Відео

Very kind. Thank you, Rotten Jonni!

Very kind of you, Milo! Thank you. Yes, I am finishing an analysis on "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood." It's taken a lot of time. I'm about two weeks away from publishing. Should publish more regularly thereafter. Thank you again!

Thank you for your feedback here, Jericho. If you watch the finale carefully, I think you can claim that the primary shooter is actually waiting for Meadow to arrive. I think part of the reason he lingers at the counter and looks over at the table more than once is because he was informed that Meadow is meant to be there but she is not there. In this scenario, it would make sense for the shooter to wait. He would want to have everyone who is scheduled to be there present and accounted for before he moves into position. Meadow actually could disrupt the murder in some way if she arrived at the table as the shooter approached, for example. I think the shooter finally decides that he needs to go ahead regardless. In the end, Meadow seated beside her father in that booth would never have been enough to stop the murder plot from moving forward. Beyond that, there is no point speculating about what happens after the lights go out. It could be this way, that way, or the other way. It doesn't matter, really. The only thing we can claim is that, based on the symbolism from the scene, Tony, Carmella, and Anthony Jr. are all killed. There is evidence for that. Okay, man. Thanks again for your feedback.

Thank you for your feedback, General Purpose. The entire framework for the analysis addresses two siblings meeting in a liminal space between the real world and the afterlife. In the analysis, I attribute to the third person present in the scene the task of pulling back the veil that separates these two planes of existence. It is only within that twilight that an embrace is possible. If we were to set the entire epilogue within a dream that Meadow is having, everything remains the same. The symbolism persists; that includes the value of distinguishing between who exists in the real world and who arrives from the afterlife. Even in a dream, the reunion is real and involves a sister who is alive and her baby brother who has been murdered. Concerning your second point, I've made the argument explaining the deaths of Carmella and Anthony Jr. many times. Here, I will simply say, they are collateral damage. If you are prepared to accept that a murder plot unfolds in a busy diner, then you cannot but concede that collateral damage is possible. It is impossible to rule it out. I would argue that there is a glut of symbolic evidence in the finale to support the claim that three murders came to pass. I think if you go back and watch the last three episodes carefully, you'll find that the narrative was already leading in this direction. Thank you again for your feedback, General Purpose. I appreciate it!

Very kind, Mr. Alpaca. Thank you! Have a lot of new work in the pipeline. Next presentation on "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" done soon. I think it's going to be good. Thank you again!

Hi, Slappy. Yes, Agreed. The argument here sets out to demonstrate that all three family members seated at the booth perish. Tony is targeted while wife and son are collateral damage. Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it!

ua-cam.com/video/IQWSi9SOF8I/v-deo.html

Thank you for your response, City Boy. The operating assumption here is that Carmella and Anthony Jr. are not intended targets. They are collateral damage. If we are prepared to accept that a murder plot unfolds in a busy diner, then we cannot but concede that collateral damage is possible. There is no way to rule out that possibility. You may recall that Tony expresses the same claim concerning family in "The Blue Comet" episode. He has alerted Carmella to the outbreak of violence. In an effort to calm her, he states, "they don't touch the family; you know that." This supports your claim. The problem is that Tony says this to his wife at the same time he has come to move her and Anthony Jr. to a safe house. In spite of the inviolable rule against harming family, Tony understands that anyone who may be around him may suffer the violence meant for him. If he can admit that collateral damage represents a legitimate risk, so can we. It is possible to argue that the scene with Carmella and Tony in "The Blue Comet" foreshadows the ending. Remember, Tony was double crossed by Paulie, Patsy, Butchie, and even Little Carmine. They plotted his murder and it has yet to be carried out. This means that Tony was mislead into believing Carmella and Anthony Jr. were no longer at risk in his presence. Their deaths at the diner would then fulfill the very threat he thought he had avoided by moving them into a safe house in the first place. You get the idea. In any event, there is so much evidence to support the claim that all three die; not least because of the ritual of Holy Communion and the corresponding story of the Crucifixion. Anthony Jr. is the lamb who dies to redeem his parents; Tony is Dismas, The Good Thief; and Carmella is Gestas, The Unrepentant Thief. Thanks again for your response!

Very kind. Thank you, Gravyfish! Nearly finished with a script for the next video: Deep dive on "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood." Hoping two weeks to publish. After that will publish several in relatively short succession on "Once Upon a Time" and "Goodfellas" respectively. Thank you for the kind words. More soon!

Very kind. Thank you so much, Bloke!

