Television The Sopranos

robinamicrowave

Wanted to be bran, ended up being littlefinger
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
2,739
Supports
Man City
Just started The Sopranos. Nine episodes in. Great thus far.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,380
The only bad episode was the Colombus Day episode (Christopher) in season 4. Actually the one where Tony suddenly has a gambling addiction (Chasing It) in the last season wasn’t great either.
Christopher feels so weirdly out of place, but in its defense it has these three great moments of dialogue (not to mention Janice shoving a dildo up Ralphie’s pooper):


(AJ reading Howard Zinn)


Tony’s apparently sudden gambling addiction in Chasing It also feels completely out of place, but is explained quite well here (the whole thing is worth a read through):

Season 6, part 2, depicted Tony as a heavy gambler, one who risked far more money more often than had ever been suggested before. While he always profited significantly from bookmaking and loansharking enterprises (his own and those of his crew), his personal wagering was limited and low-key in the first five and a half seasons, consisting mostly of casual card games or the odd day at a casino or racetrack. He certainly had never been depicted as the kind of man who gambled enough to endanger his liquidity or to necessitate six-figure loans just to stay even with his bookies, which describes the state of affairs in the episode Chasing It.

His gambling problem becomes so significant in that episode that it’s even addressed in therapy. Tony admits he’s been sending “good money after bad” but quickly defends the practice. “If you couldn’t lose, what’s the feckin’ point, huh? See, you need the risk,” he tells Melfi. She asks, “What are you chasing? Money or a high from winning?” His shake of the head indicates that he doesn’t really know the answer to her question.

Many viewers couldn’t provide an answer either and felt this sudden gambling crisis reflected a writing failure, an attempt to manufacture drama by imposing unnatural or contradictory behavior on a well-established character. I felt a bit that way myself until I began to consider the gambling in light of Tony’s contemporaneous, burgeoning, and subconscious anger towards his father at that point in the series. In that context, the gambling began to make perfect sense, and, once again, it all goes back to the night of the incident involving the cleaver.

That was the night when Johnny emphatically imparted to Tony the lessons that gamblers are scum and that gamblers who borrow money and fail to make timely repayment are even bigger scum. If, in the last half of season 6, Tony’s subconscious was stuck on the cleaver incident as the true genesis for his life trajectory and was subtly pushing him to rebel against his father 35 years after-the-fact, then borrowing huge sums of money, gambling it all away, and shirking the responsibility to repay the loans would be a natural, safe course for that rebellion to take. Making Hesh the victim of his irresponsible borrowing would be a bonus, since Hesh’s age and relationship to Johnny and to Tony himself make him another natural father figure.

Of course this is exactly what happens in Chasing It. Having already borrowed 200K from Hesh in the prior episode, Tony visits his home one night. In a near-replay of his gift to Beansie, he brings Hesh a Cleaver hat while expressly denouncing the movie itself as unfit for viewing, a blatant self-contradiction reconciled only in that it signals Tony’s ongoing subconscious preoccupation with the movie’s cleaver logo and themes of violent retribution against a father figure. In any case, Tony shares gossip about Phil’s “boss” party from which he’s just returned and offers an almost stunning sentiment when Hesh questions why he left the party and the company of his crew so early. “I look at my key guys . . . what’s number one on their agenda, you know? They’re all feckin’ murderers for Christ’s sakes,” Tony jokes, only you get the feeling he’s more serious than not. “What I’m tryin’ to say is, it’s nice bein’ here.” “Here” of course meant in the company of a guy who he fancies is able to put friendship above business, who makes his living under the auspices and protection of the mob but without directly participating in its violent aspects.

The warm fuzzy feelings disappear pretty quickly, however, when Hesh reminds Tony of the outstanding loan. Even though Hesh makes clear he is only wondering about repayment of the principal and is not looking for a “vig”,” Tony unreasonably seizes on this debt reminder as grounds for judging Hesh to be a stereotypical, money-grubbing Jew. He insists on paying Hesh a vig anyway and rubs two quarters together in derision when Hesh stops by the pork store the following week. Suddenly Tony is offended at the notion of folks collecting debts and profiting from gambling loans, something he’s unapologetically done himself directly or indirectly all his adult life. Then again, his subconscious is in a different place than it’s ever been before, fixated on the pivotal events and people in his past that contributed to him becoming what he is instead of what he’d like to have been.

