I know it’s not what you meant, but Johnny Sack died of cancer (in the episode Stage 5).
Also, one thing I do remember is that right after the show ended Chase had said that “all the clues are there, you just have to look for them” or something like that, implying that he didn’t leave it ambiguous, he definitively killed him or left him alive…or probably killed him because (IMO) you don’t drop clues that you didn’t kill someone.
Anyways, to anyone that didn’t, go back and watch the youtube video that I posted above, I think it presents all the evidence pretty nicely.
It did not hold itself out as a traditional story. It made extensive use of dream sequences, dealt with psychological and existential issues, and deliberately avoided concrete endings in a couple of famous episodes (like The Russian). I’m not saying I saw the ending coming or anything because I definitely did not, but you’re wrong to say it’s not of a piece with what came before. The most interesting part of this interview is the way Chase draws a connection between the ending of Made in America and other Sopranos episodes like Tony’s peyote trip at the end of “Kennedy and Heidi.” His attempts to hang on to fleeting moments of happiness and deeper understanding are an important part of the series, and Chase connected the ending to those efforts in a way I hadn’t considered. I think that’s actually the best evidence Tony lives: Chase is saying the end of the series is just another moment where Tony tries and fails to hang on to joy or insight and that he’s ultimately destined to fail.
Phil had his consiglieri and probably some captains w/ crews who were loyal to him. The hit on Phil was approved by Phil’s superiors and peers. I don’t know if his subordinates had any say in the matter.
I think this video does a good job of presenting evidence in favor of him being shot. It’s worth a watch.
[/QUOTE]
That’s very convincing (thanks for the link).
I remember watching the finale when it first aired, and being fooled by the very skillfully realized red herring of Meadow’s difficulties in parking. As I watched I feared that the final violent act of the series would concern her (perhaps she is gunned down and Tony stands over her body and realizes what his life has led to, or something like that). But of course that was just misdirection by Chase. As was the entry of the two black men RIGHT after Members Only Guy goes into the men’s room. Chase knew his audience. He knew we’d start worrying about those two black guys and forget M.O. Guy.
Whacking him in the manner discussed is a cheap gimmick that is beneath the level of writing that carried the series. The more sophisticated ending is to indicate Tony’s uncertain future, and whack the viewer, as it were. Again: the characters live on in a fictional netherworld, while the viewer’s voyeuristic perspective cuts to black.
But the point is that Chase whacked us both and allowed us all to have our own version of events. That is in keeping with the sophistication of the show overall.
Had they shown it happening in a traditional manner I’d agree, that would be cheap. Having it heavily implied but plausibly deniable and endlessly debatable is a win-win for all.
It’s somewhat inconsistent with the idea of being whacked, seeing as how dead people aren’t known for arguing about their interpretation of what happened to them.
Whether or not Tony lived or died wasn’t the point of that last scene. It was designed to put the viewer into Tony’s mindset. That no matter where he went or what he did, there was always that tension of “is today the day I get whacked?” It succeeded very well at this.
No, it’s still a cheap gimmick. Whether he is dead or alive is not the issue. It doesn’t matter. Chase is commenting on something else: the voyeuristic perspective of the viewer. He made it clear this became his focus in the final season. He’s fucking with the viewer, to be sure–even thumbing his nose, as it were. Whether one thinks that’s a good way to end the series becomes another issue.
What superiors? Phil was the de facto head of the New York families by then, since Carmine & Johnny Sack had both died. And Phil’s death must have left a massive power vacuum which the New York mobsters would’ve been fighting tooth and nail over, rather than worrying about what’s going in New Jersey.
I do like the theory about how it was the viewer who got whacked, esp. since it was the biggest “screw you!” ending in TV history. Just look at how everyone’s still arguing about it, all these years later!
I think many of us were concerned that Meadow would get killed in that scene, hell, even as I rewatch it years later I still worry about it happening and I know what’s going to happen. Having one of his family members get killed due to the way he makes money would make sense as it would bring us back to first season with the bear stealing the bird food.
I would have been happy to see Meadow and Carmela, and probably Anthony Junior too, suffer the same fate as Tony. To varying extents, they had all made the choice to live off of Tony’s blood money.
Carmella did [make the choice to live off Tony’s money], and admitted it to the priest. But it’s not fair to blame the kids.
Besides, for all we know they did get killed, but I doubt it.
Now that’s a whole other metaphysical argument isn’t it? Personally I don’t hold with the “viewer whacking” idea but that just a personal choice, I’m can’t say it is wrong though.
