Actors that will make you see anything

S: Who are your 3 favorite actors (we can do actresses another time) that would bring you to a theatre, that lend a real credibility to a project?

At one point you might mention De Niro, Cage or something, but these guys have diluted themselves like crazy. Who makes consistently interesting projects?

My 3 (mostly younger):

1. Christian Bale - I've never seen Little Women, but I like Bale because he's serious about his craft (see weight loss for the Machinist) but not in a Sean Penn overacting kind of way. And I like his diversity, from high profile mainstream like Batman Begins and the Prestige, smaller indie movies like Rescue Dawn and the Machinist, and then pure fun Harsh Times. The guy is all over the map (although often in darker movies, which I also like), is always great, and always interesting to watch. And, he is, of course, the American Psycho.

2. Peter Sarsgaard - Sarsgaard hasn't proven that he can carry a movie by himself (I don't think), but he's got to be the most exciting person to see in a supporting role. Whether it's something silly like his villainous turn in the otherwise forgettable Flightplan or the honorable everyman in the criminally overlooked Shattered Glass, he's always the best thing to watch on screen. But my favorite performance of his is actually Jarhead where I think he's the real heart and soul of that movie. And he brought incredible weight to his portrait of the killer in Boys Don't Cry.

3. Edward Norton - Norton used to be higher on this list when he his first movies were Primal Fear, People vs Larry Flint, Rounders, American History X and Fight Club - seemed like the guy couldn't make a bad movie (although American History X seems kind of silly when I watch it now - still a great performance though). After that he wasted himself in dumb mainstream fare like Red Dragon, the Score, and the remake of the Italian Job. Recently, however, he's bringing himself back by going after passion projects, particularly the very good Painted Vail, but also decent turns in the Illusionist and I hear something worth talking about in Down in the Valley. And he'll always get a pass from me for his powerful performance in 25th hour, my favorite Spike Lee film.

K: Jack Nicholson- yesterday, today and forever. He is completely thrilling on screen. He has been in some of the greatest movies I have ever seen, “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “Chinatown” and “The Shining” and some of my sentimental favorites like “Terms of Endearment” , “As good as it Gets” and “About Schmidt” Many people’s ‘gripes’ with Mr. Nicholson is that he can only play on character (which isn’t true, “About Schmidt” proves that), and to that I say, “…but that character is awesome”. I rented “Broadcast News” simply because I heard he had a cameo…

Daniel Day Lewis- He is the male Meryl Streep. He takes a simple role and makes in complicated in ways that I don’t entirely understand. He has made two of Scorsese’s lesser movies watch able (“ Age of Innocence” and “Gangs of New York”) and a piece of inadaptable literature- mesmerizing (“Unbearable Lightness of Being”- whatever can be said about that movie, I can’t take my eyes off of him). No matter what film he is in, he creates a very calculated and interesting character and he has never disappointed me.

Kenneth Branagh- He is my comfort food. He would draw me to the theatre not because he is a great actor (he over acts…in almost everything) or because he picks great roles (he even casts himself poorly…see Frankenstein). But for one reason or another I have a love for him despite all this. He is pompous and self obsessed, silly and over ambitious- but, calming. He is one of the filmmakers that made me love film and for that I love watching his stuff. Also, since I bashed him through this whole paragraph, I will say that I think “Dead Again”, “Henry V” and “Much Ado About Nothing” are all very enjoyable, if flawed, films.

I would like to say that Kevin Spacey used to be on this short list with a bang. Poor Kevin Spacey…what has become of you?

Also, did you actually see “Down the Valley” or just hear it was good? Shudder.

I would like to do actresses next; however mine are so obvious that I feel it might bore you….

Mad Men

Spencer: Welcome back to Hamsterdamn Kate. I hope you enjoyed your brief repreive. Let's jump back into the fray post Sopranos with some Sopranos alumni - specifically Matthew Weiner and his new AMC show, Mad Men.

I have to say I was blown away by the first two episodes of this series, partially because I wasn't expecting much from AMC - I think the HBO's and Showtimes of the world have really pushed the other networks to make "edgier", more interesting content - from Mad Men to the FX shows, things are really moving in the right direction.

Some things I like about the show:
- the time period. Not only are they doing a great job with the details, but it's just fun - the constant smoking, the slicked back hair - I love it.
- the performances. Uniformly quite good and as with any good show, with few names and faces that you might recognize.

Some things I am uncertain about:
- the wife. the main character I find fascinating ("who's in there") but I found the second episode slower when they brought the wife in. Misogyny? Perhaps.
- I'm curious to see how they develop the main character - in a lot of ways he needs to be mysterious, empty - American Pyscho-ish without the killing to make the point of the show (something along the lines of "look how shallow and messed up things were back then but oh wait they aren't really that different now are they), but it's difficult to maintain a mystique around a character when he's the driving force of the show. It'll be interesting to see how the performance and character develop.

Your thoughts?

Kate: …and it’s great to be back.
Mad Men is very exciting! Since (as you know) I am not (or I guess I should say that “I have yet to become”) a John from Cincinnati fan, and Entourage is flailing I’ve been a little depressed about television ever since the Sopranos ended. Sometimes you need a new puppy to distract you from the death of your beloved dog.

Is Mad Men my new puppy? I’m not sure, but it has great potential.

Like you, I adore the time period- the 1950s were a fascinating time in terms of economics of the country and also socially. It was the calm before the 1960s storm. It was also the time of “what more could you need?” and when unhappiness was just ridiculous if you had a family and a husband who made a lot of money (in other words, I enjoy the wife’s storyline even if I find the character a little stiff).

Mad Men can go so many places with its story- they have the men in the office (is one of them gay? I see a “Far From Heaven” like story line a brewing) , the main character’s family, the main character’s ‘other woman” which introduces the beatnik movement, race relations, and Peggy’s storyline.

Which brings me to my main issue with Mad Men- Peggy. First of all she is hideous, and second of all I find her irritating. She is my only fear about the show right now- otherwise I love it.

S: Peggy is rather hideous and a bit irritating but I find her interesting. At first, I thought she was to be our heroine - a good girl to root for. We've seen that she's not that, and I was certainly surprised to see her open her door to the swarmy younger ad exec. Again, I'm not sure if the character is not all that well drawn, or if they are really doing something interesting with her - I'm curious to see where she goes.

I'd also like to mention the very Sopranos-esque use of music in the first two episodes, particularly with the slow retreat of the camera in episode 1. And I loved the end of episode 2, which I found a bit more surprising than what they probably thought was a "twist" ending to episode 1 - when did it stop being appropriate for men to check in on their wives therapy because that is so vastly inappropriate, it's almost funny!

K: Well that’s the great thing about Mad Men- just like the Sopranos it has an element of surprise that most shows do not have. It’s something more than the plot twisting and turning- it’s almost a withholding from the characters. There is an element of mystery about them that is so refreshing, rather than the typical pilot antics of: “This is Peggy. She is a goody goody who is afraid of her body”. Peggy makes no sense (birth control? Hitting on her boss? Dressing terribly?), and I know that if she will go in one direction I will hate her, and if she goes in another I will be at least interested in her. I don’t understand the Pete/Peggy thing but it seems so wrong that it could work really well.

But again, she is hideous. There is no need for that. It is so easy to make women from the 50s look beautiful with all the makeup and the synched waists… it’s a travesty.

I’m glad you brought up the husband talking to the psychiatrist thing- I assumed that he had one of his friends from the ad agency be her psychiatrist so that he COULD check up on her. I think the patient doctor privilege was in tact in the 1950s? Perhaps I’m wrong.

I really love their choice of music. They work with the time period while also giving almost an edgy feel.

S: That's a great point - when the characters do become clearer, perhaps we won't be so fascinated.

I think you might be wrong about the psychiatrist - I think the nature of the semi-twist ending was to remind us of how priveleges like those (for women) were pretty much overlooked. Maybe one of our phantom readers can enlighten us to how it was back then? :)

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 9: "Made in America"

Spencer: CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, first of all, I hope you appreciate the appropriate picture I have put up as the top picture in this post.

