John Snyder's Errant Thoughts

What Does Tony "Get"?

On this week's episode of "The Sopranos" (May 13, 2007:  "Kennedy and Heidi"), Tony Soprano is high on peyote when he gazes across the desert and shouts, cryptically, "I get it!"  Peyote, the drug of the Indians, leads to Tony's epiphany.  I wonder if what Tony finally "gets" is the Ojibwe saying that Janice posted in Tony's hospital room early in Season Six (which was given an amount of airtime that seemed, at the time, out of proportion with its significance to the storyline):

"Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky."  -- Ojibwe Saying

On first glance, the Ojibwe saying seems to mean that our short-sighted self-pity blinds us to life's blessings.  (That's how Tony seemed to take it:  "every day is a gift.") 

But on a moment's reflection, what is so great about being carried across the sky by a great wind?  Being carried across the sky by a great wind means having no control over where one is going.  On the other hand, implicit in self-pity is the belief that things could have turned out differently and better.  It is mourning the loss of some happier fate that one at least reasonably believed was possible.  If we are all carried by a great wind that is beyond our control, self-pity makes no sense, because wherever that wind takes us (good or bad), it was destined to be so, and it could not been otherwise.

Which brings us back to Tony Soprano.  The death (murder) of Christopher Moltisanti at the fingertips of Tony has obviously led to introspection and questioning on Tony's part concerning whether he did the right thing, or whether there even is such thing as "right" and "wrong."  It has also led to an oppressive bout of depression, which even Christopher's Vegas girlfriend picked up.  "You are a sad person," she says.  So intense is the depression that it seems to have run through Tony's "rotten, putrid" genes and simultaneously affected A.J.

How appropriate, then, for Tony to find the darker, more depressing meaning in the Ojibwe saying.  And how convenient.  I don't know what Tony is going to do in the final three episodes, but I foresee Tony taking solace in the belief that his actions are not attributable to him, but rather the great wind carrying him across the sky.

Is "Entourage" Referencing "The Sopranos"?

Spoiler Alert -- Don't read if you haven't seen this week's episodes. Duh.

Watching "The Sopranos" and "Entourage" last night, I have to ask, was it just coincidence, or are the shows now referencing each other? Both episodes end with someone (Tony, Johnny Drama) wasted in the western desert, standing outside their cars, sun rising, shouting into the vast, orange, echoing expanse.

"Victory!" Hey, "I got it."

I would have written it off to a weird coincidence, but there was also the earlier scene in "Entourage" where a bird suddenly and unexpectedly crashes through the window while Drama is making eggs. Very out of character for Entourage, where there are generally no sudden moments of unexpected "action." I have to wonder if this was a nod to Christopher.

Recall a few seasons ago, when Christopher is being "made," there is a bird sitting perched on the window sill. Christopher interprets that as a bad omen, and in the seasons that follow, that haunting bird is occasionally mentioned. (I remember at least once Christopher mentions his bird to Adriana.) Now today, the day Christopher dies, suddenly Christopher's fateful bird makes a cameo (and itself dies) as a bad omen for Johnny Drama.

Okay, okay. I know what you're saying. A bird is a common literary device foreshadowing bad news. But since when does "Entourage" incorporate subtle literary devices? Entourage is all about hip cultural references, bling, snappy dialogue, and predictable, light, fun plot twists. A BIRD FLYING THROUGH THE WINDOW?

You can take the analogy even further if you like. Drama becomes infected with the bird's bad luck, which leads to absolutely abominable reviews for his TV show, which is premeiring. However, despite the bad reviews, Drama's show turns out to be a popular hit. Upon learning that his run of bad luck has apparently ended (perhaps the bird's power waned in its death), Drama unleashes his scream of triumph in the desert. Likewise, it seems the bird fully infected Christopher, and as a result, about three episodes ago, Tony could not win a bet. With the death of Christopher, Tony's personal ill-fated bird, Tony also gets his groove back, visiting the roulette table at the Bellagio, where he can't lose. "The Sopranos" being nothing if not ambiguous, it is less clear what Tony means when he screams, "I got it," there in the desert -- and I suspect it means several things at once -- but at least on the surface it seems also to be a scream of triumph at the rediscovery of good luck.

All of this means that I'm going to be watching much more closely for other cross-references. Sure, it is possible that it was a coincidence, but if not, the creators of "The Sopranos" and "Entourage" were comparing notes during the writing process and are strangely synched. That would be too weird, and too good to be true.

Julie on the Martha Stewart Show

Download scrapbooking.mp4 (709.7K)

Sopranos: "Walk Like A Man"

"The Sopranos" episode of last night, May 6, 2007, entitled "Walk Like A Man" has deservedly gotten raves as the best episode of the second half of this final season.

Up to this point in the finale of the Sopranos, we have had:

• Soprano Home Movies
• Stage 5
• Remember When
• Chasing It

And while I have enjoyed each of these episodes, I was left feeling that the show was frittering away its final precious minutes with lengthy meditations on peripheral story lines.  (An episode dedicated to Vito's kid's many issues?  The Monopoly game up at the lake?)  Again, there was nothing wrong with any of these episodes, except that there were far more pressing questions going unaddressed while tangents were being pursued; questions including:

• Will Phil Leotardo finally avenge his brother?
• Will Christopher become the Boss, a rat, or go down in flames?
• Will Tony die?
• What will become of AJ?
• And most important, what ever happened to that Russian guy Christopher and Paulie left in the woods in South Jersey?

