HBO has been running a documentary about “The Sopranos”‘creator David Chase. I rewatched his series recently: I wouldn’t call it an ethics drama, for the ethical issues are pretty clear in every episode with the possible exception of the psychiatry ethics conflicts involved in treating a gangster. That, however, is very much a tangential plot line. The series, all seven seasons, is exactly as excellent as its reputation, and Chase, as the creator and show-runner, deserves all the accolades he has received. I just wish he hadn’t stooped to the cheap and typical woke-speak that “The Sopranos” is about America, capitalism, and its decaying “dream.” Ah well. He lives in Hollywood, so I shouldn’t expect anything different.
But I digress…
As Chase talks about the series, however, a stunning fact reveals itself: he doesn’t understand his own creation, particularly from an ethical and psychological perspective. Chase keeps describing his central character, Tony Soprano, as a “bad guy,” “a monster,” and “a sociopath.” Yet the entire premise of the show is that Tony isn’t a sociopath, but a man trapped by his family background, culture and socialization into a lifestyle that only a sociopath can flourish in, and Tony has a conscience. This is why he keeps having panic attacks and is clinically depressed, and why seeks the help of a therapist. It is why he gets emotionally upset about the mistreatment of dogs and horses, and in many cases, the people he is responsible for killing.
If Tony Soprano were the character his creator says he is, then the show would be just a lower-class, New Jersey updating of “The Godfather,” about people comfortable functioning in a Bizarro World culture with a parallel morality and ethics codes. The Corleones are sociopaths; when they say “It’s just business,” they mean it. That’s not Tony.
(The Showtime series “Ray Donovan,” about an Irish mobster’s son who works as a high-priced “fixer,” has a similar central character (wonderfully played by Liev Schrieber). Ray is brutal, and is trapped in the wake of his greedy, inept, ethics-free father, but his fatal flaw is that he cares about people.
I realized the first time through “The Sopranos” that the writers were losing their grip on the character in the last season, when Dr. Melfi, Tony’s therapist, was convinced by her therapist that Tony was just a typical sociopath using her sessions to hone his manipulation skills. At the time, I remember thinking, “Do the writers really believe that? How can they?” And yet apparently they did, under the guiding hand of Tony’s creator.
This is a weird thing about some artists, even great ones, that I’ve noticed before. Once I was running a post-show talk-back session about a drama my theater company produced featuring a brilliant, layered, fascinating portrayal of a disturbed middle-aged mother by a renowned local actress. During the discussion, our star was asked about her character, and gave a long, actorly explanation of how she saw the woman….and it was completely shallow, reflecting none of the depth and intelligence of her actual performance. I was shocked. The complexity of the character had come through the actress, even though the actress didn’t understand what she was communicating.
Tony Soprano, in great part to the magnificent James Gandolfini, came through to “The Sopranos” audience as as a man haunted by profound ethics dilemmas and conflicts, lacking the tool to solve them. Too bad David Chase wasn’t paying attention.
He missed a hell of a show.
Ethics Alarms 
Great art shows up in the damnedest places, despite all odds.
Neurology may provide some insights into the actress and producers cluelessness.
Neurologists have done studies on people who’ve had the connections between their left and right lobes of their brains severed. They isolate the right lobe, and ask a mild ethics dilemma, and get a thoughtful, ethically balanced answer. They isolate the left brain, and get a scary, selfish, utilitarian answer.
One specific example was asking which person acted with malice: a nurse trying to poison someone, but using the wrong ingredient and the patient surviving, or a nurse being given the wrong medicine, and the patient dying.
The patients who answered with the right lobe would recognize that the first nurse was acting in a deliberately evil manner, even though she failed. The left brained patients only saw the consequence the death she accidentally caused, and said the second. (The second was perhaps neglegent, of course).
Other experiments have given one lobe a task, and they ask the other lobe to answer why they did something. For instance they might display something to the left eye (seem by the right lobe), for example the word rabbit. The left arm will point to the a picture of a rabbit. The neurologists will then ask the patient in their right ear (heard by the left lobe) why they pointed to that picture. The left lobe, having no idea, will make something up, like “Because it was brown”.
Because everybody has two lobes, but sides of the brain are constantly guessing at what the other is doing. Both are usually good enough that it produces a credible illusion of sanity.
