A portrait of the Waterfords featuring new baby Nichole.

6 Comments

  1. I get why it gets the hype it does though. For those who are inundated with tons of tv series, there becomes a low bar to hurdle over. With The Handmaid’s Tale, it doesn’t bring that bar up but it doesn’t trip over it either. It stands out and gets praise because the landscape is so diverse, with so many options, most of which are average to mediocre, just one program trying harder than the rest makes it seem like a flower growing out of manure.

  2. Perhaps I would be less disappointed if Hulu’s series hadn’t been hyped in the media as being a bold new landmark in the TV artform – and widely acclaimed for its supposed originality, intelligence and relevancy…. when really, everything this show does has already been done before and done more intelligently.

    Basically the hype about this being something different and a cut above the average makes it more grating whenever “The Handmaid’s Tale” rehashes some tired soap opera trope or dumbs down the source material in some way. It’s sad too, because “The Handmaid’s Tale” could so easily have lived up to the hype, with a few tweaks and there are moments where you can see something better struggling to get out from under the pile-up of formula-contrivances.

  3. I honestly tried to a few weeks ago, around the time of Amazon’s “Picnic at Hanging Rock,” but I couldn’t keep watching. Between being in a theater or watching with a friend, one of the two would need to be present to force me to finish them. Mostly because I find it difficult, even when I don’t have anything scheduled for that day, to just sit and watch a movie at home.

    As for your points: I don’t find it remarkable as much as I find it all very Hollywood. The industry, in general, has rarely done good adaptations of classic literature. Each issue you state is what happens to nearly all books – especially, in modern times. From making sure to have the most attractive, or popular, actors playing roles, even if they aren’t the best fit, to pushing for diversity, it has really become about money over being faithful. And while I understand no money for the budget means no movie, and no money made means no new movies, it still bothers me sometimes. Especially when it is clear that, like in the case of the Fantastic Four movie, the changes were more so pandering to modern audiences than adapting to modern times.

    In terms of the race thing? I think that must have been an idea they scrapped due to controversy. They promoted a Black guy to a commander in this season and, for the most part, their addressing of race was pretty much cutting out screen time of any character who isn’t white. I mean, Moira and Luke feel like tokens at this point. Sometimes I forget they are even part of this show. Heck, Rita, after season 1, I was fully expecting a flashback episode or a few scenes at the very least. Instead she gives an eye roll, or vents, and then off she goes.

  4. Would you consider watching/reviewing Volker Schlondorff’s 1990 film of “The Handmaid’s Tale”, Peter Weir’s 1975 film of “Picnic At Hanging Rock” and/or François Truffaut’s 1966 film of “Fahrenheit 451”?

    Much as it has been interesting getting a newbie’s perspective on the most recent television adaptations of these classic tales – I do think it is a pity that your introduction to these works was through screen adaptations which all in some way miss the point of the original works and clumsily attempt to modernise them in ways that make little sense.

    Do you find it remarkable that all three literary adaptations, made so close together, have much the same flaws? Namely:
    – Taking a book that was short and stretching it out way beyond its natural length. A strictly faithful adaptation of any of these three books would clock in at around three hours, and previous adaptations managed to condense it down to two.
    – Taking a text whose appeal was its mystery and ambiguity, then spelling out certain things in minute detail… and not the most interesting things the novel hinted at, but rather shining a light on the most banal conundrums in the book, that most readers didn’t care about knowing anyway.
    – Going out of their way to depict certain characters as younger and more conventionally attractive, whilst also changing the ethnicity of certain characters, though including actors of different races changes the world of the story in many ways. Mostly it removes a layer of social injustice that was treated critically in the original works.

    The films of Schlondorff, Weir and Truffaut have their own flaws, but they are not only more faithful to their sources, but also more respectful of the audience’s intelligence… these new TV versions of “Handmaid”, “Picnic” and “Fahrenheit” made me appreciate the subtle intelligence of the original films more. Schlondorff, Weir and Truffaut were less interested in shocking the audience than making them think, and the feel of desperate attention-grabbing present in these TV versions isn’t there in the originals… I’d be curious to know what you think, if you can stomach the thought of consuming any more media related to these three tales. It’d be a crying shame if your negative experience with these TV shows have tainted all iterations of these stories for you.

