August 28, 2014

It depends on what the meaning of "isn't" is.

I didn't have the patience to slog through that long article at Vox purporting to answer the question whether Tony Soprano died in the final episode of "The Sopranos," which ends with a cut to black as Tony and his wife and son are sitting around a restaurant table listening to "Don't Stop Believin'" as mysterious doings have been making us feel that we're about to see some carnage.

I blogged the end of the series at the time, in 2007, and I never got sucked into the confusion:
Soooo... I assumed they were all killed and the blackout was just to spare us from seeing it. But over on Television Without Pity, everyone's all confused, saying what happened, curse you David Chase, and I thought my cable went out.
Then, considering the "Don't Stop Believin'" lyric "It goes on and on and on and on," I added: "maybe they do go on and on and on. Or maybe there's going to be a 'Sopranos' movie."

And certainly — I'm adding this now — people would go on and on talking about it, even after James Gandofini died (in 2013), and there's not going to be a movie or some more episodes. It's not like we want more without Tony (though the show did find a way to get on without Livia, when the actress Nancy Marchand died after Season 1).

But I'm catching up on the Vox article this morning by reading Dave Itzkoff's short piece in The New York Times: "David Chase Says Remarks About ‘Sopranos’ Finale Were Misconstrued."

Speaking of cuts and Chase, Itzkoff cuts to the chase: The author of the Vox piece, "Martha P. Nochimson, an author, journalist and professor... when... she directly asked Mr. Chase if Tony was dead." Chase's answer was, in it's entirety, "No he isn’t."
Chase has responded to the Vox article, saying: "To simply quote David as saying, ‘Tony Soprano is not dead,' is inaccurate.... There is a much larger context for that statement and as such, it is not true." So.... Chase would like us to keep thinking about the great old show, keep talking about it, which is fine and an always-easily-understood explanation for the ending.

But here's the reason for my Bill-Clinton-invoking post title. Itzkoff paraphrases the question to which Chase answers "No he isn't." But the question wasn't "was" Tony dead at the end of "The Sopranos." It was (as quoted in Vox): "is Tony dead." Nochimson makes much of the brevity of Chase's answer, but that's why a precise quotation of the question is so important.

On a very simple, literal level, we've all always known that at the end of the Sopranos, Tony isn't dead. The last time we see him he is alive. The question we mean to ask is: What happened right after that? And, to be thuddingly concrete, nothing happened.

Nothing?! You mean the nothingness that is The Nothing?! Death?

Oh, you can do that if you want, and Chase still wants you to do that, but all I'm saying is: It depends on what the meaning of "isn't" is.

Let's remember what Bill Clinton said to justify (under oath) his statement that "there's nothing going on between" him and Monica Lewinsky:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
Short answers can be cagey, and if you don't follow up with more questions, you need to pay close attention to the question that got the brusque reply. Sometimes a questioner is too satisfied with the answer she got and runs with it. To follow up is to lose the energy that made you feel you got your answer, but there might have been something in your question that wrecked the significance of the answer.

That doesn't mean people will give the questioner-answerer the leeway he cagily preserved for himself in his own mind.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" sounds ludicrous to most people, despite its technical accuracy. Most of us think: This was a man who sought to deceive us and now seems to be pleased with his own powers of deception.

But David Chase is not the President of the United States. He's an artist and he trades in ambiguities and endless permutations of meaning. If he can tantalize us once again about a TV show that ended 7 years ago, good for him.

30 comments:

William T. Sherman said...

Tony's dead. Here is the best analysis of that final scene:


http://trebekistan.com/component/content/article/76/1406-tony-soprano-didnt-just-get-whacked-he-practically-got-a-funeral

Shawn Levasseur said...

This is going to lead to Onion Rings and Carrot Sticks again, isn't it?

Ron said...

Tony dies in the hospital...actually killed by Nurse Jackie, who recognizes him as a mob guy and slips him something in his IV drip...

Cut to... Grieving Carmella...who vows to continue the family business!

Robert Cook said...

Tony's not dead because he was never alive...he's a fictional character.

I saw a story on the local NYC Fox news affiliate this morning that Hello Kitty is not a cat, that she is a little girl, (according to the creators of Hello Kitty). Of course, the news anchors were indignant, asserting that of course Hello Kitty is a cat!

No. Hello Kitty is not real, is neither a little girl nor a cat, but a cartoon, an invention, an arrangement of lines describing simple shapes that we perceive to represent a cat.

Tony's fate is just as each interested viewer of the show imagines it to be, and the creator of the show has no greater say in that than anyone else.

Fernandinande said...

Robert Cook - have you ever seen Tony Soprano and Hello Kitty together?

Hagar said...

Yes, Robert. There is a Santa Claus!

Jane the Actuary said...

It's fiction. And therefore nothing "happened" to Tony after that dinner. It's that simple.

traditionalguy said...

It's too early in the morning to run into David Hume's "is-ought" problem.

