The Sopranos

Listen to me. I don't care who you are or what you think is good: THE SOPRANOS is easily the best TV show of all time. Period. I have spoken.

Seriously, nothing else remotely comes close.

Over the past few weeks, I've been making my way through my DVD box sets of THE SOPRANOS for the umpteenth time, but this time watching the whole thing in order (I'm currently midway through season four), which adds up ninety or so episodes and hours of viewing. Trying to describe the brilliance of THE SOPRANOS is.... well, it's beyond me, really, but I guess what I'll say right now is that it combines the celluloid brilliance of the first two GODFATHERs and GOODFELLAS with the televisual brilliance of THE SIMPSONS, while simultaneously serving as a remarkable time capsule of America in the first ten years of this century.

Hilarious, harrowing and heartbreaking, as well as visually and musically adventurous, not to mention superbly acted, THE SOPRANOS is mindblowingly rich in charaterisation and detail, endlessly rewatchable and quite simply the single best reason to own a TV set, and I'll brook no argument on the matter!

It's load of nihilistic, amoral, slick, superficial bollocks. Easily one of the one worst American exports of the last decade or so, and has had a profoundly counterproductive effect (much like Tarantino) on British television, and the British film industry in general.

Quote :

the celluloid brilliance of the first two GODFATHERs and GOODFELLAS w

Eh? You just committed two crimes there. First, you left out the finest and most ambitious GODFATHER film of them all - PART III, and you included one of the most overrated flicks in Scorsese's weak ass cannon - GOODFELLAS. If you wanted to give your case any less credibility, you might as well have thrown in CASINO, CARLITO'S WAY or THE UNTOUCHABLES.

Unbelievable.

Hey Sharky, do you like ANYTHING? All I've seen you do the last few weeks is be a Negative Nelly on absolutely everything, as if you prefer that nothing be good.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Hey Sharky, do you like ANYTHING?

I love THE GODFATHER PART III.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

All I've seen you do the last few weeks is be a Negative Nelly on absolutely everything, as if you prefer that nothing be good.

The real Shark's back. Live wid it.

May I suggest a new avatar?

I'm being deadly serious.

Sharky wrote:

It's load of nihilistic, amoral, slick, superficial bollocks. Easily one of the one worst American exports of the last decade or so, and has had a profoundly counterproductive effect (much like Tarantino) on British television, and the British film industry in general.

You didn't disappoint me.

(Not sure that THE SOPRANOS has had any effect whatsoever on British television, let alone British film. Now, the whole "Brit gangster" boom - to which I suspect you may be referring - has certainly been one of the most tedious things ever, but blame Damon Albarn and Guy Ritchie for kicking the whole thing off in the 1990s. THE SOPRANOS had nowt to do with it.)

Sharky wrote:

the finest and most ambitious GODFATHER film of them all - PART III

Actually, I like THE GODFATHER PART III - I've seen it twice. But never in my wildest imaginings did I ever expect anyone ever to claim that it's the finest and most ambitious of them all. You're wrong (although it might well have been had it revolved around Pacino and Duvall, as originally intended), but I like your making the claim. It shows independence of thought.

However, I agree that the Scorsese canon is indeed "weak ass", by and large.

Anyway, SOPRANOS fans - where are you? Come out of the damn woodwork!

Godfather Part III is certainly, in its original concept, the most Ambitious of them, but finest? No, it reached too far and falls on its face in its crippled execution.

Hate Mafia shit so never seen Sopranos. The West's celebration of a bunch of hoods is beyond me.

I have watched the Sopranos. Besides the fact that Ambler has a point about it being nothing more than "Goodfellas, the series", my other issue with it was that you could cut out about 40% of the series without losing much of any consequence. There was a lot of unnecessary "fat" in there.

In that respect, it's the anti-Deadwood.

Fat is the problem with TV series in general. Mad Men and BSG both suffer(ed) from stories that failed to advance the plot.

I still reckon The Shield is the most underrated of recent television.

There was very little in Deadwood that didn't advance some plot line.

It's often an example of too many cooks ruining the broth. The shows that are most immune to this problem are those who are helmed by a strong head writer.