    With regards to your question of where this is all leading… in an interview, Bruce Miller said that Season 2 would tackle the race issues that Season 1 ignored. But so far that hasn’t happened, which baffles me… In the novel, Gilead is a white-supremacist regime that enslaves and executes people of colour. This aspect of the story has been ignored thus far, if it was revealed in the Season 2 finale that Gilead was changing its policy on race, that would be a rather shocking denouement. But if it’s introduced this late in the series then it might come as too sudden a change for some viewers to accept

  5. I think the main issue with Eden is, as you said, there wasn’t the perspective we needed out of her. She could have gave us an idea of what it is like to grow up in Gilead but she didn’t live up to that expectation really. The idea of her being a wild card, especially since she spent time around Serena Joy and June didn’t make it where you truly felt she could go either way. Be it enjoy the fact she was set on the course to be a commander’s wife or a potential revolutionary.

    The way I see it, just as she began questioning things, thanks to Nick and then June, she falls for Isaac and is quickly written off. And, again as you said, it would be one thing if Eden and Isaac snuck around like Nick and June did, or even June and Fred, and slowly but surely fell in love and came to a point where it was realized they would have to run away or accept the roles Gilead has given. However, it never led up to that. Eden was caught kissing Isaac one episode and next thing we know she is ready to die for him.

    To me, the purpose of Eden’s death was purely shock value. Which, if it wasn’t for most shows using violence over storytelling to elicit shock, maybe I would have been surprised or cared. However, Gilead is pretty well established to be a brutal place. We have seen handmaids get raped throughout the series, tortured, and people hung and shot to death. So Eden being drowned? While it is known that drowning is probably one of the worst ways to die, visually it didn’t have what I assume was the intended impact.

    Really pushing how this show is very much trapped in patterns. The kind where lead characters, no matter what they do, at worse get yelled at or admonished. With the exception of June being raped a few episodes back. But, considering all she did before that? The fact she isn’t at the colonies, much less dead, shows this program doesn’t have Game of Thrones type of gall. At most, they’ll use barely established characters for a pop big enough to get media outlets talking. Keep the show in conversation.

    Which, at this point, the only one, or thing, that’ll benefit from Eden’s death is Sweeney. Especially since her next role is on Sharp Objects which premieres Sunday. As for Handmaid’s Tale? It is starting to seem desperate to me.

  6. I personally found Eden to be the most interesting of all the characters introduced in this season, I had a great deal of emotional investment built up in her already and I was deeply saddened by her loss here.

    But perhaps my investment came more from the fine quality of Sydney Sweeney’s acting, and the sympathetic personality she displayed BEFORE the romance was introduced, rather than the patchy writing. I can understand why certain decisions on the writers’ part lead to your feeling underwhelmed. Personally, I felt angry that the writers had taken the easy way out with a challenging character by killing them off.

    I would’ve preferred if the romance with Isaac had never been introduced into the story at all. Don’t you think that would’ve been better? It would’ve been nice to have a character who was both a true believer and sympathetic, as well as providing insight into what it’s like being raised in a society like this with no knowledge of anything else. I would’ve liked to see her awakening from indoctrination come as a process of finding out about social injustice and trying to help others in need, as an expression of the true spirit of her faith – rather than have her lose her head over some boy she’s known for a very short period of time… given the society she grew up in and the conditioning she’d have been subjected to from an early age, didn’t it seem to you she fell too fast and too easily for Isaac? Surely there would’ve been a lot more inner conflict and wrestling with guilt over this relationship? Is it really believable that she’d take a chance like this after one brief pep talk?

    I suppose it doesn’t help that the entirety of their affair was kept offscreen, so the audience never actually gets to SEE their relationship develop. Just one kissing scene and a few longing glances here and there. We never once got to see the two have a meaningful conversation. Even now it’s not clear to me WHY exactly these two found each other attractive, let alone why they both were willing to die rather than renounce this relationship. If they were going to introduce this star crossed romance subplot in the first place, then the least the writers could’ve done is invest the screentime required for it to have some depth.

    Also, this show keeps inventing elaborate punishments that aren’t in the book. With each new crime exposed, there’s some new method of death, torture or mutilation… Does this seem to you a transparent bit of audience manipulation? A way to ensure that the audience never grows accustomed to a consistent, standard form of punishment and are always shocked anew.

    Joseph – I find him interesting and after just a few short scenes I find Whitford to be an eerily unsettling but compelling presence… by the way, in the book, Fred has two servants, Rita and Cora – I assumed Cora had been cut out of the series but she’s Joe’s servant here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.