After finally recovering from last night's shocking has-the-cable-gone-out ending, I've realized that I actually really enjoyed this ending. We all knew that Chase was going to do the unexpected, but after last week's "Blue Comet" gave us enough pause - is he actually going to end this with the violence and drama that the fans have been clamoring for? - he spent the first half of this episode de-fusing the entire situation. The build-up of the ending - the climax of anti-climaxes if you will - was really quite spectacular. Thinking about the artifice of the whole thing is quite amusing - where else would a rather dull video of Meadow parking her car take on such significance?

Perusing the blogosphere this morning, I found out that the video of Meadow trying to parallel park had actually leaked, but people could not figure out how that would possibly be worked into the episode. By the time it rolled around, every Sopranos fan was at the edge of their seats, sure that Meadow at any moment would be steamrolled by a semi, or hit crossing the street...not to be.

I'll admit I was initially frustrated by the sudden black-out/ending, but as others have said, it really was the best way for the show to end. I've been harping the past few weeks about how major developments (Chrissy's death) have felt empty and more a product of the show ending than an appropriate progression of the show. If Meadow had been suddenly killed - or Tony, or if Paulie was a rat etc., that would have felt the same way. Chase was truest to his characters and to the show and its legacy by NOT copping-out to a plot filled ending. Tony continues (or doesn't, depending on your interpretation) as he does, fearing each and every stranger in the diner, loving his family while wreaking havoc on those outside of his inner circle.

In large part, we saw a sympathetic and funny Tony this week, much like the Tony of seasons old, and not the cold killer Chase has revealed to us in past weeks. At first, I thought Chase was backing off of the bleak view he'd set out for us in past episodes. However, on second thought, I think behaviors this week were consistent with Chase's "people never change" hypothesis. In fact, as a friend of mine pointed out, this week's episode was largely a display of all the major characters acting...well, like they always do. Janice being Janice, criticizing her mother while acting her. Carmela complaining about her things and her house(s). A.J., well, being A.J. The characters are who they've always been...and partly for that reason...there's nothing left to say about them.

After the action of last week, the finale was shocking for just how much it felt like a typical Sopranos episode. But it really was - from Paulie's antics with the cat to AJ blowing up his car - this was typical of any episode from the series run. I think there were some great moments (loved the use of the Dylan song in the AJ scene as well as the reaction of the passerby's when Phil's head was crunched) as well as some tired ones (Agent Harris?? The sudden reversal of Phil's 2nd in command) - I don't think it was necessarily a great episode in and of itself, but more a typical one.

And, of course, Chase never backed off his criticisms of his audience. This week was certainly no less of a "screw you" than previous weeks, but AJ's little speech at the dinner table - in response to American Idol and Dreamgirls - almost certainly reflects Chase's cynical view of what being "Made in America" really is. And we see AJ, 20 minutes later, enjoying his new beamer.

Looking back over the past season, which I've had some problems with, I certainly would not call it the best season of the Sopranos, but I would call it one of the most ambitious and certainly the most interesting. Thinking about "Sopranos Home Movies" it's amazing how much ground the show has covered since then, sometimes haltingly and poorly I would argue, but never lazily. This was really a kaleidoscopic season, and I'm going to enjoy re-watching it.

Kate: I do appreciate that picture! Nice touch.

I don’t know why I was surprised- I told myself not to be surprised if the last episode of the Sopranos was simply the first 20 minutes of 2001 Space Odyssey. Immediately after the episode, I went through the 5 stages of grieving- with anger being the most prominent. When I finally began to ‘accept’ the death of The Sopranos I really started to realize how satisfying this finale really was. Every theme that Chase considers important had its last battle cry and without the over the top flamboyance that most television finales produce.

I will start off by saying that I loved what they did with Meadow and AJ, which is interesting because I really don’t care about them as characters and I had no idea where Chase was going with either of their story lines. I love how Chase, in a zig-zag way, slowly but surely, created a modern day Carmella and Tony out of these two bores.

AJ joins an organization which I believe Chase equates with the Mob: the film industry (which is so god damn perfect for AJ and I never in a million years would have scene that coming.) He also shows his father’s fickle heartlessness and his ability to go from crying over injustices in America, to enjoying watching his car burn, to enjoying driving a beamer and picking up his hot high school girlfriend. Has AJ ever seemed more like Tony? Didn’t they even both ever order onion rings at the end (I could be wrong about that…)? And Meadow- marrying the mobster’s son with delusions of being anything else then a housewife (what was that quote that her future husband says? “Hun, don’t devalue yourself!” patronizing, no?). And the hypocritical nature of her profession in general sets her up to be a little Carmella. She is not living up to her potential (although, why is being a lawyer so disappointing to Tony and Carmella? I mean aren’t lawyers what keep Tony on the streets? Anyways) , just like Carmella, and you can almost see the future: a frustrated Meadow throwing the portable phone at her bewildered, bumbling husband, as she threatens to volunteer at a human rights shelter until he buys her a big honkin’ Safire.

Parental influence is everything, and it will haunt you, especially if you are a Soprano.

I have always been a Janice fan so I was happy that Janice had one more scene in which to be maudlin. “Little Livia” sitting outside on the porch, in the cold with a blanket (Reminisent of Livia on her couch, Livia in the hospital, Livia in a wheelchair) , claiming how she is a ‘good mother’ and how much she ‘tries’ was brilliant. Tony brings her a gift, just like the cd player he buys for his mother in the pilot, but the gift brings Janice no happiness. This is when the cyclical nature of The Sopranos is at its best.

The scene where it was just Paulie and Tony in front of the Satriales and Tony is convincing Paulie to take over Carlo’s position struck me as really sad- yet complete. The idea that Tony is acting like this is some kind of promotion when Paulie (in my opinion) knows that ‘this thing of ours” is over, is eerie. It’s just them sitting outside at that metal table alone , where in every other season this scene would been littered with mobsters, people stopping by for sit downs, and lively conversation. No Sil, no Jackie, no Pussy, no Ritchie, no Chrissy, no Ralphie, no Carlo- just Paulie. Paulie’s antics about the cat and the Virgin Mary sighting suddenly became pathetic when there was no one to laugh at Tony’s “shrine” joke with, however, I appreciate that the faithful soldier stands by Tony (albeit with a little prodding) until the end. A captain going down with his ship (skip.)

I feel as if Junior’s demise, while not exactly a death, was treated with more sensitivity then any of the other characters this season. To see this man, a father figure, so powerful in Tony’s eyes (positively and negatively) crumble into nothing- was incredibly hard to watch. For some reason the idea of him not knowing Tony brought me right back to the scene (not sure what episode, perhaps in season 4?) where it ends with Tony saying’ Don’t you love me?” and Junior just crying. All these characters will never truly be able to communicate, marbles or no marbles- but I loved their last scene

Of course, I do have a few problems with this episode, but would I be a true Sopranos lover is I was pleasantly pleased all the time? One issue I have is the lack of Melfi- come on Chase, at one time, she was the point of the show. I know that she had her ‘scene’ in the Blue Comet, but one more shot of her, or a scene with Eliot would have been nice, albeit Kate (crowd) pleasing. The second is no dream sequence! I never though I would say that, but it’s a big part of how the Sopranos tells it’s story and it feels strange that there was a dream sequence in these final 9. And finally, I feel like Carmella deserved a bigger good-bye. One more great scene, storyline, etc. But of course, I’m biased.

And finally- Carlo flipping? LAME. It’s funny because I almost wrote in a previous post that I thought that Chase was heavily laying on the “Carlo’s going to Flip” bricks. Too heavily. Carlo’s son being prominently displayed as an imbecile, Tony screaming at him in the car about him being far more profitable than Vito, and finally the fact that no would car if Carlo flipped. Who cares about Carlo? He is like a Star Trek character dressed in red- a sacrifice. Carlo could have never shown his face again and I wouldn’t care- Chase wanted to have him flip so that part of the audience would have the “Tony is going to Jail’ pillow to curl up with at night for all of eternity.

