We are in an odd season. Here we are celebrating things that "go bump in the night". TV and movies have joined the festivities. So, with little hope of finding "Harvest Party the Movie”, what is a Christian to do?  

If we look in the Bible, what do we see in regards to evil and monsters?

From Cain and Abel to the martyring of the two witnesses in the book of Revelation, we see all manner of evil acts by all manner of people. The prophet Daniel sees a vision of monsters attacking the world, John sees a great dragon chase a woman to devour her baby.  Even the living creators that encircle the throne of God have a monstrous edge to them. So if the Bible does not shy away from evil, and even monsters like demons, dragons and Satan himself, what do we do with modern depictions of them?
 

First, the Bible tells us in Ephesians 5:11 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."   As Christians, it is not only our duty to avoid participation in evil, but to show evil for what it truly is.

Film writer/director Scott Derrickson told World Magazine "Horror is the genre with the most sensitive moral compass. No other genre defines good and evil better. No other genre allows for spiritual and religious  ntent more than horror...The danger of the genre is that it can easily cross over into exploitation"   So what is being shown to us in the movies?

In "The Screwtape Letters" C.S. Lewis said that demons (the teachers of evil ideas 1 Timothy 4:1) either want us to believe that they do not exist or be obsessed with them. We see this in film today. Most movies that include monsters and images of evil are either harmless because we do not believe in "real” evil. Movies like Scary Movie" and "Casper" just use these images as something to laugh or cue at. Or, in "Tim Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas", darkness is just there for goth teens to say "cool" under their breath. Then there is the other side, focused too much. Movies like "Freddie vs. Jason" and "Scream" present killings and evil in a pornographic manner for us to revel in.  

So do we ever see anyone get it right?

Movies that present evil as something hideous and terrible, and at the same time, not something to revel in? J.R.R. Tolkien said that the best "fairy" stories are not primarily concerned with the fairies themselves, but he people in the stories. The magical element helps us to see a bit of the human condition. The same is true of the best monster movies. It turns out that monsters of the 20's, 30's, and 40's  were just that. The idea of many was that turning from God and His natural order produces monsters.

Dracula  was a parody of Jesus, an anti-Jesus who was stopped by the power of Christ. It was a graphic llustration of the biblical fact that those who are living in their sins are dead, though they live. (1 Timothy 5:6) Frankenstein was trying to take the place of God and create a person in his own image. Dr. Jekyll was trying to separate himself from his evil side without God. Instead he created and fed a monster who was a personification of his "fleshly lusts" (thus the name "Hyde"). Movies made about these characters don’t allways stick to the source material, and thus the original symbolism. (While the 1940's version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde expanded on the Biblical symbolism, “Mary Riley” is  Jekyll and Hyde story that tones down the human nature - sin stuff.) Some just take the monsters and use them for cheap thrills with no real meaning (“League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, “Van Helsing”).  

You can see a biblical use of monster symbolism in the vampire flick "The Addiction." Here being a vampire is only the full realization of your sin nature. A philosophy student (played by Lili Taylor) deals with the problem of evil in the world as she fights her longing for blood now that she is a vampire. She goes through every philosophy of dealing with her sin nature from Buddhism (with Christopher Walken) to Hedonism
(one of the grossest scenes in the film). Finally (Spoiler) with quotes from "R.C. Sprol" she takes communion and Jesus Christ is the answer to vampirism and our sin nature.  

In "Deceived" a group of scientists, clergy, and military men are trying to contact aliens. Here they are trying to use these communications from the aliens as a source of salvation outside of God (though the more they interact with the alien's messages, the more they are driven to horrible and sinful acts from greed/lust to
murder).  (Spoiler) The source of the transmissions is demons and Biblical salvation is the only way to protect yourself from its influence.  

In M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" the people are surrounded by woods where horrible creatures live, but  he movie is really an experiment in human nature. It explores the question: "Is society the cause of evil, or is man inherently sinful?".

In his earlier film, "Signs", the monsters are aliens in the sky. As Mel Gibson and the rest of the cast worry and wonder about the creatures’ existence, M. Night's movie asks the question: "If there is something evil coming to you, is God there to take care of you?".  

Aforementioned filmmaker Scott Derrickson invites the audience to consider if it's possible that a spiritual world could exist in the courtroom drama/demonic thriller "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".  

Then, on the other end of the scale, there is the Frank Perettie adaptation of "The Hang Man's Curse". A highly trained Christian family takes on a school that is plagued by cult activities and its curse. The feel is on a par with "Buffy/Angel" style production and speaks to the issues of suicide and the sanctity of life.

