So, back to the subject at hand:
I watched the Sopranos for the first season, then dumped it partway through the second. It seemed the show drifted from the interesting anamoly it was into standard Mob stuff mixed with quirk.
And the end, as I saw it on MSNBC the next day, was a gimmick, nothing more. An effective gimmick, yes, but still- lazy writing.
In contrast the Dark Tower series (which I just finished a week ago) has an ending that, while upsetting some of the fans, does actually end. As difficult and tricky as I'm sure it was to write, King still gave the readers satisfaction, as far as closure goes. I'm using this as an example not just because it's recent in my memory, but because King actually stops the narrative before the climax and goes into a mini-essay about the very topic of endings, expectations and closure. Even though he thought his story was best left without an ending, he recognizes the inherent need of endings, even in the loosest minimalist works.
Even Vonnegut and Beckett give us endings, even if they are elliptical and open. "And so on" and "I will go on", while pointing the absence of story-like climaxes in real life, DO provide an ending in that they tell us that, yes, these characters continue on.
But jarringly cutting to black in the midst of plot-driven tension tells the audience nothing. Chase had to choose: Meadow or a hitman. Either of these two characters entering could have allowed for a delicious open ending (Meadow: "So, they have this moment... but Tony could still get it"; hitman : "Okay, Tony's gonna' get it, but what happens to his family?"). Or any other of possible combinations. But to just have a partial reaction from Tony, then cutting to black is a cop-out, plain and simple.
To contrast, I suggest any of you who have seen it to recall the last episode of Twin Peaks. Open- yes, a cliffhanger- true; but at least you get a proper climax.
And so on.
PRINT 
E-MAIL POST