I think Chase has clearly shown a few different times in different places that his intention was to potray Tonys' death IMO. Why would any artist care how anyone interprets their art? Art is multi-dimensional and The Sopranos is clearly a work of art. He painted a painting, we all look at it, some of us see two dimensions and some of us see more. Death is a subject visited repeatedly throughout the show and is one of its strongest themes IMO. And death is multi-dimensional IMO. We all interpet it differently, yet one thing is for sure. After we die there is a blackness, at first, and this has been reported by many people who have had NDE. Ive read about people who shot themselves in the head and survived saying things about total blackness at first even. What else is blackness? A void....... Death.....Emptiness........Nothingness...... Was MOG really going to the bathroom to take a piss? Really? If he had to piss he could have gone right away like most people. But no, he waits. Why? But Ive strayed here forgive me. I just think this interview, even with the comments turanga points out, still speak heavily to the artist intent on potraying death in the final scene. He just had to figure out how to get him to the diner, which apparently took years to do. So I ask, Would anyone takes years to get a charecter to a point at the end of a the most powerful television show only to make the point of showing us nothing? The planning was IMO how could I get people to figure out what a CUT to black means? By giving them clues throughout the last three seasons to prepare them slowly and introduce slowly the meaning of the diner scene. The diner scene is only a couple of minutes long, but it was years in the coming and making. Thanks for letting me share my crazy insights again my friends!

conkom wrote:... Some of us here are quite astonished by it too. And the lengths to deny, deride and debase (but never truly debate) the clues as Chase delivered them within the text.

...

Heeeeerre we go again....

conkom wrote:The game now isn't determining whether or not Tony was whacked or 86ed.

Nor is it whether Chase left the ending deliberately vague or open ended.

Chase himself is somewhat surprised that it is still being discussed. Some of us here are quite astonished by it too. And the lengths to deny, deride and debase (but never truly debate) the clues as Chase delivered them within the text.

Vague interpretatations do not explain ostensibly ambiguous endings.

What can be "more than that"? That is like Tony's plaintive cry for the meaning of life. In both instances no answer is proffered.

But to quote Chase himself: "That’s about it".

I couldn't agree more with this statement:

"Vague interpretatations do not explain ostensibly ambiguous endings".

Fortunately an explanation of the ending is not required. Interpretations will do just fine.
Just like the Lady and the Tiger could be interpreted but couldn't be explained....

badabellisima wrote:Heeeeerre we go again....

No. There is very little left to left to discuss. I'm not getting on that carousel again.

The great thing about the Sporanos is that if you re-view the series new clues emerge to fully define the whole. Makes the ending even more satisfying.

Sometimes it would be nice to engage in a discussion as to how Tony's actions culminated in his ultimate fate. But maybe there isn't a forum for such. Perhaps richieaprile will end up writing a deatiled thesis on the subject. I hope he is well.

Silvio and Harpo I always enjoyed your insights!

And like Chase said "it's all there".

As well as "that's about it".

SilvioMancini wrote:I think Chase has clearly shown a few different times in different places that his intention was to potray Tonys' death IMO. Why would any artist care how anyone interprets their art? Art is multi-dimensional and The Sopranos is clearly a work of art. He painted a painting, we all look at it, some of us see two dimensions and some of us see more. Death is a subject visited repeatedly throughout the show and is one of its strongest themes IMO. And death is multi-dimensional IMO. We all interpet it differently, yet one thing is for sure. After we die there is a blackness, at first, and this has been reported by many people who have had NDE. Ive read about people who shot themselves in the head and survived saying things about total blackness at first even. What else is blackness? A void....... Death.....Emptiness........Nothingness...... Was MOG really going to the bathroom to take a piss? Really? If he had to piss he could have gone right away like most people. But no, he waits. Why? But Ive strayed here forgive me. I just think this interview, even with the comments turanga points out, still speak heavily to the artist intent on potraying death in the final scene. He just had to figure out how to get him to the diner, which apparently took years to do. So I ask, Would anyone takes years to get a charecter to a point at the end of a the most powerful television show only to make the point of showing us nothing? The planning was IMO how could I get people to figure out what a CUT to black means? By giving them clues throughout the last three seasons to prepare them slowly and introduce slowly the meaning of the diner scene. The diner scene is only a couple of minutes long, but it was years in the coming and making. Thanks for letting me share my crazy insights again my friends!

Correct! The Sopranos is a piece of art, and most artists probably don't care how their art is interpreted. The painting is a good analogy. A painter could hang a painting of nothingness, complete blackness in a gallery. I wonder how many different interpretations there would be of that painting? I wonder if people would consider a black canvas to be nothing? Chase didn't leave us with nothingness. He left us with something to be interpreted, which in itself is ahead of it's time. Look at the outcry because it wasn't nicely packaged up. Some people are still struggling for certainty, closure, a definitive ending. Ten seconds of blackness on a screen is no more nothing than a black canvas in a gallery.
Could the nothingness mean Tony's death? Certainly. Could it mean something else? Certainly. It it did signify death, did it happen in the diner that night? Maybe. The beauty of it is that I don't claim to have the definitive answer, nor can anyone else. We are free to roam that black canvas.

i agree with both Silvio and Turanga. A true work of art!

