What is your opinion of the episode entitled "Christopher"? Everyone seems to hate it, but it's actually one of my favorites. In addition to being very funny, it's dead on in the way it shows how members of groups who have been victimized--Italians, blacks, Jews--not only tend to be absolutely convinced that their group has suffered worse than any other group in history, but also tend to get angry when this belief is challenged.

In one scene, a Cuban claims that "Christopher Columbus was no better than Adolf Hitler" (something I don't agree with, by the way). Hesh not only accuses the man of "trivializing the Holocaust" (completely ignoring the fact that what happened to many American Indians in the years after Columbus was anything but "trivial," in fact, it's easily comparable to what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust) but goes on to accuse the man of being an anti-Semite.

Another thing I liked was that while the episode explores the Italian/Indian confrontation concerning Columbus, it refuses to do so in a conventional, "politically correct" fashion. Neither side is let off the hook. Particularly great is the scene where Tony and his crew are negotiating with the "Indian chief." Silvio says "No offense, Chief, but you don't look much like an Indian." The man reveals that he actually only has a tiny bit of Indian ancestry--one person on his mother's side (I forget who right now) was one-fourth Mohawk. He says this doesn't matter because he had a "racial awakening" when he was younger. Tony points out that this suspiciously happened just when the Indian casinos were starting up. Without hesitating, the man flashes a smile and says, "Better late than never." Brilliant scene.

What are your thoughts on the episode?

It's one of those episodes that wants to discuss its issues quite obviously, which is fair enough, but it's undone by implausible characterisation for me. It's funny and tongue in cheek, but I remain unconvinced that Silvio is suddenly humming and harring over racial stereotyping and going to the lengths that he does in order to defend himself in the name of Italian pride.

That said, it's a very interesting episode and oozes deliberate contradictions. But if Chase and his writers are giving Tony the (surprising?) voice of reason - and perhaps their own? - by finally attacking the notion of 'Ethnicity as Identity' in a world where racial stereotypes are not only 'politically' incorrect but factually incorrect (Paulie claiming to be Napoletan in 'Commendatori' when in fact it's his first visit to Naples!), where perhaps do they suggest social identity does reside?

I'd argue class tensions stem in the first place from the development of private property - ownership of slaves and so on - and with it, the need to turn self-expanding capital into imperialism - that is, exploitation in the guise of 'exploration', or an aggressive foreign policy that seeks to absorb the riches of lesser developed peoples by directly or indirectly destroying them.

Through the historical development of capitalism and its modern form of established bourgeois Liberalism, you get identity politics that arise from false self-perceptions and the tensions between these 'identities' become products of misconception (such as 'racial' tensions arising in real life when workers 'lose jobs to immigrants'); so that you get a lot of working class resentment - and because of the economic instability of capitalism, sometimes the middle classes, as in during inevitable crises - against other working class people with 'race' or 'culture' blamed, when it's the system itself that has fed such communitarianism. Globalisation isn't the same as internationalism; one seeks to exploit the Other and thus turn it against itself, the other seeks to embrace it.

H. Peter Steeves writes, "Inevitably, globalism, free-market capitalism, cosmopolitanism and even democracy as it is practiced for the most part today are but the modern faces of imperialism and colonialism - the same forces that have enslaved the Indians, sent societies out in search of new land and people to conquer, and made it such that people ever felt the need to settle away from their homes in search of better jobs and a higher standard of living."

Steeves is also right to note that "Tony doesn't see this". Given the self-contradictory nature of the show itself, which seemingly argues against ethnic politics whilst being itself indebted to a great deal of Italian-American portrayals before it, and to the gangster genre in particular, I'd have to argue that Chase doesn't either.

This episode resulted in Loraine Bracco and another cast member (I can't remember who off the top of my head) not being allowed to attend/take part in the real life Christopher Columbus parade right?
Was it the episode or was it something the actual actors said outside of the Sopranos?