Salomé wrote:

There was very little in Deadwood that didn't advance some plot line.

Agreed. Deadwood was a great loss. I'm interested in why your Deadwood thread has failed to attract much attention. Maybe the show was not widely seen.

Or perhaps it's because it has no teens in it. Even Deadwood's whores are old hands.

There is no one truly young in there, besides Sophia. And her role is fairly limited.

Have you by any chance seen Timothy Olyphant's new show, "Justified"? He plays a man not unlike Seth Bullock in that, only in a modern setting.

Not seen Justified. Sounds interesting. Tell me more in the Deadwood thread.

Sharky wrote:

It's load of nihilistic, amoral, slick, superficial bollocks. Easily one of the one worst American exports of the last decade or so, and has had a profoundly counterproductive effect (much like Tarantino) on British television, and the British film industry in general.

I'm actually surprised that you dislike THE SOPRANOS (how many episodes have you seen, though, and which seasons?), because apart from anything else I'd have thought that you'd have welcomed its non-PCness.

As for it being amoral or (to address one of Erica's points) celebrating gangsters, I don't think that THE SOPRANOS carries the message that crime pays. The hoods in it either come to grief (true, they're mostly whacked by other mobsters as opposed to brought to justice by the authorities) or spend their lives looking fearfully over their shoulders. In any case, though, I can't see that this show glorifies crime, or if it does then Bond glorifies espionage and HANNIBAL glorifies serial killers.

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

It's load of nihilistic, amoral, slick, superficial bollocks. Easily one of the one worst American exports of the last decade or so, and has had a profoundly counterproductive effect (much like Tarantino) on British television, and the British film industry in general.

I'm actually surprised that you dislike THE SOPRANOS (how many episodes have you seen, though, and which seasons?), because apart from anything else I'd have thought that you'd have welcomed its non-PCness.

That would be assuming I'm a one issue kinda guy. Even if something's non-PC, it's gotta pass a whole lot of other criteria before The Shark approves it..

To me, THE SOPRANOS is the anti-GODFATHER. The mafia isn't explored within a wider cultural or religious context, and with the passion, brutal honesty, authenticity, and ambiguities of the human condition - that made the trilogy great. Coppola's masterpiece.

In contrast, THE SOPRANOS relies on BS psychotherapy and the Oedipal complex as a crutch, tough guy cliches, and condescends the audience.

Loomis wrote:

As for it being amoral or (to address one of Erica's points) celebrating gangsters, I don't think that THE SOPRANOS carries the message that crime pays.

It does, through it's slick direction, soundtrack, and glossy production values. It sells the gangster life as an MTV aspiration. Pure style over substance.

I always wanted to get into Sopranos, I just never had the time. It's on my wishlist now and I think next year I may just go for a marathon. I've only seen the first two episodes and found them fine. Why shouldn't a mafia guy be quite ordinary? Most people are in the end, Nazis included. Once read a book about Eichman, perfectly average stiff Philistine that one, just had a curious job and was an overachiever.

Kennon wrote:

Once read a book about Eichman, perfectly average stiff Philistine that one, just had a curious job and was an overachiever.

The "banality of evil etc."

Adolf Eichmann was many things, but he wasn't a mafioso caricature.

Sharky wrote:

it's gotta pass a whole lot of other criteria before The Shark approves it..

For example, does it positively contribute to society? Is it a valuable, culturally significant contribution to the public consciousness? Most importantly, does the project agree with Sharky's personal morality, politics, and philosophy?

Sharky wrote:

To me, THE SOPRANOS is the anti-GODFATHER. The mafia isn't explored within a wider cultural or religious context, and with the passion, brutal honesty, authenticity, and ambiguities of the human condition - that made the trilogy great.

I disagree. THE SOPRANOS does indeed explore the mafia within wider cultural and religious contexts - consider the amount of screentime and number of subplots devoted to such non-gangster characters as Artie, Livia, Meadow and Father Phil, to name but four, as well as to crooks who are not Italian-American or Italian, such as Ron Zellman and Hesh, as well as various bent lawyers and cops and people in powerful positions who are on the take. As for "the passion, brutal honesty, authenticity, and ambiguities of the human condition" - well, they're all there, in spades.

