Note: This post addresses plot points from the first three episodes of The Handmaid’s Tale season three.
The Handmaid’s Tale returned for a third season on Wednesday, under his eye and ours. The Hulu adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel grows more disturbingly relevant with every episode, its crimson-colored attire and elimination of bodily autonomy for anyone who isn’t a cisgender man refusing to remain relegated to the page.
But is its timeliness reason enough to keep up with the series, especially after the second season capped its unrelenting bleakness with a bitterly disappointing finale? Going into the show, we expected it to be a challenging, even dispiriting, watch, and showrunner Bruce Miller has delivered on that promise. The performances have been excellent across the board, but the cruelty was often the only point the show seemed to be making once it went off-book. By the time June (Elisabeth Moss) was gliding along to the most on-the-nose needle drop in the show’s history (which is saying something), several A.V. Club staffers felt the decision wasn’t motivated by characterization so much as the need to keep the show going.
Allison Shoemaker and editorial coordinator Gwen Ihnat’s review coverage has already started the conversation about the merits of this new season (its pertinence can’t be denied), but we thought it would also be a good time to ask The A.V. Club staff: Why are you still watching The Handmaid’s Tale? And, after watching the first three episodes of the new season, how likely are you to stick with it?
Danette Chavez
I didn’t have the chance to weigh in on the season-two finale, “The Word,” when it streamed last year, but my feelings were more mixed than my colleagues’. I initially interpreted June’s return to the horrors of Gilead as symbolic of the 53% issue—that is, someone from the 47% of white women voters who didn’t help elect the sitting president directly confronting the majority of white women voters who did. I thought it was a sign that Bruce Miller, who’s acknowledged how the source material and the first season “excised” race from the story, realized just how misguided that notion is, and was also ready to elevate the show’s feminism beyond its current brand of White Feminism™ to something more intersectional.
Was I giving the show too much credit? At the time, I certainly considered that. Now, after having watched the first three episodes of the new season, I know I was being far too generous in that assessment. The decision to ignore race is a fundamental flaw of the book, and as Angelica Jade Bastién writes for Vulture, remains a real issue for the show. After all, as Noah Berlatsky wrote for The Verge in 2017, the dismal future presented in Atwood’s book, like so many other dystopian works, is rooted in reality—in this case, the oppression of black women in the United States. Race isn’t quite absent from the book, and neither is racism. The tyrants in Gilead have effectively segregated the country, populating the theocratic regime with nothing but white people.
The series completely glosses over race, though, even as it continues to mine the trauma of black women and women of color, who have been victims of sexist and racist legislation. The latest example comes in the season-three premiere, “Night,” which depicts Emily’s (Alexis Bledel) harrowing journey to Canada with baby Nicole in her arms. She trudges along a riverbank, evading helicopter spotlights, before plunging underwater. She reappears, gasping for breath then sobbing because she briefly thinks the baby is dead. When little Nicole begins to cry, Emily is allowed a moment to weep in relief before some Canadian officials offer her asylum.
The whole scene is incredibly wrenching, as is Bledel’s performance. It’s also painfully reminiscent of the humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, where refugee families face all kinds of danger. But any commentary the show was attempting to make is undermined by the fact that, in the world of its own making, the bigotry that’s led to children being caged and left to die in some cases doesn’t even exist. The Handmaid’s Tale wants to have it both ways: call out past and modern-day atrocities while also ignoring how its dystopia is founded on them. It’s incredibly frustrating and not at all ameliorated by the colorblind casting—which has been a point of pride for the show’s creative team—because Luke (O-T Fagbenle) and Moira (Samira Wiley) are still so underdeveloped. By the third episode of the new season, the only scenes with Luke and Moira still center on June.
I should note that Bledel identifies as Latinx, but since such cultural distinctions don’t exist on this show, it hardly matters. But at this point, The Handmaid’s Tale is too exasperating an experience for me to continue. How are you feeling, Laura and Caity?
Caity PenzeyMoog
That’s a smart assessment, Danette, and I agree with your analysis of the show’s poor handling of race, which feels like one of the many squandered opportunities a show like The Handmaid’s Tale has inherent in its premise. Another opportunity the show’s writers don’t seem to realize they have in the third season is to show what resistance looks like. Not the #Resistance that exists mostly in Twitter and a “ladies to the front!” empty feminism, but a depiction of how people undermine and work against the Gilead regime in structural ways. The Handmaid’s Tale’s first season was so powerful because it used its near-future setting to show viewers a scenario that feels scarily possible to us. The writers smartly read the ways the winds were blowing with a populist, sexist president with authoritarian leanings ascending to power and the state-by-state erosion of women’s rights. The horror of Gilead was a persuasive warning of what a future can look like where women’s rights are eroded totally.
And the third season now has the chance to show something else that would be helpful to explore in a make-believe world in 2019: how women go about getting their power back. Having only seen the first three episodes, I don’t like what the show’s writers are envisioning organizing a rebellion looks like. The network of Marthas is the most intriguing aspect, but thus far that storyline is taking a back seat to June’s attempts to appeal to those in power for help. June tells Serena Joy, “We can help each other. We cannot count on them”—them being the men. And yet, June appeals to both Commander Waterford and Commander Lawrence (Bradley Whitford) for information and help, to seemingly little purpose. The most apt conversation she has with a man might be the one with Nick, where she asks what he can do—which is nothing.
Perhaps June will learn the lesson that those in power (and those who benefit by being close to power, like the Serena Joys of Gilead) won’t help the people trying to take their power away. But hoping that’s the story this show is telling feels foolishly optimistic at this point. Season three’s first three episodes set up the relationship between June and Commander Lawrence, an even more powerful man than Commander Waterford. Thus far June’s contribution to the resistance seems to be that she’s the Commander Whisperer, able to convince the most powerful men in Gilead to let a couple small acts of resistance slide. Is the lesson this show wants to impart on its viewers that the way to wrest power from your oppressors to befriend them? Instead of trying to reason with Commander Lawrence, the most legitimate action for June and the Marthas to take would have been to get that chemistry teacher to build a bomb, in Gilead, and for June to have set it off during the meeting of the commanders, eliminating the brain trust of the whole operation and setting off a much more interesting chain of events than June’s pleading with a few powerful allies she’s made for minor ends.
What I’m really wishing for is a pivot away from the story The Handmaid’s Tale told in seasons one and two and for season three to embrace a new mode, be it radical rebellion in Gilead or depicting trauma and PTSD in Canada. That’s what’s frustrating me so much about the show: Not only is the story spinning its wheels after Atwood’s source material ran out, it’s also ignoring the really interesting possibilities it’s opened up by going beyond the original story. So to answer the question posed in the headline: I am unlikely to keep watching this show, unless I hear from my coworkers that the second half of the season embraces a different story than the one I’ve seen thus far.
How about you, Laura? Are the possibilities of the premise still enticing enough to continue, or are you as frustrated as Danette and me?
Laura Adamczyk
I had a very similar reaction to these first three episodes as you, Caity. I want to see what a Gilead resistance could actually look like, as opposed to the “#Resistance” it has offered up so far: in slow-motion scenes of a bomb exploding or the Handmaids refusing to stone their friend, or all of Moss’s steely-eyed stares into the camera while her voice-over recites the kind of phrase found on signs at a women’s march: “We’re coming for you,” “Burn, motherfucker, burn,” etc. Especially since season two, the show has been more interested in the aesthetics of resistance—of making it all look and sound cool—as opposed to creating interesting, complicating action. While such moments serve as rallying cries of sorts, albeit boiled down to a single image or phrase set to an ironic or very on-the-nose song choice, as in real life, this story must move beyond mere slogans (and the showrunners’ seeming desire to make music videos) and focus on how this narrative might unfold in more interesting ways.
Which is to say, I’d like to see the show get back to the nuts-and-bolts storytelling of its premise, focusing on the problem of its protagonist (June needs to get out of Gilead with her daughter Hannah), how she will go about solving it, and how other characters might aid or stymie her efforts. Episodes two and three start to do this. Commander Lawrence is occasionally sympathetic but not consistently so; the resistance is, by necessity, scattered; and Serena seems like she’s about to turn. (As an aside, I didn’t necessarily see June’s appeals to those in power as an argument for negotiating with one’s oppressors as the best way to make change happen. I saw it more as a “by any means necessary” tactic. The Marthas’ underground Resistance will still hum along, but June will continue to use what little power she has “upstairs,” as it were, to try to loosen the reins of the Commanders and their wives and/or manipulate them into providing important information.)
