The Sopranos: Last Season

Philly (as in Philadelphia) ?

or

Philly (as in Phil Leotardo) ?


The actor who played the character has been reported to be a guy who runs a pizza restaurant somewhere in the Philadelphia area.

That might be part of the confusion.

The actor was interviewed and he has confirmed that he was never used anywhere else in the series.

But there is no confirmation one way or the other.

 

True. He owns ( I believe ) Pendell pizzeria in Pendell,Bucks Co. A suburb of Philly.(The city not Leotardo.)

 

No I was told it was one of Phil Leotardo's sons and that Bracco was also to have confirmed. It could all be based on hersay. I have no hard info. Oh well does it really matter? It's over.

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/8038682.html


I still think the most interesting thing would be to interview all of the other actors in that restaurant and find out how many were personally selected by Chase.

That wouldn't force anyone to break a vow of secrecy.

 

This is a very interesting - very detailed analysis of the scene

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

 

Wow that is really cool stuff. I remember noticing little things that were mentioned in the article but all the other stuff just makes it that much better. What an ending.

 

With all due respect, I don't think Bracco is really qualified to comment.

The only person that TRULY knows who the "members only" man really is would be Chase - since he was the person who put the character into the scene.

I do find it interesting that Eugene (the guy who hung himself) wore a Members Only jacket during the show where Tony was shot by Uncle Junior (not to mention the episode was titled "Members Only"). And the shirt being worn by Tony when he got shot by Uncle Junior is similar to the shirt he was wearing in the diner (I haven't watched both scenes closely enough to confirm that they are identical).

I also read that Silvio was shot by a guy wearing a members only jacket - but I can't confirm that because my tivo already erased the blue comet episode.


It is also kind of interesting that the actor who played the members only man in the diner is saying "Im sworn to secrecy".... that's almost an admission unto itself - since a background actor doesn't usually have any real knowledge of anything and wouldnt NEED to be sworn to secrecy.

I still think the "audience got wacked" interpretation is valid.

My only real quarrel with it is we KNEW we were about to get wacked because we knew the show was ending in a few minutes. But clearly the number of people who have admitted to adjusting their set - is a strong evidence that many didn't expect exactly what happened...

 

Look, they've said that that theory is bunk.

From EW: http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2007/06/nikki-leotardo-.html

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2007/06/sopranos_inside.html <-Debunkings of all sorts.

original hoaxer:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-rail_0625gl.State.Edition1.43a07cb.html

Let's face it - the series ended without closure and fans are making the same claims as Santa Rians reading chicken entrails.

There was no closure - I think that was the *point* of the last scene, and of the whole show.

I just hope The Wire fans act differently when *the best* show on HBO goes off the air for good next year.

 

I think all the titles on the jukebox seem to be interesting foreshadowing..."Those Were The Days"..."Victim Of Love"..."Only The Strong Survive"..."Somewhere In The Night"..."Since I Don't Have You"..."Don't Go To Strangers"..."Who Will You Run To". The latter especially since one of the last things seen is running.

 

I've been a strong supported of the "life goes on" theory until I read Bob's comments. He's presented the strongest case for Tony's death, because he discuesses cinematography: lighting, framing, etc. It's one thing to point to dialogue or certain events, but to dig a little deeper into technique results in a stronger case. This stuff wasn't rushed... it was well-planned and thought out long before they filmed.

 

Agreed! *

* Well, one exception... He makes a big deal over the selection of the actor that played the Members Only guy. Regardless of whether or not he was a hitman, he still played a very important role, and as such would have been chosen very carefully. Still, Bobs arguments are very convincing.

 

I honestly don't think he has "too much time on his hands." He's written for TV and has a good understanding of cinematography. The initial post, which was much shorter than what you see now, was probably put together quickly. I'm sure he doesn't hang out at audiophile forums, so I'm sure that frees up his time a little bit.

If you read his complete post, you'll notice that he added a lot after his first post received so much attention. He practically doubled the length of the post after he got 160,000 hits, then added screenshots. I would too, if it were my blog post.

Besides, that blog is a big marketing technique for him. I'm sure his books sales went up a little bit after getting all that attention.

 

Agreed. I couldn't tear myself from it.

 

Thanks for sharing this! Great read!

