billymac, my apologies. I really
couldn't respond in a timely fashion and would like to point out that if I agree to do something then I always
keep my word. Sorry again and I hope you hadn't considered that I'd just abandoned this thread.
At the risk of posting a non sequitur
here if I focus primarily on feelings regarding Freud's impingement on popular culture
, and averting the very real risk that if endeavored I may still be here typing when The Sopranos reaches terminal-point
, I should just point-out that for me, Freud (in-general) has always been deeply embedded in what I perceive to be the causation of Tony Soprano's true psychopathy et-al and the backbone if you like, for Chase & Co. to actuate the deconstruction of The Sopranos' (in-general) probative undertones and subjacent agglomerated themes that are (arguably) the crux of his composition.
I see a little
of Freud, and I see a lot
For example: take Tony and his 'little hands' - an obscure reference for sure but one that screams out to me Chase knows his Freud
(or Chase & Co. do etc.) I'm not exactly sure but I think it's S5 'Where's Johnny' and Tony is present at Sunday dinner at Uncle Junior's place. Someone remarks that Tony couldn't excel in a particular sport because of his 'small hands' - Tony is well aware of this. Janice then points out that 'Daddy always said that about you (Tony)' and Junior goes on to offend Tony with his whole 'never had the makings of' reproval etc.
' was a notable subject of Freud's studies and one of the youngest (if not the
youngest) patients he ever tried to help.
You can find out all about 'Little Hans' fairly easily I'm sure if you search around for the 'analysis of a phobia in a five year old boy' - it's very interesting and I find somewhat germane to Tony and the reverberation of his sister/mother/father's relationship with him. (Oh, and his fear of horses
is just a killer and reminds me of Tony atop the horse in the Test-Dream showing-off his concealed dingus
to an apathetic (regarding the weapon) dream-carmela
In essence - Little Hans was a boy who had (in-part) Oedipal
issues and after a few words
from his father (and Freud), arguably grew up just fine.
I remember watching the scene and how I found it to be quite pertinent (at least, the way it was played and every reaction contained) to Freud, his little patient, and The Sopranos' opera in-general.
It's hardly a big-deal
I know, but it does aspire to lucubrate even the most minutia of happenstance into something altogether more suggestive.
I really want to stay focussed on the matter at hand here but if I could just point-out another latent
'interpretation/misinterpretation' (depending), this time using Freud (in-part) on a broader scale okay...
and Tony is looking in the doorway of the Inn at the Oaks
On their second-date, Tony buys Carmela a dozen red-roses and ditto for her Mother (he also supplies Carmela's Father with an expensive power-drill). The vague semblance in Tony's collective unconscious
of said red-roses glistened almost transfiguringly moments before he decided not
to enter that
house with someone else's case-history
'that night'. Maybe.
Phallic symbolism aside (the male gets the drill
, the females (both mother and
daughter) get the rose
), Tony did have a near panic-attack when he remembered that he loaned Carmela's cousin Brian his very own
power-drill back in S5.
If the roses at the Oaks and what looks like some sort of timepiece
in between both sets do
have anything to do with Freudian associated priapic significance, then it's interesting that directly through this breathtaking light that coruscated via said roses (Tony's very last image
perceived in coma-state), is the image of two other females (both mother and daughter), two other sets of roses
separated by time
This seems to tie-in nicely with my thoughts regarding coma-state, Tony, and Carmela specifically. I'll explain exactly what I mean, further down the line.
. billymac, you pretty much summed-up my considered thoughts regarding Colonus (Colonel Colonna) as a place
where, if granted access to, will render Tony (like the exiled Father killer
and incestuous, already blinded Oedipus) unsighted with regards to it's surroundings. Oedipus arrives at Colonus, a lonely, troubled old man, in order to die. Tony wouldn't be able to function
correctly if access was gained (he doesn't know anything about his newfound profession here) thus, he would be in the dark, unable to exist by-rights at this meeting
with Colonel Colonna. Imagine it as a sort of Oblivion
if Tony manages to get in there. Forever dark. Total forgetfulness.
I actually PREFER
your first and second posts/thoughts on the Colonna connection
but think, regarding your Carmela angle, that by now, like Oedipus, Tony has already excluded the Father (here he is a salesman, not a Mobster by hereditary association) and has
already 'had unwitting sexual
relations with his mother
.' Again, I'll explain this in a moment.
Tony can't get in here because, unlike Oedipus, he isn't ready to die, to enter the unknown Oblivion
I can't imagine Tony being familiar with Oedipus at Colonus in the slightest
therefore, if anything, it's all
ObservingEgo posted thoughts on the military/support angle earlier and I think on the surface, Chase could be communicating similar thoughts on purely 'Tony's level of awareness
' regarding how he thinks, in and out of his coma. Ostensibly, it sits well for many I would think.
Add to the mix some Chase on '11
, Oedipus and Freud, and what I take from it is that Chase could
be saying (based on my inference that Freud and the gang
have been forever (little or large) throughout The Sopranos since day 1) that if Tony can make it (he can't) in to see/hear Colonel Colonna, he will ultimately enter into the realm of the unknown
, the hereafter
even; a place
where science and psychoanalysis et-al have yet to go
Or (and yet maybe in conjunction with this), Chase could be directly
saying (through Tony and his "nothing" comment at seeing Colonna walk out of the conference having missed the lecture - he does
seem more perturbed at losing his belongings than missing what Colonna had to say
, doesn't he?) that Freud and his psychoanalytic-theory regarding the Oedipus-conflict has everything
to do with Tony and The Sopranos and is indeed at the core of his real anxieties.