However, I think they ended it the best way they could. RIP My darling The Sopranos.

P.S. Hunter Spin off?

P.S.S. It’s too soon to joke about Spin offs.

P.S.S.S. Let alone spin offs staring someone as seriously ugly as Hunter.

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 8: "The Blue Comet"

Kate: I want to first apologize for not writing about last week’s episode- I guess I’ll say “life intervened” which I hope everyone (Spencer) understands to mean “was drinking too much.”(if only to mourn this fantastic thing of ours…)

“The Blue Comet” will, without a doubt, go down as one of the most exciting (if not the most exciting) Sopranos episode of all time. From the time that guy-Sil-killed-a-la-Tony-in-College walked down his driveway to pick up his paper to the scene of Tony cradleing a shot gun in bed (which REALLY creeped me out. It seemed like a terrible nightmare…sitting in a dark room, afraid to fall asleep and just waiting for someone to come and kill you- shudder) I was (literally) on the edge of my seat.

I’d like to get this party started with the eating of my words - I’m pretty sure you were correct about Chase this entire time. You have said throughout all of your Sopranos discussions with me (and almost every single post on this blog) that you think Chase is saying a big “Fuck You” to the audience with his ending of this show (not only the finale but in the episodes of season 6 leading up to the finale.) In fact, for someone who I usually trust to find interesting ways to prove a point (Chase), I was surprised by how obvious he proved you correct in “The Blue Comet”

Melfi ends therapy with Tony because she realizes that it’s not doing him any good, but rather just improving his skills as a sociopath. I had trouble with this for two reasons: one, because, it does seem like a “Fuck You” to the audience (if Melfi is a representation of law abiding citizens, which no doubt most of Sopranos viewers are, then we are all using Tony for a cheap thrill and never really expected him to change or become a better man. Q: What does that make us? A: (by Chase) Asses.

And secondly because are we supposed to really believe that Tony is a sociopath? I’m not sure I can, after last episode when he was cradeling AJ (and, yes, you could make the argument that in this episode he threw AJ in the closet, but he can be a whiny bitch sometimes….did I just write that?) after he attempted suicide. How Tony acts in a situation when no one is watching him and how he acts when he must ‘perform’ for society are very different and thus I would have to believe that a lot of his personality quirks (or murderous impulses, if you want to got there) stem from both external AND internal problems. Sigh- or I just don’t want to accept the fact that I totally fell for Chase’s antics.

Some other questions for discussion: Why not kill Sil? Is he going to jump up and be alive again in the finale like the last scene in a horror movie? Is he going to have a Kevin Finnerty like existence for awhile and is that what the finale is going to be? A co-worker suggested that it added a sense of realism to the story; that sometimes people get shot 5 times and just don’t die. I’m not sure if wasn’t just to give Sil one last bad-ass moment. Either way, I have a feeling that we are never going to know what happens to Sil- I doubt Chase is into fake bio pic paragraphs.

And the Big Kahuna- the fate of Tony: Death, jail, or does crime, actually pay and therapy sucks.
All yours answer man.

P.S. Spencer, Wesley has predicted since the names of the last 9 episodes were released that “The Blue Comet” was going to be the best episode in Sopranos history.

Spencer: "Psychopathy is currently defined in psychiatry and clinical psychology as a condition characterized by lack of empathy or conscience, and poor impulse control or manipulative behaviors" - the always right Wikipedia. One of the cruxes of the mob drama (be it in film or on "The Sopranos") is the way the likeability of the characters and their lifestyles shields the audience from their inherent unlikeability - the destructive forces that they are on society. We all really like Tony - in fact, probably 90% of the Sopranos audience would like to be good friends with him - but he is, without a doubt, a sociopath. His displays of empathy (with AJ at times, despite the throwing him against the wall :)) make him human, but that's the double standard Tony has always set for himself. Tony never seemed to sad about the son of his gambler friend, whose car he happily gave to Meadow. Certainly the rest of the list (lack of conscience, poor impulse control, manipulative behaviors) fits Tony to a T.

You say that the episode implies that the audience (and Melfi) have been watching Tony in essence for a "cheap thrill". I think that's right - and it's unsurprising that this revelation happens in the rare episode where Chase gives those thrill-seekers exactly what they want - nearly 60 minutes of mob violence. It had sort of a "this is what you want? well here you go, you ignorant idiots, but i'm going to cut you down to size while I do it" feeling. Sorry David, I love the dream sequences, but hey, we all love a little of the ultraviolence sometimes... (Kubrick reference for you..)

What did you think of the actual episode? Everything was obviously exciting but the show has really deadened these characters to a point where the deaths have felt meaningless to me - more like machinations in Chase's endgame then true character deaths. When (Wire Spoiler for those who haven't seen season 3) Stringer Bell met his death, it felt like a real loss - in fact, many questioned whether the show could go on successfully without his presence. Here, it's the opposite, where the show IS ending, and the deaths have to some extent lost their significance because of it.

I was discussing this with a friend the other day - I often forget the end of movies and books. I just finished reading "Clockers" by Richard Price (excellent read by the way for fans of "The Wire"), and three weeks later, I couldn't for the life of me remember how it ended. I think that's partly just the way our memory works but to quote a lame Aerosmith high school yearbook quote - it's a journey, not a destination. It's rare that the ending is why something is great - the "Usual Suspects" comes to mind although that's more because the ending makes you re-examine the rest of the film - although it is often why something can fail.

Why the tangent? Well, I think the current mass killing spree that the show has on has lost much of its impact because of the way Chase has backloaded everything in these past few episodes. The ending is the ending, and when re-watching the other 6/7 seasons, as we will, will knowing that Bobby and Sil (agree with you about leaving him alive - why bother?) die in the end change the way we experience the rest of the series? I don't think so, because it doesn't really change the way we experience them in the prior episodes, and we don't have to experience the show without them.

I'm looking forward to re-watching this season because I think the show has really been all over the place - from Johnny's cancer death to last night's whackfest to Tony's gambling addiction - it's hard to process from week to week (HBO shows are always better viewed on DVD in bulk). I think part of my problem with this season has been that it's so reactive to the audience and to the fact that the series is ending (all the red herrings that others seem to enjoy I find annoying) - but I'll expand on that in my next post. All yours.

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 7: "The Second Coming"

Spencer: A few thoughts this week as I can't seem to compile anything into a coherent whole.

Tony's rescue of A.J. at the pool was quite a powerful moment, and especially nice was the dichotomy between gangster Tony (the "what the hell is wrong with you moment") and fatherly Tony (as he coddled AJ in his arms). AJ's arc has not been what I expected it to be - once he started moving towards the gangster lifestyle I was worried that the "father becomes son" storyline was going to play out, something that always seemed contrary to the way AJ's character has developed. So I'm glad Chase has, for now at least, had AJ reject that lifestyle and in fact view it as reason for suicide.

I want to return briefly to the point I made last week about comparing the Sopranos to the final Seinfeld episode, which was basically a giant middle finger to the audience. I think the Sopranos is winding down in a similar way and is making a parallel point, forcing us to take a deep, hard look at the characters we've been watching - and enjoying - for 6+ years. Like the plot of the Seinfeld finale, which exposed how effectively "evil" the 4 leads in that show really were, the Sopranos is showing us not only how terrible its characters are, but also posing some harsh questions to us. AJ confronts the truths of the world and finds it too much to bear - we find it entertaining. Melfi's psychiatrist finally confirmed this week what many viewers have long suggested, that if her therapy is doing anything for Tony, it's effectively making him a better criminal. That condemns Melfi, but it also condemns us, as Melfi has long served as the representation of the audience in this show.

This season has felt drastically different than any seasons past. Part of me thinks that's a good thing - I'm glad they didn't just repeat themselves - but I still believe that they are structuring the episodes around making a "point", rather than making great episodes. Sometimes those two goals collide, and I do appreciate the ambition of the writers this season, but in many ways this has felt like a very different show.

