Let’s remember that Tonys big boat was named ’ Stugats’, which roughly translated is ‘This Dick’.
Here’s a few more.
I don’t know from fava beans but the hbo site glossary says this:
Stugots: from stu cazzo or u’ cazzu, the testicles. Tony Soprano’s boat is The Stugots.
Yeah, me. The guy reached and reached for symbolism, and jiggled everything, including some observations that were simply wrong, to fit his theory.
David Chase is not Fellini. Not everything in Sopranos has deep symbolism. In fact, very little does. There was a tiger on the wall in one shot in the diner? And that references the cat from this episode? And the cat means…I’m getting a headache. Anyway, IMO, he proved nothing.
I don’t think that proves it at all, without some acknowledged quote from someone who worked in a “high-up” capacity on the show.
I say this, acknowledging again that the open-ended nature of the ending of the show allows for this possibility, without it being a 100% certainty.
Based on the far reach of the this guy’s analysis, the actual painting of the Last Supper itself was to portend Tony’s death this many years later.
I think a lot of that guy’s analysis was realllly reaching.
If Tony was whacked, I think the most plausible reason for it was the indictments coming down. The New York Families might have been willing to look the other way while Tony took down Phil, because Phil was a dangerous loose cannon, but they didn’t have to like it. Still, you don’t whack a mob boss without good reason.
But the indictments are another thing. It looked like Tony’s crew was going down. Guys were talking. Now, there’s a limit to how much damage a capo can do, but what do you think Tony knows about the families? How many bodies could he locate for the feds? If word got out that Tony had been in therapy (and I seem to recall that someone knew), and he had recently been shot and might be losing his nerve, then you could make the case that there was a very good chance Tony would flip. So, you don’t take chances. The feds managed to work their way into Tony’s crew, so take the whole lot out.
I thought Paulie’s death was foreshadowed by taking the ‘jinxed’ job and by the appearance of the cat. Silvio’s in a coma. Chris is dead. Bobby is dead. Take out Tony, and you take down the entire outfit. Then New York can take over. It’s just good business.
Absolutely. That is one of the clearest examples I’ve ever seen of coming to a conclusion first and THEN shoehorning data to fit with your hypothesis. Utter bunk.
I think Tony is very clearly dead, but I think that URL is not very convincing. He mixes a dash of good analysis with a heaping spoonful of malarkey.
Why is it so hard for people to tolerate ambiguity? Believe Tony is dead if that’s what you need to do. Me, I still “doubt” it. I think we’re supposed to doubt it. Everyone rushing in headlong to fill that blank space is just so much intellectual rationalization because you can’t deal with a non-ending-- but that’s exactly what you got, and no amount of torturing the text for clues can change that. I for one hope we never know what happened. I like the idea of Schroedinger’s Mobster. It’s good for people not to get the pat, concrete ending, because that’s how life is. It goes on and on and on and on, in the immortal words of Journey, whether you’re allowed to watch it or not.
Yeah, what Rubystreak said. Tony is neither alive nor dead beacause there is no cannonical scene showing us either way. You can fanwank all you want but there is no way at make it a fact unless Chase decides to make a movie.
Thanks for posting that. It’s the subject of a thread I’ve been meaning to start - just how much symbolism is really in The Sopranos? In the first few seasons, it was a well-produced story about a Mafia capo turned boss and his two families; the DiMeo crime family and his wife, kids, mother, and various relatives. There were some deeper undercurrents, but that was it. In the last couple of seasons, it seemed like every episode was analyzed and picked apart film school-style. “You see, when they were dumping asbestos into the swamps, note it’s the Meadowlands, and Tony’s daughter is named Meadow, so it symbolizes the corruption of her innocence by …”
I’m not saying there is no symbolism in the show. There just isn’t as much as some would believe.
Anyhow, Sunday night seemed kind of empty without The Sopranos, and John from Cincinnati just doesn’t do it for me.
While that guy is reaching in 97 out of the 100 points he seems to be trying to make, these stand out to me:
-
That “Last Supper” image is very compelling.
-
The “orange” theory is much too well known within the Godfather mythology to be a mistake.
-
The fact that the sinister guy was listed as “man in the members only jacket” and that tony was shot in the episode entitled members only is suspicious.
I mean, even if he’s wrong on everything else. . .bells ringing, onion rings, song choice, etc., those 3 points (especially 1 & 2) are pretty compelling.