So, will I keep watching? If one of you turns it on at work and we can watch during lunch, yes. Sometimes, as with a controlled burn, I like to purposely rouse my anger, and if I can get paid while doing so, all the better. But if I’m at home looking to watch an episode before I read and go to bed? No. There’s potential in what episodes two and three have begun to set up, and I’m mildly curious to see what the show will do, but I’m also still annoyed at more or less all of season two, and I frequently give up on series for a whole lot less.
103 Comments
I gave up after episode 1 of series 2. This discussion seems to indicate I made the right decision.
The neverending bleakness did me in. It really only needed one season.
It really only needed one season.
considering that one season covered like 98% of the book, I’d say that’s about right. It felt like whenever the show deviated from the book it either undermined its own message or ended up reiterating the same message to the point of redundancy.
The book ended perfectly and enigmatically. It’s haunting and just the right amount of hopeless. There’s a reason it’s a modern classic and we didn’t need the further adventures of Offred.They clearly intend to go for big victories on the show (I think they were talking 6 or 8 season plan?!) and while it may be cathartic it’s going to wreck any notion of this being a cautionary tale or probably even a particularly good story to revisit.
Absolutely. The moment the show deviated from Offred’s first person perspective, all hope was lost in terms of faithfully conveying the dread of the story. Seeing the Resistance lets us know there is a resistance, whereas, in the novel, we know only what Offred has experienced.
Do people actually watch this for entertainment? Or just in a dutiful ‘lest we forget ‘ sense of obligation. I mean it just looks so bleak and horrible that it seems about as much fun as having your gentials worn off with a rusty cheese grater.( this could be something that happens in the show as punishment for wearing mixed fabrics, for all I know.)Maybe it’s the sense of relief of “ compared to this shit , the world isnt quite so bad , yet..”., I dont know.
Giving up is always the right decision.
Always give up, always surrender?
Well, not literally always, but more often than people tend to believe. You know, the “sunk costs” fallacy and all that.
For TV shows, yes. When watching the show becomes a slog and there are clear indications that the writers don’t know where they are going. I’ve given up on many shows and never regretted it: Lost; The Simpsons; The Walking Dead are some examples.
I still remember my mom’s negative reaction when I gave up on Battlestar Galactica (i think at the beginning second season,) and then the vindication after the last episode when she said she wished she’d stopped watching too. 😀
I also stopped watching the Simpsons (probably around 1999?) and the walking dead (after Negan showed up, though I wish I’d stopped earlier on that one.)
Simpsons doesn’t need to “go anywhere”, it’s an episodic comedy and the characters don’t even age. Most of the classic era writers just left or checked out creatively.
Yes, but the story quality scraped the bottom of the barrel years ago, and didn’t stop digging. It’s sad that there are now more episodes of The Shit Simpsons than there are of The Simpsons and The Meh Simpsons put together.
“Giving up is always the right decision.”- The AV Club
I really love it. I know many others do too. Not sure what’s up with all these negative reviews. Most of their viewers are satisfied with the new season.
If you still have HULU, switch over the watch ‘Catch-22′. So far 3 episodes in, I like it a lot.
no its still great and I have no idea why everyone is SO harsh about this show. Jeez everyone watched all of GoT and that wasnt the best like all the time either
We don’t.
I just want the part where Canada invaded Gilead and The Commanders were given a Nuremberg-like trial and where the wives and Aunts get their heads shaven by The Resistance.
Seriously, the show would really benefit from a time jump.
set to Kenny Loggins’ ‘Playing With the Boys’
This show is obsessed with sticking with the statuses quo of Season One no matter how little sense it makes. June retuning to the Waterfords makes no goddamn sense because if anyone had an iota of intelligence, it would mean her death. She’s already made two escape attempts and stolen a baby .In the book Gilead’s fall took decades after the end of June’s story. I get the need to accelerate Gilead’s fall in the show for the sake of adapting June into said fall, but if they do that they have to show some sense of narrative progression.
