The Bleeders: HBO's True Blood, FX's Sons of Anarchy

Vampires and biker bad blood

A A A Comments (3) By Robert Abele Monday, Sep 8 2008

...continued from page 1

But as with any generational mob tale worth two cents, the real change agent turns out to be in the club’s midst. He’s Jackson “Jax” Teller (Charlie Hunnam, his golden-boy looks finally showing wear and tear), club VP and son of another founding member, a young-ish, dirty-blond hunk whose abiding love for his brethren — their mugshots sentimentally adorning the clubhouse’s hallway like family portraits — masks a growing impatience with all the destructive illegalities. While it could be the newborn son he’s just had with his drug-addicted ex-wife (Drea De Matteo, returning to the junkie-moll fold, it seems), or the return to town of an old flame (Maggie Siff, from Mad Men) who escaped the life, what sparks Jax’s awakening conscience is a secret manuscript he uncovers in a storage box, written by his late father, titled “How the Sons of Anarchy Lost Their Way.” And they said reading was dead.

Creator Kurt Sutter hails from FX’s original good-guy gangster series The Shield, so he knows his way around a show that revels in the thrill of being bad while depicting the gnawing pain of the moral gutcheck. But, taking a cue from David Chase’s late juggernaut, he also knows the strength of a ruthless mother figure, hence Katey Sagal as steely-eyed Gemma Teller-Morrow, whose last name signifies her ties to Jax (he’s her son) and Clay (he’s her husband, and Jax’s stepfather), and whose stealth moves in ensuring her son’s ascension — as long as he stays in line and doesn’t dig up the past — indicate who has the firmest grip on the club’s handlebars. Sons of Anarchy has many of the hallmarks of an FX show — male-identified, foul-mouthed and forever skirting the edge of taste — but in Sagal’s character, considering the sexist history of outlaw biker clubs, it’ll be fun watching this Shakespearean power drama play out in the sometimes undeniably silly world of overgrown boys with vroom-vroom toys.

Girl meets vampire: Paquin and Moyer

Biker golden boy: Charlie Hunnam

More About

TRUE BLOOD | HBO | Sundays, 9 p.m.

SONS OF ANARCHY | FX | Wednesdays, 10 p.m.

Check out this week's featured ad for News

Become a State Farm Agent!

View Ad View Website

More Ads >>

Email
to Friend

Write to
Editor

Print
Article

Peter Bardazzi 09/13/2008 11:11:00 PM

While researching the World War II film genre I asked myself �Why are vampire movies always big in America�, after reading your terrific review of HBO�s Trueblood. Answer: Well I think it is a very sexual thing - drinking someone�s blood. But in terms of the horror/vampires genre you have to start by analyzing them as being the "other" just like Aliens was in the 80s film, other than us. Remember vampire movies started very early in the entire horror genre. Their sources were often portrayed as the dark barbarians of Eastern Europe from specific places like Transylvania. They were seen as ungodly and categorized by Western Europe and America, as the �other� to be feared. They also have the power of conversion, which resonates at the core of American culture. In fashion, politics, religion, consumerism, entertainment we all want to be part of something larger and more powerful than we are. The actual conversion, this act of intense initiation is satisfying to the viewer because it is both sexual and violent. They insert their fangs into you and you become part of a greater evil. Frankenstein is different, because he a monster created by science on the screen with roots in western literature. Still he is a monsters but with less cinematic staying power than vampires and zombies because he is missing a sexual component. Even though he has faded, he may have links to criminal robots like in the ones in Blade Runner. Maybe? They were synthetic and Frankenstein was made from human parts. I think Frankenstein was sort of a mirror or ourselves, and just combine that with the concept �sometimes we are our own worst enemies� and you have something interesting. But still they are not as interesting as vampires. On the other hand there seem to be plenty of zombie movies today though they are not as sophisticated as vampires. The American viewer has a hard time dealing with zombies. It is its edginess that producers think will sell the movie but what I think they are selling is the Frankenstein nature dressed as a zombie. The modern zombie does not just appear, we create them and then they come back to punish us. In the beginning there were just random zombies from an unknown origin with no reason to exist. Then science steps into the later movies and we get science fiction mixed with horror. There was even an attempt to remove sex as the normal reproductive process in � Village of the dammed� But in the end vampires are still kind of cool. They can even be sad and loving like Gary Oldman in Coppola�s Dracula, a sort of good guy just like the fallen angel Satan before he went bad. http://www.bardazzi.com/
Rene 09/12/2008 7:00:00 PM

What a paid for PR HBO kiss ass if I ever read one!Did Sue Naegle write it for you herself and sign the check?You should have started it out with"FLAWLESS".While it had the potential for all the cleverness you so eagerly so painstakingly describe,the execution is poor and hokey at best.You are one of the few reviews to give it anything above a C,let alone all your drooling!!!!!!!!Grab a hold of yourself,man!next time don't be so obviously in the pocket!
E 09/11/2008 2:31:00 AM

Isn't this all a little twisted "twilight"-ish? True Blood - Lonely girl in a backwater town that can read minds falls for a vampire that can control his thirst. Twilight - Lonely girl in a backwater town falls for a vampire than can read minds and can control his thirst. http://www.twilightthemovie.com/