I'm also glad it's ending. Gandolfini has expressed some sense of being done with the Tony character and if this season confirms anything for me it's that TV series should really not try to extend too long - you end up repeating yourself or sacrificing your characters to try something different in the show. Some of the action of the past few episodes - Christopher's death, AJ's suicide - haven't really affected me emotionally because I view them with some sense of detachment. I think the tone of this season and its attention to themes and messaging encourages that - I don't feel a loss when Christopher dies, I feel it more as a point that Chase is trying to make. Like I mentioned earlier, I think Chase is very reactive to his audience, and I think that feeling shows up in the show, which makes it interesting to see where he goes, but makes me care about the characters less, because I know he's only trying to outguess us.

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 6: "Kennedy and Hedi"

Kate: Aw, bye-bye Chris-to-fah. Even though I knew it was coming, both in the arc of the entire series (a black bird at your window while getting made; never a good thing- look how Eugene turned out?) and also in terms of the episode ( how many times does one have to show a dark turning road driven by a hopped up (or skittish because he is a rat?) driver before you know something bad is going to happen? Apparently it’s 6).

And to kill a major character off at the beginning of the episode- that’s revolutionary for the Sopranos. I was floored.

Chrissy’s cause of death: he choked on (by) his own blood. Although it’s rather ‘in your face” (the blood thing) I kind of like that he died literally by the hands of Tony by the simple act of pinching his nose. Although the scene was hard to watch, I had to admit that I shared some of Tony’s relief that it was finally over. The scene I had dreaded was come and gone. Christopher Moltisanti – RIP.

In a drug induced dream-like Peyote madness sequence (do you think that’s all the dream-ness Chase needs to feel satisfied, or do you think another one will come along before the season’s end?) Tony’s luck returns. It immediately reminded me of the dream sequence in season 5 where everyone is telling Tony that he isn’t prepared, and that he hasn’t taken care of ‘that thing” ( that thing being killing Tony B) and really I think that’s when Tony’s luck started to run out (not in the gambling episode…) . After that episode nothing went right for Tony- he had to kill Tony B far too late, Vito death (= money troubles), The Shooting, Adriana’s death (Christopher’s divergence), the death of Johnny Sack, and finally (perhaps the most importantly) making an enemy of Phil, a nasty bastard, that just might be part of Tony’s eventual downfall.

This time Tony righted what he had down wrong in Season 5- he killed Christopher before Christopher became a problem. Christopher was bound to destroy Tony in some way whether with the Feds, drugs, or his emotional rampages. Tony was prepared. Tony took care of ‘that thing” and, perhaps, Tony has finally learned from past mistakes?

Also, the roulette table IS just like the Solar System, no?

Spencer: Well aren't you taking a practical view of things? I think the practical reasons for Tony to off Chrissy were all there - as you point out, Chrissy was a ticking time bomb for Tony (and himself), and he acted before things got to Tony B/Pussy proportions before things got out of hand.

But damn, if Tony is actually "learning" as you put it, I'm not sure we like the results. This was the coldest of many cold episodes for me, in the sense that Chase is no longer holding punches with these characters - not only are they downright evil, but they aren't too sympathetic anymore are they? Tony's struggle with fidelity, his family problems, even some of his work problems (it's hard being the boss, not that I would know); all was relatable, if in a different realm. I think it's a little harder for viewers to relate to killing your surrogate son by holding his nose closed, then taking a private jet to vegas, screwing a stripper ex-girlfriend of the guy you just killed, and then doing peyote.

Of course, these characters were always evil and despicable, but for now, Chase isn't infusing them with the humor and moments of emotion that made them so appealing to us for all these years. It reminds me a little bit of the way Seinfeld ended - basically with a big FU to the viewers, asking "and THESE were the people you spent so many hours watching??" Here, I think the revelation has a bit more weight, just the way that the first 2 hours of fun and good times in "GoodFellas" is brought to a crushing moral halt in the last 1/2 hour. But it sure hasn't been as much fun watching how truly evil these characters are.

While the death in the first ten minutes thing certainly caught me off guard, it does bother me that the Sopranos is so damn reactive. I appreciate being aware of your audience and occasionally having fun with their expectations (Lost's characters often spew audience criticisms i.e. "I...want...answers" in a knowing nod to their fanbase) but ultimately what's left on screen is the thing that lasts, and I think the best art comes from intending to make the best art, not by going out of your way to screw with your audience. Chrissy's death had been something predicted by Sopranos fans probably since Season 1, so, no, it wouldn't have been as shocking to place this episode's first ten minutes at the end of last week's episode, but it would have carried a greater emotional punch, and I think would have been more respectful to the character's development and story. Chase has always been one to play with audience expectations and then surprise them - he relishes it - but I really wish he'd focus on just making the best show he can.

I, like many others, did enjoy the actual scene leading up to his death, with the suitable lyrics to comfortably numb (the child is lost, the dream is gone), added to the fact that comfortably numb is essentially a song about pink floyd getting really, really high. The moment before the crash with Tony looking at Chris, realizing what is happening, was quite nice.

Of course the irony is that Tony acts exactly like Chris immediately after killing him. Tony kills Chris right as he's offering the wisdom that Tony imparted only a few months earlier - every day is a gift, life's too short etc. Tony's murder of Chris and his bend in Vegas can be seen as the culmination of his rejection of the possibility of change that seemed so obvious following his shooting. Rather, he has fully embraced the cold/practical/methodical Tony.

A few things to spur further debate - what do you make of the "I Get It" and the return of the Season 6A Beacon? Did AJ's final scene in this episode suggest that he is actually rejecting the gangster lifestyle or is he merely expressing the same depression that plagued his father and drove him further into the mob world?

Kate:I'm not sure if I agree with you when you say that Tony has fully embraced the cold/practical/methodical "Tony" (one of the "Two Tonys" if you will). Remember, Chase says that almost everything that comes out of the mouths of his characters is a lie; I believe that Tony's escape to Las Vegas (the city of sin?) and the drugs, and the gomah (sp?) was in some way him trying to keep this comfortably numb feeling that can't possibly last. I don't think he was simply partying because he didn't give a shit.

However, you are completely correct in saying that this was one of the coldest episodes in Sopranos history. This is the second time when Tony has had to make a decision against his family for the sake of The Family (the first being Tony B), but this time, he did it with more ease, with less questioning (that the audience was privy to) and it stung. You are also correct in saying there was no "Tony is sometimes just a regular guy' relief. It was the complete opposite of "College" where we have the duality of Tony being a Murderer and a father. In "Heidi and Kennedy" Tony isn't even just a murderer, he is acting like a sociopath. There was no Big Pussy regret, no Pie O My heart, and seemingly, no remorse.

In my previous post, I said killing Chris was the 'right' decision, and I've read that statement from lots of reviewers, bloggers, and fans; I think Chase is forcing us to look at the logical monster that lies in everyone rather than JUST fucking with the audience.

However, he is doing that too; I'm (as always) going to refrain to comment because although there is only 3 episodes left, I have faith Mr. Chase is not going to reveal his master plan completely until the very last moment.

(He's got me wrapped around his finger…)

A.J.-Is he a big red herring or the key to the next chapter in the Sopranos? I could go either way, and depending on how it was handled, I would be satisfied with either way. On one hand, I've never really bought A.J. as the mobster type. He seemed so different from Tony, and vastly different from the young Tony that we see in flashbacks. However, on the other hand, there have been clues: the selfishness (and Carmella constantly saying things to explain his behavior to Tony by saying, "and where do you think he GOT THAT FROM?"), the panic attacks, and his carelessness with humans (remember that time that Carmella tripped on the stairs and he just kept right on going? Shudder.)

Would a future mobster would cry "MOMMY" when he saw a bear in the yard? I don't think so. Especially since we know that Tony Sr. stood tall when he saw his father cut off someone's finger. And he was only 12.

Also- Isn't The Sopranos about the mob being dead?

In response to your question of "I get it", there's a funny story there. All Monday after the Sopranos I was drawing this wonderful theory in my head about Tony's own need to 'rat' based on his Melfi confession dream and him yelling out "I DID IT!" to the great canyon when he was peyote trippin'. Then I read a few things and realized that he DIDN'T say that and my theory was crushed.