I haven’t even started the season and so won’t comment about what has or hasn’t happened, but agree with the thought that having a slowly-mounting resistance within Gilead could make for some very compelling drama. The place is already wound so tight that the occasional bomb or assassination and the paranoia of not knowing if someone is an ally, spy or turncoat could case things to unravel much more quickly than they do in the book (where Gilead eventually just collapses under the weight of its own flawed structure).
Yup. That and June and Serena burning down the mansion and just, kinda, hanging around having feelings was especially odd.Watching the first episode of this season, I’m sure the show is well past the point of having jumped the shark.
Yeah when I heard that the big thing of Season 3 was going to be about Resistance, I was hopeful it would feature scenes of people actually fighting back with fighting. Handmaidens stabbing commanders to death or something.I’m very basic when it comes to catharsis.
I’m sticking with the show because despite its flaws last season, it’s still a pretty damn good show. They really need to get a better handle on June’s character this season, though. They do too many things with her that are more about driving the story than writing a character that makes sense. The show also has the worst needle drop of any show I watch. Other than that, any quibble I have is pretty minor.
Agreed, I enjoy it, and the episodes are so emotionally charged – it’s an experience. However, !!!SEASON 3 SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!, I’m getting a little annoyed that June gets to run around Giliad and talk to people like it isn’t an oppressed regime. I was glad she got some push back this season, and is being made to know her place again. OTOH, I think she was an idiot for coming back – she could have saved her daughter another way.
she could have saved her daughter another wayI was annoyed about this, too, until I realized that June knew Luke had made it to Canada and still hadn’t managed to save Hannah. She would have known that he was doing everything he could and it just wasn’t effective from outside Gilead.
I’m out and can’t believe I sat thru season 2. The first few episodes had the opportunity to take the show somewhere new but the series reset itself for no other reason than I guess the sets were already built. I like art that is smart and I like art that is dumb, but it’s really hard to split that baby; and this show not surprisingly couldn’t do it. To veer so hard from its original purpose of “idea oriented sci-fi” to “genre sci-fi” really shouldn’t hold our interest in any real way. What’s next in season 3? Does June resist by doing back flips in her red nuns habit in slo-mo shooting uzis out of each hand ala Deadpool or something? Because it really is the only option. I’ll be happy to no longer have to sit through any more of their laughable music cues.
Will we still watch Well, this was my question after the ludicrous ending of season 2 where she chose to stay. But now I reckon something even more outrageous must have happened after the first 3 episodes of season 3 to warrant this roundtable question. Season 3 starts in the UK this weekend, wasn’t exactly planning on watching, but with this article I’m now curious enough to check it out … maybe …
Is Elizabeth Moss a Scientologist? We are still talking about this for some reason?
Yes because I just read an article at the nail salon in OK magazine about she and Tom Cruise are going to get married, have kids and raise Scientology babies together.
Source checks out.
Weird. I heard from World Weekly News that Elizabeth Moss is marrying Tom Hanks, and that they are going to create Bat Boy babies.
It is a fascinating bit of cognitive dissonance, you have to admit.
Tom Cruise played Clause Von Staufenburg, one of the lead conspirators in the 1944 plot to assassinate Hitler once.
I find it hard to get into the show mainly because of the whole Scientology thing.
I can’t even watch this when this country is seriously one step into turning into Gilead for real.
They won’t let you watch TV now? What if a Tom Cruise movie is on?
I switch the TV off, each member is as accountable as the next, but I find this show particularly hard to swallow because for all the things it has to say about women’s rights and feminism – it’s led by someone who is a member of an evil, vicious cult with an horrific track record on how it treats women.It’s like Donald Trump leading a pride parade.
Then call Kenny Loggins, because we’ve entered the DANGER ZONE!
It does get a little odd when they stop the action for 10 minutes every episode to give internet viewers a virtual E-read.
More so the led actress is a member of a cult who has a long history of abuse towards women, a cult she is quite vocal and supportive of.
I watched season 2. Bleak? Yes. Bitterly disappointing? That’s not the way I remember it.“By the time June (Elisabeth Moss) was gliding along to the most on-the-nose needle drop in the show’s history” refresh my memory, what’s this referencing?
