» 6-16: "Chasing It" 2007.04.29 (recap) Options

[rocketman909]

Man, SVZ has the Italian nuances down...the term he used for Marie when she showed up, I haven't heard that since my father died years ago. Nor can I pronounce it or spell it but.... Not bad for a (I assume) non-Italian-American.

Mezza mort - "half dead"

[Dougrhon]

"I missed the line about the entrails...what was it?

Also, did Tony kill the guy's girlfriend?"

If Tony killed her, I would never watch again. He did not kill her and would have no reason to. He would be more likely to kill Hesh. But he would not do that either. The point of the episode is that Tony does have notions of honor despite his violent temper and generally evil ways.

[Jarret]

I'll jump in here on the side of the minority (?) who were NOT disappointed, and don't feel the need to bitch about David Chase cheating them somehow. I was riveted the whole time.

I don't think we're done with Tony's new gambling problem (which wasn't THAT new, as others pointed out -- it's at least been set up earlier this season). His rationalization to Carmela in their last conversation was NOT coming from someone who's "over it" -- he felt that his overall luck was still high since he survived the shooting. He sounds just Davey Scatino now -- "I'll turn it around! My luck's gonna change!" It's sad and disappointing but poetic that T's turned into the same type of "degenerate fuckin' gambler" he's been exploiting and destroying his whole adult life.

And yeah, poor AJ. CHRIST, she was hot. (Is that shallow? Really?)

[josie27401]

The gambling bothers me. I agree with those who say it seems out of character and sudden. T has always counseled against gambling.

I can see the "flirting with disaster" idea. "Why does every day have to be a pair of socks?" He wants a thrill, some excitement. But it still seems ... kind of overkill. T has always gotten his thrills within reason. If that makes sense.

And I know Tony is a vicious murderer and is only out for himself most of the time. But T does have a softer, more decent side. That’s been the basis and conflict of the whole series. Tonight he seemed more cold and with absolutely no soul. Which I think has been rare in this show. We usually see a conflicted T. not tonight. And with Hesh. I’m still in shock.

No way he had Renata killed. Why bother? He could have killed Hesh, the source of his agita. She died in her sleep and when Hesh tried to wake her, he realized. Migraines - maybe she took pills and took too many. All the women in my family have migraines, including me. One night my mother went to sleep and never woke up. Nothing wrong with her. Massive stroke out of nowhere. Renata had a massive stroke.

I agree that T could then deign to pay him back. Well said, Carrabuda. I agree with you on the Hesh/money part.

Also I’ve had enough of the Vito story. Although I’m wondering if this is somehow going to lead to the last straw with Phil.

ETA: Renata would have been off limits within the construct of the family, wouldn't she? Don't kill innocents unless they give you a damned good reason, right?

This post has been edited by josie27401: Apr 29, 2007 @ 10:08 pm.

[Cosmocrush]

I don't think Renata died of anything other than natural causes -- I mean, T's crew are not ninjas, stealing into the house at night.

I'm pretty sure this is a natural death. How would anyone kill her? Hesh commented on how he gets up every hour or so to pee due to a bad prostrate. And it's not really the mob's style to poison someone so peacefully.

[marleyfan]

Does anyone else feel like David Chase is just saying "fuck you" to those of us who are stupid enough to call themselves loyal viewers?

Yes.

This episode tonight moved slower that Carnivale, in my opinion. When the show was over all I could think of was that I'll never get those 50 minutes back.

Guess I'm still piffed about HBO cancelling Deadwood and Rome.

[joeyguse]

Renatta's death takes me back to Ralphie's comment about Tony that he's like a "dog with two bones." I think the episode purposely had an ambiguous ending so the viewer could ask themselves the question; Is Tony petty and vindictive enough to do something like that? We're seeing Tony now stripped away from his money and his prestige, and we are being forced to ask ourselves what it is exactly we liked about this psychopath. In many ways I think this is Chase's brilliance as he is showing the viewer the villian stripped of all of the trappings that made him desirable.

This post has been edited by joeyguse: Apr 29, 2007 @ 10:11 pm.

[Contralto]

So Vito Jr. hanged a neighbor's cat? And did . . . something to a developmentally disabled girl (who to Tony would be another innocent creature)? Tony was right; he didn't need a dog.

"They're all murderers" was so cold. Bobby wouldn't be one if it weren't for Tony.

Had to laugh when those boys screamed and fled the shower like little girly men.

[Kris]

Man, SVZ has the Italian nuances down...the term he used for Marie when she showed up, I haven't heard that since my father died years ago. Nor can I pronounce it or spell it but.... Not bad for a (I assume) non-Italian-American.

Steven Van Zandt is Italian-American. He was born Steven Lento, but his mother re-married when he was young and he began using his step-father's last name.

[KatrinaD]

I loved it - but I was pissed that the episode was over only 50 minutes in; we're in the home stretch, so gimme my damn full hour each episode, would ya, David Chase?