I …have…no…idea…what…Tony…'got'. I was lost on that. It's hard to admit but I can't even speculate.

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 5: "Walk Like A Man"

Spencer: Ahhh, so THIS is why I liked the Sopranos. After a couple of clunkers, The Sopranos returned to form last night with "Walk Like A Man". First I'll note that "Walk Like A Man" is also the title of a Bruce Springsteen song off of his underappreciated masterpiece, Tunnel of Love, and while I'm not Bruce-crazy enough to think he invented the expression or anything, the father/son dynamics in the song are largely represented in this excellent episode.

Last week, we discussed how I felt the writers had been sacrificing characters and plots for their thematic purposes. This week, Terrence Winter taught us a lesson on thematics done right, as the theme (fathers/sons, what is passed down through generations) was nicely woven into the show without feeling heavy-handed. Everything in this episode worked, from the nice parallel story lines (Christopher with Tony as father as well as his own "junky" father, AJ and Tony), to the humour (great look on Paulie's face as he drove up to Chris' house), to the more emotional moments (season highlight for me so far: Tony's pseudo breakdown in Melfi's office. We've seen him do this a few times, but this was a great great moment of the dichotomy of Tony as well as the viewer's conflicts with Tony - when he proclaims that he "infected" AJ's soul, he's not entirely wrong - but it's hard not to sympathize with Tony at that moment).

Of course, we also had a little thing called "plot", which was not only refreshing, but finally left me with that "giddy" feeling we described last week. Not only were the plot developments exciting (Chris' near rat-like confession, Tony and Chris becoming even more at odds), but they were also framed nicely by previous seasons and episodes, including the Chris/Paulie face-off, and the subtle way that Chris has been thrown out of the loop because of his sobriety. Tony's disenchantment with Chris has in particular been done very well, with a nice arc of trying to bring Chris into his inner circle in the beginning of Season 4 by having Chris murder that Cop, to Tony being an enabler of Chris's addictions in Season 5, to Chris becoming increasingly distracted with Hollywood in Series 6a.

Even the AJ story worked last night. I haven't particularly enjoyed the whole AJ gone straight story line, but it was almost worth the payoff in "Walk Like A Man" as we witness gangster parenting - how happy Tony and Carmela are that AJ is back on his feet, staying out till all hours, and back into drugs and alcohol! How do you overcome the depression that Tony has burdened AJ with - follow the lead of your father, young man - have lots of vices, do lots of bad things, enjoy your newfound happiness.

Finally, Winter got all the details right last night. I loved how Tony returns to therapy with the intention of quitting, only to bitterly relent because of AJ's new depression - "I'm trapped here forever!" - at this point Tony's weary enough of therapy to hate it, but also aware enough that he needs it.

All yours.

Kate: “Walk like a Man” seemed very classic Sopranos- very first season-esque. I thought it was the plot driven narrative (and even I, who has/will defend the previous 3 episodes completely, thought, ‘thank God’ when things actually started to, as you say, “Happen”) but after pondering it for a day I really think it’s because Christopher is back. Not back in the way of season 6a where he was hugging dogs, stealing wine he couldn’t drink, having sex with Carol Hathoway and marrying strangers- but back to under-the-influence-Chrissy who talks too long about his feelings, is overly sensitive, and is self aware. In a way Christopher is the most entertaining and enjoyable character to watch on the Sopranos; his storylines often have the most heart, comic relief, and hopefulness, and although his placement in this episode is bleak, I find it refreshing to see him back in the mix of all this madness.

You have to wonder how this whole father/son dynamic is going to play out in terms of the series end. The theme of parenting in general has been heavily prominent in each episode (although I’m struggling to find an example in “Cleaver” at this moment and time- perhaps I will have one with my second rebuttal) in the form of mentors and blood relations. Perhaps it’s Chase saying: this show isn’t about The Family at all-but rather the mafia is a simple catalyst to show you the inner workings of everyday family dynamics. If this is the case I think the end of this show will rely heavily on the persons that intersect Tony’s two families- Bobby, Christopher, Junior and (now, perhaps) AJ.

And speaking of AJ- um, did I see that correctly? Was, er, gulp, Robert Iler captivating in that episode? I thought he was great not only in the therapists office – responding to a bland lifeless shrink (this episode seemed fairly anti ‘talking it out’ in general – Chris shoots JT after he confesses to him about his frustration with his friends, who laughed at him for speaking frankly about being a parent, which happened because he had ‘too many feelings’ to reject the drink that Paulie gave him, which was a drink that was supposed be about ‘forgiveness”- etc.) with bland lifeless (but not lacking in pain) answers, but also in the woods, with the acid. That face- the face that launched a thousand speculations on AJ following his father’s footsteps.

The rawness of AJ’s unbridled emotion makes Tony feel uncomfortable, which leads him to send him off to the Bing to forget that his heart is broken, which leads AJ to find some mini mafia friends, which leads AJ to be infected by something much worse than depression- but rather ‘rage turned outward.’ Do you think that Tony on some level knew what he was doing there? We mentioned back when discussing in the episode ‘Remember When’ how this show is constantly looking at the past (and I said that was because they were in a Mafia and the past is vital to their existence, and you said it was because the writers were being lazy asses….or something to that effect ;) and I realized that Tony IS looking at the past, but clearly does not LEARN anything from the past, or his own experiences. Otherwise he wouldn’t be pushing his son to hide his feelings under a criminal rock. It’s exactly that kind of behavior that has him in therapy in the first place.

The only thing I found disconcerting about this episode was the whole terrorist angle- I’m not sure I dig Tony ratting out ‘the new Mafia’ if you will.

Spencer: You're right about Christopher - in many ways, he is the soul of the show, the source of great humor and heartbreak (OK, I just wanted to use alliteration). It has been interesting how they have entirely dropped the Carol Hathoway character after "Kaisha" - unless she comes back that alone suggests that we should consider this new "season b" a season on its own.

The episode did feel like a throw back to some of the earlier seasons, and I think the surrounding episodes really helped it seem a refreshing and invigorating change of pace. I'm already wondering what we'll see next week with only 4 episodes left - another piece of misdirection or more of what we saw this week. It's only a glimmer of hope, but wouldn't it be great if Chase actually gave us the final 4 episodes of plot-driven drama that many yearn for?

Robert Iler has become quite compelling, although I never really had a problem with him as you did in seasons past. Granted, he was obnoxious, but that was the character, and I always thought he did a pretty darn good impression of an obnoxious bratty punk with too much money. Iler's scene with his new therapist, along with Tony's breakdown, were my 2 favorite scenes of the episode.

As others have suggested elsewhere, I think Chris' shooting of JT is most about the words that are rarely uttered in this show - "you...are...in...the...MAFIA". It actually reminded me of a prior season (6a?5?) where Melfi actually says the word "complicit" to Carmela. The morality of these characters is only acceptable to themselves by never confronting the truth - the directness of JT's assertion was an assault at the very fiber of Chris' being (probably some great philosophical term to throw in here but I don't know it) - in order to continue being who he is, he had to kill JT.

I'm not surprised at the path that AJ has taken since Chase is too pessimistic to let any sort of "AJ Grows Up" storyline last. I think you're right; Tony does not learn. I'm not sure if it was a conscious decision to push AJ into a pseudo gangster lifestyle, but as I mentioned above, that lifestyle is the only thing that allows the Sopranos to sometimes escape their deeper unhappiness.

The terrorist plotline has been hinted at over and over again, and its part of Tony's skewed morality that he doesn't see any similarities between them and himself (think Carmela's assertion that there are much worse men then her husband). I haven't decided if I buy his helping them out, particularly since it could hold implications for Chris, but I'm interested to see if it plays out or is one big giant FU red herring.