Let me explain. Otto
'Son of Freud' Rank
, or 'little Rank', as his once venerable sage (Freud) prognosticated, was born Otto Rosenfeld in 1884. He became one of 'Freud's closest aides and later colleagues and (arguably) finally critic'.
'During the 1930s Rank developed a concept of the will as the guiding force in personality development. The will could be a positive force for controlling and using a person's instinctual drives, which were seen by Freud as the motivating factors in human behaviour. Thus, in Rank's view, resistance by a patient during psychoanalysis was a manifestation of this will and not inherently a negative factor; instead of wearing down such resistance, as a Freudian analyst would attempt, Rank would use it to direct self-discovery and development.
(Another interesting idea Rank introduced was the contest between life and death. He felt we have a "life instinct" that pushes us to become individuals, competent and independent, and a "death instinct" that pushes us to be part of a family, community, or humanity. We also feel a certain fear of these two. The "fear of life" is the fear of separation, loneliness, and alienation; the "fear of death" is the fear of getting lost in the whole, stagnating, being no-one.') Very interesting.
Rank coined the term - 'pre-Oedipal', one that dared
to suggest the Oedipus complex might not be the 'supreme casual factor in psychoanalysis.' He wrote about birth trauma
'which argued that the transition from the womb to the outside world causes tremendous anxiety in the infant that may persist as anxiety neurosis into adulthood.' It was seen by many as conflicting with the concepts of psychoanalysis.
Why Colonel Colonna
? Anyone 'familiar' might tend to try and link Colonna with Colunus therefore Oedipus. Why a 'Colonel'...? The rank of a Colonel is that of a subordinate to a Brigadier General - the Father of Psychoanalysis
Is this lowly rank
here that Tony can't listen to
meant to represent Otto Rank and his ideas that the anxiety experienced during birth is the model for all anxiety experienced afterwards? Is Tony's arguable lack of any real interest
in not being granted audience with the Colonel and central focus on the loss of his ID indicative of a character that Chase wishes to portray as being fundamentally
obsessed with neurosis solely resultant of Freud's Oedipal-complex and one that never did exercise any free will
regarding his life choices?
Otto Rank has very interesting ideas that I find to have crucial relevance to Tony throughout the seasons therefore I cannot conclude (if Chase be so familiar) that he is in-fact dismissing
anything Rank has to say. If anything, and only if this has any relevance to Chase and his intent here, then he could be implying (although not discounting Rank) that he truly wants the viewer to subscribe to Tony and his possible Oedipus-complex within.
When we speak of Oedipus and the fate he could not escape, of course it's easy to surmise that through Tony's upbringing, he was destined to follow in his father's footsteps. And we are fully aware the Tony we know would never
even consider sleeping with Livia.
Where I see Tony's fate
coming into play here is that through what he witnessed growing-up (his mother's love for that meat
), his ideas associated with 'bringing home the bacon' etc., signals that to (not become
his father but to) feel that he could become someone worthy enough to at-least emulate his idol therefore vicariously arouse the 'love' his mother had for his father and what he could accomplish by his felonious deeds, Tony had to marry someone just like
I think what Tony is truly searching
for is not out of a literal desire to become someone
else (ie crime-free etc.), he wants to know that Carmela truly fell in love and maintains this love for him, that someone, a woman, his wife, truly
can love him as Tony Soprano - that she can love him for love alone, and not because of his inherent desire to elicit the love of his mother by taking the dominant male's place therefore becoming
the father - in this case, a gangster.
Carmela even goes on to say that she 'knew who he was the minute she met him.' Tony supplies her with a dozen roses, something he gives to another mother figure
(Carmela's mother). Does Tony equate this similar act of courtship with a desire to subconsciously woo the mother figure
with obvious (to Carmela here/then at-least) gifts obtained through criminal misdeeds? - (therefore aspiring to show aptitude to replicate his father's prowess.) Do the roses that almost transfigure into Carmela and Meadow say that Tony can recognise there is love there, true
love from Meadow, yet born out of the ambition to seek acceptance from his mother by proving himself to be of equal worth to that of the father?
I don't know yet. What I do know is that Carmela has hinted
at a misguided sense of loyalty recently. Loyalty to her love for her husband and his safety
? Or loyalty (as a result of perhaps feeling Tony is vulnerable at the moment therefore not of financially
sound mind) to the dealings solely of The Business?
When Vito & Paulie begin to descend, when she looks right at them, does she know
right there that if anything ever happens to her husband, she's finished
? Without Tony, there will never be enough money. Tony has survived we know, the Colonel Colonna Connection might never be uncovered, but maybe I'm right about Tony's feelings regarding his wife as perhaps a Livia substitute...?
I still maintain Tony does not want to 'leave the Mafia' - how could he? - what he truly seeks is the knowledge that his wife fell in love with him and stays in love with him, not because of what he can 'get' for her etc., but because he needs to feel that someone
can give him love without him having to prove
himself to his mother.
(Didn't one of the men coming out of the conference at the same time as Colonna remind you of Sigmund Freud?) <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif