Let it be known that Saiselgy and I liked Journey before it was cool. Unlike some people.

Must we discuss it before it's had time to settle in our thoughts? I mean really, old chap.

Becks is not actually a "chap", dearie.

That cat was teh awesome. Schroedinger reference? Given that Tony is in a superimposed whacked/unwhacked state?

Entirely perfect. I can think of nothing that would have improved it, and all of my best ideas would have made it worse.

I should also add that I chose to watch The Soporanos over the NBA Finals because I knew which one was going to involve some suspense.

So who got killed? To assist you in bringing me up to date, I think I watched some of the first series and then saw a dream sequence episode a few years ago in a hotel.

So who got killed?

No one! Big buildup, dramatic tension, then a black screen and silence, then end credits. I can't decide if it was brilliant or if I should be pissed.

When the credits (finally) started rolling, I laughed and had to think of thousands of people across the country thinking their TVs had broken.

Going into the finale, everyone understood that Chase was going to want to do something that hadn't been done in previous gangster movies. Nobody, as far as I know, predicted that Chase would leave Tony Soprano essentially unchanged at the end - that the guy (and especially his family) would just continue to muddle through.

So not only did Chase achieve something that hadn't been done, he managed to achieve something that hadn't been predicted. Like I said: Perfect.

Thanks for the spoilers. No really, was watching with close caption and sound off as usual, and was afraid I missed the gunshot that ended the series.

So they could have lived happily ever after.
Or not.

thinking their TVs had broken.

Yes! It took me a second to figure out what the hell had happened.

Like I said: Perfect.

I'm starting to agree with this position, and it's annoying me.

1: Becks, after about three decades, it is only just at this moment that Journey has become cool. You can expect that to wear off by about this time tomorrow.

8: To say that "no one" got killed both overlooks Phil Leotardo's death, and is entirely accurate. Leotardo was an arriviste - he didn't matter to the story arc - and his offhand disposal was (I keep using this word) perfect.

The Taylor Hicks cameo was awesome.

as was the lolcats reference. truly genius.

10: I think leaving Tony essentially unchanged and muddling through was pretty much the null hypothesis. I mean, have you watched the show?

Ezra thought it sucked.

15: To say "Phil" is to ignore that Gonerill cops to never having watched the show. The appropriate answer is "almost everybody."

Ezra's commenters also argue, fairly convincingly, that Tony did get killed.

Just think, one or two days from now everyone will have the same settled opinion as to whether Tony died, lived, or whether we were left uncertain. We'll have sorted it out. We're in a very brief period right now in which people's opinions differ. I like those periods.

21: The "you never hear the one that hits you"/"I guess it all just goes black" theory is the only internally consistent way to rationally explain the ending. The other alternative is that David Chase is a sadistic SOB.

Of course, it doesn't all just go black. Oblivion is not black. On the other hand, it sounds like this might have been an effort to get the idea across to the audience in a way that's pretty unorthodox for TV.

It's also possible that the going black is the death of the show, which hasn't been from Tony's first-person perspective, as the "all goes black / Tony dies" theory needs it to be.

He didn't die, David Chase is just fucking with the audience. That is my theory and I'm sticking to it. For now.

No, the death of the show is the car blowing up.

Oblivion is a few seconds of blackness, followed by the credits.

Of course he died. Mr. Trucker Hat went into the bathroom of the restaurant. Do you need a diagram?

Oooh. I hadn't thought of 21/23.

followed by the credits

"Any resemblance to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

21: This argument is only fairly convincing to someone who hasn't followed the series. Ezra's commenter weboy gets it right:

"I think too many people expected a gangster movie. And that's never what The Sopranos was. It was way more Middle Class than that. And the ending fit just that. Tony could die in the next frame. He could get arrested. But we'll never know"

This is exactly correct. Tony, whose life was always on the line, still lives at the last moment of the series. But the moment after that - who knows?

Either way, this was easily the best episode in years. My evidence: not a single fucking dream sequence.

My evidence: not a single fucking dream sequence.

Amen. The whole season was very good, and the ending outstanding.

Of course he died. Mr. Trucker Hat went into the bathroom of the restaurant. Do you need a diagram?

The whole episode was filled with MacGuffins like that, I don't see why the trucker hat guy is any different.

