Meta For Sopranos
Why is this the best season of The Sopranos ever?
The Sopranos is the ultimate Upper Middle Management series. In many ways, this last season is the best series on film industry mid-life crisis I have ever seen. (I can’t speak to mid-life crisis in other industries, as I have not been so close a witness.) But the constant struggle between the enormous, serious, life-changing power that so many execs wield and the absolute impotence of the very same people, often regarding the very same decisions, is what Tony has been facing in episode after episode. The more emotionally healthy he gets, the more he can handle without losing it completely, the more shit that is drawn to him. And week after this last magnificent run of weeks, he is handling the load, not only as best he can, but rather well in light of things.
The rest of a spoilers-to-date filled column…
And here is the full poem from last night’s episode…
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
W.B Yeats
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Very nice analysis, David. I think this season has been remarkable for the way it pushes the underlying stories along while the Mob-stuff overlay marches on. Last night brought things to a wonderful point and I can’t wait to see how the last two play out.
Tony is a better manager than he was at the beginning, sure, and he’s more emotionally stable. But I part ways with you about him being ‘basically a good guy’. Certainly fascinating to watch, and absolutely compelling as a character. But it seems to me that when he says “I’m basically a good guy” and, in the show’s use this season of his adept appropriation of therapy-speak to rationalize his feelings and actions, Chase & co. are showing that you can be an emotionally centered person, aware of your feelings and all that shit, and still be just as self-obsessed, still even be a killer. Tony’s not the colorful, bumbling goombah that somebody like Elliot would like him to be, he’s far worse
It looks like the show will all come down to the idea that being aware of your dark side isn’t good enough… you kinda have to do something about it.
It all started off with the equation
Family + Mafia = Melfi (where the pressure of both drove Tony to therapy)
then steered toward
Melfi + Mafia = Family (where redemption for Tony seemed possible for a while)
but looks to end up with
Family + Melfi = Mafia (where Tony says fuck it all and becomes the monster he truly is)
So I think Phil Leotardo is in big trouble.
Will have more time to compose thoughtful response later, but I agree strongly with Campbell. Tony Soprano is most definitely NOT “basically a good guy.” He is a self-absorbed, multiple-murdering sociopath. He might be relatable to viewers in some way because of his family travails, etc., but he’s not “basically a good guy.” Unless we’re favoring the redefining of commonly understood English language words.
Well, RP, I think that is part of the exercise.
The context in which Tony lives is undeniably wrong in most every way. Approval of that is, on a broad level, absurd.
On the other hand, there are many contexts in which people live that are unthinkable for people who live in other contexts. And for me, that is what is so fascinating about the ideas in The Sopranos, especially this season.
Ironically, I make this argument while I don’t believe in the sanctuary of moral relativism. But the lessons of power, as is clear reading The Art of War, reach well beyond context.
Tony is a moral giant and a well rounded person in the context of his small universe. And the show walks that line. For instance, Meadow’s date standing up to Coco… in some situations, Coco would simply hit him without the attempt at a conversational exchange, as the guy who delivered the bad news about Tony cancelling the construction jobs was beaten. All choices. What do you make of the man who defends Vito’s right to be gay and is also a homophobe? What do you make of the man who fights for both of his kids in this episode and makes Christopher’s child a half-orphan in the last?
Ice-T is a self-acknowledged pimp and hustler… but he is still on Law & Order as a good guy. Where are those protests?
Not mocking… and I get your point… but I just see it as something more complex and I think that’s where Chase and Coppola before him have gone.
I have always loved the show, but I agree that this season is about as good as it’s ever been. Every episode has been riveting. I will be truly sad to see it go.
The poem is called “The Second Coming”, no?
Don’t.let.it.ever.end.
It is the best but only because of what’s come before it. I can’t believe this is the end. 🙁
Carmine: “You’re at a precipice here, Tony. Of an enormous crossoad.”
God I’m going to miss these guys.
Also, I love how Suspicious Minds was playing in Tony’s office when he was talking with Patsy.
Anybody else catch the latest malaprop, this one from Carmine: “This alteration with Coco”
DP wrote: Tony is a moral giant and a well rounded person in the context of his small universe. >>>
I
I think the success of the Sopranos is indicated by the extent to which everyone everywhere talks about the characters as if they’re real people. But they’re not real people, they’re fictional!!!
Obvious of course, but we forget that a fictional character cannot actually possess any qualities beyond what is explicitly stated and shown. There is no real depth to any such imaginary entity, and it is futile to try to ascribe a real quality, such as morality, to an unreal thing.
The extent to which we might perceive “Tony” as “a good person” may only be due to the fact (I don’t know) that Gandolfini is a good person.
Otherwise, it is valid to speculate, say, about the motives of David Chase, his morality, his intentions, his psychological complexity and intelligence. There may be some reality to those qualities. But it is a dumbing down, a Hollywoodization of our mentality, to think a fictional character has real qualities.
Of course, there are fictional situations and actions we can entertain, wondering what is moral in that case, etc. Or we try to guess what a character will do in a new situation.