Very kind of you. Great to hear you liked it. Thank you, Magic Rooster!

Hi, Christopher. Thank you for your response. The premise of my argument is that Carmella and Anthony Jr. are collateral damage. They are not targeted. If you are willing to accept that a murder plot unfolds inside a busy diner, then you cannot but concede that collateral damage is possible. It is impossible to rule it out. As you correctly point out, the scene may very likely become chaotic once the shooting starts. It is within that chaotic context that I would argue circumstances are such that the wife and son are killed. I do not pretend to know how these two wind up dead in the process; it is simply enough to know that it happens somehow. We can argue that it happens (in the original presentation) because there is a tremendous amount of evidence to support the claim. Among that evidence, there is a religious metaphor at work in the finale that requires the death of all three characters. I will state it, but I won't argue it. The three family members (to the exclusion of Meadow) participate in a ritual reenactment of the Eucharist. The ritual of Holy Communion naturally foreshadow the Crucifixion. There, Anthony Jr. is a kind of Christlike figure (the lamb) who is killed as punishment and redemption for the crimes of his parents. Tony is Dismas, The Good Thief; and Carmella is Gestas, The Unrepentant Thief, both of whom accompany Christ on the cross. There is evidence to support the crucifixion metaphor although I don't present that in the original analysis on the finale. Ultimately, the finale operates on a higher religious plane that only foreshadows three deaths, it requires three deaths. Nevertheless, the stark realism of a murder plot in a busy diner is observed; it is collateral damage that allows for a triple homicide. I completely agree with your argument on its face. The best case scenario for the shooters is one and done and out the door. But somehow, we don't know how, it doesn't work out that way. I also agree with your argument that dead civilians, including family members related to a career criminal, create the risk of public outcry which can translate into greater police scrutiny. But think that through. If that risk was actually prohibitive in any meaningful way, the murder plot would have been staged elsewhere at another time. In any event, I appreciate your feedback. I agree with your arguments. I think you just overlooked the premise argued in the original presentation. Thank you again, Christopher!

A+ ua-cam.com/video/7grUgixqH8I/v-deo.html

Hi, Robert. Thank you for your feedback. This is substantive narrative analysis. There are no claims made here without some form of supporting evidence put forward. This also happens to be how well-crafted storytelling is done. Yes, stories have plot, dialogue.characters, context, conflict, and climax. But the meaning we can attribute to these features is deepened and enriched through well-developed, well-integrated layers of symbolism, metaphor, motif, and subtext. If the story is filmed, you can add mise-en-scene, juxtaposition, and all kinds of other visual metaphors to the list. This is what we are watching whether we know it or not. This is what our minds are tasked to absorb whether it registers consciously or not. In this case, I don't think the analysis is particularly exotic. We are joining an Italian family for the last time at dinner, right? It is our last supper with them and they act out the ritual of the Last Supper. Death looms over the family in the finale. The family performs the Eucharist in the shadow of betrayal and in preparation for death. The Last Supper was performed in the shadow of betrayal and in preparation of the Crucifixion. The centerpiece of the finale is modeled on these Biblical references which are especially meaningful among Roman Catholics. Not for nothing, but it is also possible to actually defend the idea that Anthony Jr. is the Christlike figure who dies to redeem his parents; Tony is the Dismas figure (the Good Thief), while Carmella is the Gestas figure (the Unrepentant Thief). Notice, for example, that when Anthony Jr. arrives, his father acknowledges him warmly while his mother does not acknowledge his arrival at all. I could explain how Anthony Jr. can function as a savior figure, but that would take longer. Anyway, thank you again for your response, Robert! I appreciate it.

Very kind. Thank you, Lex!

