Debate over 'Sopranos' finale still rages
Share with others:
And so on the first day of Year One A.T. -- After Tony, that is -- the "Sopranos"-viewing world was split in two camps.
One was muttering bitterly into its morning coffee at the open-ended conclusion of the epic series, a banal family moment over onion rings that would have delighted existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, author of "Being and Nothingness." The other was lavishly praising the iconic HBO drama for capturing life's essential ambiguity and disorderliness.
Forget Tony for a minute -- the guy's been psychoanalyzed for years. Does all this say anything about us?
For some popular culture critics, the two reactions speak to the difference between entertainment and art, and which of them we want. If we wanted pure entertainment, there was obvious disappointment -- no, aggravation -- in a finale that set up threats to Tony's life in that last diner scene, then ended abruptly.
But if we see it as art, they say, then why should we object to the artist -- series creator David Chase, said to be vacationing in a French chateau Monday -- painting final brush strokes on his masterpiece as he wishes? And in retrospect, aren't unanswered questions in perfect keeping with the moral ambiguity that's infused the whole series? And aren't loose ends a huge part of life?
"In our popular culture, we've come to expect things to get tied up neatly," said Jerry Herron, a professor at Wayne State University in Michigan, who found the ending brilliant. "The claim that Chase is making as an artist here is, real life doesn't have neat endings.
"You want Tony blown away? You want him in jail? Chase is saying, 'Fine, you write that script,'" Herron said. "He's saying that life goes on, and art goes on, and he's just going to end it right here."
Chase himself weighed in, via a newspaper interview. "No one was trying to be audacious, honest to God," Chase told the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger. "We did what we thought we had to do. No one was trying to blow people's minds, or thinking, 'Wow, this'll [tick] them off.' People get the impression that you're trying to [mess] with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
As Monday wore on, however, there was the sense among some people that the ending, so frustrating at first viewing, was a lot more plausible after a night's sleep.
"I was really annoyed watching it," said Marlene Windmiller, a New York lawyer and mother. "But now as I think about it, it makes more sense. You know, it was what it was. There really was no more left to say."
To one of the nation's top television analysts, critiquing the "Sopranos" finale seemed a little like picking apart a famous work of literature -- for example, by James Joyce or T.S. Eliot -- and saying parts of it don't work.
"Every critic says this is one of the greatest works of art ever made for the small screen," said Robert Thompson, of Syracuse University's Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture. "You can't second-guess the artist."
He compared the ending to that of another popular HBO drama, "Sex and the City," in which Carrie Bradshaw finally got her man, Mr. Big. "Now, that was satisfying," Thompson said. But was it real? "You had these independent women pairing off like Noah's ark," he said.
"This was disappointing, sure," said Thompson. "But you could also say this is what the show needed to do to stay true to itself."
An estimated 11.9 million people watched Sunday's finale of HBO's "The Sopranos," besting its final season average of 8.2 million viewers, the lowest since the second season in 2000. The single most popular episode was the season-four premiere in September 2002, with 13.4 million viewers.
First Published June 12, 2007 7:51 pm