The always-prescient Hesh ominously notes that this is not the usual Tony. “He’s all worked up, or something. I don’t like the way he talks. Hostile remarks. It’s not like him. Makes me worry.”

A secondary thread in this episode deals with Vito Jr. experiencing behavioral and social problems in the wake of Vito’s death. He dresses full tilt “gothic” with black lipstick, overturns headstones for fun, kills a neighbor’s cat, bullies a handicapped girl at school, and craps in the gym shower as revenge on hateful peers who tease him because his father was gay and notoriously died with a pool cue rammed up his butt.

Marie Spatafore asks Tony for $100K to move far away where Vito Jr. can start with a clean slate. Reluctant to give her that kind of money, Tony tries first to make Phil, as Marie’s cousin and Vito’s executioner, assume financial and quasi-paternal responsibility, with predictably bad results. Underscoring yet again the father/son/surrogate theme of season 6, part 2, Tony tells Marie, “It’s not easy to substitute for a dad. I know. But maybe I can fill in here.”

Tony does talk to Vito Jr., employing a tact reminiscent of his intervention with AJ in Johnny Cakes and polar opposite of the one his father undertook with him after Satriale’s. He tries to plant or reinforce in Little Vito’s own mind a fundamentally good self-image by praising that he’s always been a “good kid.” Vito rejects Tony’s presumptuousness, noting that Tony is such a stranger to their family that he often mistakenly calls him “Carlos, Jr.” instead of “Vito Jr.” Still Tony tries to accentuate the positive. “Look, all I know is I couldn’t shut your dad up about what a good kid you were,” he scolds. “We were friends you know.” “But buddies?” Vito asks sarcastically. After excusing the zinger, Tony offers some genuine compassion for what it’s like to lose a father you loved and yet who caused you shame or disappointment at the same time. “I’m sure you miss him . . . a lot . . . whatever he was.”

Obviously this encounter is included in the story for what it says about Tony, not for what it says about Vito Jr., an inconsequential character in the overall scheme of the show. Tony’s counsel reveals his own latent conflicts, that despite what Johnny Boy was, and what Junior was, they were his father and uncle, the most important men in his life, the men who were around him throughout his formative years and who provided what measure of paternal love he knew. Not all of it was bad. Very much like what Tony recounts regarding Christopher’s childhood -- holding him as an infant and riding him around on his butcher bike -- there were endearing memories and experiences, enough that he could still love these men despite all the harm they caused him.

Little Vito is correct that Tony has no idea whether he (Vito) is an intrinsically “good kid”, and we have no idea whether Vito Sr. ever said or harped on that fact to Tony (probably not). But it doesn’t really matter whether either is true. Tony says these things because he intuitively recognizes how damaging it was to his own psyche and self image as a kid to hear his father euphemistically tell him after the cleaver incident that he innately possessed the sadistic, evil, or predatory nature to do what he witnessed in Satriale’s. He knows at a core, unconscious level that living up to his father’s concept of him was more important than living up to his fledgling concept of himself, a self-concept which, stripped of his father’s corruption, is revealed in all its relative innocence and idealism in Join the Club. That Tony is a mild-mannered salesman, loves his wife and kids so much that he sabotages his one chance at an illicit affair with an attractive woman, is naturally uncomfortable with minor credit card fraud, and is positively stunned at a level of violence in which another person merely slaps his face. So his effort to make Vito Jr. think of himself as a “good kid” and to internalize his father’s ostensible view of him as the same is Tony’s effort to help Vito Jr. avert the self-doubt and sense of innate moral inferiority that paved his own path to a life of crime.

Though I don’t think Chasing It asks us to make this juxtaposition, I can’t help but recall another, early episode featuring Hesh, Denial, Anger, Acceptance. There the Hasidic motel owner tells Tony he is a “golem”, a “monster, Frankenstien”, prompting Melfi’s question near the end of the episode, “Do you feel like Frankenstein . . . a thing, lacking humanity, lacking human feelings?” We don’t hear Tony’s answer in the therapy room, but it’s provided years later in his Test Dream when Tony the “mobster” (“monster” minus an “n” plus a “b”) runs from a torch-bearing, lederhosen-clad mob. Yes, he feels like Frankenstein, a monster, albeit one created by other people, against whom we can presume he bears a serious grudge.
 

