I would be very surprised if Nick comes to an end any time soon. He will likely have to do some dancing to avoid harsh punishment or death. But I think the final scene with him and Fred was one where there was enough ambiguity, that he can plausibly explain his actions as really in Fred's interests. He can say he was trying to protect Fred, who was acting impulsively. Plus don't forget Nick has a lot of inside knowledge that people like Fred don't want to get out. Sometimes I think Nick's is actually the most interesting character in the show. Can't see them cutting that short, especially when so far it's been only third level characters who have been taken out of the show.
The first season is largely faithful to the book. I don't think you ever learn Offred's real name in the book, and IIRC Moira is just a friend from the past that Offred talks to in her journal. It's been a while since I read it, though. Margaret Atwood has been an executive consultant on the show.
I've also been thinking lately about how our current system is not nearly as robust or stable as we once thought. So many processes in our government have been based on "norms" and "traditions," not actual laws. Brazen politicians with draconian views have been taking full advantage of that weakness.
The book is season 1, while there's some more backstory and a few different or more fleshed out characters it's a pretty faithful interpretation.
Absolutely true. But given the state of affairs, even if there were 'laws' in place, who would enforce them when the executive stuffs the DOJ and law enforcement positions with kowtowing stooges? The ultimate corrective is an informed and engaged electorate. Unfortunately, when there is industrial scale gaslighting, targeted voter suppression, dark money including from foreign sources, blatant corruption, media demonetization, etc, it serves to degrade public engagement and the will to find the truth. That is how democracies die.
A review of Season 2 a different take... All the ways The Handmaid's Tale S2 finale got it so horribly wrong
I understand the complaint made by the author of the linked piece. I am not sure I agree with what amounts to the end conclusion, which is that he is more or less saying he cannot and will not watch it for season 3. But it reminds me of what the critic for the NY Times said, which is that the ending amounts to June being transformed from basically an Everywoman character to some sort of hero. Yes, it is for the narrative purpose of establishing a lead into season 3, but in so doing indicates that the main character has been transformed. I quite simply do not like that, if that is accurate, and a number of people interpret the last scene the same way I did. I think it is accurate. This consideration reminds me of one of my favorite films, that being A History of Violence, from 2005. The story there was (with minimal spoilers for those who have not seen it but might want to, as I would highly recommend) basically about a man who was first portrayed as an Everyman, but who we soon see was anything but that. But, the story is exactly about why that was the case, presenting what I thought was a plausible narrative explanation, and in turn then exploring the existential question who was he, and who are we, what we were in the past, who we want and try to be, what we end up being and doing, or what? The Handmaid's Tale is not that kind of story, at least as written by Attwood. In the book and in season one, and even most of season two, the main character is written as a device allowing the viewer to see and feel what Gilead is like, what its particular kind of dystopia amounts to for those oppressed by it. Central to the experience is having a main character who is for lack of a better concept ordinary. It is hard to see the last scene of season two as showing June to be ordinary. I suppose it might have been possible for the writers to knowingly and successfully gone about changing the narrative structure of The Handmaid's Tale to one more like, well, A History of Violence. The problem, though, is that the transformation of the main character, while yes having plausibility in terms of how her prior experience COULD have led to such transformation, is completely undermined by having it shown to us as a sudden transformation. Caused by what? Emily's presence? Emily's commander having been the one who dropped her off? Knowing that he did and what that indicated about the overall situation in Gilead? I have heard those offered as explanations, but they really do not serve to explain her sudden transformation. The problem the show is left with now is that they can't go back on the final scene, since once June is transformed, how can she go back? So they seem stuck with June trying to go about being heroic. The writers chose to make it a sudden transformation rather than one that was building, because they wanted to surprise us with the ending and the change in June, for impact. But in so doing they both bordered on implausible story telling and chose to make an unfortunate change in the whole nature of the story. Well, I will watch and see how well, or not, they pull that off. But I am far from accepting that this was the way to go with the whole series.
Wow, he really missed the point of the finale. This story should be retitled "How I got this Review So Horribly Wrong". Thanks for sharing, it was still a fun read. "June had fought so hard to get out with her child that the seemingly snap decision to hand the baby (still breastfed, remember) off to Emily/Ofglen (Alexis Bledel) just didn't make sense." Actually it makes perfect sense in the context of the scene, season and series. Emily is a friend she trusts to watch over and care for the child, so her need to flee with the baby has been removed. She still has her other child to try and rescue -this season spent a good deal of time showing her connection to her first child and demonstrated that the danger to her was probably greater than she believed in Season 1. June is not a "Super Woman", but rather a catalyst, a small start to something much bigger. And I don't buy that this change in her demeanor is "sudden" at all. The flashback to her conversation with her mother telling her she is not fighting for important causes, but just taking it easy, was injected for more reason than to explain her mother's presence in the colonies -it illustrates that there is a seed of guilt planted in June. She acts on this in the finale and stops acting selfish -she is risking her life to save her child and hopefully (we shall see) bring down Gilead.
Again, it is not totally implausible that June could have made that decision, but I do think is both unlikely and problematic. A flashback to her mother's memory does not explain the sudden transformation into a hero, and more to the point does not make the transformation of the nature of the story itself a non-issue.
