[Bill,
June 11, 2007]
Sopranos: Lady or the Tiger?
Spoilers: So David Chase went with the whole ambiguous ending, perhaps made most famous by the short story, "Lady or the Tiger?" In the last Sopranos scene, there's a suspicious character who looks ready to hit Tony Soprano, but the scene goes blank before we know what happens. Was Tony hit? Did he merely finish his meal? Does he face endless threats?
The idea of "Lady or the Tiger" is your choice says something about you, your expectations and demands in storytelling, particularly closure ... the author turns the story around and says, "Instead of letting you know how I see the world, I turn it around and let you choose the ending, which tells us how you see the world."
It can be done effectively, and there are situations where it's appropriate, but The Sopranos (arguably) wasn't one of them.
There's also a "point of view" issue. If that scene is from Tony's point-of-view (always difficult in a movie), then the "blank" scene is simply what happens to Tony's consciousness after getting shot. He doesn't see it coming ... so essentially, the camera retreats from a third-person limited POV to a first-person point of view. Which is problematic since we're looking at Tony at the end. However, the scene could be from AJ's or Carmela's point of view. Guess — Carmela — since Journey is playing in the background, music more her era. So the ending is Carmela's getting killed. Or all of them. Who knows? Lady or the Tiger?
Or maybe it's just Tony goes on and continues to live with his malignant narcissism. Who knows? Who cares?
I've never been thrilled with "Lady or the Tiger?" endings, because I think they're a cop-out. And the whole "ambiguous" endings, with no closure offered for the viewer/reader, has been done to death. It's preachy, saying, "You demand closure, which I won't give you because that would merely reinforce your complacent, erroneous, bourgeois worldview that demands closure where none is to be found."
However, if you buy the "sudden black" means Tony's consciousness is wiped out, you have closure. But it's your closure. The Sopranos has had scenes where Tony isn't in them ... so any denial of access to that broader point of view means the ending is ambiguous ... sorry.
My two cents. YMMV.
Here's David Chase doing the last chapter of the Gospels: "The disciplines, scattered and despondent, hear from Mary that Jesus' tomb is empty. Cue Mott the Hoople's Roll Away the Stone. Peter and John run to the tomb and see the entrance stone to the tomb moved. They look at each other. Fade to black."
Some thoughts from others:
Captain's Quarters.
Reasoned audacity.
Sister Toldjah.
Huffington Post.
Deadline Daily.
Evil Queen.
The Corner also does the POV take.
Steve Silver does a good job of running down the potential "closure" endings.
UPDATE: I also wanted to say that I haven't watched a lot of the Sopranos, but I have seen quite a few episodes. I found David Chase frequently trying too hard. Only the first year was good — after that, I found him extraordinarily manipulative. Which is one reason I didn't try to watch the episode last night (I merely read about it this morning.) Chase, I felt, was the kind of person who'd do the whole, tired "audience alienation" thing. (See Brecht.) The goal is that you say, "WTF" instead of applaud.
That said, there were some good scenes along the way ...
The idea of "Lady or the Tiger" is your choice says something about you, your expectations and demands in storytelling, particularly closure ... the author turns the story around and says, "Instead of letting you know how I see the world, I turn it around and let you choose the ending, which tells us how you see the world."
It can be done effectively, and there are situations where it's appropriate, but The Sopranos (arguably) wasn't one of them.
There's also a "point of view" issue. If that scene is from Tony's point-of-view (always difficult in a movie), then the "blank" scene is simply what happens to Tony's consciousness after getting shot. He doesn't see it coming ... so essentially, the camera retreats from a third-person limited POV to a first-person point of view. Which is problematic since we're looking at Tony at the end. However, the scene could be from AJ's or Carmela's point of view. Guess — Carmela — since Journey is playing in the background, music more her era. So the ending is Carmela's getting killed. Or all of them. Who knows? Lady or the Tiger?
Or maybe it's just Tony goes on and continues to live with his malignant narcissism. Who knows? Who cares?
I've never been thrilled with "Lady or the Tiger?" endings, because I think they're a cop-out. And the whole "ambiguous" endings, with no closure offered for the viewer/reader, has been done to death. It's preachy, saying, "You demand closure, which I won't give you because that would merely reinforce your complacent, erroneous, bourgeois worldview that demands closure where none is to be found."
However, if you buy the "sudden black" means Tony's consciousness is wiped out, you have closure. But it's your closure. The Sopranos has had scenes where Tony isn't in them ... so any denial of access to that broader point of view means the ending is ambiguous ... sorry.
My two cents. YMMV.
Here's David Chase doing the last chapter of the Gospels: "The disciplines, scattered and despondent, hear from Mary that Jesus' tomb is empty. Cue Mott the Hoople's Roll Away the Stone. Peter and John run to the tomb and see the entrance stone to the tomb moved. They look at each other. Fade to black."
Some thoughts from others:
Captain's Quarters.
Reasoned audacity.
Sister Toldjah.
Huffington Post.
Deadline Daily.
Evil Queen.
The Corner also does the POV take.
Steve Silver does a good job of running down the potential "closure" endings.
UPDATE: I also wanted to say that I haven't watched a lot of the Sopranos, but I have seen quite a few episodes. I found David Chase frequently trying too hard. Only the first year was good — after that, I found him extraordinarily manipulative. Which is one reason I didn't try to watch the episode last night (I merely read about it this morning.) Chase, I felt, was the kind of person who'd do the whole, tired "audience alienation" thing. (See Brecht.) The goal is that you say, "WTF" instead of applaud.
That said, there were some good scenes along the way ...