almost time for Sopranos! [SPOILERS]

[Steve Jung]

Another thought I had was that it seemed like things were starting to go well for Tony and his family: Phil is out of the way (although he's going to have some potential legal troubles), AJ looks like he's getting his life on track, Meadow has a good job lined up after her parents weren't happy with her dropping out of med-school. I wonder if you were supposed to infer that something bad was going to go down in the diner.

I did. The way the camera lingered on people entering Holsten's brought a sense of menace. When the man went into the bathroom, I thought for sure that he was going to come out shooting, like in The Godfather.

 

[Vigilance]

Maybe I'm cynical, but I thought there was no way Tony or any of the major characters (his wife and kids, the psychiatrist) were going to die.

As it stands now, they can do reunion movies in 5 years.

 

[Atavar]

One interpretation I heard, and that I tend to agree with, is that Tony got whacked. The sudden jump to black and silence emphasized the "you don't hear it coming" aspects of it.

I also heard that a LOT of people thought their cable went out, or that their DVR/Tivo stopped recording early.

In any event, I thought the ending scene was brilliantly done.

Later,

Atavar

 

[Mark CMG]

Wasn't there a movie about a kid whose father gets whacked in a restaurant, while the kid does nothing, and the kid grows up to get into the family business and goes into therapy?

 

[Felon]

I don't think the lack of a climax should really prove that much of a surprise. The show has jerked its viewers around on countless occasions, leaving plot threads dangling or dying with a whimper instead of a roar.

I'm amazed at how the much-ado-about-nohting show got so popular just by showcasing picayune slices of life. I'm also amazed at how Chase got praised for stringing viewers along with delivering payoffs. That is what is often lambasted as "self-indulgent" when other directors do it (Tarentino's Death Proof springs to mind).

 

[Mark CMG]

slices of life

Good stuff. Knowing that going in, I never expected payoffs nor felt they were promised.

 

[Olive]

I don't think the lack of a climax should really prove that much of a surprise. The show has jerked its viewers around on countless occasions, leaving plot threads dangling or dying with a whimper instead of a roar.

I'm amazed at how the much-ado-about-nohting show got so popular just by showcasing picayune slices of life. I'm also amazed at how Chase got praised for stringing viewers along with delivering payoffs. That is what is often lambasted as "self-indulgent" when other directors do it (Tarentino's Death Proof springs to mind).

Surely the point is that a) we were always promised what we got and b) Chase made amazing compelling art where as everything Tarantino has done since Jackie Brown has been tripe?

What I never understood were the people who watched the Sopranos for the violence. There really wasn't enough of it to make that worth while.

 

[Fast Learner]

I'm amazed at how the much-ado-about-nohting show got so popular just by showcasing picayune slices of life.

How much Sopranos did you watch, anyway? The show was all about character development and these people's lives, which it almost always richly delivered. Seriously, how much did you watch, to come to that opinion?

I'm with Olive on the violence: while the violence that there was certainly was powerful, it was such a tiny part of the show, it'd be a complete snore-fest for people who wanted violence.

 

[Mark CMG]

The show was all about character development and these people's lives, which it almost always richly delivered.

One could argue it was the antithesis of character development that made the show great. We got to know everyone better but they never grew as people. It is a show about unending residivism and codependency with no way out but death. Bleak. I loved it.

One of the show's trademarks was to bring in a new character as it had already been fully developed and have all of the other character treat them as if they had always been around. We would get to know them, too, for whatever time they were on the screen (or discussed by others) and then they would wander off, get whacked, or be ignored if inconsequential to the further through line of the show as a whole. Brilliant.

 

[Fast Learner]

One could argue it was the antithesis of character development that made the show great. We got to know everyone better but they never grew as people. It is a show about unending residivism and codependency with no way out but death. Bleak. I loved it.

Good point, I was kind of thinking that as I typed it, but I realized that some characters did grow. Chrissie, AJ, and Meadow all grew (emotionally, not just in years), I'd argue. Tony... well, Tony didn't grow ethically, but he grew in some ways, I think.

But overall, it's true, I agree. And it was their enduring weaknesses (and some of their strengths) that defined them for 6 seasons. Great stuff.