The definitive analysis of Tony Soprano's death at the end of the infamous smash-cut finale
Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 1:11AM 
I have long clinged to the hope that David Chase's "smash-cut" (technical term for the harsh cut-to-black with no sound) ending was meant to be an ambiguous conclusion that let every viewer walk away with their own interpretation. Mine, being a Tony fan, was that Chase was telling us it could always happen at any minute and MAYBE it happened then . . . but, mebbe not!
Well, after the finale, I let it rest, and then I spent last year and the beginning of this year watching the entire boxed set, and as I perused the final season, I was struck by the Bobby Bacala's response to Tony on the subject of getting whacked (when they were fishing on the boat):
“Our line of work, it’s always out there. You probably don’t even hear it when it happens right?”
Then there's that Private Ryan-like loss-of-sound bit when Sil is talking to a prostitute at a table in an Italian restaurant and suddenly he's sprayed with blood, and he's confused, and then the audience point-of-view is re-established and we suddenly realize that a shooter is dispatching the other guy.
The loss of sound . . . you never see it coming . . . the smash-cut.
And so my 15-year-old son Kevin watches a few episodes of the first season (he's already confirmed, so he's in charge of his own soul now), and, being an Internet/videogame kid, he starts searching the web for cheat sheets and backgrounds and good sites to explain the story-behind-the-story.
And then he starts assaulting me, day after day, week after week, with a slew of interpretive theories about the history of the series (which he's just about finished) and how Chase lays it all out for the viewer and the ending is crystal clear--not vague, not open to interpretation, but oh-so-very Chase.
And then he makes me watch the last scene one more time with him online, giving me the detailed explanation, and then he makes me read chunks of this site:
The Sopranos: Definitive Explanation of “The END”
Do not go there unless you want to know the end--definitively. If you harbor any hopes or interpretations or personal philosophies . . . don't go there.
Because it is brutally thorough in its research and logic.
And I am cruuuuuushed!
Kevin plans to go into law enforcement. He is RELENTLESS!
Reader Comments (3)
Pretty exhaustive analysis, but I still think it's wrong.
"The Sopranos" is a tale of the making of America -- the conflicting immigrant cultures and what happens to them in the melting pot. Tony's generation is between what was and what is going to be. He respects and feels somewhat bound the old ways of Uncle Junior. But AJ and Meadow aren't bound for careers in the mob (although they'll likely be entangled in some way). Tony has to get his family from the past and into the future.
Tony's arc isn't complete, and the drama of the American experiment continues after "The Sopranos" ends and all of us are gone.
So if David Chase couldn't whack the protagonist, he did the next best thing -- he whacked the audience. I remember a fleeting thought of "It can't be over like that!" just before I sat there in the long darkness and silence. Indeed, "you never hear it coming" and we didn't. Chase put a bullet in our collective brain.
All of the story elements of "The Sopranos" are ongoing elements of the human condition -- crime, punishment, the march of history (Tony's favorite subject) and the continuum of life as the past constantly tries to find balance against the constant and inexorable change.
Tony's story isn't over, but our time watching him is.
Chase himself has rejected the "whack the audience" theory in interviews.
As quoted on the site, he's just not into that "FU! to the audience" concept.
Jeff, you're just being stubborn, man.
Well Tom, "Stubborn" is my middle name.
I don't think any of the various interpretations amount to Chase flinging an FU at the audience. And I can't find a Chase quote where he renounces any of the popular theories. For example, this exchange from an EW interview about a year after the last episode:
EW: Does that onion-rings-at-the-diner scene even actually happen, or is Tony just ruminating?
DC: [Long pause.] There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say. [Laughs]
I happen to prefer the "whack the audience" idea, but I'll admit that it's my interpretation. The thing I loved most about "The Sopranos" was just that -- there was always more than one way of looking at the story. I think Chase is a true artist and gifted craftsman. To end the series at a crossroads is appropriate and satisfying. Tony could get whacked like Phil; he could go to the Big House like Johnny Sack; he could go into witness protection as Kevin Finnerty; He could become a "babbling idiot" like Junior, or he could dodge all the bullets and live to see his kids succeed in the straight world.
As a wise catcher once said, "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."
The great effect of the ending is that it has given Sopranos fans a great reason to go back and watch the whole thing again from season one.