unhealthy nostalgia creeping into this analysis, but Tony's fate is the less interesting discussion. Why, rather, do we continue to wonder? And isn't it fantastic that we do?
shma
December 6, 2012 at 1:28PM EST Reply to Comment"I think this subject may be reaching Democrats/Republican territory where the two sides are getting too entrenched to make debate worth the trouble"
Judging by the comments from the Slate article, as well as elsewhere on the web, it seems that we have one side which has an extremely narrow and rigid viewpoint with no room for any other interpretation and another side which actually considers a wide variety of viewpoints valid and strives to make people understand that there are many plausible answers.
Discussing how accurate the above quote is in this context, unfortunately, would violate the No Politics rule.
Get Serious Which party do you think is which? (Don't answer that.)
December 6, 2012 at 1:58PM ESTahorwitt Funny, but maybe it also resemble a different political dynamic -- the one where one side accepts that the evidence points toward humans causing climate change, and the other side digs in and says "but we don't know for sure!" (Just sayin'!)
December 6, 2012 at 4:35PM ESTshma As if to prove my point beyond the shadow of a doubt, Tony's Ghost offers an exchange with the writer of the "Definitive Explanation" which perfect illustrates the close-minded and rigid personality of this group.
December 6, 2012 at 8:57PM ESTThe guy can't even accept that Chase hasn't read his essay when given an explicit statement from the man himself.
I honestly couldn't make up a better example of what I'm talking about if I tried.
Torino SHMA,
December 6, 2012 at 10:14PM ESTwhy does it get you so angry that people who feel Ton y died are passionate about their position? Perhaps they feel strongly about it because they have mountains of evidence to back their argument? While the other side is basically "it's just ambiguous", that is not an interpretation because that doesn't interpret anything. I'm not sure why you are giving that Definitive explanation site so much criticism. The writer actually did the hard work.
And assuming the writer is telling the truth, Chase DID recognize the name of his site, so he got his own explicit statement and I believe it because it would be shocking to me that Chase never came across that site.
sepinwall I didn't name the site. I said (paraphrasing), "Have you ever read that 20,000 word online essay that claims to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tony died by analyzing every shot and edit of that scene, and every word you have said about it since the show ended?" And Chase said (and this is a direct quote), "I have not read that."
December 6, 2012 at 10:49PM ESTshma Torino,
December 7, 2012 at 1:37AM ESTFirst, who said I'm angry? Don't project emotions onto me. If anything, I find this intolerance for other viewpoints fascinating. Doubly so in that there is no opposite group of people insisting that TONY IS ALIVE is the only possible interpretation.
"While the other side is basically "it's just ambiguous", that is not an interpretation because that doesn't interpret anything."
A deliberately ambiguous ending is an artistic choice. And, like any other artistic choice, there is usually a purpose behind it. So yes, recognizing the ambiguity is an important part of interpreting the ending.
"And assuming the writer is telling the truth, Chase DID recognize the name of his site, so he got his own explicit statement and I believe it because it would be shocking to me that Chase never came across that site."
Is it possible for someone to have heard of an essay without having also read it? I only ask this rhetorical question because this seems to be a point of confusion for both you and the author of the Definitive Explanation. And I note amusingly that the implied alternative explanation, that no one here is lying, seems to have been immediately dismissed.
Kmarko
December 6, 2012 at 1:31PM EST Reply to CommentFor awhile, I was frustrated with Alan's refusal to acknowledge that David Chase's obvious intent was to have the final scene reflect Tony's death. It seemed so willfully obtuse not to concede the point. Now, it just makes me laugh, and not in a bad way. We all have our blind spots. (I’d say this might show an unwillingness on Alan’s part to admit that he’s wrong, but I think he truly believes what he’s saying.)
Of course the last five minutes of a show can depart from its usual narrative strategy! St. Elsewhere typically didn’t spend a lot of episodes shot in a snow globe, either. As to the idea that a mob boss would ever be “safe” from someone killing him…well, that’s just silly.