ua-cam.com/video/gyNcgndnH6E/v-deo.html

Hi, Kelly. Thank you for your response. There is overwhelming symbolic evidence to support the death of all three family members. There is an entire religious ritual revolving around Holy Communion and The Crucifixion that involves all seated at the booth. Conversely, your claims concerning Carmella and Anthony Jr. are speculative and based on limited information. An assassination plot unfolding in public is a kinetic, traumatic, high-intensity event. It is impossible to know how anyone will respond when the shooting starts. It is also impossible to know how the shooters will conduct themselves. The weirdest, most counter-intuitive things can happen in an instant. That is kind of the whole point; it cannot be known. That is why we look for evidence within the scene rather than make claims that cannot be verified. I've heard arguments against the caliber of guns cited in the scene. I also know that many people think a 9mm is the only gun anyone serious could possibly use. I disagree. I think if you're a killer you choose your weapon based on your job. Here, you have two shooters who will converge on a single target. The target sits in a busy diner, in a tight space, surrounded on all sides by patrons. Staff and patrons are moving around on all sides at all times. Under these conditions, you can make an argument for these weapons. The .38 revolver is a physically small weapon; it's easy to conceal; it's reliable; it's lethal; and it’s easier to control than a larger caliber weapon. There is nothing wrong with a primary shooter going to work with a .38 revolver. You say, "nobody uses..." except that Tony pulled a .38 revolver on Butchie in the final season. There is also an argument to be made to support a .22 caliber. The secondary shooter is there for containment. If the target scrambles to get away from the primary, the secondary is there to pick him up. There are two options at that point. The target is either moving closer or he is moving further away. If he is close, the .22 is potentially more lethal than a 9mm. The .22 bullet goes in but it does not come out. Instead it ricochets around inside the body or the head causing catastrophic internal damage. The 9mm is more likely to produce a through-and-through. If your target is moving further away, the .22 has less kick and more control. The shooter can fire multiple rounds with a higher probable hit rate. The .22 is a nasty little weapon. It’s not a toy. One last comment on the .22. If you have two shooters converging on the same target from different directions under potentially chaotic circumstances, I don't think you want your secondary armed with a hand cannon. The chance of friendly fire increases (because the secondary has less control over a high caliber weapon) and the potential lethality of single shot increases. In any event, I think it's a mistake to discount these weapons. Particularly when you’re looking at two experienced killers operating in tandem in close proximity. Anyhow, thank you again for your response, Kelly!

That is very kind of you. Thank you so much, FemcelFurio!

Fair enough. I thank you for your time and attention.

Hi, Small. Thank you for your response. It is not only "how" the onion ring itself is consumed. We have to look at the priority placed on this ostensibly trivial detail. The onion rings should be trivial but they are not treated that way in the scene. How do we know that? To start, Anthony Jr. comments on the onion rings when he first sits down. His father responds to the comment and clasps the boy's hand. Next, Tony looks up at the waitress when the onion rings arrive. Next, the waitress blots out the entire frame upon exiting the scene. Next, Tony comments that he ordered the onion rings for the table. Finally, we see each family member take an onion ring and consume an onion ring. Moreover, they are each shown, one by one in a dedicated one-shot, eating the onion ring in the same way. The focus and repetition of a single gesture among three family members is unusual. Now, let's consider this in context. We are watching the final fleeting moments of a series finale. We can argue that there is a point at which the “cost” of screen time starts to go steadily up as we get closer to the end. In other words, screen time becomes more valuable, more precious to the viewer, as it runs out. If we look at the question of the appetizer through an economic lens, then we can do a cost/benefit analysis. It would go something like this: There is a significant amount of screen time invested in something that appears to add no real value to the scene. The most you can say is that the onion rings authenticate the diner experience. That's not enough to justify the time spent on them. There is an incongruity there. This raises the question: Why do that? Why spend so much valuable screen time and audience attention on something so trivial? Now, you may have your own answer to that question. My answer to that question is that, as it turns out, the appetizer is not trivial at all. It is, in fact, extremely important. It is the basis for a pop cultural rendition of a Roman Catholic ritual. If you don’t like that answer, fair enough. But the question has to be addressed by anyone doing narrative analysis on this scene. You mention Sprite. You ask if it would make a difference if Sprite had been delivered to the table instead of three Cokes. The answer is definitely, “Yes, it would make a difference.” If Sprite had been delivered to the table, that would be incompatible with the image of red wine associated with the ritual of Holy Communion. The dark color is required to form a visual association with the sacrament. As it happens, there were no Sprites delivered to the table, were there? No, we got three Cokes in a keyhole shot instead. Thanks again for your response, Small.

