soprano fans = stupid?

tony is dead, soprano fans. unfortunately you were too busy complaining about the finale to notice.

i'll be honest, i've never watched one episode of The Sopranos from start to finish, so i come at this as an outsider. I'm Not One of You. nonetheless, i find myself inexplicably fascinated by this show's finale.

i take that back. i know why it fascinates me: because here you have a critically-acclaimed show with a loyal fan base that's about to implode with anticipation for the final episode. the day after, no one seems happy with the show's unfulfilling, all-too-sudden curtain. it didn't make sense. a show with that pedigree couldn't possibly end on such a disappointing note.

well guess what? it didn't: http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

harris's blog explains with painful detail the number of clues that were packed in the last episode to suggest tony's death. he calls it a theory, but i'm ready to deem it a factual conclusion. tony is dead. plain as day.



















at this point i want to explain why i think soprano fans must be stupid.

plenty of the clues harris mentions would be easily missed if you weren't watching the show with a fine-toothed comb and a keen mind. for instance, the Last Supper image flies by much too quickly for any commoner to notice. or maybe you're like me and you didn't know that oranges were forebearers of death in The Godfather films and so you didn't notice them in The Sopranos either.

i want to forgive your foolishness, soprano fans, really i do. but how can i after reading the following:

The sensation of imminent death – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was now-famously discussed in an episode called “Soprano Home Movies.”

This same episode was reportedly repeated, out of sequence, re-airing “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” the week before the finale.

And the same exact scene – this same discussion of how death would be experienced – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was also apparently excerpted in flashback in the second-to-last episode.

in other words, you're telling me that once the show's credits started to roll, none of this dawned on you? really? none of this discussion played in your mind at any point? you really thought david chase intended to end his beloved saga with a gimmick? and then you all had the nerve to wake up the following day and complain about how unsatisfying the end was? really? did all of that really happen?

i know i'm monday morning quarterbacking. but i just can't believe it took this long for a more plausible interpretation of the conclusion to surface. how reactionary are we as people? how bad are we at interpreting art when it's not spelled-out for us? why couldn't ONE soprano fan put 2 and 2 together immediately after the episode was over?

that's the thing about this show i never understood. it's considered one of the greatest shows ever made, yet when i hear people talking about it, never do i hear anything of substance. all i hear is "who do you think is gonna get whacked next week?" like it was some sort of survivor-style reality tv show. this show had to be about more than killing, right?

well, yes and no. ultimately the finale is about tony's death, but it manages to make his death something more profound and more deeply felt than some third-person assassination. when the camera goes black, my heart is beating very fast and i get chills. death so sudden, so unexpected, and so predestined. you aren't just watching tony. You Are Tony. and then you die.

my point is that soprano fans should have given this show the benefit of the doubt. instead of complaining, they should have instantly started putting the pieces together. they should've been savvy enough to understand that david chase had something substantial up his sleeve, something better than a "did my cable just go out?" prank.

and now all we're left with is this collective failure. the blind leading the blind and whatnot.

tony soprano must've been rolling in his grave.

sometimes you're ethel

sometimes the story isn't about you. sometimes it's about something bigger and better than you. specifically, sometimes the story is about the one they call "the king." his birth name is lebron james. and the story is about him and not about you.

i'm writing this just after lebron's instant historic performance, the one that put the pistons down 3-2 in the series. you know, the one where lebron validated all of his years of hype, scoring the last 29 of his team's 30 points and leading the young cavs to an improbable victory in enemy territory.

when i was younger i would've been upset by such a loss, broken-hearted if you will. and don't get me wrong, i'm not happy that the detroit pistons lost today (a loss that almost guarantees elimination). but i understand something now i didn't understand when i was a kid, and that is this: i understand that sometimes it's your time to be the star, the belle of the ball, the main attraction, etc. but more importantly, there are times when it's your turn to ride in the backseat. you're not always gonna be the main star of the program. you're not always gonna be the one they're rooting for.

it can be difficult to come to terms with such a truth, which is why i couldn't do it as a child. with immaturity comes the belief that you are always the star of the show and the center of the universe.

to go a step further, this basketball contest playing out before us reminds us (particularly the piston fans) that sometimes the will of the people is what's most important. and the will of the people would prefer to see lebron james performing miraculous deeds on the hardwood. they don't want to see a boring, efficient piston team win another eastern conference trophy.

so maybe i can just enjoy the ride better this way? no longer worried about losing or failing. there's nothing else on the line for me. instead, i just need to fall in line with the people and enjoy the lebron show for all its worth and accept that my team is playing ethel to his lucy.