Kate: It’s funny for a show about Mob there is very little usage of the word “Mafia” in general, no? In fact, I can’t think of one time when Tony and his crew ever say that they are actually in the Mafia. There are some great lines about ‘what they do’ without ever saying the words (i.e “this thing of ours”, “once you get into this family, there is no getting out” (which seems to be the theme of this season) “I’m a soldier Adriana.”) There is a great scene in season 3 where Carmella goes to see a therapist and he calls her money ‘blood money’ and tells her that she is an ‘accomplice’ Although this shakes her to the core there is no other option than to stop thinking of it immediately; she hides in her huge house and pretends her husband isn’t a vindictive man. Chase once said in an interview that everything that comes out of his character’s mouths are lies, which is why when the truth is heard, no matter how insignificant , shocking things happen.

What an awful picture of Tony Chase is painting this season. Although he isn’t strangling a rat in hiding with a piece of rope, putting Ralphie’s head in a bowling bag, or putting the hit out on Adriana, he is slowly but surely making the audience lose faith in the one thing that he has always been- a good father. It started with his resentment and treatment of Christopher- who is perhaps the most loyal person in his life as well as the one who looks up to him the most. No other character has given up more to show his love and respect for Tony. It continued with Tony’s utter carelessness with Little Vito and has culminated with this episode with AJ. This AJ storyline is the first time that we see Tony not being a good father to his actual son (yes, one time he slapped AJ but he felt really bad afterwards …). Seeing AJ curled up in the ‘fetal position rather than banging coeds’ makes Tony go about and pity for himself, rather than his son. He is trying to brush AJ’s problems right under the rug, as he did with his own, hoping to turn AJ into some kind of Gary Cooper/John Wayne type. I really believe pushing (whether on purpose or not) AJ into a life of violence is the most monstrous Tony has been on the show. It is especially monstrous because this is the first time we see Tony realizing that “this life” ( I guess I use euphemisms as well…) isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

However- perhaps this is how they set up a situation where Tony gets to be a redeem himself? I doubt Chase would be that optimistic but I also don’t doubt he is misdirecting us every chance he gets.

And WHAT will Carmella do if she gets wind of AJ being all gangsta??? I have a feeling Whitecaps 2 is a brewing.

Until next week Spencer- I’m so glad to have you back on the Sopranos Train!

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 4: "Chasing It"

Kate: “Chasing It” (what great name for an episode! It also created a new phrase I will use when I do things that show that I have zero faith in humanity a la David Chase) flirts with my theory that Tony is not going to end up dead or in jail (i.e. avec le bang), but rather powerless, which is seems to be the worst fate of all (as shown last week via Uncle Jr.). I would assume that when it comes to the life of the Mafia, money = power and Tony is losing it in spades.

I love the Tony is “gambling and losing” storyline. Doesn’t being in the Mafia itself mean making gambling a way of life? It’s making money you didn’t earn, quickly and with great risk. Tony answers Melfi’s question, “What are you chasing?” with “It’s a big part of my life.” This conversation isn’t about Tony’s gambling problem at Atlantic city, but rather his gambling problem with his (and his family’s - as Carmella points out about twice a season) life. The fact that Tony is losing his luck at cards is also describing Tony losing his luck within the ‘family’. The story line also brings back images of ‘the guy who owned the sports store’ and JD – gambling pathetic fools who Tony (and Christopher) used to prey on. How did Tony get so low?

I really think Tony wants out of the Mafia and is discovering - just like Vito and Eugene in season 6a (finally an answer to the madness?)- that there is no escaping because ‘it’s a big part of [his] life.” I found his conversation with Carmella (and side note: how AMAZING was that Whitecaps-esque fight scene half way through the episode? I know/hope that isn’t the last we’ll see of the Carmella/Tony fire) about how ‘big picture-wise, I’m up, way up!” heartbreaking because the episode’s tone and Tony’s actions would greatly suggest otherwise.

Tony specified that all his friends were murderers, which brought me back to the whacking by Bobby in “Soprano Home Movies.” Did you notice how much Bobby’s presence has changed since “Sopranos Home Movies”? He tells Tony to “let it go” (ballsy) in regards to Tony saying he’ll never forgive the way that Phil treated the little V situation, he gives Tony advice (“tell Hesch to go fuck himself”) and his whole presence is stronger- a bit more like the way Tony used to be.

If Janice= the new Livia, than Bobby = trouble.

This whole episode was full of inklings and red herrings regarding the end of the Sopranos (which makes it so fun to watch, no?) i.e. Tony driving by the Mosque seeing the guys who used to hang out at the Bing (how many times can they allude to terrorism before I start believing them?), Hesch’s girlfriend biting the dust (foreshadowing Carmella’s end?), and Tony’s zero interaction with Christopher and the audiences lack of insight into Christopher’s home/personal life (do I smell a rat?-it’s a long shot, but still, it has been a long “no-Chrissy” stretch.)

And- I’ll leave the little Vito shower shitting to you my friend. Cheers.


Spencer: Let me start by pondering an unintentional side-effect of this blog. I'll admit that with the prospect of our little write-ups in my head, I tend to watch this season's episodes with a particularly critical eye. I'm essentially looking for things to write about, and though I forget the appropriate expression, sometimes it's easier to criticize than it is to compliment.

Still, I'd argue that the new level of attentiveness I give the show should enhance its stronger moments while emphasizing the weaker ones. Though I suspect you might not believe me, I don't think I'm taking a particularly harsh view of this season because of the blog, but hopefully just getting more out of the show than I did in years past.

All that said, as you might suspect from my little disclaimer, I found this episode interminably dull and irritating.

I've always found one of the strengths of the Sopranos' structure, or the way it refuses to be structured, is the freedom it allows an individual episodes' director/writer to take show places it has never been before. The show's rules, or lack thereof, have allowed for unexpected flashbacks, dream sequences, etc., and the show is such that it expects its audience to accept the devices as means towards a greater end of enhancing the meaning of the show.

"Employee of the Month" and this year's "Soprano Home Movies" are two examples of this done well. In both cases, we are presented with a show that is largely not the show we expected to watch, focusing on characters and locales unexpected, and in the case of SHM, even the aesthetics of the show were notably different (Tony/Carm's outfits, the small cozy nature of the lake home, etc). Yet despite their departures from a traditional Sopranos show, both shows not only enhanced our understanding of our central characters, but further did not shortcut or manipulate those characters as a means to an end. Melfi's dilemma (and decision) at the end of EOM not only fits her own character, but also prompts us to consider Tony's potential "value" in society as a force outside the law, willing to dole out revenge in cases where the law can't. That's a valuable episode in our understanding of Melfi, but it really does come back to Tony, even though his actual screentime is limited.

This season, more than ever, other than SHM, I've felt like Chase and Co. have really been moving these characters around a chessboard, and pushing them into places that they do not belong, for the purpose of the episode's "point". In "Chasing it", we're faced with Tony's gambling addiction, as a means to exploring happiness and fulfillment. Not only has there been much indication that Tony has been an addicted gambler in past episodes, but he's actually been the smarter/prevailing head in similar situations, both with "guy from the sports store" and Artie. I think that's largely what Chase is getting at (Tony's unhappy with his position, can't get out as you suggest, and is sort of acting below his capabilities and thus things he used to be above (gambling addictions), he's now not), and that's fine, but as further insult, it simply hasn't made for compelling television. The past two weeks of the Sopranos has been two of the dullest episodes I can remember and not because "nothing happens" but because the things that are happening have been solely serving their individual little episodes thematic points, and have used the characters solely as a means for getting there, without respecting the six seasons of history the show has put behind them.

I always enjoy the acting between JG/EF, but the fight scene you referred to was just so lazy to me. In season 4, those scenes are earned. We've got a season of Carmella grasping at her feelings for Furio as well as her financial ties to Tony; Whitecaps was so special because it felt like an appropriate culmination; we'd never seen it before, but we believed it because it had been appropriately foreshadowed and developed. Here, the fight came out of virtually nowhere, seemed vastly out of Tony's character (much like the whole episode), and further, although Tony said just about the nastiest thing he has ever said to Carmela, all she does is sulk and stay quiet at the end of the episode? Why? Because this wasn't meant to drive the plot forward, it wasn't meant to make us understand anything about how Carmela has changed, or how their relationship has changed - Carm doesn't leave Tony again (as I suspect she would have) based on his little outburst because the outburst is serving the episode, not the series.