Hey, I was just there waiting for the surfers. But I thought Tony raking the leaves with his contented smile summed the show up for me. Tony dead or not, there still ain't no justice.

Watched History of Violence all the way thru again last night. The final scene, sitting at dinner table, guy's killed 50-100 people, some just for kicks, do you forgive & forget and take him back into the family?

"Best man I've ever known", Bello says.

Ezra thought it sucked.

Huh. Hopefully that will be true of Yglesias too, or I'll have ot question my extremely positive response...

35: A MacGuffin is not a red herring, damn it.

38: potato potahto, whatever. You know what I mean.

Why are 24-year-old health care and politics bloggers the ones whose aesthetic judgments we seek and emulate? That's not comparative advantage.

I want to know what Matt zoller Seitz thinks.

40 to 37

Chase, I think, benefitted from the Seinfeld precedent. Larry David wanted to take his cheerfully amoral characters and teach them a lesson in the final episode. To do this, David totally ignored the actual characters and circumstances that he had created.

A lot of people, I think, expected the same from Chase, and perhaps were disappointed when they didn't get it.

Chase understood - in a way that David did not - that his series was, at heart, a comedy of manners. The business with Paulie was both hilarious and deeply in character for both men.

Would you prefer we seek to emulate the aesthetic judgments of 24-year-old graduate students, Ned?

Hopefully that will be true of Yglesias too

It is.

I didn't even watch the show dammit. I just find it odd that someone is actually looking forward to a TV review by Matthew Yglesias of all people. What does he know about the subject? That's not what he knows about any more than 100 million other people. He just throws it in as part of the general community atmosphere.

That's like saying "Hm, I have certain opinions on what the priorities of our particle accelerators should be, but I want to know what Gregg Easterbrook thinks before I can trust my opinion."

39: Either it has meaning or no meaning.

44--hah, I saw that. I hereby officially declare the last episode masterful.

45: Note that he was waiting for MY's review in order to disagree with it, for reasons I at least find obscure.

I understand 37. I can pretty much count on hating any music Yglesias likes.

I'm just kidding--I often disagree with MY about aesthetics but I would have maintained that the finale was excellent irrespective of his judgment...

And Lemieux backs down from his untenable position. This is why you only get twenty comments to a post over at your place. Amateurs.

51--hah, true. :) (Although I think we're down to about 8 comments a post now...the cool kids all hang out here no matter how reliable our aesthetic judgments turn out to be.)

21: The "you never hear the one that hits you"/"I guess it all just goes black" theory is the only internally consistent way to rationally explain the ending.

Huh? What needs to be "rationally explained"? The show ended.

What I can't rationally explain is who exactly is supposed to have killed Tony at the end. Phil is dead. Any hit on Tony at that point would be woefully underexplained.

Yeah, that's the only prob. with the grand theory of the whacked Tony. Maybe something along the lines of NY going back on the deal? In any case, the lack of credits music does seem significant, as this has been a major stylistic theme from day one. Coupled with the focus on the jukebox entries, this must mean something.

53--I dunno, they presumably have a big crew. Somebody may have followed through on an order not knowing Phil had been killed.

I dunno, they presumably have a big crew. Somebody may have followed through on an order not knowing Phil had been killed.

That reminds me of what happened at the end of The Departed. The inevitability of the guy's death, no matter who exactly it is that kills him.

53--I dunno, they presumably have a big crew. Somebody may have followed through on an order not knowing Phil had been killed.

Logically, sure, it's possible, but it would have been woefully under-prepared for dramatically.

I think the shot to black and the lack of music in the credits just meant the obvious - that the show is at an end.

I agree w/ john's dramatic reasoning here, but the "show ending" cut-to-black meaning would be stupid if true. I wasn't entirely kidding about the cat, either. a)The cat is connected to death in some way (gazing at Chris's picture, superstitiously eschewed by Paulie just as the construction job is), and b)clearly the ending is indeterminate and Chase damn well knows it. A stretch, I know, but one I like better than the final cut signaling the end of the show.

The Sopranos is good, but way way overhyped. The Wire was ten times better, yet gets a tenth of the attention.

That's America for ya.