Word to everyone who mentioned the "entrails" and "Puerto Rican hoo-ah" lines, but no one has mentioned the best throwaway dialog of the night: when Sil and Tony were talking about Vito, Jr. (remember, earlier it had been stated that Vito, Jr. had killed a neighbor's cat), Tony mentioned that Vito's widow wanted to move away. Sil: "That never works. You should get 'em a dog." Tony: "I don't think that's a good idea."

Nancy Sinatra is starting to look frighteningly like Victoria Gotti.

Nothing in this show is done coincidentally, so I'm thinking that Tony telling Hesh that all his friends are murderers has some possible significance down the road.

ETA: Contralto beat me to the punch on the line about the dog. Drat!

This post has been edited by KatrinaD: Apr 29, 2007 @ 10:18 pm.

[rudolf]

I think T had Renata killed.

It was another Godfather nod (dead horse head on bed)

Let me get this straight. Tony had paid something on the order of $6,000 out of a $200,000 debt, was on the verge of being convinced that he should simply not pay the rest of it and that Hesh would have absolutely no way of collecting, but decides to kill his longtime girlfriend and then promptly shows up with the rest of the money? I think people are mixing up Law and Order plots with the Sopranos. The things to think about on in this episode, as in every episode, are numerous. But they usually involve connecting ideas. What does one scene mean in relation to another? For example in this episode what was the impact of seeing the Muslims on the street in Tony's attitude toward Hesh? Why did Vito Jr shit in the shower? Why did Tony soften his position on Hesh after Renata died? etc. This is not a detective show.

This post has been edited by rudolf: Apr 29, 2007 @ 10:16 pm.

[MamaBird]

"I don't care if you have to live in a dumpster after I die!" That's certainly the harshest thing Tony's said to Carm since the shooting. It harks back to his "You are entitled to nothing!" from when she was planning to divorce him. At least he apologized... but I'm really surprised that he said it at all. He crossed a line with that one, and Carm may forgive but she won't forget.

[Terps54424]

Poor Vito Jr. I wonder if we'll ever find out what happens to him in Idaho/Utah, or if this is the end of the Vito family storyline.

Please, please, please be the latter.

I think something's up with Sil. He would've said something in the past. When Tony was talking about taking Marie's $$ and putting it all on another bet (which he lost) Sil was all for it....I think he would've talked Tony down in previous seasons.

I think it's at the point where he knows there's nothing he can do about it. Kind of a "Why bother?"

I think the episode purposely had an ambiguous ending so the viewer could ask themselves the question; Is Tony petty and vindictive enough to do something like that?......In many ways I think this is Chase's brilliance as he is showing the viewer the villian stripped of all of the trappings that made him desirable.

Ugh. I didn't even suspect for a second that Tony could have had her killed, because it's that ridiculous of a premise.

I keep seeing things during these episodes that have me saying "If they keep going down this road, I'm going to be really pissed when it's over."

[TeresaDee]

Tonight really revealed the Tony that's been there all along, minus any filter. Boy, Tony is all ID now--Freud said that is only the case in infancy. He is a big baby afterall :-)

Regarding Melfi's comment re "protocol": I assume in a setting like hers (psychiatrist in private practice, with him calling and paying for missed appointments) she's questioning his commitment to treatment. Perhaps she's finally sick and tired of his unwillingness to change, despite any insight he's gained. If someone is not committed to the process--the basics of which are showing up consistently--it makes sense that she might confront him on this. Of course, that could lead to a breakthrough--which does appear to be coming up soon.

[marty118]

ETA: Renata would have been off limits within the construct of the family, wouldn't she? Don't kill innocents unless they give you a damned good reason, right?

They kill innocents all the time, among civillians. (Like the hooker who was in the car with Phil Leotardo's brother).

Renata wouldn't have been offlimits for two reasons:

1. Hesh isn't Family.
2. Even if he were, the protection only extends to mothers, wives, and minor children. Girlfriends don't count in that sense.

Back to the issue of Tony's gambling: I thought of one other interpretation which is subtle enough that Chase might be interested.

Historically, some rulers who were identified as ruling "by divine right" (that is, annointed by God, not a God themselves), when things were very tense, reportedly would "test their luck" by crazy wagers. The idea was to test and see if the gods still favored them. It was a psychological thing, not a ritual. And the smart ones specifically didn't go crazy with it--they didn't take wild risks in other things, or risk anything politically important. But they would do the kind of gambling Tony's been doing, just to keep reassuring themselves on some level that the gods were still looking out for them. Or maybe (this is where it gets really subtle) convincing themselves that they were smart enough and tough enough to survive even if they didn't have their good luck anymore.

(Note that the truly crazy ones like Caligula declared themselves immortal and took literally insane risks--that's a different kind of issue.)

Some military generals reportedly also had this habit. They weren't addicted to gambling, but in the weeks before an important battle, they would wager really large amounts, more than they could afford to lose. Once the battle was over, win or lose, they went back to their normal behavior.

I wonder if that ties into Tony's comment that he figures he's "up" (or ahead in good luck) since surviing the gunshot, but now, with tensions all around him, he's literally testing his luck in the same way he's been testing the loyalties of those around him.

Or maybe it's just self-destructive.

This post has been edited by marty118: Apr 30, 2007 @ 12:45 am.