Andy, you make some fine points, and clearly, questions of gender are often raised on this brilliant and searching show. But "[i]n the end, the show is a funeral service for our messed-up brand of masculinity?" Really? Forgive me, but only one inducted into the mysteries of gender and media studies can take that seriously. (I am myself an apostate.)
Like every work of art, "The Sopranos" far outstrips the theoretical preoccupations of its interpreters - and thank God for that. If the hoary and tendentious trope of "masculinity" occupied as large a place as you imply, its end would be a deliverance, not an occasion worthy of tribute and commemoration.
For those who missed it, David Remnick penned a fine encomium to its teeming diversity and "largeness" last week. (Below.)
abnobel
"Signifiers?"
Andy, you make some fine points, and clearly, questions of gender are often raised on this brilliant and searching show. But "[i]n the end, the show is a funeral service for our messed-up brand of masculinity?" Really? Forgive me, but only one inducted into the mysteries of gender and media studies can take that seriously. (I am myself an apostate.)
Like every work of art, "The Sopranos" far outstrips the theoretical preoccupations of its interpreters - and thank God for that. If the hoary and tendentious trope of "masculinity" occupied as large a place as you imply, its end would be a deliverance, not an occasion worthy of tribute and commemoration.
For those who missed it, David Remnick penned a fine encomium to its teeming diversity and "largeness" last week. (Below.)
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/06/04/070604taco_talk_remnick