But a fiction has no weight, no inertia. In reality, you can reliably guess what will happen based on what happened before, what are that person’s habits. We have our own habits of thinking, and therefore we expect certain things to happen in a drama. That Chase surprises us so often can occur because a fiction is not bound to follow its own inertia.
Now consider someone almost totally bound by his own psychological inertia, George Bush. If we “wasted” a little more time on that, rather than on Tony, that zombie would be out of here tomorrow.
David Poland, thank you for writing something insightful about The Sopranos. I completely agree with you on everything. Tony reaching this “clarity” of sorts is genius and shows that Chase will stay true to his characters and their circumstances till the bitter end.
Muckle, I don’t really know what you’re saying, but these characters feel real to me. Chase is all about the grey area. Tony is a scarier beast than Melfi’s psychiatrist would like to think because of his “goodness”. There’s alot more, but basically, we’re talking smart fiction that portrays the character’s lives in a “real” (horrible word to describe fiction anyways) way.
Blackcloud is correct, the poem is titled “The Second Coming” and not “Slouching Towards Bethlehem”.
DP, I almost forgot…my favorite example of why Tony Soprano isn’t a “moral giant” in his own universe.
Golden rule for LCN seems to be not to cooperate with law enforcement.
Tony killed Big Pussy for doing so. He had Adriana killed for doing so. He never forgave Christopher for not managing Adriana properly and letting her squeal to the feds, which had to be one of the million factors he was considering when he snuffed him out.
And, yet, Tony Soprano is now an FBI informant, providing information to the government in hopes of improving his personal position–undoubtedly at the expense of the men he purportedly leads–should he ever face federal prosecution.
OK, ducking out now.
I avoided the Sopranos for years thinking it was merely an overhyped version of Goodfellas. Hell, even Scorsese said as much. Three months ago in a video store I was able to rent the first season for 5 bucks for a week so I figured what the hell.
I became hooked. Right now, I am half way through season 4 and I am astonished at the consistently high quality of the writing and complex performances. And yet, the core dilemma of the show it would seem is the question of the scales of morality.
Tony, within his worlds, can be the best of friends or the most unforgiving of adversaries. One minute he is a cuddly bear eating a pie, the next he is brutally abusing a woman. The show provides no clear answer as of yet, but I do think it says you have a choice, as was evidenced by Dr. Melfi not asking Tony to get revenge for her rape in season 3. She could have…but did not. She had a choice.
To some degree, I think that is what I am gleaning from the series so far. Anyone can do mental gymnastics and justify their behaviour to themselves, but sooner or later you must make a choice that goes beyond relativism.
I look forward to seeing the rest of this series. Truly brilliant.
RP, why do you say Tony is now an informant?
jeffmcm: Tony gave information to the feds about the Arabs.
geoff: What I’m trying to say (I think) is that fictional characters do not have real qualities. Fictional characters have fictional qualities. Therefore, it’s kind of crazy (and crazymaking) to try to figure out whether said fictional character has this or that real quality (like morality).
Actually, I don’t know what you mean by saying Tony “feels real.” That’s some kind of break with reality, isn’t it? I’d say the character and the drama are definitely entertaining, engrossing, etc. Chase has made The Sopranos artful, because there is so much ambiguity about it (gray area, as you say). Ambiguity allows us to project meaning into it, which makes it personal to us.
And people enjoy doing this, which is what makes the industry run. But, unfortunately, we have a tenuous grasp of reality in any case. To ask, “Is Tony Soprano moral?” is insane. Tony Soprano does not exist.
It’s interesting to be sure, but there is nothing wrong with Tony giving the Feds a helping hand when it comes to this. There’s always this underlying respect for them anyways, as in, Tony does his job and they do their job. But he’s no RAT.
Yeah, the Arabs aren’t part of Tony’s crew. He’s not selling out his own side, he’s giving the Feds a little help and in exchange they look the other way on some of his activities – if anything it’s his patriotic duty.
Mr. Muckle – of course Tony Soprano exists. If he didn’t we couldn’t have this conversation. Plus, what’s the point of the show if we consider that there are no implications or lessons to be gained from watching the examples of the characters on the screen, if they’re ‘only fictional’?
“To ask, “Is Tony Soprano moral?” is insane. Tony Soprano does not exist.”
Not at all. The best of art will allow you to see reality more clearly and put perhaps your own life in context.
Most film does not do this, but I think The Sopranos does qualify.
And yes, Muckle, I know that’s a “break from reality”. I hate the word “real” when it comes to describing fiction too. But it still gets used. But this show delves deep into the psychology of the character as well as what life is always unmercifully willing to throw at you. Lot’s of nuance, is all I’m saying I guess. It’s, dare I use another taboo word, perfect.
jeffmcm: “Mr. Muckle – of course Tony Soprano exists. If he didn’t we couldn’t have this conversation. Plus, what’s the point of the show if we consider that there are no implications or lessons to be gained from watching the examples of the characters on the screen, if they’re ‘only fictional’?”
————-
But he exists as a fictional character, which is not the same class of existence as, say, jeffmcm (although I’m not sure about that). Of course, making this distinction takes a certain amount of fun out of it for the idiot fanboys.