Well, yes of course, and Deadwood was arguably better than the both of them. The real question is why all the good shows on TV are on the network without commercials. This, like NPR, is a mystery of capitalism.

Also, that's not America. America is flipping between Fox News and American Idol, depending on which has more tits.

America is big enough to encompass all those things.

Deadwood was arguably better than the both of them.

I really don't agree with this, although I like it fine. The Wire I can see an argument, but both are considerably better than Deadwood.

Speaking as America, the only HBO shows I've ever seen are The Chris Rock Show and Carnivale, both in motel rooms.

I'm a sucker for good dialog, and Deadwood had the best dialog since Jackie Brown. I go back and forth on whether TW or DW is top, but imo both are clearly superior to the Sopranos, which at times suffered from Chase's creative fatigue. Neither of the other contenders really had a chance to exhaust their writers. But, all three were great shows, each excelled in its own area:Deadwood, as I've said, in dialog, The Wire in plot, and The Sopranos in characterization.

That's what Netflix is for Ned. Also, everyone go watch The Shield.

Chase, foreseeing a disappointing performance by Lebron James, gave us a moment of silence during which to reflect upon the day's losses and Ginobili's big ugly nose. I really don't understand all the hand wringing here.

The real question is why all the good shows on TV are on the network without commercials.

Because the incentives are different. What matters for TV networks with commercials is that as many people watch as possible, so as to guarantee the highest ad rates possible. That means that plot arcs tend to be frowned upon, because they make the show hard for casual viewers to follow, and any mass audience is going to necessarily have to constitute large numbers of casual viewers, because very few people really base their lives around TV show schedules.

The traditionally dominant forms of commercial TV - the sit-com and the procedural - both work from this model, because nothing ever changes in them. There is a formula, with different variations, and nobody has to follow the show to a) laugh; b) get involved with the exciting 45 minute plot of that particular episode.

Networks like HBO, on the other hand, are looking for subscribers. People get HBO because they really care about a particular show. Building a devoted, very loyal following requires very different things than building a large, not all that devoted, mass audience, and that's what HBO shows are about.

Beyond that basic difference, the lack of standards and practices means that HBO shows can be a lot bolder about doing what they want than network shows can, and HBO's general willingness to let show's creators do what they want without too much interference has to help as well. The fact that HBO buys whole seasons ahead of time, rather than showing two episodes and then cancelling the show because initial ratings are disappointing, probably also helps.

The real question, though, is why HBO shows are so superior to Showtime shows. I would assume that this is probably largely a matter of HBO having gotten into the "really good original series" game first, and probably thus generally getting top choice on stuff - Showtime is left with the rejects.

The Wire was ten times better, yet gets a tenth of the attention.

The Wire is still on, isn't it?

James Lileks called it:

Late Sunday night, avoiding the Sopranos. And the web. Since I'll watch it later tonight, I can't look at anything that might give away the ending - providing there's an ending to give away, of course; if the show ended with nothing resolved, people would be hailing David Chase's unerring ability to confound our expectations.

53: Huh? What needs to be "rationally explained"? The show ended.

The choice to end the show at that exact instant, followed by a five or ten second blackout, was presumably an intentional artistic choice that conveys some meaning. The "Tony got whacked" theory is an internally consistent explication of that meaning, especially in light of the equally abrupt cut to the fishing boat conversation in the previous episode, which was also presumably an intentional artistic choice that conveys some meaning.

That said, I don't think Tony necessarily got whacked. It's just an interesting theory, which is somewhat more fun to chat about than the fundamental ambiguity of the scene. Are we all going to be pondering ambiguity over the water cooler today?

It was all a dream.

All will be explained in A Very Sopranos Christmas

I'd say I called it. With the possible exception of the bit about the aliens and the spaceship.

Possible, mind you, because it's ambiguous.

Chris - you're right. There was obviously an intentional ambiguity, and it would be internally consistent to posit that Tony was killed. I just find the people who are insisting that he must have been killed irritating.

Man, this has been a run of bad luck. Harry Potter, Sopranos, personal finance. Who cares? (Everyone but me, obvs.)

