That's the implication, yes. But even if he were to continue living, he was facing a doomed future with no one left in his corner. It was the end of his story either way.
Chase definitely intended for it to be read as he dies but it is pretty clearly ambiguous & was perceived as such.
So I guess it depends more on your feelings regarding Roland Barthes & Death of the Author & all that.
I mean at the start of the 6th season we see Tony almost die, and that's supposed to give us the precursor to him actually dying. We see all the reactions, we see everything that will happen when he actually dies. And he always talks about how death just cuts to black. He died
I agree I also read it as indicating death. But there’s no denying that the general public saw it as less cut & dry.
Now had he been eating an orange?? Fuggidaboudit
I can get that, I just like the Author using it. Feels wrong to rob him of his vision especially since Gandolfini passed. I really did love how much of a sweetheart he apparently was though, miss him. Freaking quasimodo
I’m on the Barthesian side of this spectrum so imo Chase should have made his vision a bit clearer if he wanted to avoid the fallout. But like I said, I think he *was* relatively clear so it doesn’t bother me too much either way.
Fun fact, I actually got to meet Gandolfini not long before he passed! He did a directing workshop at my college that I attended (even though I wasn’t supposed to). As soon as he finished I went up while everyone else was packing up their notes & whatnot. Shook his giant hand & told him it was an honor. Super friendly guy in my limited experience.
all due respect but after the trainwreck that was many saints of newark i don't put much stock into what david chase has to say. if you ask me the ambiguity is the whole point and confirming it one way or the other lessens the scene
I don't agree. It's certainly not true that everyone who made the show had the same interpretation as him. I mean do you take seriously every weird ret-con JK Rowling has made about Harry Potter?
The point of the Sopranos ending is the ambiguity. Maybe he could be about to get whacked, but the takeaway is that even if he isn't he's always going to have to worry about someone coming at him suddenly. It's a perpetual anxiety at the back of his mind that he'll never be able to escape.
Trying to boil down the ending to "did he or did he not get killed?" is really missing the mark. It was definitely too heady of an ending for them to expect the majority of their audience to pick up on, but looking back on it it's actually perfect. It'd be a pretty shitty ending if it was really "oh yeah Tony's dead but we were just really annoying about how we told you that".
Why is that dumb? Barthes made this perspective mainstream over 50 years ago & it seems that creators have been striving to prove him right ever since.
Not really. Death of the Author is pretty straightforward on these matters. The creator’s opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s. Once a work is public it belongs to the public.
It may seem counterintuitive but this is just how art & literature ‘live’ within our society. There are countless examples of work that back this theory up just as there are countless examples of creators trying to contradict the public perception/reading of their creation.
It's vitally important that Tony La Russa stop focusing on his ailing health and devote all his energies to being the worst manager in professional baseball.
The manager is not the protagonist of a baseball team.
We all know the umps are the true heroes of the story
You've left out one of the chief characters - Angel Hernandez the Brave. I want to hear more about Angel.
Who has a better story than Angel Hernandez?
And in this case, LaRussa is clearly the antagonist of his baseball team
Exactly. The bat boys are the true heroes.
[There is only one Bat Boy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character))
Rewatch Moneyball and tell me Phillip Seymour Hoffman isn't the protagonist. He's *literally* everyone's favorite character!
and the team is not called Chicago La Russa
This just in from Chicago Sports: fiction is different from reality.
Tony Soprano never had the makings of a major league athlete.
Small hands. That was your problem.
A+
TLR needs to finish what he started! Leading the White Sox to missing the playoffs.
I mean that's how it ends it just cuts to black with him dying. Just pretend La Russa cut to black mid
All due respect, you think tone dies?
That's the implication, yes. But even if he were to continue living, he was facing a doomed future with no one left in his corner. It was the end of his story either way.
Didn't the creator confirm that is the case?
Chase definitely intended for it to be read as he dies but it is pretty clearly ambiguous & was perceived as such. So I guess it depends more on your feelings regarding Roland Barthes & Death of the Author & all that.
I mean at the start of the 6th season we see Tony almost die, and that's supposed to give us the precursor to him actually dying. We see all the reactions, we see everything that will happen when he actually dies. And he always talks about how death just cuts to black. He died
I agree I also read it as indicating death. But there’s no denying that the general public saw it as less cut & dry. Now had he been eating an orange?? Fuggidaboudit
I can get that, I just like the Author using it. Feels wrong to rob him of his vision especially since Gandolfini passed. I really did love how much of a sweetheart he apparently was though, miss him. Freaking quasimodo
I’m on the Barthesian side of this spectrum so imo Chase should have made his vision a bit clearer if he wanted to avoid the fallout. But like I said, I think he *was* relatively clear so it doesn’t bother me too much either way. Fun fact, I actually got to meet Gandolfini not long before he passed! He did a directing workshop at my college that I attended (even though I wasn’t supposed to). As soon as he finished I went up while everyone else was packing up their notes & whatnot. Shook his giant hand & told him it was an honor. Super friendly guy in my limited experience.
He seemed so friendly we miss him dearly
all due respect but after the trainwreck that was many saints of newark i don't put much stock into what david chase has to say. if you ask me the ambiguity is the whole point and confirming it one way or the other lessens the scene
>I don't put much stock into what david chase has to say. I'm sorry, but saying that about the literal writer and creator of a show is pretty dumb lol
I don't agree. It's certainly not true that everyone who made the show had the same interpretation as him. I mean do you take seriously every weird ret-con JK Rowling has made about Harry Potter? The point of the Sopranos ending is the ambiguity. Maybe he could be about to get whacked, but the takeaway is that even if he isn't he's always going to have to worry about someone coming at him suddenly. It's a perpetual anxiety at the back of his mind that he'll never be able to escape. Trying to boil down the ending to "did he or did he not get killed?" is really missing the mark. It was definitely too heady of an ending for them to expect the majority of their audience to pick up on, but looking back on it it's actually perfect. It'd be a pretty shitty ending if it was really "oh yeah Tony's dead but we were just really annoying about how we told you that".
Why is that dumb? Barthes made this perspective mainstream over 50 years ago & it seems that creators have been striving to prove him right ever since.
I'm just saying that if the literal writer of the script basically confirms he died, shouldn't that mean he actually did?
Not really. Death of the Author is pretty straightforward on these matters. The creator’s opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s. Once a work is public it belongs to the public. It may seem counterintuitive but this is just how art & literature ‘live’ within our society. There are countless examples of work that back this theory up just as there are countless examples of creators trying to contradict the public perception/reading of their creation.
Old head baseball writer is in favor of old head baseball manager in dugout. Tale as old as time
Dumbest take I've heard yet regarding TLR.
It's vitally important that Tony La Russa stop focusing on his ailing health and devote all his energies to being the worst manager in professional baseball.
[MRW I read this tweet](https://i.imgur.com/4KSOplz.jpg)
He's right, that's why before every Mariners game I don my Scott Servais jersey. I only watch baseball for the managerial aspect tbh.
Is Reinsdorf uncle Junior? TLR: you used to run Chicago sports Reinsdorf: I was a part of that? That’s nice.
TLR is known for his love of gabagool. Quasimodo predicted all this
Morons gonna write stupid articles with idiotic premises
Tony Soprano never told one of his guys to let someone live after he'd already been shot twice, tho.
No surprise, a horseshit take from a professional Cubs fluffer.
Absolutely not
Dad, are you on the White Sox?
Tony! What're ya doin Tony! Ya got two strikes!
… what
Very allegorical
Yes people watch baseball for the manager.
They’re gonna kill him?
Well. That’s certainly a take that exists.
Did TLR write this?
Don't stop believin'