To answer your question, I certainly do not think there is any “point” to it, nor do I believe for a minute that you or anyone else has ever watched The Sopranos for the lessons to be learned, except perhaps for technical questions about how to craft an exceptional entertainment.
On the issue of its possible deeper meaning (are the characters moral, is the universe moral, etc.) I will refer to its aforementioned ambiguity as its most seductive quality. That functions as an ink blot test. It has no meaning in itself, but draws meaning out of you, the viewer.
Whether Tony S is moral can never be answered unless, say, David Chase appears at the end, like the psychiatrist at the end of Psycho, and explains it all to us. But even that would not be definitive, because people could argue forever about that, too. It’s a false question.
If you think that, then the implication is that all art is essentially meaningless except on a technical level, which I do not agree with.
I don’t think I’m implying that art is meaningless, but that meaning does not exist “out there” in an objective sense. Art means different things to different people because they construct the meaning themselves and then project it onto the object. Even the artist himself has only one vote in the matter while others commonly hold a different opinion.
But I think this is obvious and we wouldn’t really argue that point. So why am I saying it then? I don’t know. Dumb, probably. But DP’s original questions about whether Tony is moral or not struck me as silly in that unanswerable way. Which isn’t necessarily bad if the meaning is ultimately page views, eh?
Well, I agree that the meaning comes from an interaction between the creator and the audience, but your argument seemed to be something more expansive – and meaning-nullifying – than that.
Comment: there is nothing wrong with Tony giving the Feds a helping hand when it comes to this. … Tony does his job and they do their job. But he’s no RAT. >>>
Comment: Yeah, the Arabs aren’t part of Tony’s crew. He’s not selling out his own side, he’s giving the Feds a little help and in exchange they look the other way on some of his activities – if anything it’s his patriotic duty. >>>
Sounds good in theory. However, this is the same character whose uncle and mother conspired to kill him, largely because he’d been seeing a psychiatrist, over concerns about what mob secrets he might have been telling them.
How many people in Tony’s world know he gave info to the FBI?
How many would think it’s perfectly OK?
How many would think “once the FBI has its hooks into him, there’s no telling what–or who–he’ll give them to save his ass down the line?”
“…nor do I believe for a minute that you or anyone else has ever watched The Sopranos for the lessons to be learned, except perhaps for technical questions about how to craft an exceptional entertainment.”
It’s a frighteningly accurate show as far as the real family goes. I feel quite a lot while watching the show. It taps right into my emotions. And I can relate to a lot of the characters as well as see people I know in them.
“Depression is anger turned inward.”-That one sticks with me.
So does A.J.’s situation, and the fact that going to school and learning about true history and how societies have behaved for thousands of years…and how that relates to what is going on today. I can understand his depression. The theme of passing down one’s genes to another, who bears the burden?, who are we more like, our mother or father? It’s all profound stuff. People can think and dwell on this stuff and absorb it all in like good literature….and we can learn from this stuff. Why not?
He’s been meeting the FBI guys for years at Satriale’s. Everyone knows who they are and what Tony’s relationship with them is.
Geoff: Well, my good fellow, my points are to encourage discriminative thinking, lest we end up with dimbulbs for leaders. Part of this is just to be careful with semantics.
Can you “understand A.J.’s depression?” A character was invented and was given actions and words to suggest he is depressed. But you are not actually understanding anyone’s depression, because there is no one there. An actor is there. Is he depressed? We don’t know.
You’re just comprehending fictional words and acts that suggest things you may have experienced yourself. But they are not those things. Is Tony moral? Well, this isn’t really worth discussing, imo.
__________________
jeffmcm: “your argument seemed to be something more expansive – and meaning-nullifying”
Well, there is a more expansive point, imo, which is that “meaning” does not exist “out there” at all. It is not in the object. It is entirely created by our own minds. Since we create it, we can uncreate it; it does not have an absolute or independent existence.
This view does not nullify meaning, as such, but recognizes it for what it is — something we play with, more or less. We can be serious about play, no doubt, but probably we shouldn’t be.
I can’t argue with your specific phrasings but I fail to see your ultimate point. No, the actor playing AJ probably isn’t _really_ depressed, but yes, you can ‘understand AJ’s depression’ as much as you can understand anyone’s depression, given that unless you’re a clinical psychologist the one hour a week with AJ is more time and attention than most people spend with actual depressed people in the real world – and since we use the same means of observation, what’s the difference?
My feelings exactly. I mean to quote Tony Sopranos from The Test Dream, “It’s because it’s so much more interesting than real life.” Our imagination and intellect as human beings allows us to literally become hermits and read good books and watch good movies and have a pretty good grasp on things. You wouldn’t be 100% in tune with reality, but I really see no difference sometimes. I mean, we’re almost on the brink of getting into existentialism and talking about how what we only know as real is ourselves because we can think….and like whoa man i need to smoke a bowl….but I don’t want to get into that discussion. Sopranos is good stuff to chew over, just like my next door neighbor’s drama is interesting sometimes.
Ha ha. No quarrels. You guys are screenwriters, right? 😉
I think the FBI/informant thing is a reference to the Second World War when the federal government asked the Mafia to keep the docks under control. Apparently it worked.