ua-cam.com/video/8bygUnm_Xvg/v-deo.html

@@scenicmedia8624 ah the great ludwig van

Hi, Vince. Thank you for your response. The disclaimer dedicated to the make, model, and utility of the vehicle was not enough I take it. I probably could have done a better job at addressing the issue. Honestly, if I were to make this video now, I would not even raise the possibility that the vehicle in question could be a hearse. Not only to spare viewers an unnecessary distraction; but also because it could never have been a hearse for dramatic purposes. The dreamlike quality of the scene relies on subtle symbolic allusions to life and death. The moment any symbolic element associated with those ideas becomes too literal, the spell is broken. The dreamer wakes up. It is for this reason alone that the vehicle could not be portrayed in a way that is so vulgar and obvious. Filming a hearse on that lot would be about as subtle as portraying the spirit of Anthony Jr. semitransparent. Nevertheless, I maintain the vehicle is meant to look like a hearse "at a glance". There is no question about that. The other thing to remember about the epilogue itself is that it is meant to be absorbed subliminally. Our minds take in so much more information, so much faster, than what little makes its way into our consciousness. The layers of symbolism are how even a short work like this manages to have an impact on the viewer. I have simply slowed the thing down so we can look at what may be going on. I cannot speak directly to your comparison to video presentations from the aughts. I will say that narrative analysis is all about identifying symbolic elements and describing how it is they may reflect and inform the meaning of a given story. Symbolism, metaphor, subtext, and motif are the stuff of narrative. When Chaucer wrote "The Canterbury Tales" in the late 1400s, he gave the sexually empowered "Wife of Bath" character a gap between her two front teeth and dressed her in a pair of red stockings. I will leave it you to work out why that may be so. When James Joyce was completing his novel "Ulysses" in the early 1920s, he produced two schemata to document the symbolic systems he built into the narrative. He includes numbers, colors, shapes and lots of other stuff. You can check them out at the link below. Click on the grid images to view large format. The point is, this stuff has been around a long time. Thank you for again for your response, Vince! Here is the Joyce link: m.joyceproject.com/notes/010046schemas.html

Very kind. Very kind. Thank you, Bob!

Very kind. Thank you, Doctor! I'll share with you one idea that came along later by way of a viewer response. Someone asked why the car associated with Anthony Jr. should be a Chrysler New Yorker. Why that model? Why a "New Yorker"? I thought that was a great question. I think it can be argued convincingly that Anthony Jr. arrives in a "New Yorker" because he is a "New Yorker". While he lived in New Jersey, he died as a consequence of the murder plot devised by "New York". In death, then, Anthony Jr. belongs to that population of murder victims who died at the hands of "New York". It is a chilling pun on a ghastly cohort.

Very kind. Great to hear that you found it interesting. Thank you, Angel!

Very kind. Thank you, King!

You're very kind. Thank you, Roman!

Hi, J. Butler. Thank you for your response. The starting point for my original presentation on the finale is that Carmella and Anthony Jr. are collateral damage. They are not intended targets. If you are prepared to accept that a murder plot unfolds inside a busy diner, then you cannot but concede that collateral damage is possible. It simply cannot be ruled out. Separately, if the safety of family was sacrosanct, as you imagine, you might ask yourself why the murder plot was not set up for another time and at another place. Let's leave that aside. Let's take your claim at face value. The only time I can recall anyone in the series explicitly refer to a codified prohibition on violence against family occurs in "The Blue Comet" episode. In an effort to calm Carmella, Tony says, "Families don't get touched. You know that." While his statement conforms to your claim, the context represents a glaring irony. Tony makes this statement while preparing to move Carmella and Anthony Jr. to a safe house. He argues that it is a precaution. Tony wants to make sure that mother and son are physically apart from him until the conflict is resolved. Tony does this because he understands that collateral damage is possible. If he can acknowledge it, I think we can too. I don't want to muddy the waters here, but I personally think the so-called rule against killing family members is a romantic canard promoted through films and television with great success. Here is an interview with Henry Hill. The interviewer confronts him with the same claim. Listen to his response and ask yourself if it does not have a ring of truth to it: ua-cam.com/video/kBvdRT1P6cQ/v-deo.html

Hi, Vin. Catholic themes featured prominently in the finale. Specifically, the family participated in a recreation of the Eucharist followed by a symbolic representation of the Crucifixion. The narrative inset within the commercial constitutes an epilogue to the finale. The idea of casting Anthony Jr., however briefly, in the guise of a Catholic priest is entirely consistent with the religious theme expressed in the finale. Remember, the symbolism throughout this commercial is subliminal. You are not really supposed to see it, and grasp it, and process it consciously. It is an image that is suggested to you in an instant and then it is gone. Our minds take in a great deal more information than we can process consciously. You may say the image is not there at all. Fair enough. For me, I thought there was enough clarity in the composition; I thought the image had enough of a gestalt to merit a mention. I appreciate you giving the presentation a chance and I thank you for your response!

Very kind. Thank you, Kenneth!

No way, man! You learned something.Thank you for checking out the video. Thank you for your feedback too.. I appreciate it.