Also from Perettie, The Visitation is a “direct to video” horror... e r… creepy film. A Midwest town is put on the map when miraculous signs start invading their benign existence. From supernatural healings to the likeness of Jesus’ face in the stained tile of the bathroom wall, everyone is touched by the accompanying message : “He Is Coming.” Revival meetings start. One pastor (Randy Travis) believes this may be demonic. One former pastor (Martin Donovan) believes this may be linked to the ritualistic murder of his wife. One mom  (Kelly Lynch) is fearful her son (Noah Segan) is in danger and the son, along with most the town, believes that a messiah has come for them… and maybe he has.

You could go back a couple more years to "Bless the Child." Here a little girl is anointed by God to lead many to Him. Thus a demonically powered cult (with a "new age" cover) tries to destroy the girl. It's a b movie with
it's heart in the right place. The problem with this one is that it is not clear if the girl is a "type" of Christ Biblically pointing to Him with similarities) or a "new Christ" (blasphemously replacing Him).

Finaly, we have "Pirates of the Caribbean - The Curse of the Black Pearl". Here we get a ghost story with pirates, and Johny Depp... how cool is that. Once again, going against God creates monsters. There are plenty of refernces to Biblical Christianity to say we are going with that world view. The Pirates have stolen gold from heathen gods, and now, they have wealth and power, but no pleasure. The greed for wealth has poisoned everything else, creating creatures that are not dead, but they are not really living. There is also
a great conversation that goes in very well with Matthew 6:21.

What is Your Recommendation?

Maybe this October 31, you will want to have a little "truth about evil" film festival while you and your friends enjoy popcorn and snacks, as you hand out full-sized candy bars (with invitations to your church youth group and "Do You Want To Know God Personally" books strapped to them) to any spooks that happen to interrupt, as they pass by. Who knows, a "Hey, whatcha watchin’?" may turn into one of the most important conversations of their life.

Part 1: Marvel Heroes | Part 2: Marvel Teams | Part 3: Marvel Villains | Part 4: DC Heroes | Part 5: DC Teams | Part 6: DC Villains | Part 7: Miscellaneous

WATCHMEN: DR MANHATTAN

Portrayed by: Billy Crudup [Watchmen (2009)]

With what I'd imagine is a mostly CG-character, I think the film makers would've found it pretty hard to get the film counterpart wrong. I mean he's just blue, bald, and naked. They could have hired anyone from the Blue Man Group really.

WATCHMEN: NITE OWL

Portrayed by: Patrick Wilson [Watchmen (2009)]

The film makers obviously decided to use a much younger cast compared to the aging comic book characters. The movie version Nite Owl has a better costume and smaller beer gut.

WATCHMEN: OZYMANDIAS

Portrayed by: Matthew Goode [Watchmen (2009)]

The costume change here is probably the most significant of all the Watchmen characters. It still works I guess but takes away from the narcissistic look of the character. We'll just wait and see how Matthew Good plays the role.

WATCHMEN: RORSCHACH

Portrayed by: Jackie Earle Haley [Watchmen (2009)]

Undeniably the most interesting of all the Watchmen characters, I can't wait to see how Jackie Haley portrays him in the movie. On the official movie site, Rorschach's mask's ink blots are seen changing shape so I'm wondering if this is just a gimmick or will they do this in the film as well. It would be very distracting but at the same time creepy-cool.

WATCHMEN: SILK SPECTRE II

Portrayed by: Malin Akerman [Watchmen (2009)]

Judging by the trailer and publicity shots, I think the producers decided to make Laurie very sexy & vixen-like as opposed to the sweet-with-a -nasty-side, girl next door character we see in the books. I don't mind as I still have fond memories of Malin Akerman taking her top off in Harold & Kumar Go To Whitecastle.

WATCHMEN: THE COMEDIAN

Portrayed by: Jeffrey Dean Morgan [Watchmen (2009)]

I actually thought The Comedian was being played by Robert Downey Jr when I saw the trailers. Again what we see in the movie is a very young version of the character so we'll see how this all pans out.

WATCHMEN: SILK SPECTRE

Portrayed by: Carla Gugino [Watchmen (2009)]

I've been a Carla Gugino fan since her Spin City days. How ironic that I get to realize how incredibly voluptuous she is in her role in Sin City. I'm not looking forward to seeing her as an aging bitchy woman in the non-flashback scenes for Watchmen though.

THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN

Portrayed by: Sean Connery/Alan Quartermain [LXG (2003)]; Naseeruddin Shah/Captain Nemo [LXG (2003)]; Peta Wilson/Mina Harker [LXG (2003)]; Tony Curran/Invisible Man [LXG (2003)]; Stuart Townsend/Dorian Gray [LXG (2003)]; Shane West/Tom Sawyer [LXG (2003)]; Jason Flemyng/Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde [LXG (2003)]

I thought this movie was fun. Not great but just fun. The director Stephen Norrington did the original Blade movie so he knows his way around comic book inspired action flicks. The costumes in LXG were great and so were the effects. I admit I have never read the books but I especially like the portrayal of Captain Nemo. He really seemed strange, exotic, and even alien.

JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Portrayed by: Matthew Settle/Green Lantern [JLA TV Pilot (1997)]; Kim Oja/Ice [JLA TV Pilot (1997)]; John Kasir/The Atom [JLA TV Pilot (1997)]; Michelle Hurd/Fire [JLA TV Pilot (1997)]; Kenny Johnston/The Flash [JLA TV Pilot (1997)]; David Ogden Stiers/Martian Manhunter [JLA TV Pilot (1997)]

The less said about this unaired TV pilot, the better.

Next up, the plethora of DC Villains!!!

Men jag ville bara klargöra det, att jag är som vem som helst. Jag kunde vara din granne, syster eller hon i kassan på konsum. Den där glada, friska, energiska tjejen. Som emellanåt drabbas, likt en epileptiker eller en astmatiker, av anfall som helt suddar ut livsglädjen och skrattet och i värsta fall får henne att tro att hon är ful och äcklig eller omöjlig att älskas eller någonting annat outhärdligt. Ibland är det så illa att hon knappt står ut att ta ett enda andetag till. För att dagen eller veckan efter skutta in i fikarummet på jobbet och älska precis hela världen. Jag är Dr Jekyll och Mr Hyde. Det syns inte utanpå, men jag är sjuk inuti.

The main “superheroes” of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen include Allan Quatermain, Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll/Edward Hyde, Hawley Griffin and Mina Murray.  I put quotes around the word superheroes since the question must be asked if the aforementioned characters are actually superheroes.  Allan Quartermain, Captain Nemo, and Mina Murray do not have super powers but this does not mean they are not super heroes.  Batman doesn’t have super powers and an archetypical superhero.  Allan Quartermain and Captain Nemo are the literary grandfathers to Batman.  Allan Quartermain and Captain Nemo are men of adventure that belong to the world of pulp fiction that preceded comic books.  Can pulp fiction heroes be superheroes?  Both types of fiction are similar. The main difference would be that comic books went a step farther and emphasized more incredible and futuristic elements due to the ability of comic books, as a visual medium, to awe young readers with incredible pictures.

By putting all these fantastic characters in a more fantastic world than they originally existed in, Alan Moore has clearly made the pulp and/or sci-fi heroes into super heroes.  Alan Moore has done the opposite of the dictum of H.G. Wells, the original creator of the Invisible Man. The Invisible Man is a member of the league.  H.G. Wells stated that you could write about Martians or invisible men but not invisible Martians.  Comic books go in the opposite direction and if Martians are interesting then an invisible Martian like DC’s Martian Manhunter is even more interesting.  Superheroes are the baroque version of science fiction and that’s one of the reasons I love my comic books!

There is no comic book within a comic book since these heroes were from books not comic books.  On the other hand, Alan Moore has created a universe were all fictional literary characters imaginable coexist in a single universe.  Every character in the series is from a literary piece and half the fun of reading the comic book is figuring out what work of fiction the character is from.  There is also an atlas of this world in textual form that is incredibly intricate and takes universe building to another level!  I suspect compiling the atlas probably took Moore more time to write than writing all the other reboots together.

There is also not a superior level of characterization in Moore’s material compared to the source material since the original material were great works of literature rather than obscure comic book universes.  Moore does take the original source material into a darker realm as he does in other reboots.  Mr. Hyde beats the Invisible Man and then sexually assaults the Invisible Man, finally killing him!  The Invisible Man had betrayed Earth to the Martians and, worse in the eyes of Hyde, hurt Mina Murray.  Hyde also eats a Martian in front of the other Martians for fun and the purposes of psychological warfare.  For some reason this version of events was never shown in the movie of the same name. 