 

I have one big problem with equating the Members Only guy with Michael Corleone, and concluding from this that Tony got whacked. In The Godfather there was a reason for Michael to go into the bathroom: he had to enter the restaurant without a gun (he was checked for weapons) and so one needed to be available to him after he got there. There was NOreason for the Members Only guy to NOT have a gun; in fact all of the whacks in the final two shows took place with the whacker already having a gun in his hand when he goes after the whackee.

I think Chase was playing with his audience and giving a lot of false clues. The MO guy was only going to the bathroom after all, we were just hyped up by the editing and structure of the final scene. I still hang onto the theory that it was the viewer that got whacked while we were distracted worrying about whether Tony was going to get whacked. We didn't have the same level of alertness that he has, day in day out, and so--blackness.

John K.

 

I can't read it here at work, but I've bought into the "Tony's dead" theory for a while now. With the flashback to Tony and Bobby talking about what happens when it's the end, and the show finishing with no sound or other sensory information (black screen) as well as us *not* seeing Meadow coming into the door, Tony was shot. That's *my* ending for the show.

 

Wow, that Bob Harris link just goes to prove my point - the human mind is capable of making up reasons for any patterns it comes across regardless of logic.

1)Tony is *not* Michael Corleone - he isn't being constantly drawn back in. Tony is a mob boss by choice and ambition.
2)The Last Supper?? You got to be kidding me. Even if you want to believe that you have to stretch a bunch to get there. They aren't at the same table- and more importantly Tony is not the son of god.
3)We are supposed to believe the airing of a repeat in like being "hit in the face with a truck full of lumber"? I'm glad Chase never heard of Tivo. I guess we're all supposed to watch episodes live and watch all repeats too.
4)He points out flaws in his own theory by claiming that it does not have to consistent with the show becuase fiction doesn't have to be consistent. "(Incidentally, you probably would hear the shot from a pistol even at short range, but that hardly matters; this is fiction, and the only thing that matters is its own reality.) " What a cop-out.


Oh, I can't go on reading his stuff.

I think that if you buy these theories floating around then you just want to believe something happened that you can not prove - kind of like the mindset that people who go to Palm readers or astrologists.

Face it, Chase may have been setting us up to believe something was about to happen with his art-direction, cinematography, editing techniques, visual references to previous episodes , and jukebox title cards but there is not enough empirical evidence to figure out "what happens next."

Hell it *could have been* that everyone in the diner was killed in a sudden terrorist attack. Or the Russian from Pine Barrens came out of the bathroom and whacked Tony. Or the trucker with the unusually muted hat colors could have off him from a contract hit by Phil's wife. Or 100 other things.

But none of these theories is analogous to "who shot Kevin Spacey" American Beauty."

The show left people without closure and now a percentage of people are latching onto theories that can never be proven. Maybe that makes Chase a genius, or maybe it shows how we (the audience) missed the point of the show.

I sincerely hope that the new Harry Potter book has a clear and unambiguous climax and denouement- or the Internet will not be safe for anyone for years to come.

 

Did you try following any of the links he included ?

The one that went to a web-page that detailed the many times
an orange (the fruit, not just the color) was used in the three
godfather movies was VERY interesting.

I saw a link this morning where the actor who plays "Agent Harris"
supposedly said something at a press conference after the show
aired (it sounds like all of the actors watched the show in a
theater - and many of them had not seen the final cut) that
there was some additional footage that was filmed that showed
the members only man coming out of the bathroom. He didn't
go so far as to say it showed him holding a gun - but it said
it would have been much less ambiguous if that footage had
been included.

If that footage exists - it will eventually be posted somewhere
on the internet. I don't believe they ever filmed a "Bonnie
and Clyde" style gunfight... but I think that was largely
because that would have been painful to watch (and
in the end, less subtle).


I thought the stuff about how the cat/tiger was added to the
wall behind Tony was very interesting - given the focus on
the cat that kept staring at Christopher earlier in the show.

I found some photos of the real Holstens and there is nothing
on the back wall like what was shown on TV. No tiger,
no football player, etc.


And I don't think its reasonable to say that just because he
didn't have to go get his gun - that he didn't have to go to
the bathroom to get a better angle. Not only would he
have less of a chance of succeeding if he walked up to
Tony from the front AND there would a much larger chance
that he would hit one of those bear scouts eating with
the old man.

A frontal attack might be ok if you show up with three
or four gunmen - but this guy could have been a loner
who decided the best way to FIND Tony is to follow AJ
around town (which would require a substantial amount
of patience - like when Tony's crew kept driving around
Oyster Bay looking for a potential pay phone).

