Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#21
turangawaewae wrote:Chase doesn't correct the interviewer when he says Tony doesn't get whacked in the final scene. What does that mean??


When Belzer says Tony doesn't get whacked early on in the interview, it is the context that that he is not seen getting killed.

He does suggest that this mundane scene is full of portentousness, especially Meadow's attempts at parking the car.

However he seems to be more than aware that something foreboding is meant to occur even though the viewer never witnesses a hit. This is when Chase "spills the beans" as to why we do not see Tony getting hit. Bobby's observation and the earlier scene with Silvio at the restraurant are clear hints as to what happened to Tony.

The JFK comment is more revealing as the interviewer realises what was Chase's intent. I don't think Chase corrected him there.

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#22
conkom wrote:When Belzer says Tony doesn't get whacked early on in the interview, it is the context that that he is not seen getting killed.

He does suggest that this mundane scene is full of portentousness, especially Meadow's attempts at parking the car.

However he seems to be more than aware that something foreboding is meant to occur even though the viewer never witnesses a hit. This is when Chase "spills the beans" as to why we do not see Tony getting hit. Bobby's observation and the earlier scene with Silvio at the restraurant are clear hints as to what happened to Tony.

The JFK comment is more revealing as the interviewer realises what was Chase's intent. I don't think Chase corrected him there.


That would be when chase "spills the beans" on what we have known for months about the bacala and sil scenes? And the Kennedy connection we have known about for longer?

Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.... Maybe another 18 months??

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#23
CamMan wrote:Chase also mistakenly says that Tony delivers the "never know it happened" line to Bobby, when it is the other way around. A subconscious slip if I ever heard one. Tony, indeed, "never knew it happened"

Almost too incredible to believe, this major slip. How can it be? Could the interview have been mis-transcribed- no it was audio. Maybe Chase truly is as confused as the ending! Maybe thats why he says nothing definite happened! :icon_confused:

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#24
in all due respect turanga, I dont mean to bore you with discussing an interview of some signifigance to me and even to the moderator of the entire chat room. You can choose to ignore the discussion if you dont like it. Im not trying to "have peace" over it. Im not trying to win an aregument as much as Im sharing my own experience through my lens. I value your comments in this same vain. Ive never heard this interview and really there arent many audio or video interviews with Chase post finale. So this is a signifigant discussion as far as it is related to other comments that have been made. Chase is right when he says there is no Davinci code. Im not tyring to prove that, rather I am trying to comment on what I see and how what I see makes me think\feel. When Belzer states that Tony doesnt get whacked and Chase doesnt correct him, I thought it meant he didnt want to touch any direct statements either way. He still wants us to come to the conclusion on our own. He doesnt want to give it to us. He wants you to find it out for yourself. Of course this is all IMHO!
I wonder if we heard the audio of Chase from the interview in the Sopranos Book, if we would get a different feeling from it. I love hearing him talk for some reason. He really is a brilliant mind!
[font="Franklin Gothic Medium"]You know, Vito called me “skip” the other day. Slip of the tongue, no doubt. But I noticed he didn’t correct himself.[/font][SIZE="1"][/SIZE]

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#25
To be honest, this interview has really bought home to me how over the ending I am. It bought home to me that there is going to be no more slants, angles or information revealed by Chase. It will be the same old information, and the same discussions reconstituted. Tht doesn't mean of course that every body else has to be over it, and by all means debate away. The issue I had was with all roads leading to Rome. All threads turning into Tony died debates. This of course makes it hard to ignore Silvio, when threads used to keep being directed down a different track by posters.

I don't know if it is Christmas, but the momentum of the site seems to have slowed of late. Apart from the motorcycle thread, and the latest regurgitation of the ending debates, I don't remember anything of substance being discussed for a while. Maybe it's the recession. Remember when the mob used to be recession proof??

I

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#27
turangawaewae wrote:That would be when chase "spills the beans" on what we have known for months about the bacala and sil scenes? And the Kennedy connection we have known about for longer?

Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.... Maybe another 18 months??


Although I feel more like I am standing on the ground watching the carousel go round.

This thread was created to discuss the proposition that Chase "spilled the beans". For some of us it was confirmation of how we read the outcome of the series.

There is nothing vague about Chase's explanations or the JFK reference. Nor did anyone claim that they were new. The interview itself was in April. It does serve as a pointer to it being highly probable that Chase meant Tony was 86ed. I admit it is my opinion. And some others here as well.

I too do not care about entering an argument over this anymore. I am actually quite bored with it.

But if anyone feels otherwise then I have no problem with it. I have no interest in arguing with them about it. In the end, the show is over.

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#28
Do I think that the ominous black screen at the end of The Sopranos is absolute, uniquivical, undeniable nothingness?

In my humble opinion I absolutely think that its the exact opposite. In my opinion I think the last scene was the final nail in the metaphorical coffin that was Tony's hope or determination to change and to seek true insight into the darkness of his own psyche. Thats it, he was never going to change, never.