I suspect something similar may be happening with the actress and producer. Their right lobe has developed a deepunderstanding of the character and ethical dilemma’s he faces. Their left lobe, however, is just going along for the ride. The left lobe also more directly controls the vocal chords, so is more likely to answer. This the actress and producer give shallow answers to very thoughtful and deliberate performances.
However, people can be thoughtful and reflective, and reconcile their two lobes. This is why most people can can talk to themselves. Ethical behavior is easiest when people are reflective and under why they do what they do, rather than just passively make shit up.
I also suspect most calluous behavior comes from shallow thinking. Most don’t connect to the right brain and get a nuanced view of the world. They stay in left brain, utilitarian mode. Thus people drive like lunatics. There goal is getting from point a to b, and don’t consider the danger to others. Their brains have the proper neutral connections, so the could drive safely and considerately, but don’t.
In my own life, I got straight A’s in English in highschool, because I would read a book, sit down, and type a brillant essay about it, and wonder where the heck that came from. I’d stare at the essay question, completely stumped, until inspiration struck and words just poured out. I also struggled (relatively speacking) through math class, a mostly left brain subject.
Shallow thinking by people with intact brains seems endemic in our culture. Most people shuffle through without reflection, but just a little more reflection, and letting nerons fire across the corpus callosum between the lobes could go a long way towards building more ethical society.
This is very helpful Rich, and the kind of discussion I was hoping to prompt by mentioning the David Chase phenomenon, which has puzzled me for a very long time. Analogizing it to monkeys typing Hamlet by chance didn’t quite do the trick.
I have seen this loss of control in many shows. The most aggravating was probably in the Battlestar Galactica reboot. I didn’t start watching it until later in the run and was trying to catch up. When I found out that there were biological cylons who were capable of sexual reproduction with humans, I thought I knew what the show was up to. As I followed along, it looked like my envisioned plotline was happening, and then it all went weird.
Envisioned plotline: Humanity broke off into several groups. One group was very logical, emulating machines. They invented cloning and consciousness transfer to create a seeming immortality and they rejected primitive reproduction in favor of this cloning immortality. With each transfer of their cosciousness, however, some memories were lost. Eventually, they forgot they were human and believed themselves to be machines. They invented a myth of being invented by biological organisms, humans, but revolted from their civilization. This sets up the conflict between the colonies and the Cylons. It also provides a resolution. The final 5 are realizing who they are, and can act as intermediaries to make the rest of the Cylons realize that they are actually human and their hatred of humanity is misplaced, resolving the series.
How it worked out: Humans did break off into several groups. One group invented the download and cloning technology, but the Cylons forced the humans the Cylons completely human bodies which are the original copies of the current Cylon groups. Then, Starbuck becomes an angel and leads the colonials to Earth where they find primitive homonids that are genetically compatible, they send all their ships and technology into the sun, and wait for the Cylons to come back and wipe them all out. The end.
Now, my favorite ethically conflicted character is Londo Molari in Babylon 5. His story arc:
(1) Ambassador from a formerly powerful empire, not decaying and mocked by other worlds. His world comes under attack from their former slaves (the Narn), and his nephew is held hostage. He has to humiliate himself and beg a younger race to help him keep his nephew alive. He has a dream of being killed by the Narn ambassador in the future.
(2) A new power comes in quietly and offers him revenge. He takes it. He makes his empire powerful again, feared by all. He is warned by a seer that he is touched by darkness and has 3 chances to save his soul.
(3) He realizes the price for this power is not worth it and quietly works to remove himself from this secretive group, the Shadows.
(4) The Shadows play to his weakness, and get him to work for them again. Only later does he realize that he has been played (blowing his first chance). He works against them in secret, taking control of his empire and working against the Shadow’s goal of dominating all worlds, asking his attendant to kill him at one point to save his planet.
(5) He has a biological control mechanism secretly implanted in his body to control him. He manages to resist this long enough to free the leader of the resistance (chance 2) and to let the Narn ambassador kill him so that the Shadows don’t find out what he has done (chance 3).
In all, the story of a moral person who does terrible things for ‘the greater good’ and ends up having to sacrifice his life to make up for his mistakes. He is a side character in the series.
IMHO, the best part of that is the journey from bitter enemies to trusted friends between Londo and G’Kar. Context is everything and our first look at the scene of G’Kar killing Londo looks like something VERY different than what we later learn it really is.
This is the difference between make-it-up-as-go-along writing and having a definite plan in mind for the ending before you even start. (I’m looking at you, Disney Star Wars Sequel Trilogy!)
–Dwayne