I also think the similarity of the lines “the best in the state” and “the best in town” is interesting.
No, you’re assuming there is no cannonical scene showing us either way. I believe that the final seconds-long black scene is indeed such a scene. It has nothing to do with not being able to tolerate ambiguity, and everything to do with seeing evidence from the series that strongly supports the conclusion that Tony died in the final scene.
I mean, you might as well argue that Tony neither does nor doesn’t pee, because we never actually see him pee. (We see him standing at a urinal, sure, but do we actually see him pee? No.)
elmwood, the series has had a large degree of symbolism from the very beginning. The very first episode introduced the ducks in Tony’s pond, an obvious symbol of Tony’s family. Meat was another symbol used often. There were, very early on, important connections between Tony’s two families. Some of what Melfi and Tony discuss about his biological family has a secondary relevance to his mob family. (The most obvious being the idea of letting an older relative believe they are still in control, even when you really have certain authority over them.)
Obviously, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But of all the shows I’ve seen on television, The Sopranos has by far been the most heavy on symbolism and metaphor.
[QUOTE=BlackKnight]
No, you’re assuming there is no cannonical scene showing us either way. I believe that the final seconds-long black scene is indeed such a scene. It has nothing to do with not being able to tolerate ambiguity, and everything to do with seeing evidence from the series that strongly supports the conclusion that Tony died in the final scene.
QUOTE]
There is no denying that they set up a dozen flashing neon signs indicating that Tony was going to die. And I’m sure that there are more references that people are going to find in the future. But none of it proves to me at all that Tony died, specifically because we are talking about the Sopranos.
It’s one of, if not the most unpredictable show ever to air on television. You NEVER knew what was going to happen. That’s what made it such a joy. How many times did you think they were for certain going to war or that there was no way character X was going to live through the end of the episode, and then the whole show zigged when you were certain it would zag?
We were all expecting Tony to get hit, they were telegraphing it from a mile away, which to me means there are good odds that it didn’t indeed happen and all the symbolic imagery was just so many red-herrings. I think it’s just as valid to interpret the ending as an example of the gut-churning tension that Tony has to live every moment of his life in. Every time that diner door opens, it could be a loved one or an assassin. And when you think about that, the “Tony lives” scenario is not necessarily the happier ending of the two possibilities.
And as much as evidence as there clearly is for the “Tony dies” argument, it is also obvious that they carefully edited the ending to keep it uncertain. Personally, I’m thrilled that the show died just as it lived; as frustrating, unpredictable, and unresolved as ever.
In favor of the ambiguous ending, against the “Tony is dead” argument, is the fact that Chase liked to end every season with an anticlimactic non-cliffhanger WTF, usually with the family eating together around a table. The series went out like each season went out, with no answers and no clear idea of what might come next. The fact that there’s equal evidence for both endings reinforces my feeling that Chase didn’t want us to have a definitive statement on what happens to Tony. If you want to make up an ending that suits you, like Tony’s dead, you certainly can. But it’s not the only right answer. There is no right answer, and no amount of wanking can make there be one, at this point.
I’m starting to get the impression that a gunman could have walked up behind Tony, put the gun to his head, pulled the trigger, and if Chase cut to black with a bullet half way to Tony’s head. . .people would go, “Tony might still be alive. Didn’t you see the Matrix?”
Also, is this true that every season ends “with an anti-climatic non-cliffhanger WTF, usually with the family eating together around a table”?
A quick check of the episode guides indicates that a couple seasons end with eating scenes, but I fail to see how that might mean that Tony lived or died. What’s the argument there. . .because he lived at the end of every other season, he can’t die in the final episode?
There is no reason to have blank-screen time unless we are intended to derive something from it. Otherwise you cut simply at “Don’t Stop” and roll credits. That is a genuinely ambiguous ending.
Look, I’d be perfectly happy to say that Tony was dead if I thought that was clearly indicated. I think it’s ambiguous. If the bullet was shown rushing towards his head, yeah, I’d say he was dead. But it wasn’t, so I won’t.
No, the argument is that Chase doesn’t like to wrap up with pat endings so his audience can have their precious closure.
Such a hilarious supposition that people want to say he died because the idea of two possible outcomes is too intellectually difficult.
Duuuuuhhhhhhh. . .
You mean he COULD be alive?
But, he COULD be dead?
But. . .alive?
Dead?
::Two competing thoughts. Does not compute. Brain malfunctioning.::