I believe it refers to Talking Heads’ “Burning Down The House,” the song that ended season two. We get it, and by the way, we get it.
Yeah, I guess that was bad. Although I thought playing Hotel California in America Horror Story Hotel was worse.
Never go full American Horror Story.
No need to choose.
Indeed. The Talking Heads cue was just about the worst, but ‘I Dont Like Mondays’ topped it, and I don’t think the X-Ray Spex ‘Oh Bondage’ needledrop receives enough opprobrium.
Star for vocab
This article is presented as cogent analysis of a fantasy. Midway through the first sentence, it rapidly devolves into a whining diatribe, spewing the same hatred fueled, bovine droppings that have oozed from the mouths of the vanquished for the past two plus years. The cultural and intellectual elite are still stunned from the splash of cold water; everyone doesn’t think like they do. Now it’s worse. Everyone doesn’t hate the sitting President either. Bless there butt sore little hearts.
You do realize that when you’re separating yourself from “intellectual elite”, you’re basically calling yourself dumb, right? It’s amazing to me that you guys chose this way of separation. “They’re cultured! They’re smart! We’re proud morons!”
American Horror Story is intentionally camp, though.
the music supervision on this show was cringeworthy from the first episode, so, so bad.
I didn’t watch season 2, but that is hilarious that A Handmaid’s Tale took cinematic influence from Revenge of the Nerds.
The only excuse I would accept for these decisions would be if the music supervisor was a freshman in college and just discovered these songs for the first time.
Danette’s criticism is a little too ‘the show is not as good as the one in my headcanon’, but Caity and Laura are spot-on about its flaws. Particularly Laura’s observation about it being too interested in the ‘aesthetics of resistance’–I think that’s a useful way to describe its fundamental problem.Still I like the Canada/Luke/Moira stuff so much that I’ve been sticking with it–I don’t think those characters are ‘underdeveloped’ (the personalities and motivations of both are well established). The problem is that they’re not getting enough screen time because we need 35 minutes of Elizabeth Moss staring into a camera each episode. There’s a brilliant show here if it’s brave enough to move away from its lead character.
How is this even a question? It’s still great television, and you have to see it through! Also consider supporting it so this administration knows people are watching!!
Hi Mr Hulu!
Don’t “Mr.” me. Mister was my dad. I’m just a guy called Rigby.
The Administration could not care less. Watch if you like the show, if you want to make a statement there are a lot of better ways to spend an hour doing so.
Do you honestly think this is the only way I make a statement, and am not ALSO a very busy activist? Give me a little fucking credit.
Is this where we’re at as a culture now? Zoning out in front of the TV to stick it to the man?
A new political party is born: The TV Party (Tonight! All Right!)Our 2020 slogan: We’ve got nothin’ better to do, then watch tv and have a couple of brews!
In fairness, some people use Twitter too
What an insanely bad take.
Awe, fuck you very much.
oh man, citing noah berlatsky…
“By the time June (Elisabeth Moss) was gliding along to the most on-the-nose needle drop in the show’s history (which is saying something)“I’ve watched every episode including the first 3 episodes of season 3 and I have absolutely no idea what this sentence means. Do you mean “mic drop”, referring to her decision to stay in Gilead? And why is she gliding? So confused.
“Needle drop” is industry slang for “using a pre-existing piece of music in the score,” as in you just cued this song up on a record player and dropped the needle onto the vinyl at the desired moment. And in particular it’s used to describe “we’re going to tell you how to feel about what’s happening onscreen by abruptly starting to play a pop song that’s very recognizable, or has a very clear emotional cue, or both.” I haven’t seen the moment in question (people are talking about it in other comments) but an incredibly on-the-nose needle drop would be, like, a scene or montage of a character working hard under pressure while the soundtrack plays the Queen/Bowie song “Under Pressure”.
‘Needle drop’ means a music cue. It refers to the last scene of season 2 when we hear The Talking Heads’ “Burning Down the House” as June walks back into Gilead.
If that’s the case, they should have saved it for episode 1 of season 3!But “gliding along”?
All Hamdmaids are now required to learn the Gilead Glide? (Like the Versailles Glide)?
I tapped out in the middle of season 2. I didn’t care anymore. I still don’t. Good luck with bringing down the Gileads and all that.