Perhaps, as you suggest with regards to Bobby, we're seeing small strands of plot lines that will play out over the coming 5 episodes. But the show really needs to stand up on its own before the benefit of later episodes, and so far, I don't think it has.

Kate: Sigh, were we watching the same show?

I don’t feel like “Chasing it” is a self serving episode at all- in fact, my entire write up was about how many references and clues it had to the past and future shows. I understand that you think that Tony’s gambling problem came out of left field (and thus Chase is pushing that Chess piece to a place he is not supposed to go…nice metaphor, albeit a little confusing. Do you mean that Chase is making his knights move diagonally, or his pawns move backwards or simply putting his characters in ‘danger’ positions?) but did it really? Tony has always gambled and not only with his money, but with his family, his friends, and his own life- it’s just that now he is losing and thus suddenly looks like a problem.

The Edie/James scene in this particular episode stems from Tony feeling powerless and taking it out on both the weak (Bracco’s sister- is there a nicer character in the series? She has been dealt a horrible hand the poor thing) and the stable to make himself feel like ‘Mr. boss man’ (pour vous Madame Sinatra) again. There is a huge imbalance of power for a man like Tony when his wife has more money then he does (remember when Hesh tells his son that minus assets Tony is only worth 600,000 which is the same amount of money Carm get’s for her Spec house?.) It terrifies him and makes him crazy. This is something that has been building for… seasons. Why else wouldn’t he lean on the building inspector? Why else would he not let her play the stock market? Why else would he not want her to take the Real Estate courses? He likes Carmella home, cooking him dinner, and caring for his children. This could be seen as another Mafia way of life that is becoming impossible to keep in a modern time.

It’s not “virtually out of no where” or out character for Tony.

I also feel that Carmella understands why he is angry, which is why she doesn’t leave. All and all Carmella is a perfect wife for Tony because she both challenges him, but also understands (to a point) her ‘role.’ I love the idea that there is this fire bubbling right underneath both of their skins; a fire that had been controlled since Tony got shot. Perhaps this is also symbolizing that the whole “everyday is a gift’ Tony is coming to an end?

All and all I’m sorry you are so disappointed with the way this season (series?) is turning out. I’m sorry that you find it is both dull and irritating when I’m here giddy with excitement for the next episode. Do you feel your disappointment is similar, on par with, or less then your disappointment in season 6b?

Spencer: It's funny that you mention the "giddy with excitement" feeling; that's exactly what I used to get from the Sopranos and haven't been experiencing at all this season. I think, like many, I'm anticipating a anti-climactic wind down to the series, and with the depressing way things are going for Tony and co., I think it's going to be a dark and bleak ending for these characters, albeit in a quiet pathetic way (think Junior) rather than in an explosive blaze of glory.

It's interesting to think about Season 6a in the Season 6b context because aside from the content of the show, the whole a/b season thing seemed more like an HBO marketing issue than the season actually being one complete whole. Indeed, "Kaisha", however anti-climactic, did at least feel like a finale, and as a whole Season 6b has set off on new plot threads.

Still, the thematic aspects have remained largely the same, including the "when you're in, you're in for life", along with the slow spiral to irrelevance of the mob in general. I have been interested by this season's sense that Tony no longer wants to be in the mob - he looks at Carmine and Phil's desire to stay out of the mob (albeit, that was short-lived), and he wants to get out too. These last few episodes have emphasized the flaw in the "money is all" priorities of the characters while revealing how emotionally bankrupt their relationships are.

I didn't find Tony's fight with Carm "out of nowhere" in the sense that I never believed his character would never act the way he did, or that the tension with the spec house or Carm's other extra-curricular activities hadn't been explored in prior seasons. I did find it out of nowhere in the context of the episode and of Season 6b where they haven't been prominent issues. I've just found the writing this season to be lazy in its willingness to sacrifice all for its thematic purposes, while pushing plot and character development to the side. Tony becoming a degenerate gambler isn't totally out of line with his character, I just didn't feel they'd appropriately brought his character to that moment - they just placed him there, similar to the way that AJ has magically transformed into some sort of adult.

I think to some extent the tone of this season has really beaten out most of my liking for the characters, which has been critical to the show's success all along. Even when Tony was a monster, he was still appealing and compelling; the downward spiral has been far less fun to watch.

Sopranos Season 6B Episode 3: "Remember When"

Spencer: One thing I'm loving this season is how the writers have taken the usual Sopranos "short story" approach and melded it with a sense of forward movement in the show. In the past, the show has embraced the "one-off" episodes to attack different topics - the rape in "Employee of the Month", Italian/Native American heritage in "Christopher", etc. and while those episodes are often good (or great in the case of "Employee" and "Pine Barrens"), they've always felt isolated from the central narrative.

This season has been full of similarly themed departures from what people expect from the show, with "Home Movies" being the obvious example, but last week's Johnny Sack (sp?) story line, this week's Junior story-line, and even Tony's trip with Paulie being other good examples. Yet even as these stories have played out in a bubble, like Sopranos side-trips of old, I think they have done a better job of integrating with our understanding of these characters, and even coming close to actual plot developments. I don't think we learned a lot about Syl or Artie from their participation in "Christopher", but "Home Movies" and this week's Tony/Paulie story lines did enhance our understanding of these characters, and further, actually seemed to imply future consequences. To me, this is the Sopranos perhaps what it should have been doing all along; it gets to examine its "topics/themes" - this week we'll call it mentor relationships gone bad - with all the symbolism and story parallels the show usually enjoys, while actually fitting in with the show's story A development. This is something that "The Wire" has done for years - with Simon's show largely a novel while Chase's has always seemed more like short stories. This year (thus far), for the first time, "The Sopranos" feels to me more like a novel.

I mentioned to you previously that I thought the show really been repeating itself, and I found this episode to be no exception. Once again, we have a road trip as a means of exploring a relationship with Tony, something that we've seen from Season 1's "College" to just last year's "The Ride". That little device is getting a bit tired. Similarly, the NY power struggle is about as dull a mob plot line as we've seen so far and I'm inclined to think that the writers agree with me, given how little screen time they've devoted to it; it seems to exist in the show purely as an excuse for violence and to provide the threat of violence against our main characters as the show comes to an end.

This show also highlighted something that has often bothered me about "The Sopranos", which is a frequent use of what I call the "When I was a kid" device. It's that feeling you get in a movie when two characters are talking, and one starts "when I was a kid" or "I had this dream", and you sort of start to fumble around in your seat for a bit as you prepare yourself for the soliloquy that will undoubtedly reveal a side of this character we've never seen before. I've always found these types of speeches largely self-indulgent and lazy, and fall into the classic "show don't tell" problem, in which we learn about character (or develop symbolism) through someone essentially telling us, rather than the show/movie showing us.

The Sopranos has often used the device for those purposes exactly, and I actually almost applauded when Tony says "Remember when is the lowest form of conversation". I agree - it's also one of the lowest forms of storytelling.


Kate: Much like a teacher grading a paper, you remembered to start off with the positive- very nice. Just a question: are you going to compare The Sopranos to The Wire in every post? (A little trash talk to start this off…)

After Sunday night at 9 (some of us watch live Mr. Wong) my first reaction was disappointment- and although it has grown on me a little with time- I still feel like it was a step down from the previous two episodes of this season. It too reminded me a lot of the “The Ride” from season 6A but more because of all this false build up (and I think had a very similar tag line about how “SOME SECRETS CAN’T STAY BURIED!” on the promo), that (so far) hasn’t gone anywhere. I didn’t believe Paulie was going to be killed on that boat- despite the shot of the hammer (hatchet?), the bloody knife, and the ridiculous flashback to Big Pusssy getting shot and rolled off into the deep blue sea (which was completely unnecessary and below the writers usual respect for the audience’s intelligence)- why now? I know Paulie is a blabber mouth and represents Tony’s third choice of ‘how’s this thing (of ours) going to end’? (Jail, Death, or alone, ludicrous and old time mobster like Paulie*) But still- if Paulie was going to be killed I think it would have been 4th season when he was ratting to Johnny Sack.