So, yeah, the ending is actually quite obvious (you don’t need that long essay, by the way, but for what it’s worth, Bob Harris’ similar piece is better). But that’s OK. This keeps the conversation—and that great show!—in our heads longer than it might be otherwise.
Tony's Ghost
December 6, 2012 at 3:31PM EST Reply to CommentI wrote this response on the AV club comments for their review of "The Second Coming". The second is cut and pasted from a poster claiming to the writer of the Master of Sopranos blog who had a back and forth with Alan at a site called "Press Play:
"I love Alan but his view on the meaning of the finale is just silly. If you read his write ups (like I did) for the final season, he wouldn't stop saying Tony would not die at the end. Then, right after the final aired, he gloated that he was right. Now, that people have actually analyzed the ending, it's clear (to most people at least) that Tony died. He is just being stubborn at this point.
He is also guilty of bad research. For instance he says that Chase has never explained the ending to anyone after his interview with Chase right after the final aired. He then fails to mention Chase's sort of explanation in the HBO book released after the show aired (his discussion about the Torciano hit) and the Richard Belzer interview from Chase where he explains the "never hear it" stuff. In both interviews, Chase has to do some verbal gymnastics to not actually say the words "Tony died!"
Then Sepinwall says Chase's "It's All There" remark could just mean "what you see is what you get" and does not actually mean "look carefully for clues." BUT he forgets to point out that Chase actually changed the quote to a British newspaper months later where he said: "IF you look at the final episode REALLY CAREFULLY, It's all there." Again, Chase's subsequent comment totally refutes Sepinwall's argument.
I love Alan and will read his re-caps until the day I die. But he is just being stubborn on this one."
AND FROM PRESS-PLAY:
MOS: Alan, I am the writer of the Master of Sopranos blog. You don't have to believe me, but I met Mr. Chase while he was in Manhattan filming "Not Fade Away" (the scene was filmed on West 26th st. between 6th and Broadway). I walked up to him and introduced myself as the writer of the the essay Definitive Explanation of the End. Chase shook my hand and playfully joked "that's the one that's like 40 pages." I'm sure you know my piece is partly famous for it's length so I do figure my site is what he was talking about. He would not discuss the ending more than "I just want people to know it wasn't a F-you". He nicely introduced me to a couple of members of his crew and said goodbye. So yes, I think he read it.
Alan: I was very specific in describing the thesis of your essay, the length, the arguments, etc., before asking if he had read it. He said, and I quote, "I have not read that."
MOS: Again, without telling him anything else about my piece except the title, his first reaction was to jokingly comment about its length. Unless there is another well known, gigantic essay on the ending, I stand by my belief that he read it. In 2008, I was also was able to get a smaller version of it (which I originally wrote on a popular but now mostly inactive sopranos fan site) to him through his good friend Allen Rucker who had previously wrote a hbo sopranos tie in book. In any event I suppose it's possible he was joking about some other mammoth essay but it's also possible he didn't want to get into talking about explaining the final scene with you. In any event, he wouldn't comment one way or the other about whether I was correct. Without prompting though he was quick to tell me it wasn't an f-u to the fans. To me that really showed me how much the fan reaction bothered him. By the way I bought the book on iBooks. Thanks for the shout out about my site. I'm really digging the book so far. It's very thorough.
Beekayz I'm probably missing something, but I don't understand why the fact that Chase knows that the essay is mega-long is proof that he read it?
December 8, 2012 at 12:14AM ESTIsn't it more likely that the essay has been mentioned to him by other people and in fan mail etc and when describing it people characteristically mentioned its length?
I mean, people don't need to have climbed the Empire State Building to know that it's tall.
Scott
December 6, 2012 at 3:32PM EST Reply to CommentWhen it first aired I thought Tony was killed and if anything I think I'm much more comfortable now in that opinion than I was back then.
Further, I always thought that Chase had a particular disdain for the segment of fans that had no interest whatsoever in his art and were only there for the bravado, blood and body count. So the way in which the series ended, quite literally "whacking" the audience immediately following some particularly gory scenes, struck me as brilliant and very much something Chase would do. When I realized that my TV hadn't crapped out and that was the actual ending I laughed out loud and smiled for what Chase did.