Too many people expect The Handmaid’s Tale to be a salve for every political issue we’re facing. That’s not really how narrative works. A TV show needs a scope and IMO the creators have chosen a scope that works for their medium and run time. At the end of the day, including too much in a show will only make it alienating and confusing.It’s one show. It can only do so much.
*Thank you.* I’m perplexed by the incessant “it needs to be just like today!”/”but intersectionalism!” complaints by critics. Why can’t the show just exist in it’s own world (you know, like it does) and have similar parallels and that be that? I don’t see this burden put on other shows that share themes with the real world. Just watch the show. Or don’t.
There have been one or two other shows that have had this critique lobbed at them, too, and it made me roll my eyes a little bit then as well. The people who covered UnREAL were keen to dock points from episodes’ grades if they didn’t do a good job of giving their black characters agency or adequate character development, even if those characters were only ever minor characters and if the events that transpired were completely believable within that show’s universe.I realised as I wrote this that in my last sentence I could so easily have still been describing reviews of The Handmaid’s Tale. The frustrating thing (in the case of both shows) is that there were other, valid complaints the reviewers didn’t fully touch on because they were busy making value judgements about the show’s universe. I wonder if it’s partially down to AVClub being an American site? I’m not in the US so my relationship with some of these issues is quite different than it would be if I were in America.
Yeah, I think it’s fair to say, for example, that The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t that concerned with racial dynamics, and for a critic to argue that this is a missed opportunity. It’s not fair to say that the show is bad because it decided not to emphasize the racial dynamics. And it’s ridiculous to argue that a scene doesn’t work because it isn’t adequate commentary on the Trump administration’s disgraceful border policy.
The book and show have a white protagonist. Had the creative team included the race issues Atwood addressed in her book, it may have been a different experience, but it was always the story of a white woman in a white, Christian extremist-based theocracy. Having watched the first three episodes of Season 3, it is going very much as expected within those parameters: June’s consequences pale in comparison to those of the other women around her and she takes risks with other people’s lives for her own selfish reasons. What’s more is this character’s utter lack of remorse and the absolute sense of entitlement she feels in all of her actions because of *her* baby. This is White Feminism(™). What would really bake my noodle is if June became self-aware.It’s good that that critics are unnerved and/or annoyed by it, but it doesn’t make the reality of non-Gileadean feminism any less real because they stop watching a TV show. I’d be interested to see more about what the critics think about the portrayal of White Feminism(™) being reflected back at them as critics and viewers? The last scene in S3E2 encapsulates this so much that I would be surprised if it wasn’t at least somewhat intentional, especially considering the vehicle. No spoilers here, but all I’m saying is, as someone who was raised in and currently lives in Los Angeles, this did not pack the punch it was meant to, because it is just another day on the roads.As to why Gilead as a world can’t exist on its own divorced from the “real” world, it’s because the creators of that world – both book and show – live in this reality and their lives have been shaped by it. Hence their belief that race is a character trait that can easily be removed out of narrative convenience.
I know and it drives me mad. Why is that a critical point? Do they say that about every show?
I finally realized from a seperate article the cook servant maid person from the 2 first seasons is also Pastor Nina from Kim’s Convenience. I had no idea.In a more related statement, I was cool with the first episode of season 3, I’ll probably continue watching it unless they do something extra annoying. I’m glad it wasn’t completely bleak. (Unlike Good Girls which I had to stop because jesus christ that show just shits all over the leads relentlessly.)
How is Kim’s Convenience? Netflix recommends it to me a lot.
I really like it and my sitcom viewing is sparse, often just Park’s n Rec, The Good Place, 30 Rock, Community, The Neighbors … and stuff. I wouldn’t say ground breaking, but quirky and funny.
The alien neighbors? I watch all of those so I will definitely check it out! I also watch Super Store and like all of those, so that is my rec in return 🙂
Yup alien neighbors.
Such an underrated show. When Larry bird shows up in things now I get super excited.