I don't think its an accident that we saw Phil's death
come from a shot behind his head... and as many times
as I've seen Bobby's comments on the boat mentioned - I
think Silvio's comments following the restaurant massacre
are just as important...


And its really really bizarre to me that Tony was wearing
the same shirt when Uncle Junior shot him.

Are we supposed to believe Tony got a truckload of identical
shirts and just keeps getting them from the same supply? LOL


On a related note...
I have a Criterion laserdisc of "The Graduate" that has a
commentary track from a film professor at USC (or maybe
UCLA) and he comments a LOT about the wardrobe choices
in that movie - and he points out things that I had never
noticed and now seem quite obvious... things like
consistent color choices...

 

Well, considering that the shirt he was wearing when he was shot would have had a bullet hole in it (at the least, if not ripped completely by EMTs) and have extensive blood stains, then you have to assume that he had at least two. LOL

To me it looks similar in style, though not an exact match. Not that unusual.

John K.

 

This is fantastic... I had no idea!

 

I think you just want it to be deeper than it was. I know that color design and semiotics seems to be very popular with people talking about this stuff, but as it stands, in the cut we saw, there is *no* closure. Any argument made in the way of "He got killed" based on color design, graphic design, set design etc is just theory.

I still don't buy that Gatsby was shot because he wore a pink suit either.

The way the show ended to me was: Tony got out of a scrape and his whole family was as dishonest with themselves as they have always been. No one learned any lessons. Carmella was doing a remodel of a house and in denial about the gangland warfare. AJ went from worrying about Al Qaeda to laughing *with* Bush playing the bongos because he got a girl and a better job, Meadow is lying to herself thinking her father is the victim, and Tony seemed to not learn anything form the mob war, Juniors end of life nursing home tableau , the death of Bobby and the comatose Sil. Janice is as evil as evil talking about adopting the boy out but keeping the girl. Paulie saw the VIRGIN MARY in his brain addled state.


Melfi may have been the only one who changed in the entire run. And even that was brought on by an ethical violation of her to-faced psychiatrist.

No one else changed or learned anything in the entire show. And I'm supposed to think that a very climatic moment such as Tony getting killed would happen off screen after a Journey song. Nope I don't buy it.

I'm just hoping Chase doesn't Pull a Lucas and make up differing stories for the rest of his life about what it was all supposed to mean.

 

http://www.lbracco.com/images/supper1024.jpg

 

Except in the real world - James Galdolfini doesn't choose what clothes he gets to wear... someone selects his clothes for him.

I wish I could remember exactly what the film professor said about the wardrobe choices in The Graduate commentary (its only on laserdisc - not on the DVD) but he was spot on... and he kept bringing it up in every scene NOT because he was trying to PROVE what happened to Ben and Elaine after they got on the bus at the end... but because the director made consistent choices throughout the entire movie....


I find it interesting to discuss the subtle references Chase sprinkled throughout the series in the same spirit.

I'm not trying to PROVE anything. I realize that in the end - we saw nothing.
Just as we have NO CLUE what happened to Ben and Elaine after they emerged from the bus.

And for what its worth, I think Harris' commentary went out of the way to include similar caveats. It's just commentary from someone with a more trained eye. Take it or leave it...


I think Chase carefully constructed footage that *hinted* Tony died but he wanted to leave us hanging forever more. That was an artistic choice
and I applaud it.

This isn't "who dunnit?" It's "what happened???" or more specifically "What did Chase do in this scene and that scene?"


Does anyone else ever remember Tony talking about The Godfather movie ??? I vaguely remember that happening... but I seem to think it was more the type of comment Christopher would have made. I know Tony got very annoyed the day he played golf with his neighbor and his buddies all wanted to talk about The Godfather movie... to the point where Tony walked over to his neighbor with a box of sand and asked him to hold it for him - just to mess with his neighbors mind...

Well - consider Chase very much like Tony with the box of sand

 

With respect to the misquoted "everything goes black" line from Bobby.

The actual line is actually even BETTER...

For those who have asked "If Tony died, how come we (the viewing audience)
didn't hear a gunshot?".....

Ummm... Bobby said something like "You probably don't even HEAR it when it happens"

That line might have been intended to explain why we weren't spoon-fed the sound of a gunshot.