Soprano is no quality in plots themselves: it exists merely in the mind that contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different Soprano.

Brando said...

Here's why Tony died--if he didn't die, then the ending of the show is incredibly stupid. The family sits around for a drawn out scene, talking about onion rings, waiting for their idiot daughter to screw up parking, and the scene cuts to black abruptly. To end a show like that with no murder would be pointless.

But with him killed--especially with the foreshadowing where one of his henchmen theorizes that when you're dead "it goes black"--the ending of the show makes a lot more sense. Tony's final moments with his family are drawn out because they'll be the last thing he's conscious of, where the banalities of onion rings and waiting for his idiot daughter who's parking ineptitude kept her from seeing her father alive one last time suddenly becomes poignant.

Sure, they made the ending "ambiguous" by not actually showing anyone drawing a gun, but that would have sort of ruined it--the show had hundreds of executions, and as Tony was the protagonist it had to be special. It had to end the show, and go black as much as his own conscioiusness would go black.

People can continue to argue over it, as a pastime, but to believe he didn't die at the end would be to make the ending terrible, where it sort of works if he does die.

Unknown said...

Never saw even one episode. There are a handful of really good shows that seem to be pushing the envelope of good taste and morality, where they could be reigned in without sacrificing quality. I don't approve or watch.

Obviously nobody cares and what I think doesn't matter, but if the media ever decides to do quality without trashy costumes and foul language I might get cable. (The airwaves are still pretty clean, albeit limited.) I am hopeful that there are others with a similar view, i.e., there is an audience.

rhhardin said...

The author doesn't have the final say.

Somebody with a better account of the story line can overrule it, by being better.

That's if there's in fact a story line for there to be a better account of. It could be just made for TV and a mess.

Meade said...

"But [Bill Clinton] is [no longer] the President of the United States. He's [a master politician] and he trades in ambiguities and endless permutations of meaning. If he can tantalize us once again about a [Clinton presidency] that ended [13] years ago, good for him."

damikesc said...

In the case of vox, the writer said he didn't die because David Chase said he didn't.

When Chase said that wasn't what I said, Vox editors then tried to claim that he was wrong.

Hold vox's feet to the fire. I've seen progressives trying to cite them as a source in arguments and their inability to get basic facts correct needs to be highlighted.

Robert Cook said...

"People can continue to argue over it, as a pastime, but to believe he didn't die at the end would be to make the ending terrible, where it sort of works if he does die."

It works either way. (Also, you assume not only that he dies but that he died violently, as a result of a hit. He could as easily have had a heart attack sitting at the table.)

Life goes on, and some people die prematurely through illness, accident or criminal act, while others live long lives and die in their beds. There is no necessary meaningful correspondence between one's actions in life and one's time and means of death, there is not necessarily "poetic" justice, (in fact, there is rarely poetic justice in life...or death).

That Tony was a gangster and a murderer, that he was ridden with anxieties, does not mean he had to die at that moment, violently or otherwise, that his karma had caught up with him. He could just as easily have lived to age 90. The blackout at the end does not necessarily mean he died at that moment; it just means that that is the end of Tony's story as far as we are concerned---his life may end then or it may continue as it has, as it does for most of us, with little further significant change or dramatic development.

JT said...

I was a big fan of The Sopranos, and I have to say the ending, along with Chase's claims of being misquoted in the Vox piece, is complete BS.

Chase can claim there's a larger story going on and more context all he wants, but the truth of the matter is he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Ending an iconic series like The Sopranos is a tough thing. Fans have passions that run high, and you're very likely to p!ss a large portion of them off depending on how you end it.

Chase chose to wimp out and try to satisfy everyone with his ambiguous ending to the show. He gave fans who wanted to see Tony die enough fodder for their cause so they will believe that he died and be happy with that.

However he also gave fans who wanted Tony to live enough fodder for their cause, and so they believe that, and are also happy.

It's a bonus for him that people are still talking and arguing about a show that ended 7 years ago, and I'm sure that was part of his plan when he engineered such a crappy ending.

If there's so much more to the story as Chase says there is, then why didn't he tell it when he had the chance? Ending the show the way he did is weak storytelling, and he's a hack for not having the cajones to write an ending that gave fans real answers.

Robert Cook said...

"If there's so much more to the story as Chase says there is, then why didn't he tell it when he had the chance?"

Why? A story has to end sometime; it doesn't have to (and rarely does) comprise the characters' entire lives. Is it bothersome that the end is indeterminate, that Tony's fate is unknown? Why can't viewers enjoy the mystery of it, or come to their own conclusions?

Clark said...

I thought the ending was brilliant and unambiguous. Although I suppose since others interpret it differently it must necessarily be considered ambiguous. It made perfect sense to me. It was plainly logical even if anti-climactic. I enjoyed what was, to me, a curtain call of sorts for a cast I had come to truly appreciate.

Revenant said...

I'm in the "no, he's not dead" camp. Largely because whacking him doesn't make any sense.