I do want to mention that the movie and the comic book are very different both in plot and tone.  The movie is very typical, feel good, sell popcorn, movie fare.  The comic book is dense with literary references and much darker than the movie.  The characters in the comic book are much more fleshed out and less heroic and more human than the same characters in the movie. 

Mina Murray is a person weak physically but strong of will and mind who wins the affection of Mr. Hyde, the love of Quartermain and the respect of Nemo in a way that is believable.  This character was written out of the movie altogether!  The only comic book character that is even vaguely similar to Mina Murray is Spiderman’s aunt May, another character whose will allows her to surpass her physical frailty.  Quartermain, in contrast to the portrayal by Sean Connery in the moview, is portrayed as an old broken man that has been in the deepest slums of India smoking opium and is only saved by the strong will of Mina Murray.

The “do the ends justify the ends” question is explored again by Moore.  Germ warfare is used to destroy the invading H.G. Wells style Martians.  Moore rightly assumes that characters of the Victorian age would find such behavior shocking and immoral.  This is before WWI and WW II desensitized us as a species to such behavior, unfortunately.  Because of the strong characterization and incredible universe building, I would rank this reboot number two of the five reboots this series will examine.

Leitores afoitos podem perder o fio da meada e não entender nada – ou pior, achar que entenderam. Normalmente é o meu caso, que já sou afoito por natureza. Por essas e outras, me dispus a ler a orelha do livro, o prefácio, as notas de rodapé, e finalmente os comentários de outras pessoas mais instruídas que também leram, para só então estar certo de que a obra não se trata de mero devaneio literário. Lógico que selecionei as opiniões. Não dei, por exemplo, a menor importância para comentários de gente tenebrosa, como aquele senhor que atende por Stephen King, o qual viu o livro como exemplo da mitologia do lobisomem. Bem, cada um vê de acordo com a sua realidade. Também vi gente classificando o livro como de terror e mistério. Sou chato o bastante pra discordar. Pra mim se trata de uma obra para ficar na prateleira das “Obras Que Colocam o Dedo na Ferida”, logo ao lado da “Isso Aqui Também Fala de Você”. Enfim, algo que tem muito mais a ver com psicologia, psicanálise e psicodelia.

 Hmm... Stevenson seria mais médico ou mais monstro?

Embora a história tenha caído no domínio público, talvez haja entre minhas três leitoras alguém que não saiba do enredo. Bom, para bem resumir, e me fazer entender, é sobre um  tal de Dr. Jekyll, que produz uma fórmula para liberar seu lado devasso. Médico estimado e reconhecido por todos, muito bondoso, também sentia desejos de se divertir (infelizmente o livro não diz que tipo de diversões). Mas depois, sempre vinha a culpa. Com a fórmula que fez, seu corpo sofria uma transmutação, e ele virava uma outra pessoa, que era a exterioração de seu lado mal. Podia se divertir à vontade, o nosso pobre médico. Sem culpa alguma, afinal ele era outra pessoa, e bastava tomar a fórmula para voltar a ser o pacato Dr. Jekyll. O Mr. Hyde (o lado mal da força) fazia coisas abomináveis, chegando inclusive a pisotear uma criança, e a matar um cidadão de respeito por motivos fúteis. Enfim, aos poucos o Dr. Jekyll foi perdendo o controle do Mr. Hyde.

E ao contrário do que podemos ler no livro, em geral, não há aquele aspecto tão repugnante em sua aparência, que a todos causava visível mal-estar. Os descendentes de Mr. Hyde foram, conforme passavam as gerações, aperfeiçoando suas técnicas de maquiagem e camuflagens. E conseguiram isso de tal maneira que agora, depois de tanto tempo, já não é mais possível distinguir quem é o médico e quem é o monstro. Ambos tem a mesma aparência agradável. Mesmo as atitudes agora são parecidas. Quem foi que disse que o Mr.  Hyde não pode dar uma de Dr. Jekyll? Quando o monstro aparece na televisão, ninguém diria que é ele. Fala tão bem, articula tão bem as palavras, parece tão decidido. E promete coisas maravilhosas. Mal vemos que num instante houve uma transmutação, bem diante dos nossos olhos. Mr. Hyde só vai ser descoberto daqui a alguns meses, talvez anos, envolvido em algum escândalo de corrupção. Até lá, vamos continuar achando que se trata do querido médico.