74: I wouldn't say "must" (although I may have already elsewhere), but I think the last scene strongly indicates that he was. It's a bit ambiguous, but other interpretations just don't make as much sense. Why would the camera linger on the guy in the trucker hat? Why focus on Meadow's parallel-parking problems if not to convey a sense of slow-motion immediacy? Why have so many quick shots of mundane, in-the-moment details (onion rings, etc) rather than more lingering shots of the characters? If you think it was a slice of life/general ambiguity finish, it was unremarkably (if not clumsily) done. If you think Tony got whacked the pieces work much better. That's how it seems to me, anyway.

You'd do all those things if you wanted to make the suspense you're about to leave the viewers in unbearable. Seems like fun.

if you wanted to make the suspense you're about to leave the viewers in unbearable

I think there's more to it than this.

Surely part of what makes literary ambiguity matter is that people *do* have a very strong desire to resolve that ambiguity. Why should the expression of that desire in and of itself be irritating?

77: Yeah, but using frames for that stuff comes at a price, and it's not one that I can imagine the show's creators being willing to pay during the final episode of the series.

I can understand the worth of ambiguity, and even believe that Chase might want to make that point. But it seems like he'd go for ambiguity about the characters, not ambiguity about the specific narrative of a particular scene. There's obviously some overlap between the two, since what the characters do and what happens to them serves to define them. But to leave the exact events of the final scene uncertain as a way of expressing Tony's complexity — it seems very superficial to me, and out of character for the series.

I can't speak to that, having seen only the last two episodes.

But to leave the exact events of the final scene uncertain as a way of expressing Tony's complexity -- it seems very superficial to me, and out of character for the series.

But he clearly did leave the exact events uncertain. And I think there's at least as many hints that life goes on, as there are that Tony might be killed.

All the song lyrics, for instance ("the movie never ends, it goes on and on and on and on.")

The idea, BTW, that the guy is going to the bathroom to get a gun actually doesn't make any sense at all. Why would he have hidden a gun in the bathroom at Holsten's? It's not like McCluskey frisked him when he entered the place, and he needed to get a gun previously hidden. If that guy wanted to kill Tony, he could've just done it with a gun he brought in with him. Chase clearly wants us to consider the possibility, but if that's what we're actually meant to assume happens, that's what would, to me, seem superficial and out of character for the series.

Why would he have hidden a gun in the bathroom at Holsten's?

Maybe he's a cinephile.

"the movie never ends, it goes on and on and on and on."

Oh shit man, what a lame song -- why would they have done that?

(I have watched 2 fewer episodes of The Sopranos than has our host.)

(But "Don't Stop Believing"? WTF?)

82: I call tautology. It's no fair to say that the ending must be considered ambiguous because it obviously was ambiguous. I still think a CW interpretation will emerge (and, naturally, it will be mine, aka the One True Sopranos Interpretation).

Also, a friend just left this as a comment on my site -- seems interesting, although I can't confirm it from here at work:

Apparently the credits listed the guy sitting at the counter in the final scene as "Nicky Leotardo." Take from that what you will.

why would they have done that?

I'm sticking with my theory that the episode was an elaborate hoax.

tom - Chase spent the whole show foreshadowing things that didn't happen. Look, specifically, at the foreshadowing you mention with Meadow. What was Chase foreshadowing here? He was foreshadowing that she would get killed before she ever got into the restaurant. Else why focus on her - alone - before her arrival? Why spend so much time with her trouble parking?

There were many other foreshadowings that didn't pan out, as Chase intentionally played with our expectations. No, Chase was very specifically leaving the loose ends untied. Else why leave Silvio comatose?

There's actually an alternative explanation for what Chase was foreshadowing with Meadow. He could have been foreshadowing that her delay kept her from being with the rest of her family when they got wiped out. But again, my point remains, that didn't happen.

Someone has already probably collected all of the unconsummated foreshadowings in the final episode. I'll be interested in seeing that. (What did you figure A.J.'s life expectancy was when the smoke started rising through the car vent, to give one rather comical example?)

I interpreted Meadow's parking differently. Sorry to quote myself, but I'm having this argument elsewhere, too:

More than anything I think the inclusion of Meadow's parking problem is significant. Why include the fact that it takes her three tries to parallel park? Why revisit her parking twice, with cuts to the restaurant interior in between? Why not just have her pull up late and get out of her car? Or arrive in the restaurant without any shot of her on the outside? The answer, I think, is because every second counts. The gears are in motion, the alarm's about to sound, and the exact position of every character is going to be vital to their future and how they deal with the aftermath of the trauma. It feels like the culminating scene of a heist movie. I felt an increasing sense of dread as it unfolded.

