2 Comments

  1. “Do you think that Mike allowing Luke to have a go at Fred might’ve been intended as some half-assed commentary on the way in which the American military has abused POWs and suspected-terrorists in the past?”

    I think Mike has a thing for Serena and Fred is making his job difficult by not being willing to confess. Also, what Mike is asking of Luke and Moira, in terms of cooperating, is a lot so it could very well be this was the trade. Let Serena see Nichole, without making a big hoopla of the Waterfords being in Canada, and Luke gets alone time with Fred and we’ll bring Fred to justice.

    Now, whether or not Serena Joy was made aware of what Moira and Luke would get out of this? Who knows. All that we are made aware of is that she’d have visitation rights. So, if anything, the show is pushing that misogynistic theory that women can’t be in power because something like a child could easily unravel things. This is seen with Serena Joy and Eleanor, to a point.

    Oh, and like most Americans, I just live here. So no offense taken.

    “What did they think was going to happen? How would their imagined Gilead differ from the emergent reality? For that matter – how divided is the ruling council on policy matters? What percentage are hard-line true-believers and how many are just power-grubbing opportunists?”

    The way it seems to me, Serena Joy’s conservative writing was one of the inspirations and the means those who created Gilead formerly marketed their vision. However, I would say those who rule Gilead are the extremist who followed her writing and shared a similar vision. Hence the divided council for some just wanted a patriarchal society and others, like Commander Lawrence, had a full vision of how the society would run and survive economically, among other things. But, with Commander Winslow gone, Fred, and Commander Lawrence losing favor for not being on the bandwagon of the more extreme ideas, it’s causing issues with the long term viability.

    Of which, it’s hard to say how fractured the council is since it isn’t really made clear how Gilead’s government works. At least, I’m unsure if there is still a federalist system or something new altogether? With the only titles we hear being commander, not governor, president, or anything which implies ranking, the show has never made it easy to figure out who are the notable decision makers?

    For the people in Washington, do they have sway over the Boston area? Who rules over the area where The Colonies are? What about the Econo-people? With us only seeing a small bit of the suburbs and one city, Gilead may have been shown in a multitude of ways but its inner workings are still a guessing game.

    “I do wonder why they made Serena complicit in the design of Gilead for this series. Why do you think? Did the writers think that making Serena more directly involved would make her a stronger character? If so, then why did they keep her sense of shock? Did they think it would make her more sympathetic?”

    A part of me feels they wanted to show a white woman as both a hero and villain. Yet, never truly being completely good or evil. June, while presented as the protagonist, does a lot of things most audiences wouldn’t agree with. Same for Serena. While on the side of villains, there is this showing she wants to be good, or at least disagrees with what is a much larger evil.

    And I’d submit Serena’s shock mostly comes from, as you’ve noted, how sheltered and isolated the wives are. They don’t get to speak or read, and have limited tasks and movements. So what their husbands do is a bit of a mystery and they are rarely exposed to it.

  2. I have a theory about the assault on Fred…

    Last week you said that much of the hypocrisy and stupidity of authority figures in this show might be intended as a commentary on the moral inconsistencies of the current US administration and contemporary public apathy towards mainstream politics in general… the prime example being that in this adaptation The Commanders having their own private brothel is public knowledge and there’s no backlash from working class males over the fact that ordinary men get executed for committing adultery whereas the ruling elite are permitted to be unfaithful on a whim
    (In stark contrast to the novel, where the existence of Jezebels was a closely guarded secret, and when it became widely known, all involved were put to death – including Commanders, who are expected to abide by the same rules as civilians when it comes to marital fidelity)

    Do you think that Mike allowing Luke to have a go at Fred might’ve been intended as some half-assed commentary on the way in which the American military has abused POWs and suspected-terrorists in the past? You know, like some of the more pointlessly elaborate torture and petty bullying that went on in Guantanamo Bay?
    (if that’s so, then maybe they actually went a bit EASY on Fred here. No offence, but given America’s track record during The War On Terror, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Fred was treated worse than this)

    What I find more strange is that Serena got such a cushy deal – or that Luke & Moira would bother with her. But again, dramatic catharsis probably plays a part here too.

    One thing that’s puzzled me is that they show Serena, Fred and Joseph as being complicit in the basic setup of Gilead, but ignorant of some specific policy details – only later to be genuinely shocked and appalled when these are put into practice… which makes me wonder, what did they think was going to happen? How would their imagined Gilead differ from the emergent reality?

    For that matter – how divided is the ruling council on policy matters? What percentage are hard-line true-believers and how many are just power-grubbing opportunists?

    I do wonder why they made Serena complicit in the design of Gilead for this series. Why do you think?
    In the book she was not a party to the planning of this society and although a religious conservative, was not directly tied to the party that took over. Her resentment and dissatisfaction made a bit more sense, because she wasn’t prepared for the coup or an advocate for this specific brand of fundamentalism, she was just a small time televangelist muttering vague platitudes about how swell “traditional family values” are.

    Did the writers think that making Serena more directly involved would make her a stronger character? If so, then why did they keep her sense of shock? Did they think it would make her more sympathetic?
    (I dunno… I found this actually made her less sympathetic to me cause I constantly thought that she ought to know better… novel-Serena at least had more genuine-ignorance to begin with, so she wasn’t quite as much of a hypocrite)

    I’m glad to hear June is losing a bit of her physical indomitability, though I know nothing permanently debilitating would ever happen to her now. Eleanor’s death does strike me as an awfully convenient plot development but at least it makes her plans and concealment of past crimes a bit more plausible, like you said.

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.