I forget who wrote it, but the best summary of the finale I've seen was "Chase finished the series by whacking the audience". *Tony's* life goes on much as it has -- we're the ones who are suddenly cut out of it.

JT said...

Why? A story has to end sometime; it doesn't have to (and rarely does) comprise the characters' entire lives. Is it bothersome that the end is indeterminate, that Tony's fate is unknown? Why can't viewers enjoy the mystery of it, or come to their own conclusions?

My point was that there isn't more to the story, despite Chase's claims otherwise. As I said, if there was more, why didn't he tell it?

Because there isn't any more to the story. It's his way of backtracking on the comments he made to the Vox reporter, and keeping people talking about the series.

He used a weak storytelling ploy to try to satisfy everyone, and keeping people guessing means more DVDs sold and syndication rights purchased.

His ambiguity when he wrote the ending and his coyness when questioned about that ending rewards him and serves his purpose. He can claim it's all about the art and the story for him, but the truth is something el$e.

But hey, it's his show, and he can do with it what he pleases. I have no problem with someone making as much money as they can wring out of a property like The Sopranos, but he can't say that's what he's trying to do, so he comes up with this lame "above it all, it's the art of the story" nonsense.

If he wanted to be true to the story, he wouldn't have copped out and done the whole believe-what-you-want-to-believe ending. His goal was to keep people talking and lining his pockets for as long as he could get them to do it.

Good for him, just don't pretend it's about something else.

Freder Frederson said...

It's a bonus for him that people are still talking and arguing about a show that ended 7 years ago, and I'm sure that was part of his plan when he engineered such a crappy ending.

Why is an ambiguous ending "crappy". Some of the best movies, literature and series in history have ended ambiguously. Tony Soprano is like Shrodinger's cat. He is neither alive nor dead. Saying that there is a correct answer to what happened to him (or his family) after the series ended is to completely misunderstand fiction.

Freder Frederson said...

If he wanted to be true to the story, he wouldn't have copped out and done the whole believe-what-you-want-to-believe ending.

Why. I think the opposite is true. If he ended it with a neat definitive ending it would have been in stark contrast to the rest of the series. The entire series was about ambiguity. Tony didn't fit in the old mobster mold and he didn't fit in the modern world either.

Yancey Ward said...

Chase allows the viewer to reach his own conclusion. I think Chase does steer one to the conclusion that the final blackout is Tony being shot in the head, but he doesn't drive the nail home explicitly- that would have been artless. The ending was the art of film-making at its finest, and he will never tell you explicitly what he meant for that final scene to impart.

averagejoe said...

Thank you for the reminder of what a despicable shameless weasel Bill Clinton is.

Freder Frederson said...

Thank you for the reminder of what a despicable shameless weasel Bill Clinton is.

Not nearly as despicable as his (and W's) good buddy Tony Blair.

Lucien said...

In the piece, Chase says the scene "raises a spiritual question".

It certainly shows nothing implying Tony knows he is about to be killed, or that he undergoes any suffering in the process of death.

So if all there is is blackness (nothingness) then how does one evaluate Tony's life (and how was it from his point of view)?

On the other hand if the scene is not meant to betoken Tony's death, then the question it raises is, do you really need to know how the rest of his life went to reach any conclusions about who Tony was?

FullMoon said...

Sister Jacqueline and Carmela and mother Mary all did weep
I heard his best friend Frankie say, "He ain't dead he's just asleep"
Then I saw the old man's limousine head back towards the grave
I guess he had to say one last goodbye to the son that he could not save.

The sun turned cold over President Street and the town of the Brooklyn mourned
They said a mass in the old church near the house where he was born
And someday if God's in heaven overlooking his preserve
I know the men that shot him down will get what they deserve.

Beldar said...

Marvelous and intriguing comments on this, actually!

My 2ȼ: The ending was perfect because the underlying theme of the entire series, from Season 1 to the last moment when the screen went black, was ambiguity.

But Meade's comment (8/28/14, 8:54 AM) wins the thread.

Revenant said...

to believe he didn't die at the end would be to make the ending terrible

I think killing him at the end would have been a terrible ending, because there's no set-up for it. It would be a deus ex machina ending: "and then, Tony was killed for no reason and the show ended".

FullMoon said...

Revenant said...

to believe he didn't die at the end would be to make the ending terrible

I think killing him at the end would have been a terrible ending, because there's no set-up for it. It would be a deus ex machina ending: "and then, Tony was killed for no reason and the show ended".

Tony was at war with another gangster. Men on both sides were being murdered. The two most common reasons for killing in gangster movies are eliminating the competition and revenge.

Chris Lopes said...

I'm in the camp that believes that if the story teller gives you an ambiguous ending, you get to write your own. In mine, Tony decides to turn state's evidence on his fellow mobsters and the dinner is their last as the people we know. The fade to black signifies Tony leaving that life and becoming a hardware store owner.