Also since the overlap between fans who were only there for the bravado, blood and body count and the fans who are really upset by the ending is quite strong I don't really think Chase cares all that much about the complaining, if anything it's probably a bit of a confirmation that he achieved his intended effect.
John
December 6, 2012 at 5:03PM EST Reply to CommentHere's the problem with the "that's what Tony's life is like from here on out" theory: that was *already* Tony's life. He was nearly assassinated all the way back in Season 1. He was always jumpy, like that scene at the beginning of Season 2 when Big Pussy is out in his driveway, and Tony instinctively thinks he's in danger (because he just sees the car and a man getting out of it). I don't think Chase needed to make a point that he had already made and was fairly obvious (no way, a mob boss in danger?) anyway.
I find the counterarguments (the discussion with Bobby, the hit that Silvio witnessed, the Members Only Guy going to the bathroom, the bell rings-and-cut-to-Tony's-POV shots and the 10 seconds of darkness to be much more persuasive. It's ambiguous enough than Alan and others can continue to believe that Tony's alive if they want. But the evidence suggest that it's not that open for interpretation after all. Tony is dead. Either way, The Sopranos was one of the best shows in the history of television, and it had a finale to match.
belinda
December 6, 2012 at 6:26PM EST Reply to Commentthat beard!
Atta
December 6, 2012 at 8:56PM EST Reply to CommentI also think Tony got whacked at the end. There are too many things pointing to the final shot being Tony's point of view right as he gets shot. A big nothing. Not hearing anything, not knowing what happened.
Mark
December 7, 2012 at 7:49AM EST Reply to CommentI've never commented on this before, but I strongly believe Tony didn't get whacked at the end of the Sopranos. We did. We the viewers. We never saw it coming, we never knew it happened, it all went black. We "probably don't even hear it when it happens, right?" as Bobby's prescient comment foreshadowed. David Chase killed us off. I'm sure others have made this case, but it always seemed to me to be what happened. And with no evidence to support, just speculating, I think the 'members only' guy took us out. We are not the insiders, the members of that family (Sopranos, writers, directors, etc). Thanks for allowing the comment. I've read you Alan at the Star Ledger religiously back at Rutgers and try to following you wherever I am in the world. Keep writing!
adama1843 I like that!
December 9, 2012 at 10:25PM ESTDr. Dunkenstein
December 7, 2012 at 11:36AM EST Reply to CommentFirewall and Iceberg and HUAL cross-over? I'm in.
Also, I think Tony almost certainly enjoyed those onion rings.
Jacob
December 7, 2012 at 2:14PM EST Reply to CommentYeah..I'd say this is probably the more appropriate place to plug your book, as opposed to doing so about a dozen times daily on your Twitter.
Haik Mendelovich
December 7, 2012 at 6:32PM EST Reply to Comment"The Sopranos: Definitive Explanation of 'The END'" is awfully persuasive, if a little too wordy.
The author makes a great case, using Chase's own writing and history (as well as some ancillary interviews) that Tony was shot in the head in front of his family.
Having said that, I still don't think the ending was fair to loyal viewers, at all. If Livia Soprano was right, and it's all a "big nothing", well that doesn't jibe with Tony and Chris' NDEs in previous episodes.
alphabet
December 8, 2012 at 1:10AM EST Reply to CommentIt's Schrodinger's Cat.
Season 6 dove heavily into general quantum weirdness - alternate-reality Tony, the physicist in the hospital explaining that the two boxers on TV were part of the same quantum cloud, peyote-Tony at the roulette table, etc..
The truth of the ending is that all possibilities are alive in the room.
Every viewer is entitled to their own read; despite 'obvious' evidence one way or the other tho, anyone claiming to definitively know what happened is still speculating - confusing their own read with reality - and in doing so risk missing one of the true joys (and a potent thematic concern!) of this brilliant series.
Mathematically speaking, Tony is both alive AND dead. And since no one (save Chase) can ever open the box to obtain more data, he's likely to stay this way.