Yeah: Lorraine Bracco and Dominic Chianese, Dr. Melfi and Junior respectively. I hadn't heard about that before, but Wikipedia leads me to two pieces:

>>> ABC News: 'Sopranos' Banned From Parade

First the Emmy snub, now this?

Officials for New York City’s Columbus Day Parade are banning the cast of The Sopranos from marching in next week’s procession, due to the show’s less-than-P.C. portrayal of Italian-Americans.

David Chase, the show’s creator, is staying mum on the ban, but the rest of the show’s cast isn’t. Katherine Narducci, who plays the always disapproving wife of Tony’s pal Artie on the HBO series, tells the New York Daily News, “This is a television show! We’re acting! Get over it! If you are taking it that seriously, then you have a problem.” Michael Rispoli, who played the dying don Jackie Aprile on the show’s first season, also griped about the ban: “Unfortunately, what will be missed at the parade is the celebration of the fact that David Chase and James Gandolfini and Michael Imperioli and Edie Falco are all Italian-Americans who have put together a fantastic show that is watched by everybody out there. And, unfortunately, for them not to be celebrated as Italian-Americans, as actors, playing in a show that everybody watches, I think that’s where the crime is.” The show and its mob characters were previously hit with protests from the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations.

>>> NY Times: Sopranos out of tune with parade

Columbus Day Parade organisers banned the Mayor from bringing The Sopranos, writes Michael Cooper from New York.

There was something bothering Charlie Romano on Sunday about the Mayor, the parade and the Mafia television show.

No, he was not offended that Mayor Michael Bloomberg had invited the actors who play Uncle Junior and Dr Melfi on The Sopranos to the Columbus Day Parade in Manhattan on Monday. Nor did it upset him that the Mayor decided to skip the parade on Monday after its organisers went to court to bar The Sopranos actors.

The thing that bothered Romano on Sunday as he watched the Mayor march in another Columbus Day Parade in the Bronx was that Bloomberg had not brought any of his actor friends. "Hey, Mayor!" Romano, 40, shouted as the Mayor's entourage passed by. "Where are the Sopranos?"

It was a question repeated several times along the route as Bloomberg - who wrapped himself, literally, in an Italian flag - made his way through the Bronx to the police marching band.

Yes, there were a few boos when Bloomberg reached the reviewing stand. But a majority of people along the route greeted the Mayor with cheers and handshakes, and one woman even gave him the flag that he donned. Many of them said they did not care that the Mayor had wanted to march with the actors.

"That's like saying that Marlon Brando can't march because he once played the Godfather," Romano said.

Some school cheerleaders even told the Mayor that he "rocks".

The Mayor, for his part, took his warm reception in the Bronx as evidence that some people take these things - actors playing mobsters - too seriously. "I think, you know, we should all lighten up a little bit," Bloomberg said at the end of the parade route. Bloomberg told the crowd, "It's great to be in the Bronx, and it's great to be at a parade where you can march with all your friends." (Actually, a Bronx parade organiser said later that The Sopranos cast would not have been welcome at that parade, either.)

One of the women who booed Bloomberg, Martha Parisi, said that she wished he had found more positive role models to march with.

"Yes, it's a show, and we understand it's all comedy, but it's a lot of bad language, it's a lot of things that we don't believe in as Italian-Americans," she said.

The Columbus Day Parade began to rival the St Patrick's Day Parade for controversy over who gets to march after the news got out last week that the Mayor planned to march up Fifth Avenue with the actors, Dominic Chianese and Lorraine Bracco. The organisers, who say The Sopranos denigrates Italian-Americans, went to court to block the Mayor from bringing the actors, and won. So the mayor decided to skip their parade.

Still, Bloomberg said that even though he was boycotting yesterday's Columbus Day Parade on Fifth Avenue, he hoped city workers would march. "It will be a great parade and people should have a good time, and people should celebrate everything that those of Italian descent contribute to this city," he said.

Dr Joseph Scelsa, an organiser of the Bronx parade, said the Mayor would have sent the wrong message by marching with only actors from a Mafia show and no other actors.

"When you come in with only those people, then you're making a statement," he said. "I don't think the Mayor realised it."

Both of those refer to the Columbus Parade(s) of October 2002; "Christopher" originally aired not long before, on September 29.

Thanks Capo, that sheds a lot more light.
I think it's crazy they weren't invited, as after Katherine Narducci says, they are merely actors portraying these people, not the actual people themselves.

Lorraine Bracco's role in particular is a positive one: Melfi's quite consciously meant to be a moral counterpoint to Tony's gangsterism.

It's ironic, considering the obsession in the show itself of characters like Richard LaPenna, Melfi's ex-husband, towards negative portrayals of Italian-Americans.

You can't create art about the mafia---in literature or on film---without showing that that the characters are of Italian descent. While it's true that less than 1/10th of one percent of Italians in America are in the mafia, the mafia remains 100 percent Italian. Therein lies the rub.

That's why I've never been offended by that particular portrayal. If you're going to do a realistic mob film, they can't very well be Norwegian, can they?

It's the portrayal of Italians as dummies that bothers me more than Italians as gangsters. Let's be honest. A character like Joey Trebbiani on "Friends" does more to insult the image of Italian Americans in one 22 minute episode, than "The Sopranos" did in 8 years on television. That's not to say that I don't like "Friends." I do.

It's just that these "interest groups," like the Columbus Day Parade committee, almost always pick the wrong target. They're all full of shit, anyway. A few years ago, right after that Columbus Day Parade, that very same group met for lunch at one of the most mobbed up restaurants in the Bronx. So if you're an actor playing a mob guy, you're not welcome, but it's okay to eat amongst real life mobsters on the very same day as the parade.

Fucking hypocrites.

If by "the mafia" you mean made members, then yes (although I've read that some families--at least at some point--only required that someone have an Italian father in order to become a made member). But it should also be noted that there are many more associates than made members, and they do not have to be Italian. In fact, a number of very prominent associates have not been, such as Jimmy "The Gent" Burke (who was affiliated with both the Lucchese and Columbo families) and Gus Alex (who was an important member of the Chicago Outfit).

I didn't find Melfi to be that likable, honestly. Just because someone's not a criminal doesn't mean they're sympathetic or likable. Actually I found Tony much more likable than she was! Her dumping (as a patient, of course) of Tony in "The Blue Comet" was unprofessional and downright cowardly. She didn't have the guts to tell him what was really bothering her (the study she had read about), so she provided completely bogus reasons for dropping him as a patient. It was a really shitty thing to do.

Additionally, I didn't admire that she didn't tell Tony about being raped. And to those who say she did the "moral" thing, remember that this man could easily haved raped (or killed) another woman in the future. If your daughter was raped and/or murdered, and you learned that Melfi could have prevented it by telling Tony what happened to her and who did it, you would hardly think she did the right thing by keeping quiet.

Yes, Vito. I meant made members. And you're right about the associates. Anyone who can swing an axe is eligible .

The half-Italian rule (on the father's side) seems selective, at best. Junior Gotti and Craig DePalma (son of the deceased Gambino skipper Greg DePalma, and comatose after a suicide attempt seven years ago), are both at least part Jewish on their mothers' sides. In short, if your father's a heavyweight mafioso himself, they're more likely to bend the rules for you than if you're just a hustler off the street.

Melfi's professional competence might be questionable, but that she's 'made it' as a Doctor - something that Tony himself is in awe of throughout the show - is enough to put her in the 'positive representation' category alone. I never said she's likeable or sympathetic (though I'm not saying she isn't); I said her role is a positive one.

So Tony's capacity for violent retribution, outside the confines of not only the legal system but general human morality, is something to admire and respect?

If Tony kills Jesus Rossi, he's hardly struck fear into the hearts of all of society's rapists; it should go without saying that 'one more dead' isn't any kind of feasible way to deal with something as socially destructive as rape, nor is it any way to support its victims.

Moreover, why for that matter would we not 'disown' Tony for refusing to kill Ralphie right after the latter brutally murders Tracee? There's little logic to your argument.

Why does Melfi have to tell Tony for Rossi to get his 'comeuppance'? She could have pursued it in any way she pleased once she saw Rossi's face on that 'Employee of the Month' card.

It's presented the way it is because Chase and his writers have point-of-view on their side; the show is framed through Tony's viewpoint, and it can be quite appealing to then see events through his moral outlook.

Pizzaboy, that's a great point.
I think what Sopranos has done to the Italian-American cultural impression on others is nothing compared to the damage that say Jersey Shore or stereo typical characters like Joey from friends have done.

Vito, I agree with you in the fact that I also didn't warm to Dr Melfi too much. I found her very awkard at the best of times. Understandably this was the character she was playing and she does so very well, but there are times when Tony walks in to her office and she just sits there... Saying nothing, she's unusual. I think the part she played was important and Lorraine Bracco did great, don't get me wrong. Just as a person I found her very cold, professionalism aside.

On the moral side of things, the Police made a slip up and had to let him go on a technicality so I don't think there was any further course of action she could have taken, legally.
Everyone wanted her to tell Tony so we could see blood, see some real justice but it was a powerful moment when she said 'No'. (or what-ever the phrase was).

I don't think that simply telling Tony what happened and who did it (without actually asking him to do anything illegal in response) would have been illegal. Yes, common sense dictates that if you tell a Mafioso who likes you that you were raped and identify who the rapist was, it's extremely foreseeable that violent action will be taken. If Tony told her he was going to do something and she didn't go to the police with this information, I'm pretty sure she could be charged as an accessory or conspirator. But otherwise, I don't think she would technically have done anything that broke the law. It wouldn't be enough for a prosecutor to say it was common knowledge that Tony was a Mafia leader and she knew this when she told him. Remember that during the entire series, law enforcement was never able to prove in court that Tony actually was a criminal at all! Knowing something from a common sense standpoint doesn't necessarily mean it can be proven legally.

You're setting up a straw man here. No one's saying that if Tony killed or severely maimed Rossi it would have "struck fear into the hearts of all of society's rapists" or that it would "deal with something as socially destructive as rape." But neither does the legal system do these things. What some do say is that it would have been real justice (as opposed to legal justice). It is just wrong that someone can do that to an innocent person and walk away on a technicality. And I'm not at all sure that the idea of Tony avenging Melfi's rape is outside "general human morality."

Your reference to Tony and Ralphie is misplaced. Tony only didn't kill Ralphie right after the latter killed Tracee because Ralphie was a made man. And Tony eventually did do it. The justice system was never going to rearrest Rossi.

And your statement that Melfi could have pursued justice "in any way she pleased" sounds very hollow. Rape is not something that someone should get a slap on the wrist for. The only punishments that seem commensurate with the crime are prison or some violent extralegal punishment. The former was ruled out when Rossi was released. The only other realistic options would have been either for Melfi to tell Tony what happened or for her to go after Rossi herself--the latter obviously being far riskier for her than the former.

No, but then given your argument, even if she was breaking the law by telling Tony, it shouldn't matter all that much with your apparent moral outlook.

If it isn't 'dealing with' something as socially destructive as rape in some way - i.e., seeking 'justice' in response to it, which is a way of dealing with it - then what's the use of Melfi telling Tony about it at all?

Melfi recognises the potential for bloody revenge when she confesses to Elliot some satisfaction in knowing that she could, should she want to, tell Tony about Rossi. She also recognises that ultimately, Tony hurting Rossi or worse isn't going to bring much lasting, if any satisfaction to her.

This is a curious stance, which places all the moral obligation onto the victim, in spite of how traumatic a rape actually is.

My argument isn't a straw man because I'm not convinced that Melfi would be doing 'the right thing' by 'preventing' one rapist from further rape when the issue isn't as singular as that; if your 'daughter' (or son for that matter!) was 'raped and/or murdered' and you found out Melfi 'could have prevented it', why wouldn't you then ask her why she wasn't preventing other rapists from raping people too? Or, what if your daughter (or son, or mother, etc.) was raped and you found out Melfi had told Tony about Rossi? Would the judicial responsibility then befall Tony?

This is very idealist. It neglects firstly the shocking trauma that Melfi has had to experience; the rape itself, then the 'technicality' that allows Rossi to go free; the fact she has professional obligations to her patients, whilst telling them for various reasons that she was in a car accident; then of course are the psychological effects of a rape, which the show doesn't go into: Melfi's own possible guilt, fear of certain public spaces, distrust of men, disdain of the police and the legal system, possible racial profiling, etc.; all of which would affect her domestic, social and professional lives.

Apparently, none of this matters. Melfi is not to be admired for deciding against seeking out Jesus Rossi and preventing him from hurting others in the future; forget the responsibilities she has to herself - she has a responsibility to all future rape victims!

This actually makes my Ralphie example even more relevant than it already was:

Firstly, as I've argued here, Tony lashes out at Ralphie behind the Bing! because Ralphie is openly and verbally rude to Tony, not because he killed a stripper about whom Tony is blatantly indifferent throughout the same episode. That's the actual tragedy of Tracee's episode; not that she's killed - brutal as that is - but that her death is completely skirted over immediately. She's another piece of exploited business to Tony (via Silvio), whereas Ralphie earns more than her.

Saying Tony eventually 'did do it' (kill Ralphie in "Whoever Did This") implies he was waiting for his chance to avenge Tracee, which isn't the case. Tony kills Ralphie in the immediate aftermath of Pie-O-My's death, convinced by his own irrational, childish tendency toward a violent expression of grief, that Ralphie was responsible for the stables fire. Tony says as he strangles Ralphie, "She was a beautiful little creature, what did she ever do to you?" Later in the same episode, Tony looks at a photo of Tracee backstage of the Bing!, inviting us to read into the earlier words; either way, even if Tony was referring to Tracee and not Pie-O-My as a "beautiful little creature" (extremely out of character if so), it's his irrational way of justifying his current murderous actions; for me, it doesn't wash.

Tony didn't kill Ralphie because the latter was 'a made man'? Right; you might argue that had nobody stepped in, Tony and Ralphie would have fought to the death there and then. But the others did step in, and it is Ralphie, once the others have held Tony back, that reminds Tony he is a made guy. I'm not sure that Tony thinks these kinds of things through as he's doing them; he certainly doesn't when he strangles Ralphie to death in Ralphie's own kitchen.

Also, don't forget that at the moment Tony kills Ralphie - because of a dead horse, not a murdered stripper - Ralphie is not only still a made guy, but Tony's highest earner. And, as a final point on this 'misplaced' reference, do you think we should question Tony's moral priorities when, as you put it, he chooses not to dish out 'justice' after Tracee is killed 'because Ralphie was a made man'? Ah, the noble traditions of the Mafia!

Anyway, the further relevance of this reference is the gap in your logic: if you 'didn't admire that [Melfi] didn't tell Tony about being raped', why is she less likeable than Tony when the latter doesn't immediately prevent Ralphie from murdering further strippers?

Or the option she does take, of course.

To all of the material effects of the rape I listed above, we might add, had Melfi sought 'justice' in the way you envisage, her double guilt about doing so. She's a complex, moral character, not surrounded by murder and death in the way Tony is; she might tell Tony about Rossi on the spur of the moment and feel good about it, might feel some satisfaction... but after that, when she realises that she was still raped and that she's set into motion events which would probably end in the death of a worker (and a good one, apparently) who is also somebody's son, who might also be a father, a boyfriend, etc., etc...?

