In the NYT, Amy Winehouse > James Gandolfini

The daily paper I started at in the 1980s ran Jean Stapleton's obit on its A1 on a Sunday. It was the main package and took up three-fourths of the page. She was 90 years old. I mean, I love "All in the Family" as much as anyone, but ...

There was not one staff-generated story on the cover. In fact, there was only one such story in the entire A section.

Same paper that fired a guy for putting the recent Cleveland kidnapping story on A5. Of course, the last paper I worked for buried that story on B1. At my current shop, we re-made A1 and the Cleveland story was the main package.

 

This Philly writer has Tony Soprano at #2. And Blossom at #1.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/joe_mason/top-tv-characters-of-all-time----in/article_64a38966-269c-5f1f-823c-6a6002b450eb.html

 

Entertainment Weekly has Tony Soprano #4 of 100 greatest characters of past 20 years. Homer Simpson is #1.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/06/01/100-greatest-characters-of-last-20-years-full-list/

 

I'd say they did.

Even though it's "only" a refer, top right of the page with a huge mug shot almost as big than the blue ball pretty much = putting it on 1A.

 

At least they teased his death on A1. Just as good as starting the front with 6 inches and jumping the rest.

Best character in TV history? No.

 

USAT decision only strengthens my belief the NYT dropped the ball. USAT is middle brow news for the proletariat. The NYT is for people who continued to read books after graduating from college. They're assholes who lead us into phony wars and take the side of attention-hungry loons like Martha Burke, but they have actual taste in the arts.

The people who don't get why Gandolfini is a NYT 1A story are the same folks crying that The Dark Knight and Inception didn't win an AA for best picture.

That the drooling masses would rather watch Blue Bloods or Friends reruns is not a point in your favor here. And btw, if you put MASH or All In The Family on today, about 4 million people would watch it. So historical comparisons that try to use ratings -- against a pay channel no less -- are ridiculous.

 

H.L. Mencken just exploded all over his computer.

 

That is nowhere near the point anyway.

The argument was INFLUENCE. And in a 1,000-channel universe, a show on a pay channel watched by 2-4 percent of the population cannot, by definition, have significant influence.

None of this is anyone's fault. Nor is it an indictment of any show. People don't say "I don't know of anyone who watched the Sopranos" as evidence the show wasn't anything special. They say it to seriously question how much influence a show could have when they see zero evidence of such influence.

In 1938 people were INFLUENCED by a radio show enough to believe that we were being attacked by aliens. Good or bad, real or phony, radio had influence.

No show --- TV or radio or streaming internet or anything --- can accomplish that today.

 

If you don't recognize or can't acknowledge the influence The Sopranos had, a subject that has likely inspired a billion words in the last decade from cultural critics, then it's absurd to be arguing over this. You're not actually dealing in reality. And, once again, the original point of this thread is not whether Gandolfini had widespread popular impact, but whether he and the show had a widespread impact within the high art/liberal world the NYT caters to.

There is no "evidence" that All in the Family had a larger cultural impact than The Sopranos, only the belief that it must be true because one time Sammy Davis Jr kissed Archie Bunker. It may very well be true, actually. But the reason many of you don't believe the same about The Sopranos is not because it isn't worthy as a piece of art, but because you actually haven't been paying attention.

 

Oh, I paid attention. I watched every show new on Sunday night, watched them again to warm up for the next season, read Sepinwall every week, and read the book he wrote that seems to be your Bible.

It was a great show. My favorite ever. But this whole thing about Tony Soprano being the most important thing that ever happened to TV is a product of two things: 1) the BEST EVER culture popularized by ESPN; and 2) the need for bloggers to be provocative, meaning it was never enough to just say it was great.

 

I'm on Dick and H.L.'s side here. But I was on that side when I first clicked the thread. There are some damn good arguments being made for the other side.

However, I'll take the thread title in a different direction that only LTL has touched on. Amy Fucking Winehouse got an obit on A1 of the NYT? That's the upset here.

 

In many respects, we agree. The "He's the bestest evar!!!" conversation in sports makes me want to guzzle bourbon and throw a book at my television. But in this case, James Gandolfini really was one of the best television actors ever, and I think a lot of people who study television would (and have) put him in that conversation. I don't know that, ultimately, The Sopranos goes down as the best show of all time. I think The Wire, even with its implausible and revenge-porn of a final season, has rightfully earned that title. In fact, until this most recent drab season of Mad Men, I was enjoying it more than The Sopranos. But The Sopranos is the Jackie Robinson of television. It changed the game entirely for the good. And if you want to argue that Lucille Ball is Babe Ruth and Carol O'Connor is Ted Williams, I will not object. Alan Alda is probably more like Mickey Mantle -- talented, flawed, inspires warm, weepy feelings in a certain generation of men. But television is richer and better now than it's ever been (and better than current movies, frankly) because of The Sopranos. (People who genuinely believe movies are better, right now, are still clinging to 1970s nostalgia.) And without Gandolfini, the show does not work. And if it doesn't work, we never get five seasons of The Wire, we certainly never get Mad Men, we might get one season of Deadwood, and who knows if anyone is open to embracing Walter White down the road. And to answer your quip earlier about Michael K. Williams dying, I would be sad, but hardly crushed. He was a fun, interesting character, but in no way we he (or any actor on The Wire, honestly) as important to television as Gandolfini. The Wire was about a universe. The Sopranos was about a man. (They're both about American, really. But enough of that big talk. I suspect it would make dooley_womack poop his pants if we really delved into it.)

I realize there is a need to elevate everything that JUST happened into the biggest event in history. But Gandolfini really was a hugely influential figure in an extremely important medium. To argue Tom Fucking Selleck is a bigger deal is just about the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever heard in a television discussion.

And while we're still circling this subject, the mere fact that Gandolfini was very important figure to the New York/New Jersey metro area should have been what sealed the deal for the Times. There are a lot of actors who make New York their home, and they can hardly be considered locals. Gandolfini was a New York/New Jersey guy. I know the Times likes to believe it's a national paper when it suits the situation, but it still speaks to a New York/Jersey readership, especially in print. Some editor clearly just wanted to get home without ripping up the front page, perhaps so they could catch up on The Amazing Race or Dancing With the Stars. Gandolfini would have smiled and thought that was perfect, I suppose.