I have to confess that I never really considered the possibility of Meadow getting killed as I watched her park. It doesn't seem like a plausible ending to me -- she's too tangential to Tony's character for her death really say much about him (although as the most appealing member of the family, I suppose she could have just stood in for a generic innocent).

Fair point about AJ. I thought he was going to bite it, although I was simultaneously thinking that a car going up in flames so quickly as to preclude escape probably wasn't very realistic.

Maybe they'll fade back in and merge The Sopranos with The Matrix. Also, Paris Hilton. Also, Lemony Snicket meets Harry Potter.

In retrospect, I think the final scene wasn't so much about any immediate threats to Tony but rather about his awareness of every potential threat to his life. Part of why we felt so nerve-wracked as "Don't Stop Believing" kept going on and on was that the potential threats were all archetypes, either of Members Only-wearing mobsters, black gangsters, or undercover feds -- all possible ways that Tony could go down. After the Uncle Junior scene, Tony realized that Junior was his best case scenario and suddenly became much more conscious of his other potential fates.

tom - But don't you see that your self-quote points directly *to* the Meadow foreshadows that I propose and directly *away* from the one you propose? Why would the minute details of her parking matter if the manner of her arrival is completely irrelevant? Chase didn't waste valuable seconds in the finale - every line, every shot had a purpose. The clear purpose of the Meadow sequence - like many others - was to create a red herring.

Another false-foreshadow that I liked was the dispute between Tony and Paulie. After Paulie said he would consider Tony's offer, he departed and the camera focused on his face, which displayed his trademark "somebody's gonna die" frown. Any time you see that expression, violence is probably imminent - except this time.

"Chase didn't waste valuable seconds in the finale - every line, every shot had a purpose. The clear purpose of the Meadow sequence - like many others - was to create a red herring."

Red herrings, unless they perform some purpose aside from distraction, are the very embodiment of waste. What Chase did was create inferences of a hit at the diner, without showing the actual hit. Did the hit occur? We can't know for sure, but probably, yes. The purpose of the last few minutes was dread.

Incidentally, I saw only the last three minutes or so of the episode. It created a rather odd effect, as I puzzled over first how the family had gathered at this diner, and second, what had happened at this diner.

Fools! All of you.

Phil had dumped toxic waste under this diner. They all die a slow death.

that is wonderful.

"Red herrings, unless they perform some purpose aside from distraction, are the very embodiment of waste."

I can only disagree. Someone more literate than I could probably come up with a history of literary misdirection. I recently finished Infinite Jest, for instance, and that book got very respectful treatment from the literati.

Anyway, Chase's red herrings did have an additional purpose beyond just jerking around his viewers. In every case I can think of, he was dramatizing what a dangerous world Tony Soprano continues to live in.

IANALT, but from what I remember, misdirection is one thing, the use of "red-herrings" is another. I think you're right that Chase was dramatizing what a dangerous world Tony lives in, especially at this specific juncture, in this specific diner. And I don't know how Meadow's parallel parking adds to that sense of dread, except in that it keeps her outside of the diner for a few extra minutes, perhaps to witness the carnage.

In other words, all these shots add up to the feeling that something very bad is going to happen in the diner. That feeling can be generalized, sure--something bad is always going to be about to happen to Tony--but this setting is specially menacing. While at the same time very mundane, even cheerful. This filled me with dread. Then I got nothing. Was it a false alarm? Might have been, but it was still an alarm.

Ack. No. In Meadow's case, all of these shots add up to something happening (either to Meadow or her family) *before* she enters the diner. Once she is in the diner sitting at the table, all of that stuff is meaningless (as foreshadowing).

Chase wanted to deny us an ending. For tom to say that Chase clearly intended a particular ending - then criticizing that ending - misses the point entirely. Again: Why did Chase leave Silvio hanging by a thread if his intent was to chart the ending of the major characters? Any theory on that?