Ultimately, Carmela and AJ were pulled back into the needless void of Tony Sopranos life. All that was left was for Meadow to join them. She ultimately failed to seperate herself from the sins of her family. Becoming as hypocritical as Tony, the very thing she hated most in the earlier seasons. Is Chase disappointed with Tony and Carmela? No I don't think he is. They were never going to change and he knew that. As for AJ and Meadow? I think he always had hope for Meadow, but that hope was relinquished in the final scene. She was pulled back in. But whats she going to do? Its family, theres no denying that.

I think the black screen signifies to us the end of our absurd intrusion and possible judement of these fictional characters. A chance for us to finally step back and take a look at ourselves. Which all great art ultimately achieves. Watching that final fateful scene, that abrupt ending, who did I see on that screen in those 10 seconds of "nothingness"? I saw myself, my own relfection on the TV screen.

It was now my chance to look at myself. The show, throughout its entirety illustrated the struggle and reluctance for characters to take a deep honest look at themselves and to genuinely "change". I take from the show the realisation that I need to get off my ass, away from the TV, and to take a deep hard look at myself and hopefully change for the better. Because someday, without me even knowing, it will all just stop.

But hey, this just another interpretation. There will be countless more interpretations, countless more arguements and therefore I think we can all agree that Chase created a piece of art. The ultimate blank canvas for us to take a look at ourselves.


Will I stop watching? Probably not, but I will no longer fret over the "ending".

Irishwiseguy.

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#29
Irish Wiseguy you just articulated my feelings almost exactly. Thank you for that post as I feel what you said was common sense and nothing more or less. I always felt that black screen was about reflectionn
[font="Franklin Gothic Medium"]You know, Vito called me “skip” the other day. Slip of the tongue, no doubt. But I noticed he didn’t correct himself.[/font][SIZE="1"][/SIZE]

Re: Chase spills the beans in new interview?

#30
Irishwiseguy wrote:I think the black screen signifies to us the end of our absurd intrusion and possible judement of these fictional characters. A chance for us to finally step back and take a look at ourselves. Which all great art ultimately achieves. Watching that final fateful scene, that abrupt ending, who did I see on that screen in those 10 seconds of "nothingness"? I saw myself, my own relfection on the TV screen.

It was now my chance to look at myself. The show, throughout its entirety illustrated the struggle and reluctance for characters to take a deep honest look at themselves and to genuinely "change". I take from the show the realisation that I need to get off my ass, away from the TV, and to take a deep hard look at myself and hopefully change for the better. Because someday, without me even knowing, it will all just stop.


Irishwiseguy.


Excellent post! And a good catch on our intruding in the life of a gangster.

The hardest thing for a lot of us was letting go and our reluctance in believing that 1. Tony dies. 2. The show is over.

Your reflection is given more weight by Chase's comments about the fans who cheered Tony when he killed, but wanted to actually see him killed in the ultimate pay-off.

Before I made the somewhat mistaken effort in solving the tiger and the lady riddle I wrote this observation at the beginning of the thread, deleted it then brought it back.

"There have been some quite interesting arguments that perhaps the "death" clues as analysed by richieaprile were all too obvious and maybe they were just what they were; mundane everyday incidents and things that even though were referential, really might signify nothing at all. Would anything more make it seem crass??

Now I never thought of the Sopranos as a program about nothing but it is an interesting thesis nonetheless. However Chase's declaration that "it's all there" somewhat negates that assertion, unless of course the Sopranos was a lesson in Sartre's existentialism or Seinfeld's nothingness.

Firstly I don't think any of the death motifs were glaringly obvious. On the contrary they were on the surface quite deliberately mundane, almost non-descript. I doubt most people would have picked them up along the way. And I suspect a lot of people still can't see them. I have spoken to many fellow fans of the show who were quite upset at the way the Sopranos ended. "Worst ending ever!!" "Why?" "Because nothing happened!" (Sound like a line out of Seinfeld.)

Like any mystery their significations only emerge once we get to the climax which in this case comes in the form of a plot twist. A mundane family get-together in a suburban diner that suddenly cuts to silent black.

Some other friends whom when pointed out to them the "death" signs and the POV indicators then reply "that's too obvious". However they didn't pick up any of the "obvious" signs Chase laid out in the scene and episodes along the way.

Perhaps they invested too much emotional attachment to Tony to let him go. Or maybe they empathise too closely at his predicament. Despite being a murderous mobster deep down he really was a hard-working Joe and loving family guy.

For certain viewers it is a Lady or the Tiger resolution. And like the Princess of that tale for them it's a lose-lose situation. There is no option or door in which the viewer can definitely see Tony survive that night. One door tells them that the signals are too obvious (the Tiger), Tony will die. The other door tells them there is nothing but black silence. The relationship between the viewer and the series ceases to exist (the Lady will take her love). The show is over.

So what does the princess-viewer do? Nothing. That story ends there, frozen at the moment. She hasn't lost anything but she hasn't regained that which she had before. Perhaps she is waiting for her father the King (Chase?) to reverse his decision and give her lover a reprieve (bring back the show or a future movie?).

In the end the choice was already made for her. It stopped."

Return to “Sopranos in the News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron