Being on the leading edge of media criticism I just got around to watching the Sopranos finale last night. It was about 24 hours after I had the “ending” ruined for me, if such an ending could even be ruined.
I was eager to find out about this controversial ending I’d been hearing so much about. I suspected creator David Chase and company would be vindicated. When it comes to Sopranos I’m a loyalist, over the past four years I’ve developed a relationship to these characters and their mythologies that boarders on familial.

Amid all the controversy about the final scene there’s a general consensus in the blogging world that Tony met his maker. I’ve followed the controversy with great interest and there’s something unsatisfyingly shallow about the case being made on both sides.
A lot has been made about the suspicious looking diner patron credited as “Guy in Members Only Jacket”; also every critic / blogger reminds us ad nauseum of Tony’s ominous conversation with Bobby which foreshadows his demise.
I suppose they make a good point, but it’s also fairly superficial for this show that traditionally has possessed the depth and texture of a Dostoyevsky novel.
I don’t think the ending “sucks”, and I can appreciate the subtle manner in which Chase, acting as the final’s director, is able to build impending doom. But honestly, for all the discussion it has sparked I think that final scene in the diner is kind of meaningless. For me the ten seconds of blackness that punctuates the episode (followed by a silent credit sequence) spells it out literally enough that I don’t feel particularly invited to read a lot into it. In fact the scene is really not all that open ended. I think critics are confusing unsatisfying with ambiguous.

Unsatisfying how? Well, simply telling us that Tony dies hardly brings us closure. It’s not enough to tell us that a character is murdered. How, why, by whom and what were the events that led to this out come. Whoever the assassin may be, I don’t see any clear motivation for anyone in particular wanting Tony killed. Sure, we can easily imagine countless number of possible explanations. But are they supported by what we’ve seen. And what do they say about this character and his story.

A popular theory is that Members Only is Phil Leotardo’s nephew, ignoring for a moment the fact that this has been contradicted by the writers, how does this fit in with the themes of the series. Does it leave us with Tony being redeemed or condemned, does it make us question what we thought we knew about this character. It neither confirms our expectations nor challenges them.

The supporters also remind us the final succeeded in driving people too discussion and for all its faults it forces us to contemplate its mysteries and refuses to be forgotten. And it’s true I suppose. Since I watched it that final scene has been playing through my mind in a loop. It has certainly given me food for thought and I can’t say for certain that in a years time I won’t have changed my opinion. But for me that’s not enough to call it a success. There’s a vast gulf between the interesting and the successful.

For me the interpretation that hits closest is from Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore. Via his blog:

“I ‘m glad [David Chase] thumbed his nose at the tyranny of the narrative drive to bring things to a tidy conclusion so we can all clap and walk away without another thought about that mob family in Jersey, satisfied that all’s well that ends well.”

It’s a persuasive idea, that by denying us a concrete resolution the characters are allowed to live out in the discretion of our imaginations. It’s almost enough to persuade me to embrace the Sopranos ending. Almost but not quite.

I honestly don’t think that I’m bothered by ambiguity of the final. From the Russian in the woods to Adriana’s fate this show’s never been afraid to leave things unresolved and I’ve always loved it. I can deal with Tony’s fate not being 100% set in stone. But to me The Sopranos has always been a psychological drama where clues to our anti-hero’s dark psyche are embedded in the elaborately layered history of the New Jersy crime families. Strange clues, almost random flotsam of memories can illuminate the dark psychology of sociopath in fascinating ways. Stuff like cold cuts, old cowboy movies and Kennedy assassination conspiracies. One of the consistent joys of watching the Sopranos over the years is the way a subtle turn of phrase can echo an old favorite scene and shed a whole new light on old relationships.
At the risk of sounding like some simple minded philistine I’d like to suggest that it would’ve been nice to see some final summation of Tony as a human being, some reconciliation of Tony the sociopath and Tony the Father and Husband. Earlier in the season we had such a moment, when Tony kills his nephew / cousin / successor. I’d always suspected Tony Soprano was capable of killing his own child and this scene confirms that my suspicion was dead on. Later Tony, in the unguarded and introspective freedom of dream his dreams lets slip an insight into his true motives. That’s the sort of thing I was looking for in the last episode of Sopranos, an ending.
I don’t think it’s wrong to expect narratives to have beginnings, middles and ends. I hear a lot of critics giving a pass to Chase’s ending because life itself very rarely does us the service of tying up loose ends. Well that explanation goes only so far before it starts to smell like a cop out. It’s always nice when art manages to emulate the unpredictable messiness of life but art also needs to make a statement. As I writer I’ve learned to think of story telling as an argument where the beginning sets up the middle which proves the end. Let me put that another way; a story needs an ending the same way a joke needs a punch line. Ultimately Sopranos is a masterpiece, but one with that punch line.

Here’s a pretty good review that takes the opposite opinion.

Popularity: 25% [?]

Share This