I cannot recall any part of what occurred before the last scene that would indicate June was turning into a hero, and ftr that includes her slapping Fred. I think it quite clear that she did so knowing he was in effect asking for it, and his reaction confirmed that was the case. Nope, nothing.
It seems to me that this situation is somewhat akin to The Hitchhiker’s Guide in that each version is tailored to its medium.
I sort of agree, and at the same time disagree. Where I disagree, throughout both seasons we see glimpses of June fighting against the system, versus being ordinary. As an example, when woman are forced to leave their place of employment she is the one that calls it out as absurd and questions her manager. When she's left in the abandoned newspaper office she builds a shrine. Even her role as mistress was a sign that she's not ordinary, especially in confronting the wife. So I don't fully agree that she's ordinary, there's an element of rebellion that she generally suppresses. My view, the role of her mother as a character is to show the true character of June. She has worked to disassociate herself from her mother by leading a more stereotypical life, but it's within her nature. None of this as I recall being in the book -- I think the biggest sign of rebellion from her character is tracing the outline of the Latin text in the closet (it's been many years since I read the book....) Where I agree, I'm curious to see what that last scene means. In some ways, with the music and the cinematography it was so exaggerated that I interpreted as the producers having a bit of fun, breaking from what has been generally a brutal and depressing story. Now, if they turn her into a superhero Gilead crime fighter in season 3, then I'm fully in agreement with you.
I think you have misunderstood what I meant by using the term ordinary. I didn't mean she had behavior that is across the board most common to people. I meant ordinary as compared to heroic, or unique. For example from what I gather it is not common for a woman at one time in her life to be a married man's mistress, neither is it unique or rare. Interesting line though in making the argument that the flashbacks to her mother are meant to show what June's true nature is. Hm. I didn't see it like that, instead seeing how June was not only different but while admiring her mother in some ways was mostly comfortable with how she was different. As for fighting the system, yes, there are times June has, but I think it clear she has not done so in a heroic way. I would like to think that many people in her situation would try and find ways to fight the system. But not all who do will risk all.
I expect the producers were surprised the program did so well, and are now working very hard to keep it gripping for a third season. Current events are lending weight to the interest being shown.
No, it wasn't sudden. The season (and the first) is littered with June's acts of defiance in difficult circumstances. Often these acts of defiance were slight, personal, largely unnoticed externally, but noticeable to the viewer. Her internal monologue would often express her true feelings. Her handling of the letters, a more overt act of defiance. I reiterated before how June said earlier that she could just accept things as they are (regarding the birth and the upbringing of her baby), but decided: "eff that!". She's been on this trajectory ever since she was brought to Gilead, but being in a position of utter powerlessness, could do very little, until the circumstances changed sufficiently where she felt that she could take advantage of a favorable situation, as another like it may not come along again.
I believe her first attempt to flee was prior to her face to face meeting with her daughter. In addition after having just gave birth this would bring up an awful lot of maternal instincts but then how could she just hand of her new born? I guess to know the new baby is out of harms way.
The Golden Age of television is ruining film for me. (And I'm okay with that.) It's all very simple. June did not immediately face the awaiting carriage to take her away. Instead, she watched until the taillights of the commander's car disappeared. It all snapped into place for her that a.) there was a network of Marthas and b.) there was a commander that somehow had ties to it all. Add in the redemption of Serena - handing over the only hope that she had left - and we see June have an epiphany, not a snap decision, to wit, if there was a chance for Gilead to fall, as well as to save her whole family, only June could be the catalyst to make it happen. She realized this, as all of the pieces fell into place as the car drove off. It was a selfless act in selfish world. Now June has Serena, the rogue commander, and a whole bunch of Marthas on her side, not failing to mention a few handmaids with previous ties to an underground movement. She also has a member of The Eye on her side, in Nick. This is a very, very good show, which has gone past the source material to near perfection. It only makes sense that the torture stop at some time, as the inmates begin to slap back. It was a very natural progression for all parties.
I just finished season 2. (Waiting for the eyerolls to finish). I've been extraordinarily diligent in avoiding spoilers, especially for that finale, and all I can say is...JOSH LYMAN (Keep away from drugs)! And Rita. And Emily. And Serena for finally doing the right thing. It did surprise me that June decided not to leave, but it obviously made a lot of sense that she would want to take Gilead down from the inside-but what a gut wrenching decision. That look on her face, and when she said "Call her Nicole" I about lost it. Many of my friends wonder why I watch this show. "You're a glutton for punishment!" they say. It is indeed dark, pitch black at times. But there are moments of redemption and triumph, that while few, make it worth the slog through human degeneracy. I will also say this: Elisabeth Moss has fully met her acting equal in Yvonne Strahovski. Serena Joy might be the most complex character on TV today.
I loved the movie with Robert Duvall years ago. But in spite of all the cable we have at home, we don't have Hulu This show can't be found a season behind on Netflix or anywhere. Real disappointing to me. But I'm not gonna start buying cable service, for stations that have 1 show I want. I'm not gonna cancel HBO & Show Time, that each have multiple shows I like. It's too bad, there isin't a better way to get good programming. Now if I could cut stations I don't want, in exchange for Hulu I would. But of course you can't pick the stations you want, gotta buy the crappy package deals, with a bunch of stations, to get the 5 stations you want.