Tenho uma amiga que, por motivos diversos, virou prostituta. Ela também é descendente de Mr. Hyde. Mas ao contrário de seus demais primos, continua com o aspecto repugnante que era característico ao personagem do livro, seu ancestral. O Dr. Jekyll, na carta que escreveu explicando o seu segredo, afirmava que Hyde chocava porque só tinha o lado mau, e não o lado bom e o ruim, como as pessoas normais. Pois foram esses genes que a prostituta herdou, e todos temos repugnância a ela. Obviamente, só há o lado mal nela. Fenômeno assim acontece com todos os nossos julgamentos infelizes. Vemos no outro apenas Mr. Hyde. Nós, surpreendemente, mantemos a nossa aura de equilíbrio, austeridade e conformidade, de acordo com os costumes da nossa sociedade. Teimamos em achar ligação com Dr. Jekyll o tempo todo. “O inferno são os outros”, disse aquele tal de Sartre, cuja frase tive o prazer de descontextualizar agora.

Quando o médico perdeu o controle do monstro, começou a se transformar em Mr. Hyde nas horas em que menos se esperava. Sentia um formigamento, seu corpo se agitava, e em questão de segundos, lá estava o homem do aspecto desagradável e deformado tomando o lugar do bondoso e respeitado cidadão. Assim são os fregueses da minha amiga. Quando saem de casa, estão se sentindo normais. Pessoas de bem que freqüentam a alta sociedade, e que mantém um círculo de relações com pessoas das mais distintas. Gente bondosa e estimada por todos. Mas inexplicavelmente, quando se encontram com minha amiga, é que se percebe a transformação. Homens honrados fazem coisas que jamais se espera deles. Os relatos que ouço me impressionam. Desejos impensáveis para pessoas desse gabarito. Stevenson queimou a primeira versão do “Médico e o Monstro”. Certamente devia ter algo a ver com esses homens.

O médico fala algo importante no livro: “Posso me livrar de Mr.Hyde quando eu quiser”. O Dr. Jekyll realmente acredita nisso, e está certo. Mas pouco faz para que isso se concretize. Com o tempo, a presença do monstro vai se tornando rotineira. Vai abrindo concessões. Se torna mais conivente com seus desatinos. Afinal de contas, é uma parte dele – ainda que seja uma parte ruim. Quando resolve fazer um esforço, o monstro fica acalentado dentro de si por algum tempo. Mas pedindo uma nova chance, querendo sair e voltar a fazer tudo que gosta e sente prazer. Enfim. Dr. Jekyll não resiste mais. Vai correndo tomar a fórmula, e  Mr. Hyde está a solta novamente. Realizados todos os seus vis desejos, volta a tomar do mesmo líquido, e Dr. Jekyll retoma o comando. Sem culpa alguma, nem nada que possa comprometer a carreira e a honra desse médico. E o pior não é isso. O pior é que de tanto se acostumar com a presença de Mr. Hyde, o Dr. Jekyll vai morrendo. Toda a sua bondade aos poucos vai sendo diminuída. O plano maléfico de Mr. Hyde está dando certo, e lentamente ele tomará conta do médico. O tempo consegue fazer tudo. Dessa vez, terá que fazer um imenso esforço para voltar a forma original, para ser o compassivo Dr. Jekyll. Alguma semelhança com algo da sua vida?

Li alguém comentando que havia um pouco do médico e do monstro nos terroristas. Falavam também que havia muito deles num padre pedófilo. Não duvido que seja assim. Mas as pessoas realmente não conseguem assumir nada. Há um pouco do médico e do monstro em você tambem. Admita, não fique culpando os outros. O médico faz atividades filantrópicas. O monstro tem segundas intenções, está interessado nas vantagens que a publicidade de seus atos trará. O médico é casado. O monstro olha as pernas daquela morena que passa na rua. Dr. Jeyll parece ser uma boa pessoa. Mr. Hyde só pensa nos seus lucros. Dr. Jekyll pensa em salvar a África, o Haiti, o Iraque e o time do Coritiba. Mas Mr. Hyde não deixa, está mais preocupado em adquirir o novo celular, que faz de tudo, até mesmo telefonar, e em que alguns meses já estará obsoleto. Mr. Hyde vai ao shopping e volta cheio de sacolas. Quer o conforto. Todos os seus desejos humanitários morrem na primeira mordida de um Big Mac comido no Marx Donald’s. O médico fala em pena de morte porque tem pena das vítimas. O monstro faz média, sabe que a Constituição não permite. Nos habituamos com a presença de Hyde. Stevenson custa a crer, mas seu personagem está difundido onde menos se espera. Acabamos com ele quando quisermos. E não acabamos.