And anyway, if we know Tony gets killed, presumably we know who killed him. I'll have to watch again to see how many endings were foreshadowed in that last scene - but if you pick one ending, then you have to say that the others were red herrings. How can you prioritize one over the others? Certainly the guy headed to the men's room was not the only potential killer.

I can't believe Chase has given into the dumb fanboy lust for Easter eggs by building clues into titles and credits. The show didn't start that way, damnit.

This is all true. Did Meadow actually make it to the table? I had forgotten. Might be wrong about this, but my understanding of "red-herring" is "plot distraction without purpose." So to say that Chase always has a purpose, and that purpose is red-herrings, seemed a bit silly.

I don't have any theory about Silvio--I didn't see that part.

103: If you go back to how the show started you can see how a lot of it changed. The first season is much more about the decline of the mob and their absurdity when compared to the rest of Jerseyites. But the series ended up living for years not on these insights at all, but the opposite -- the viability of the mob as an ongoing enterprise, with lots of killings and machinations. Then, suddenly, in the last season it gets interesting again -- Tony's therapy matters again, there's the whole al-Qaeda angle meant to re-introduce the fact that these days the mob doesn't matter they way it once did.

I'm pretty surprised to read today in the Times about how the Sopranos says something about the "decline of America." I thought the drama of the series, at least at the beginning, was that America moved on and the mob did not.

101: I'm not criticizing the ending -- I think it was a good ending. I just don't think it was all that ambiguous. Same to 102 -- it's only an easter egg if you assume Chase's intent was to leave things up in the air. I don't; consequently, it doesn't seem like an easter egg to me. I think Chase was trying for subtlety, not ambiguity. There's no reason to be obscure in the credits if that isn't your intent.

And I'm not saying that everything needed to be wrapped up, although I think Silvio's fate is less of an open question than you're implying, politicalfootball. Killing Tony doesn't wrap everything up for anyone but Tony. The relatively stable trajectory that had been plotted for every other character would be thrown into disarray by his death. It's not a question of tidiness.

I'm with text: red herrings are fine, but basically amount to cheap tricks. I really don't think the creators of the show would stoop to playing mind games with the audience for the series' final scene. Yeah, they made feints, but I think they were done to repeatedly build and release tension, getting the audience to a point where they sort of felt everything would be fine. That's how it worked for me, anyway.

"I can't believe Chase has given into the dumb fanboy lust for Easter eggs by building clues into titles and credits. The show didn't start that way, damnit."

Is it true that Ogged gives out secret messages that are only visible if you highlight the text?

"I just don't think it was all that ambiguous."

To be clear, I don't think it was very ambigous either. Chase is saying that Tony and family quite likely depart the diner alive and well, IMO. Their fate is much more clear than Silvio's in this respect, and as you say, Silvio's fate is also pretty clear (he lives, I'd argue - I wonder do you take the opposite view?).

"Same to 102 -- it's only an easter egg if you assume Chase's intent was to leave things up in the air. I don't;"

Right - we agree on this, too.

The last time I can recall the show Sopranos indulging in fans' desire for narrative events to come to fruition in a way which coincides with a season coming to fruition was the end of Season 2. This is also true (though less so) of individual episodes. In this case, the episode seemed to me designed largely as a jibe at people who had built it up as a time for things to be resolved, and especially at people who wanted the moralistic satisfaction of justice coming to Tony. Instead, the show ends with everyone at a peak of corruption: Carmela is looking at more real estate, still enjoying her mob money (and has forgotten about Adrianna (and don't forget what precipitated her forgetting)). A.J. chooses not to escape, and instead becomes more involved than he has ever been. Even Meadow has become involved in family business.

The main thing that bothered me, I should add, is that the only person we see react to Phil's death is the FBI agent.

The compelling evidence about the identity of the guy in the cafe comes from the credits and with reference to titles of the show--you said so yourself, tom. Maybe I'm misusing the term "Easter egg" but this all strikes me as Lost kind of bullshit.

110: No, I genuinely believe that Tony's death is implied by the last scene, without the need for additional evidence. That there's supplemental evidence to back up that interpretation doesn't mean that the scene itself is ambiguously inscrutable.

