News

'Sopranos' defies demand for answers

Karen Heller
The Philadelphia Inquirer (MCT)

Permit this space a revisiting of "The Sopranos" finale, so far the entertainment event of the year, the series the artistic achievement of the decade, the one to best.

The ending was a blunt cut to black, to nothingness, to Steve Perry wailing "Don't stop ..." only to do precisely that, erupting in speculation, and endless Internet, radio and iced-latte chatter. (Journey's Greatest Hits was No. 57 on amazon.com Tuesday afternoon, some boost for a 1988 album and 1981 song.)

The end was inspired because it did and it didn't, offering multiple possibilities, causing viewers to continue postulating, high praise for any creative endeavor.

"I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting, or adding to what is there," David Chase, the show's creator, told the Newark Star-Ledger's Alan Sepinwall of the final scene. "No one was trying to be audacious, honest to God. We did what we thought we had to do." Ultimately, said Chase, "People get the impression that you're trying to (mess) with them, and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."

We're not prone to ambiguity in our art, our culture and, increasingly, our news or our leaders. Americans want fast results, swift judgments, tidy answers.

We pine for clear winners and losers, good guys and bad. Tony is a monster viewers cared about. That's why the best mob movies and "The Sopranos" are so rich and operatic. They wreak havoc with our emotions.

For entertainment, we prefer blood, car chases and closing-credit clinches. Most studio movies end this way, test-marketed within a frame of their existence, completely predictable and, as a consequence, not entertaining at all. Why bother watching the summer's quartet of threequels ("Spider-Man," "Pirates," "Shrek" and "Ocean's") when it feels as though we've seen them before?

To suit our media, built for speed and immediate impact, and satiate our appetites, our sense of reality is frequently manufactured, edited to a fare-thee-well, with mundane details excised to heighten emotion.

Here, we speak not merely of reality television, or CNN and Fox News broadcasts that frighteningly resemble them, but reality itself.

The buildup to the war, done in something akin to a crystal-meth fury, was based on a simple, immediate though wrong justification that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps this option was exercised because the real reason, wanting to establish a beachhead of democracy in the Middle East, is too complicated, too costly (in blood and money) and far too time-consuming, making it an impossible sell.

Of our leaders, and future leaders, we want swift decisions and bold strokes, figures that are immediately knowable and transparent.

Presidential debates have devolved into the College Bowl, not so much about argument and reason, but a show of hands about who believes what and does that better. Regarding faith, and reflecting the absurdity of asking candidates for quick answers to complex issues, Hillary Clinton quipped last week that sometimes she prays "Oh, Lord, why can't you help me lose weight?"

When people get in trouble, we expect them to be fired quickly, put in the slammer pronto or, better yet, disappear for good. We're all for the fast resolve. In this regard, Alberto Gonzales has defied the public's will and expectations, tenaciously holding onto his job far longer than anticipated.

The marvel of "The Sopranos," the ending that isn't ending, is that the cut to black offered us many shades of gray, no easy answers, an indelible memory. If only other aspects of modern life were so rich and infinite in possibilities.

___

ABOUT THE WRITER

Karen Heller is a columnist for Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at kheller AT phillynews.com.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image