"Walk Like A Man" took some preliminary steps toward a final resolution of the fates of A.J. and Christopher, Tony's two "sons."  On the surface, with Christopher, it was a continuation of his long-running interal battle -- the mob vs. his dream of getting out; booze vs. sobriety; real violence vs. movie violence.  Once again, we watched with ambivalence as Christopher grabbed for the lifeline that was dangling right in front of him, the rope that could pull him out of the "Life" that he knows will destroy him.  And once again, at the last moment, Christopher pulls back and cuts off the lifeline.

We saw it in "Long Term Parking," when Adriana offers Christopher a way out (at the cost of turning rat and destroying Tony).  Christopher goes through an agonzing deliberation, which David Chase, to his credit, does not overplay.  In the end, Christopher rejects the lifeline and in the process signs Adriana's death warrant.

We see it again in "Walk Like A Man," with Christopher reaching out in his moment of crisis to J.T. Dolan, a true friend who seems to genuinely care for Christopher despite the unceasing abuse that J.T. receives for his troubles.  And once again, as he seems to come close to finding a way out, Christopher cuts the lifeline and murders J.T.

Has Christopher burned his final bridge?  Has he passed the point of no return?

As for A.J., the plot from "Walk Like A Man" opened up the possibility, for the first time, of A.J. actually following in Tony's footsteps.  We saw hints of this earlier in Season 6 when A.J. got caught by Paulie and Christopher trying to buy a gun to kill Uncle Junior, then dropped the knife when he visited Uncle Junior planning to kill him.  (Whatever happened with that, anyhow?)  However, A.J. has never been credible as a cold-hearted killer, nor does he have Tony's aggression or charisma.

This leads to an interesting side note.  Robert Iler was picked to play A.J. in 1997 when they shot the pilot.  Iler was 12 years old.  (Although the series premiered in 1999, the pilot was shot two years earlier.)  At that time, they did not know how large Mr. Iler would grow to be or what he would look like as a 22-year-old man (as he is now).  As it turns out, he is considerably smaller in stature and far less inherently fearsome than James Gandolfini.  I wonder if this has created difficulties for the Sopranos creators as they consider a plot that would make A.J. the hier-apparent to Tony.

Not that an A.J.-as-gangster plot is necessarily implausible.  A week ago I would have dismissed the thought out of hand.  However, "Walk Like A Man" was the first episode where we really see the range of Robert Iler as an actor, and it was impressive.  Is it possible that in the next four weeks, we could see A.J. evolve from the spoiled, shiftless, non-threatening character we have seen into a character who turns his inner rage outward?

Obviously, as a Gangster, A.J. would not be able to physically intimidate everyone the way Tony does.  That being said, "The Sopranos" has gotten by with its version of "good guy aim" for years.  Does anyone believe that a 70-year-old Feech LaManna would really win a fist-fight against two young landscapers?  Or that Paulie would win every fight he was in?  What's sauce for Feech and Paulie is sauce for A.J. as well.  Viewers may be willing to suspend disbelief.

After all, lest we forget, the Christopher Moltisanti who strikes fear in the hearts of those who cross him was once "Spider."

Chickenshit Journalism

A thought comes to mind, in light of the Katie Couric hatchet job on John and Elizabeth Edwards last Sunday, where she relentlessly demanded that they respond to questions that "some people" think that they are "capitalizing on" Elizabeth's cancer.

Update:  Here's a link to Katie's repetitive questions, all basically questioning (on behalf of "some") why Elizabeth doesn't just curl up and die.  Putting aside the crassness of it all, I really wonder whether we're dealing with a person with a low IQ.  Obviously Katie knows that she has been slammed for not asking the tough questions, for doing too many puff pieces.  But what was the thought process behind this?  "Hmmm, everyone is saying I'm not asking hardball questions.  I know.  I'll badger a couple who just found out a couple days ago that the wife had untreatable cancer."  Did she go home after the interview and say, "wow, I really showed them"?

My thought has to do with the way journalists (especially in live interviews) will use the "some people think..." construction to justify unfair and, often, grotesque questions that they falsely equate with hard-nosed journalism.

We saw a similar situation a few months ago when Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday claimed that he had gotten emails from viewers who wanted him to ask Bill Clinton why he didn't do more to stop Al Qaeda.  Wallace then proceeded to recite a litany of right-wing claims about how Clinton ignored the Al Qaeda threat; Clinton eviscerated Wallace, deliciously, for this.

Journalists should seriously consider adopting a standard that says that if you want the person you are interviewing to answer a charge, you -- the interviewer -- must either make the charge yourself and take responsibility for it, or clearly identify the person who is making the charge.

That should be part of the implicit deal.  If the interviewee gives a bad response, he or she takes the heat for it; but by the same token, if the interviewer asks a reprehensible question, the interviewer should be subject to similar heat. 

It is too easy for an interviewer to blindside someone with a totally unfair question, then, like a coward, pretend that she is merely presenting the sentiments of some other unnamed person.  Then, having been presented a question that deserves a punch in the mouth, the person being interviewed has to come up with a polite response.