Depois de tão longo texto, o melhor que temos a fazer é descansar. Penso com meus botões se acompanho Jekyll até a livraria ou vou com Hyde a uma festinha. Me lembrando do que acabei de falar, escolho a companhia do médico. Hyde, teimoso, quer ir comigo. Chamarei o encanador bigodudo.

 Vontade de descansar pulando em cima da vontade de fazer farra

Vídeo com trechos do filme do "Médico e o Monstro", que alguém mais pra médico disponibilizou:

Link no iu-túbe: http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2jbp2QeDk

Henrique Luiz Fendrich

René Réouven est injustement oublié ; en tous cas, il n'est pas aussi fêté qu'il devrait l'être. Auteur notamment d'un whodunit parodique et acide sur les moeurs académiques et littéraires, dont votre serviteur, honte à lui, a oublié le titre mais pas la chute, René Réouven s'illustre ici dans une évocation à la fois joyeuse et sinistre du Londres victorien, où il jongle en virtuose avec des personnages aussi délicats qu'Oscar Wilde (encore lui) et le Dr Jekyll avec son double en embuscade. L'intrigue, assez serrée, permet de naviguer entre les clichés d'époque sans jamais se fracasser dessus...

Un savant invente une machine à pénétrer dans l'esprit. C'est l'époque du scientisme d'H.G. Wells, les machines étonnantes ne font peur à personne. C'est en effet la personne qui est dangereuse... bien plus que la machine.

"...sous la surface lumineuse qui s'offre à l'observation intérieure, s'étend une région obscure, inexplorée, peuplée de phénomènes subconscients dont nous ne percevons que les effets atténués et modifiés..."

Une image s'est subitement imposée à moi, image absurde, mais qui puisait sa force dans son absurdité même : j'ai pensé à ces poissons des grandes profondeurs, dont la cohésion organique n'est maintenue que par l'énorme pression de l'eau, et qui éclatent lorsqu'on les ramène à la surface.

Bonne  plongée.

Chez Denoël.

E’ possibile pensare alla nuova stagione televisiva quando gli autori stanno scioperando da più di due mesi senza tracce di speranza di trovare un accordo prima possibile?
In America, il paese dove “tutto è possibile”, sì. E così circolano le prime voci delle nuove serie che dovrebbero andare in porto per il prossimo autunno, anche se stiamo parlando di progetti totalmente in via di definizione, per cui, nulla è certo.

Le nuove idee vengono da casa Fox e Fx, e trattano temi non proprio innovativi: una serie avrebbe come protagonista una famiglia, l’altra il tema più che noto del “doppio”, con chiari riferimenti alla storia di Dr. Jekyll e Mr.Hide.

“Anarchy”, il primo titolo per la nuova stagione proposto da Fx -che ci ha abituati a serie fuori dal coro come “Nip/Tuck”, “Dirt” e “The shield”-, è un drama con protagonisti padre e figlio, a capo di una banda di motociclisti chiamati “Sons of anarchy”. La sceneggiatura è stata affidata a Kurt Sutter, già al lavoro su “The shield”, mentre tra i protagonisti dovrebbero esserci Charlie Hunnam (nel 2000 in “Queer as folk”), Scott Glenn (di recente ne “The Bourne ultimatum”) e Katey Sagal (vista in “8 semplici regole” e voce americana di Leela in “Futurama”).

Alla Fox, invece, puntano sul classico: “Inseparable”, infatti, già scritto per la stagione 2003/2004 da Shaun Cassidy (creatore di “Invasion”), dovrebbe muoversi sulla linea narrativa di uno dei romanzi più famosi al mondo, ovvero “Lo strano caso del Dr. Jekyll e Mr.Hyde” di Robert Louis Stevenson.

La storia, quella di uno psichiatra forense paralizzato con una doppia personalità che lo porta ad essere anche un criminale, corre il rischio però di seguire le orme di un altro “sdoppiato” della tv moderna, ossia l’ormai acclamato “Dexter”. Ancora nessun ruolo è stato assegnato, ed in questi giorni sono partiti i casting.

Due titoli la cui certezza non è ancora totale, ma che sicuramente rappresentano un barlume di speranza nel buio futuro che lo sciopero degli autori sta riservando ai grandi network ed ai loro telefilm.

Hab mal ne Kerze aufgestellt.