FlyOnMelfisWall wrote:I agree that's the most direct statement by him that Tony was killed that night, although it's also, by virtue of that fact a bit of a contradiction to his "there was nothing definite about what happened"/"clear trend" line.

Frankly, it's only a curiosity for me what he actually intended since what he put onscreen was so open to interpretation.

It's funny that here where we take every syllable and put it under the microscope for analysis the latest specimen is an interview where the creator of the show can't even remember the exact line or who said it that's part of the ending. At least he came up with Meadow's name. I also love the idea that Gandolfini knew the ending and forgot. Interesting that Chase swaps "hear it" for "know it" in remembering the line. If the idea there is getting killed and not even knowing, it makes a lot of sense to portray what looks like a killing but leave us without anything definite. The end for us reflects what appeared to be the end for Tony. Particularly makes sense in light of that book interview where Chase discusses his (frustrated) sense of Tony as the audience's alter ego, followed by a wish to jump ship and effectively lynch him. I think he uses he word "disgusting". Losing, together with Tony, connection to that world and those characters and doing so without any definite knowledge of anything sounds increasingly like the end Chase had in mind.

As for the "clean trend"... I think the idea is even without definitive understanding of the cut to black as Tony's death, there wasn't much ambiguity about his fate. We're shown repeatedly in the final season that Tony won't stop playing a game that the House wins. I'm guessing the scene dealing with Paulie's awareness of the Cifaretto capos' histories and then inability to resist the gig anyway is about more than Paulie. It's one of the bigger ideas in the show which is why I suspect the scene got such prime real estate near the series' ending. And even absent a feeling that Tony is shot on the cut to black, I'd still think it's a little acrobatic for anyone to not at least recognize the relationship between Members and Tony in the end as a picture of a downfall.

harpo wrote:It's funny that here where we take every syllable and put it under the microscope for analysis the latest specimen is an interview where the creator of the show can't even remember the exact line or who said it that's part of the ending. At least he came up with Meadow's name. I also love the idea that Gandolfini knew the ending and forgot. Interesting that Chase swaps "hear it" for "know it" in remembering the line. If the idea there is getting killed and not even knowing, it makes a lot of sense to portray what looks like a killing but leave us without anything definite. The end for us reflects what appeared to be the end for Tony. Particularly makes sense in light of that book interview where Chase discusses his (frustrated) sense of Tony as the audience's alter ego, followed by a wish to jump ship and effectively lynch him. I think he uses he word "disgusting". Losing, together with Tony, connection to that world and those characters and doing so without any definite knowledge of anything sounds increasingly like the end Chase had in mind.

As for the "clean trend"... I think the idea is even without definitive understanding of the cut to black as Tony's death, there wasn't much ambiguity about his fate. We're shown repeatedly in the final season that Tony won't stop playing a game that the House wins. I'm guessing the scene dealing with Paulie's awareness of the Cifaretto capos' histories and then inability to resist the gig anyway is about more than Paulie. It's one of the bigger ideas in the show which is why I suspect the scene got such prime real estate near the series' ending. And even absent a feeling that Tony is shot on the cut to black, I'd still think it's a little acrobatic for anyone to not at least recognize the relationship between Members and Tony in the end as a picture of a downfall.

These are the same discussions we have been having for months regurgitated. I guess that is because the audio interview actually added no real new information. The questions still remain, was MOG symbolic of a future death, or of a death that night, was he there to raise the tension and make us suspect Tony was under threat that evening, or was it a way of letting us walk in Tony's shoes for a moment, underneath the piano?! Once again, these are open to each persons interpretation, and good luck to them. I myself would never suggest how anyone else SHOULD interpret a scene.

I kind of got a nice sense of closure from other posters in this thread. I sort of got a feeling from Conkom and Silvio, that they had found peace. Maybe we can spend more time looking at other aspects of the show now after Christmas?

harpo wrote:It's funny that here where we take every syllable and put it under the microscope for analysis the latest specimen is an interview where the creator of the show can't even remember the exact line or who said it that's part of the ending. At least he came up with Meadow's name. I also love the idea that Gandolfini knew the ending and forgot. Interesting that Chase swaps "hear it" for "know it" in remembering the line. If the idea there is getting killed and not even knowing, it makes a lot of sense to portray what looks like a killing but leave us without anything definite. The end for us reflects what appeared to be the end for Tony. Particularly makes sense in light of that book interview where Chase discusses his (frustrated) sense of Tony as the audience's alter ego, followed by a wish to jump ship and effectively lynch him. I think he uses he word "disgusting". Losing, together with Tony, connection to that world and those characters and doing so without any definite knowledge of anything sounds increasingly like the end Chase had in mind.

As for the "clean trend"... I think the idea is even without definitive understanding of the cut to black as Tony's death, there wasn't much ambiguity about his fate. We're shown repeatedly in the final season that Tony won't stop playing a game that the House wins. I'm guessing the scene dealing with Paulie's awareness of the Cifaretto capos' histories and then inability to resist the gig anyway is about more than Paulie. It's one of the bigger ideas in the show which is why I suspect the scene got such prime real estate near the series' ending. And even absent a feeling that Tony is shot on the cut to black, I'd still think it's a little acrobatic for anyone to not at least recognize the relationship between Members and Tony in the end as a picture of a downfall.

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"

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"

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