I'm in no way justifying rape, here, but all of these things make your apparently simple solution to the situation more of a moral conundrum than you're making out, no?

I return to a telling point from you that I've already quoted:

"The justice system was never going to rearrest Rossi."

No, and so it's the justice system as it is consciously presented in the show - plausibly representative no doubt of real life - to which our anger and energy should be directed.

Not to Rossi, per se, not for me anyway; but then I find the episode contrived, one of the show's weakest, actually. Regardless, though, I feel much more outrage when Richard rings the police and finds out about the technicality than I do when I see Rossi's face on the 'Employee of the Month' placard.

Turning vigilante isn't the positive thing to do, and on those grounds, nor could I ever say it's 'the right thing' to do. Understandable in certain situations, but most likely a product of a desperately narrow viewpoint.

If you think vigilantism is always bad, you should believe that the U.S. should never have come into existence at all. The Founding Fathers clearly took the law into their own hands--it's never been legal anywhere to rise up against your government.

Haha, the catch 22 of revolution.

I wanted to respond to something you said earlier. You said I was arguing that Melfi had a responsibility to future potential rape victims to tell Tony about what happened to her. That's not what I was saying. I'm not Dr. Melfi. She had to make a decision on whether or not to tell Tony based on her own conscience and her own principles. The decision was hers to make. But just because someone has a right to make their own decision about something doesn't mean that I or someone else doesn't have the right to be disappointed about that decision if it wasn't what we were hoping for. Suppose I hope that Clint Eastwood will make another western (I don't, but let's just suppose for the sake of argument). Eastwood is totally within his rights to decide (as I believe he actually has) that Unforgiven will be his last western, that he will never make another one. But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be disappointed about his decision if I wanted another Eastwood western.

I raised the issue of possible future rape victims not because I believed this made Melfi obligated to tell Tony, but because I feel it's something that must be considered in evaluating whether it would have been "moral" for her to tell Tony. I don't think it's at all obvious that telling him would have been the morally wrong thing to do like many people seem to say without even thinking about it.

Well, you said (with my italics), 'If your daughter was raped and/or murdered, and you learned that Melfi could have prevented it by telling Tony what happened to her and who did it, you would hardly think she did the right thing by keeping quiet.

I responded to that with the same logic the argument itself required.

Why would you be disappointed?

I suspect it's because you want Rossi to get some sort of 'comeuppance', right?

Why is it Melfi's responsibility - Rossi's victim - to make sure of this? If you say it isn't her responsibility, then why would you then make a judgement after her decision not to tell Tony?

Isn't Melfi's 'moral predicament' a direct result of bureaucratic injustice?

So what do you want to happen from Melfi's decision to tell Tony?

For Tony to arrange a hit on Rossi and for Melfi not to suffer from some delayed backlash of extreme guilt, both personal and professional?

Your logic weighs heavily upon the victim. You haven't responded to any of the other issues I've brought up.

I'm not going to continue this discussion any further. I've made my attitudes on this subject abundantly clear. Your main gripe seems to be that I don't agree with you. Well, tough. If everyone agreed with each other there wouldn't be debates like this in the first place.

Haha, if my main gripe was that we disagree I wouldn't have spent the effort I spent in questioning your arguments.

Sorry if I offended you, I guess.

I don't think you can compare any of these groups to one another they have all had their day, and their say. As far as comparing Columbus to Hitler get out of here with that garbage. Columbus did not try to kill off a whole race. The episode was vey good I think also.

great episode but Columbus was no hitler the best part at the end in the car ride back when tony is bitchin at sal saying you didn't get anything in life b/c your calabreese you got it because your you and your good at what you do. whatever happned to gary cooper the strong silent type?