Hound Dog

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
3,217
Location
Belgrade, Serbia
Supports
Whoever I bet on
Link or GTFOH
https://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/

The admission is at the start of the post. I recommend reading the entire post, it will make you appreciate the ending and the show as a whole so much more. Will take you hours but it's worth it.

A link to Chase's accidental admission from outside the blog I linked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/01/tony-soprano-dead-or-not/579736/

(just read the article and noticed that the blog I linked if referred in it. it really went viral over the years)
 

Roosney

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
3,697
Location
Finland
https://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/

The admission is at the start of the post. I recommend reading the entire post, it will make you appreciate the ending and the show as a whole so much more. Will take you hours but it's worth it.

A link to Chase's accidental admission from outside the blog I linked:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/01/tony-soprano-dead-or-not/579736/

(just read the article and noticed that the blog I linked if referred in it. it really went viral over the years)
Thanks but that’s just speculation and word twisting.
Chase continues to deny that this was his intention, and suggests that the finale is open to multiple competing interpretations.
 

Hound Dog

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
3,217
Location
Belgrade, Serbia
Supports
Whoever I bet on
Thanks but that’s just speculation and word twisting.
Someone asked for the link and I provided it, I did not say it was definite proof.

However, my opinion is that he was clearly killed... Plenty of evidence to support it both in the show and in Chase's quotes over the years. Chase was quoted saying "I think explaining it would deminish it", so I reckon we will never get an outright admission.
 

Roosney

Full Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
3,697
Location
Finland
Someone asked for the link and I provided it, I did not say it was definite proof.

However, my opinion is that he was clearly killed... Plenty of evidence to support it both in the show and in Chase's quotes over the years. Chase was quoted saying "I think explaining it would deminish it", so I reckon we will never get an outright admission.
Yeah, that's what makes the ending so legendary.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
33,382
For some reason I can't exactly recall the main themes for each season. I do know however that the one with Richie Aprile was probably the one I liked most.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,380
Fran Feldstein, Christopher's sponsor, Feech...none of those storylines did anything for me. And by that point I was ready for the Adriana / FBI thing to end.
Yeah I’m with you on those, especially Fran. On the other hand it has...

 

Tommy

bigot with fetish for footballers getting fingered
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
10,672
Location
Birmingham
Supports
Liverpool

beedoubleyou

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
1,337
Location
Manchester
So, Viggo Mortensen has just been Oscar nominated for playing Tony Lip in The Green Book. 30+ years after the events of the movie, the real life Tony Lip played Carmine Lupertazzi in The Sopranos.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,313
Ahh. I hope it works out, but you can't help but be a little skeptical... Ice Cube's kid was supposedly incredible in "Straight Outta Compton", but all I can focus on is Sofia Coppola in Godfather III.
I’m not sure how that timeline works. It says it is set in 1967. Are they pretending Tony was in his 50’s when the show started?
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,380
I’m not sure how that timeline works. It says it is set in 1967. Are they pretending Tony was in his 50’s when the show started?
The show started in the late 90s.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,313
The show started in the late 90s.
I know. James Gandolfini was 38 then. His son is supposedly 19. How the hell is he going to play what would’ve been a 6 year old? Unless they’re wrong on when it is set it’s a bit silly.
 

Tommy

bigot with fetish for footballers getting fingered
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
10,672
Location
Birmingham
Supports
Liverpool
I’m not sure how that timeline works. It says it is set in 1967. Are they pretending Tony was in his 50’s when the show started?
Maybe Tony will be played by multiple actors & the story will cover multiple years, with his son playing him in the late 70s/early 80s? I've no idea otherwise.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,313
Maybe Tony will be played by multiple actors & the story will cover multiple years, with his son playing him in the late 70s/early 80s? I've no idea otherwise.
That’s a possibility. I’d hope so anyway or it will just be silly.
 

2cents

Historiographer, and obtainer of rare antiquities
Scout
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
16,380
I know. James Gandolfini was 38 then. His son is supposedly 19. How the hell is he going to play what would’ve been a 6 year old? Unless they’re wrong on when it is set it’s a bit silly.
Sorry, completely misunderstood you there. Good point.