Thoughtful analysis. Seems to me, though, that the show’s focus is on a specific Handmaid (June), who is a relatable Everywoman and not a superhero. The series is realistic about what someone who is oppressed and whose actions are greatly restricted; she is not going to be running around Gilead setting off bombs with the resistance. The show is about her experience and her one step forward/two back journey as a resistance fighter and her evolution as a radical. Why don’t we give the creators credit that they know what they’re doing? Let’s wait and see where season 3 goes before dismissing the series. Also, it’s understandable that some viewers want to tackle the issue of race, but again, this is June’s story. Finally, it is truly hard for me to understand why people were upset and disappointed by June’s decision to stay in Gilead at the end of season 3. Could you escape and leave behind the child who was stolen from you? Why would June think she’d have more success saving Hannah if June were a free woman in Canada? Clearly, Luke has not had any impact. And why, in season 3, would anyone be interested in the show if June were not in Gilead? Would anyone really want to watch what she’s up to in Toronto? Talk about a de-escalation of stakes and of interest in her situation. I, for one, will keep watching this impeccably made series.
I’ve spent a while now looking at the photos on various review sites and assuming Martha Plimpton was on this show. Only today did I realize that isn’t Martha Plimpton.
Maybe this season will change my mind but when June chose not to flee Gilead, I thought the only ending that will now work is if she dies overreaching by trying to save Hannah. Because in the world of the show, it doesn’t feel massively realistic that June can keep taking these chances to fight the regime and keep getting away with it relatively unscathed.
A regime like this in real life would collapse quickly and bloodily I suspect. I don’t think you would be allowed infinite chances after being caught in compromising situations.
I’m a little confused as to why this show absolutely *must* conform to contemporary politics in practically every way to be compelling fictional television. I understand the parallels to modern society people like to make, but I’m content to let the show be what it wants to be.In other words, for me personally (and I imagine many other casual viewers out there) AHT doesn’t have to check every box on the Progressive Wishlist for me to find it interesting/watchable, unlike apparently most of the staff in this article. I don’t know about you, but I’m excited to finish it out. To each their own though.
It reminds me of all the different theories about the Wizard of Oz (I.e. “It’s a feminist allegory!”) when the writer simply meant for it to be a Brothers Grimm/ Hans Christian Andersonesque fairy tale.
To be fair, though, it’s fine to look for feminist themes in works even if they weren’t intended. For example, considering Wizard of Oz, Hollywood films of the studio era needed to be subtle about depicting potentially controversial themes, so they’re often rich with subversive subtext. It becomes a problem when critics *insist* that a work *must* make specific political points/themes in an explicit way, and that the work fails if it refuses to. When critics do they they cross the line from analysis into fanfiction. And that’s a major problem with a lot of pop cultural criticism today.In other words, it’s fine to argue that Wizard of Oz can be understood (or was received at the time) as a parable of female liberation, informed by its pre-feminist contexts. It’s ridiculous to argue that Wizard of Oz fails as a movie because it does not comment on the racist elements of New Deal social programs.
It’s been two and a half seasons and Elizabeth Moss STILL hasn’t looked directly at the camera and said “And that means you, Trump!” Nor have we gotten the much-needed scene where Commander Waterford pounds the table and shouts “I am just like Mike Pence!” Squandered opportunities.
“but allowing only the white, cisgendered Moss to deliver the rebuke to Trump undermines its power by rendering all the other women on the show voiceless”
“If one of you turns it on at work and we can watch during lunch, yes. Sometimes, as with a controlled burn, I like to purposely rouse my anger, and if I can get paid while doing so, all the better.”…phrasing.
Wait, are we still doing phrasing?!
All anyone needs to know about the future of this show is that the showrunner wants to extend it indefinitely. Has talked about eight seasons plus.
nah
Less is quite often more.Problem is that networks need to juice every profitable minute of each series therefor diluting the experience as whole. If HMT would have been one max 6 episode series and kept within the scale of book it would have been one of those really classic shows.
…bomb, in Gilead…What’s the German word for “laughing applause while simultaneously groaning”?
The Roundtable brings up some good points. I think I’ll see it through, but they need to start finding ways to make some changes rather than hittin’ ye ol’ “We really like these actors how can we keep them longer?”
the book is an all-time great of course, but this show is not very good. couldn’t finish the first season. can’t imagine watching a show just because it’s politically relevant, and not because it’s worth, like, actually watching.