How many episodes of THE SOPRANOS have you seen, and which seasons? I ask because I cannot believe that someone who'd seen more than one or two episodes could possibly conclude that the show focuses purely on mafiosi, does nothing but glamourise them and does not bother to put them in any kind of meaningful context or delve into worthwhile characterisation. It's like claiming that there's nothing in THE WIRE apart from scenes involving street corner drug dealers - there's so much more to it than that.

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

To me, THE SOPRANOS is the anti-GODFATHER. The mafia isn't explored within a wider cultural or religious context, and with the passion, brutal honesty, authenticity, and ambiguities of the human condition - that made the trilogy great.

I disagree. THE SOPRANOS does indeed explore the mafia within wider cultural and religious contexts - consider the amount of screentime and number of subplots devoted to such non-gangster characters as Artie, Livia, Meadow and Father Phil, to name but four, as well as to crooks who are not Italian-American or Italian, such as Ron Zellman and Hesh, as well as various bent lawyers and cops and people in powerful positions who are on the take.

You're misinterpreting what I said. What I mean, is that THE SOPRANOS does not explore Italian American culture or Roman Catholicism enough.

Loomis wrote:

As for "the passion, brutal honesty, authenticity, and ambiguities of the human condition" - well, they're all there, in spades.

Well, from what I've seen, they're not. Might be because instead of being written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, they're written and directed by David Chase, Tim Van Patten and bunch of other TV hacks.

Loomis wrote:

How many episodes of THE SOPRANOS have you seen, and which seasons?

I've sat through seasons 1-4, and bits of the final one.

Nihilistic, amoral, slick, superficial bollocks?

Sounds like a must-see documentary, thanks for the tip!

Sharky wrote:

You're misinterpreting what I said. What I mean, is that THE SOPRANOS does not explore Italian American culture or Roman Catholicism enough.

That's an absolutely extraordinary claim. What's "enough"? It's like claiming that there aren't enough black actors in THE COSBY SHOW. I think it explores those things plenty, and then some. It has bags and bags and bags of exploration of and ruminations on Italian-American culture (from Sil, from Dr Melfi's ex-husband, from Meadow and many other characters), and Roman Catholicism is dealt with extensively, or at least as extensively as would be reasonable to expect from a TV show that was never supposed to be primarily about Roman Catholicism. These two issues crop up so frequently that I don't know where to begin. Okay, so perhaps Roman Catholicism gets short shrift compared to Italian-American culture in general, but even so it's touched on very often indeed. What more do you want? Again, what would be "enough"? Which issues relating to Italian-American culture or Roman Catholicism do you feel THE SOPRANOS fails to deal with? Furthermore, where's the great exploration of Catholicism in THE GODFATHER that's so lacking in THE SOPRANOS?

Loomis wrote:

Sharky wrote:

You're misinterpreting what I said. What I mean, is that THE SOPRANOS does not explore Italian American culture or Roman Catholicism enough.

That's an absolutely extraordinary claim. What's "enough"?

Something a little closer to the richness of THE GODFATHER trilogy. That's a fine benchmark, so I'll use it.

Loomis wrote:

and Roman Catholicism is dealt with extensively, or at least as extensively as would be reasonable to expect from a TV show that was never supposed to be primarily about Roman Catholicism.

Yes, but the THE GODFATHER films weren't supposed to be primarily about Roman Catholicism, yet they managed to end up as some of the most extensive and enlightening on the subject you'll ever find, in mainstream Western cinema.

Also, class is never really explored much in THE SOPRANOS.

Quote :

Which issues relating to Italian-American or Roman Catholicism culture do you feel THE SOPRANOS fails to deal with? Furthermore, where's the great exploration of Catholicism in THE GODFATHER that's so lacking in THE SOPRANOS?

Harms is our resident theologian, but I'll have a crack at it.

THE GODFATHER trilogy explores the concepts of sin and grace, central to the Catholic Biblical narrative, through not having only characters talk about it (which is pretty much as far as it goes with THE SOPRANOS) - but using the grand ideas as the backdrop. As almost Shakespearean Greek tragedy.

I'll go into it more later.