DONT READ THIS IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE SOPRANOS FINALE
He put in a lot of work and it's interesting, but it tilts me that it's cited as the be all and end all of Soprano's analysis and a solution to a puzzle when the essay is a giant strawman. His argument is basically "If there are a lot of fatalistic motifs/symbols/themes in final season then Tony dies". Then he proceeds to outline every fatalistic element in exhausting detail. The problem is those who think Tony lived or are agnostic about the ending aren't disputing the premise that fatalistic themes existed, they are disputing the causation of his argument. The breadth of mastersofsopranos makes it an excellent piece of analysis, but the breadth doesn't eliminate his fundamental rhetorical error.
DONT READ THIS IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE SOPRANOS FINALE
He put in a lot of work and it's interesting, but it tilts me that it's cited as the be all and end all of Soprano's analysis and a solution to a puzzle when the essay is a giant strawman. His argument is basically "If there are a lot of fatalistic motifs/symbols/themes in final season then Tony dies". Then he proceeds to outline every fatalistic element in exhausting detail. The problem is those who think Tony lived or are agnostic about the ending aren't disputing the premise that fatalistic themes existed, they are disputing the causation of his argument. The breadth of mastersofsopranos makes it an excellent piece of analysis, but the breadth doesn't eliminate his fundamental rhetorical error.
Spoiler:
His real argument is "The final scene is set up with filming and editing techniques to put us in Tony's POV when the screen cuts to black, and said cut to black is in line with how Chase has described death throughout the series-- you never hear it coming, it's all a big nothing, etc."
I personally would argue that there aren't just "themes of death" throughout the final season, but specifically of Tony's death, as he has a near-death experience which tells him he needs to change, and by the end of the show he has not only roundly rejected that change, but also driven everyone close to him away (sometimes by killling them).
Let me ask you something, what do you think David Chase's intent was with the last scene?
While Alan Sepinwall is a very good TV writer, he has clung to that viewpoint for years and even deliberately misquotes some things Chase says to support it
(example: He quotes Chase saying "It's all there" to support the idea that nothing happened that we didn't see on the surface; Chase's actual quote is "It's all there if you look carefully", which seems to suggest the opposite)
The Sopranos is one of the great pieces of TV and media in general, that the final scene has been reduced to a puzzle because people demand closure is a little depressing to me. The irony of the quote above is that I think that Chase was attempting to curb extra-textual analysis and suggesting that one view the piece of art as it is, but it has the opposite effect where people think Chase is giving hidden clues. Chase has always been inscrutable in interviews and has shown contempt for a lot of The Sopranos audience the idea that he would give some secret clue in an interview seems out of character.