I strongly disagree with your dig about how “remember when” (which was a great line by the way- biting and classic) is how the Sopranos is telling their stories. The past is vital to the Mafia’s way of living and surviving in this modern world. Without tales of soldiers and the good old times (of Johnny Boy and Paulie for example) to keep these men going, what would (which makes you wonder why Tony now despises these tales so? Does he not want ‘to go on” anymore)? Also- to go back to a thing you said to me earlier- isn’t the whole idea of the Mafia something of the past? Can it really effectively exist any longer?

I understand what you’re saying about squirming in your seat when those monologues come up, but I’m pretty confident that The Sopranos is aware of it’s repetition.

But just when you thought I was going to be all kissing up to the Sopranos I have to mention, what I like to call the “Please Kill Junior” storyline. I have the same problem with this storyline as I do with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers- why make a story that ends the same as it starts? (and btw this isn’t an invitation to discuss LOTR…but maybe someday) We haven’t spent much time (or any? Forgive me I can’t remember) with Junior this season but the last we saw of him he was an old formally strong man, who was pretty pathetically losing his mind. Why did we need a storyline getting us to that exact same point? Perhaps it was like a “The Awakenings” or “Flowers for Algernon” deal where we were supposed to hope that Junior would escape with Uncle Pat and beat up professors on a regular basis again. Sadly, the Junior we know at the end of this episode is old, sad, and sitting alone in a wheelchair with a cat- which is exactly how I was picturing him while Bobby was beating up Tony and Phil was pontificating about his lame name change in his shrine-to-his-brother bar.

I thought Ken Leung was fantastic and the scene where Junior brings him the Hootie and the Blowfish cds heartbreaking (and kind of made me want to listen to Hootie and the Blowfish). I’m not mentioning the fact the Ken Leung beats the old codger up because I saw that coming from the first round of poker. A story line so transparent (Junior let’s young men who look up to him (a la T Soprano) down…like all parental figures on this show) is also beneath the writers.

I never thought I really cared about the short story verses the novel way of story telling in the Sopranos but now that is coming to end, I realize I long for a big sweeping finish. All of these side plots are starting to drive me a little bit batty even though I pride myself with Sopranos Patience. I want Chase to give me the big bang and I know deep in my heart he is going to give me a whimper.

*Thought- perhaps by displaying the ugly underbelly of being old and a mobster (Paulie and Junior’s storyline) Chase is saying that some fates are worse than death? That getting old, losing your dignity, while living this life is the real punishment for the sins of the Mafia.


Spencer: There will likely be numerous references to the Wire, often in paragraphs where I am citing perceived Sopranos weaknesses :)

I'm trying to stay away from "next on" previews for exactly the reason you cite; the promo monkeys at these networks do everything they can to make each episode seem like the most action packed, sex-crazed episode in Sopranos history which always sets your expectations on an inappropriate level. I too found Paulie's potential whacking on the boat a little silly, although I'd disagree with you that the writers have that much respect for the viewer's intelligence - I think we've had Melfi spoon feeding us our interpretations of the writer's points and symbolism for years - but we can discuss that another time.

I like your idea of Chase's moral punishment being the grow old and die without dignity, although the depiction of old age across the Sopranos has been so negative that I'm not sure Chase thinks that outcome is specific to mobsters. While you could argue that Paulie's mother is still connected with the mob, her friend Cookie isn't (as I recall her son is a school principal), and she's just as conniving and evil minded as the rest of the Sopranos characters.

The super-depressing depiction of ageing in the Sopranos leads into another point - how depressing the Sopranos is in general. There's a great article in "Reading the Sopranos" about the opening credit sequence and how it sets the stage for a Hobbseian Lord of the Flies style ruthless climb to the American trash heap - and that's really the feeling I get from the Sopranos these days. Matt over at The House Next Door has made the nice point about how every Sopranos character is almost entirely self serving, but beyond that, this season has also emphasized how hollow the relationships between these essentially evil characters are. We saw how fickle Tony was with Bobby in "Home Movies", how little Tony was affected by Johnny's death in "Stage 5", and now we see how fragile Tony's relationship with Paulie is. It has reminded me of the Feech story line in emphasizing how Tony's friends are his employees - these really are sad, sad characters acting in terrible ways - only the humor saves the show from being almost unbearable to watch.

You ask "why make a story that ends the way it starts?" As I mentioned a few weeks, ago, I think that's exactly the problem with the Sopranos. Carm moves out in Season 4, and then moves in Season 5. Tony gets shot, has life changing dream (or whatever), goes back to his old ways. I think many of us do hope for a big bang finish but I am very much expecting a whimper, with much the same as it was in Season 1, Episode 1.

It's a good point about the past being vital to the mafia's way of living - one could argue that they're effectively living in the past - but there's a difference between the past informing the present and having the present be all about remembering the past. Granted, that's more or less what the episode was about, but that doesn't make for any more compelling viewing. I may or may not prefer the "When I was a kid" scene over the flashback strategy (which they've also often gone for) but neither make for exciting storytelling.


Kate: Oh please- your Wire elitism exhausts me. ;-)

Not that you would know (wink) but next week’s episode didn’t have a ‘next on.’ That makes me much more excited than the loud banging music set to every scene where people are in ‘motion’ or speaking in loud voices.

I agree with you that Melfi’s become a little bit useless in last few seasons but I feel conflicted about you saying that she is example of writers not having respect for the audience’s intelligence. A part of me thinks that with the unexpected death of Livia made Melfi’s role in the show became more difficult to write for and discussions and storylines about the PAST more necessary. The Sopranos started off as a show about a mob boss who has panic attacks (because of his mother) and has to see a shrink (displaying great weakness in a powerful man, a dichotomy that is fascinating to watch) , and then became something totally different (the dichotomy in all characters? In everyone?). Should they have written Melfi out? Possibly, but I still enjoy their scenes and don’t necessarily feel talked down to.

Cookie was a bad gal (and if memory serves, she is not the mother of the principal, that was the other lady in their Green Grove crew) but I think that most characters in the Sopranos are pretty bad people- and not just elderly (for example, Carm’s father is a very capable and fairly well behaved senior.) However, I don’t think it’s the awfulness/crotchety part of being old that were pointed out in this episode but rather the powerlessness. Junior, once a powerful man, is now pathetic and alone stroking a cat. Paulie once a (handsome!) powerful man, is now pathetic and alone and giggling (which Tony apparently has great distain for- remember when he was so pissed that his son was giggling in his underwear while chatting on the internet?) at late night television.

Tony is not the same after the shooting; Carmella is not the same post moving out (and then returning); their relationship is not the same after the moving out or the shooting. However, you have a point- I do think their relationship is reverting back to the way it was in first season. Carmella helping Tony pack to ‘go on the lam’ is very reminiscent of Carmella holding the duffle bag for Tony to hide the guns in when the indictments (sp?) were being handed down in season one. Tony’s “Carm, your not just in my life, you are my life’ has also returned. I think that after the shooting Tony really did realize that Carmella is exactly what she said in Whitecaps- the only one who really knows him. In season 2-5 that might have disgusted him, but with all the decent amongst the ranks nowadays, I think he finds it comforting and (reverting back to your Feech reference) the only person (besides his children) who really loves him.

Yes, just like in season one, episode one, Tony is reverting (I like to think of it as full circle, rather than repetitive) back to what he said to Melfi- I can’t remember the line but it has something to with joining something just as it is upon its demise. I think that in seasons 2-5 he was so pumped up by a false sense of power and success that he chose to forget this (perhaps that’s why the ‘remember when’ bothers him so? Who wants to remember the past when the past proves exactly how someone like Tony is going to end up) but now it’s becoming evident that ‘everything comes to an end.’

I usually don’t find the Sopranos that depressing (what kind of person does that make me?) (Don’t answer that) but this episode wrecked me. I read somewhere (Slate.com I think…) that this is the first episode where the Sopranos really felt like it was over- I would have to agree.