107: I disagree about Silvio. I'd be very curious to hear why you think he lives, because I really wanted him to live (I wanted Tony to as well). When discussing the penultimate episode with someone before seeing it I kept saying "not little steven!" But I came away thinking he wouldn't. I kept looking for signs that he might recover, but I couldn't find any. What makes you think he does?

Ugh. Sorry for the atrocious grammar.

tom - As I see it, if you're going to kill Silvio for the finale, you kill Silvio. It didn't take much time to keep him hanging by a thread, but, as with Meadow's car-parking, why include that hospital scene and related dialogue for no reason?

Likewise, if you're going to kill Tony, you kill Tony. Even if Chase had been bent on pursuing the format he did, the only additioal thing he has to add is a single gunshot when the screen goes blank. It can be handled in sound editing without even informing Gandolfini.

Plus, again, all of the false foreshadowing throughout the show that you refuse to acknowledge/explain shows us that Chase was intentionally playing with our expectations throughout. And even in the final scene, if Tony died, who killed him?

Isn't the relevant question with Silvio whether he will, in the future, recover or not? I didn't see any evidence of his condition improving, and I'm not sure why I'd think it does.

I don't mean to ignore the foreshadowing you refer to. In some cases, I think you're overselling it: Pauly frowning doesn't necessarily mean anything, and I took his scene to just be a wrap up to his worries about mortality (resolution: he'll keep doing this till he dies). In other cases I think the exposed threats served to apply and release pressure, lulling the audience into thinking everything might work out. I don't think it was Chase screwing with the audience, I think it was a rushed effort to reestablish the rhythm of typical Sopranos storylines. He didn't want to waste a bunch of episodes on establishing normalcy, so he crammed a bunch of rising and falling threats into this one to approximate it.

And wd's right: saying "the doctors don't think he'll recover consciousness", showing Sil on a respirator, having Pauly walk through a desolate Bing -- those things can't exactly be called hopeful hints for the audience.

As for who killed Tony: okay, we don't see who pulls the trigger. But the guy who the camera eyes nervously throughout that scene seems like an awfully good candidate, particularly given the Godfather reference and supporting evidence in the credits (I know Smasher, I know).

It didn't take much time to keep him hanging by a thread, but, as with Meadow's car-parking, why include that hospital scene and related dialogue for no reason?

Meadow's car scene makes sense to me. The scene alternates between Meadow outside and the restaurant guy inside. Who's going to get to Tony first—business or family, business or family? Chase leaves us with that, full stop.

I don't mean to say that Silvio lives (or recovers) - just that the signs were pointing in that direction by my read. But I also agree that the signs are extremely ambiguous, and could be reasonably read the other way.

I do not, however, think it's a reasonable reading to say that Tony gets whacked at the end (or just after). Chase was ambiguous about some things - what, exactly, happens to Silvio and the Soprano family ? - but he was clear on this: They were all alive at the end of the series, and their story continues afterward.

The series didn't end, it just stopped - by design. And the POV of the cut-to-black was not Tony's, as the POV in the series was never Tony's. It was the audience's. Tony didn't stop doing his thing; we just stopped watching.

Chase wasn't ambiguous about what he was doing with those characters, he just left their outcomes uncertain. There's a difference.

Ack. That reads pretty poorly, I know. If only we had someone at this blog who is schooled in philosophy, or even in literature, that person could probably explain what I mean. I haven't got the right concepts for it.

But the guy who the camera eyes nervously throughout that scene seems like an awfully good candidate, particularly given the Godfather reference

This is right; the nervous editing is enough to make the viewer wary that someone in the cafe is trouble, or at least Tony suspects so. (Perhaps he always does, though throughout the ep he doesn't much act like a guy on the ropes, visiting family, Syl in the hospital, etc.) When the one guy happens into a Godfather homage, you know it's this guy who represents a specific threat. We're just not supposed to care who it is—just some guy with a beef, apparently.

But then

and supporting evidence in the credits

indicates that the viewer should read him as something more than a symbolic threat: a specific threat and as-of-yet totally inconsequential character?

A few random thoughts...

Leaving Sil alive but comatose isn't about Sil, it's about Tony and why he wouldn't go see him and then why he finally did.

Remember that in Mr. Chase's profession there is no such thing as bad publicity. And what creative person wouldn't kill for the effect he created when at least 5 million people suddenly were apoplectic that their cable or satellite systems went out. Brilliant stuff.

