3 Comments

  1. In answer to your question regarding timelines in the series versus the movie:

    The novel was written in 1985 and the movie was made in 1990… looked at today, the movie seems like an “unintentional period piece”. It’s not so much a futuristic vision, as it is an idea of what the late 90s would’ve looked like if some environmental/nuclear catastrophe had occurred in the 80s… its full of antiquated technology – brick sized chordless phones, bulky laptops that still use floppy discs, VCRs, older model cars etc… it also features hairstyles popular in the late-80s but tragically unhip now and a score which features synthesiser prominently.

    The movie seems to be set very early in the regime’s ascent to power. Authority figures are constantly giving speeches explaining the “new laws” to the public (and by extension the audience). Also, there are brief scenes of black people being rounded up, loaded on trucks and taken out of the country (the regime in the book/movie being racist as well as sexist), which is something the government did early on in the novel… however, the exact placement of the plot in the timeline is rendered ambiguous by the movie’s biggest flaw – in order to fit this story into two hours, the film had to cut out all of the flashbacks and all of the protagonists voice over narration. So unless you’ve read the book or seen the TV series, the process by which this government came to power remains mostly unexplained in the movie.

    It seems as if the TV series moves the timeline forward so all the catastrophes happened sometime in the 2020s and the regime came to power shortly after that. References to modern tech (mobiles, the internet, drones) abound and carry over to the regime. There are some lines of dialogue in the main narrative that imply this system has been in place for a few years now, and maybe that’s enough time for those in power to grow complacent.

    I just think that if the regime was just a little bit more efficient then the protagonists’ victories would have a bit more dramatic impact, but maybe that’s just me.

  2. From what it seems, the series seemingly took note from the response to the movie and flipped it. Instead of a dreary dystopia, we get a suburb which is oppressive but livable – outside of the rape. For you are given so much free time when you can shop, whisper, and even have somewhat of a life as long as you know when to code switch.

    That is, compared to the movie which, the way you make it sound, seems like a true dystopia that is soul crushing and unyielding. Making me wonder, if you know, are the show and movie set in different time periods? Is Gilead further along in the show, hence how lax things are compared to the movie?

  3. We can now add Angela to the long list of characters this series has spared from a dark fate… in the book, Angela was born deformed and sickly, dying soon afterwards. It is implied that Janine will then be shipped off to a labour camp because she can’t produce healthy children and is too mentally ill to assimilate into this society… which is all the more tragic because the literary Janine NEVER did anything rebellious and made a whole hearted effort to conform. In the novel, Lydia breaks Janine’s spirit through a process of meticulous psychological manipulation (Janine doesn’t have her eye gouged out in the book – Lydia doesn’t always have to resort to thuggish physical abuse in order to win over hearts and minds in the book) and Janine is effectively brainwashed into being a true believer. Not only does she faithfully adhere to orthodox codes of conduct, she comes to regard Lydia as something of a surrogate mother figure… the TV version of Janine is still mentally fragile, but she never wholeheartedly commits to the regime’s laws and frequently flouts conventions. Because of this, she has all kinds of physical abuse inflicted upon her that “book Janine” never endured – but she never really learns from these experiences and is STILL affectionate towards Lydia at times.

    Because the writers changed Janine so much, Lydia doesn’t really have a “success story” to demonstrate she is competent at winning hearts and minds. Also, she is frequently shown lashing out at people physically for petty slights that have nothing to do with the regime’s laws – whereas her “book Lydia” generally preferred playing clever mind games with her enemies, and always had some legal pretext to instigate force on the rare occasions she got her hands dirty. Basically, the Lydia of the series was a lot less effective at her job, even before she became disabled – and I’m inclined to agree with you that any functional totalitarian society would’ve gotten rid of her already.

    But just generally, security measures on this show are very slack. I recently rewatched the 90s movie version… in that film, whenever the Handmaids are not required for sex, they do not sleep in the homes of their Commander. Instead, whenever The Commander is away, they are sent back to the local detention centre where they are held under armed guard and video surveillance… also, in the movie, whenever The Handmaids attend a public function, there are soldiers present, machine-guns at the ready should anyone step out of line… suffice it to say, there isn’t an equivalent scene in the movie where people get the opportunity to “act out” like in this episode. The security is too tight…. indeed, I think it’s fair to say that these basic security measures would also serve to make it harder for Handmaids to become too emotionally attached to their masters, as seen here.

    I suppose all these changes have enabled greater emotional expression and more heated drama (the movie was often criticised for its cold tone and passive protagonist), but it does take away a lot of menace from the villains when they are so incompetent as to let the protagonists get away with so much

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.