I think Tony survived, though Mr. Chase went to great lengths to make it seem like he was building to a violent crescendo in Holsten's. If Tony lived, it only makes sense that we were seeing the paranoia that he sees in Holsten's, that everyone and everything was a threat at the end. All the faces in Holsten's resembled someone from earlier in the series.

Tony's fate was sealed by Carlo flipping, and he knew it when he met with his attorney. And anyway, look at what he had left for a crew. I wouldn't be terribly surprised or disappointed if Mr. Chase came out later and said that the blackness was Tony being whacked, but if so I think Tony was rather non-chalant as Mr. Members Only Jacket got up and walked past him to the men's room. I'm reminded a bit of "I, Claudius" when Claudius knows he is being poisoned by Livia (Livia!) but goes ahead and eats from her plate anyway. Tony seems almost resigned to his fate for the whole episode -- either one, death or arrest -- for the last segments of the show. His crew is gone, his only friends are dead, his sister's still a mess and about to get much worse, his daughter has deeply disappointed him and is about to do so even more, he knows his son is an irredeemable basket case, and his wife, well, he never really respected Carmela much anyway.

Finally, I'm amused at what so many seem to think Mr. Chase owes them.

On the idea of resignation, I see Tony killing Chris as an absolutely pivotal moment for his character. I'm not sure if this is exacerbated or lessened by the fact that he never really reacts to it.

What was in the credits? I missed them.

Just saw the whole episode. That last scene is really really really good. Somebody should write a thesis about it, if there's a program out there that will let give that person credit.

Gotta say, we never see Meadow reach the table. What struck me was how much I liked these characters, for all their faults. It was sort of a high point. If you think that Tony went out (I kinda do, even more now) then it's the right way to go out. If you think he lives on, I can see why you'd want to thank so, given the montage building up to the blackness. It's exquisitely painful to think of him dying in this setting, and you don't have to think it, if you don't want to.

let give.

thank so. am I drunk?

"Gotta say, we never see Meadow reach the table."

Whoops, really? My bad, then. I do have it recorded, and I look forward to giving it another viewing. I'm quite certain I didn't catch everything important.

It's worth another watch just for that last scene. Onion rings plus Journey equals sweet, sweet tragedy. Who knew?

121: See 87. Although I'm dubious on the reliability here.

126: I just re-watched. The last scene seems a whole lot less portentous in hindsight.

The end of the Sopranos reminds me of the end of the Princess Bride: Instead of killing Prince Humperdink in gruesome, satisfying fashion, he's simply left tied to a chair, to live the rest of his life with his own cowardice and moral failings. So too with Tony Soprano. His fate is to be eating onion rings in a cheap diner, together with his family, yes, but alone with the knowledge of the horrible things he's done and the horrible person he's become. His sad, sinful life simply doesn't deserve the grandeur and closure of a spectacular death scene.

The red herrings scattered throughout the last scene -- the guy going to the bathroom, Meadow having trouble with the car -- were clearly intended as tongue-in-cheek references of all the typical Godfather death scenes. I'm surprised Chase didn't find a diner with a revolving door, so Tony could get stuck in it.

129: I disagree with the idea of drawing a moral of this sort from the ending. Amorality and immorality were integral parts of the series. I think Chase's choice here was designed to avoid this sort of moral conclusion. None of the Sopranos gets any punishment beyond continuing living the lives they've freely chosen. In other words, none of them gets any punishment that wasn't already written into their characters (For A.J., a lot of that writing took place this season.)

I'd be curious to see if you can come up with some basis for saying that Tony Soprano is tortured by the "knowledge of the horrible things he's done and the horrible person he's become." Let's face it, he was a killer and a lot of other bad things when the series began, but the thing that bothered him was that his mother was mean to him.

What changed in the final episodes is the increasingly overt acceptance of Tony by his family. Meadow is going to be a mob lawyer, I bet, and A.J. got progressively more like his father as the series wound up.

None of the Sopranos gets any punishment beyond continuing living the lives they've freely chosen.

Exactly. I never said Tony is "tortured" by anything, just that he's stuck with it. I do imagine, however, that he's not exactly happy with the way things have gone for him lately, and where they're going.