Handmaid's Tale Season 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upon further reflection about Aunt Lydia’s breakdown, I think she has come to realize that her life is and will always be a very lonely one. The handmaids and Marthas can and do connect with each other, and the commanders and their families have each other (however gross those relationships are), but she is alone. She thought that she had made some connections with the handmaids prior to her attack, but now she sees those connections as false. The commander level people don’t want to socialize with her. She is aging, disabled, disliked, and alone, and it’s her own doing. Probably not what she envisioned when she took her place in that society.

I think it's the literal "stab in the back" thing. The little scene with Janine before - it's like they are building a nice, trusting relationship, and her subsequent actions with the commander would feel like a manipulation to Lydia (which is probably was - J's motivation is to play the system to get back into that house). It's not that she's lonely, it's that she can't trust anyone, isn't safe, doesn't have status either...but she also seems to have this maternal relationship with Janine, the "be a good girl" thing - so literally like a daughter throwing her under the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is her new commander a good guy or a bad guy? Or just a psycho? His character is difficult to read. I thought bad guy until the very end when I realized June was able to pick a particular group of women to help her movement. He had to have known that’s what she’d do, right?

I've watched all three episodes now - WARNING: SPOILERS if you haven't watched -


>>I'm going against the Post review that they've run out of source material and story (but the Post has also seen up to episode 6 I think, so we'll see). I think they are putting this season together pretty deliberately and with a new focus. I didn't care too much for Episode 1 - too drawn out with lots of meaningful glances, but not a lot of substance. Didn't need the extra drama with Emily, but she made it. All good.

Several reviews seem to imply that Gilead is going to make a diplomatic play to get baby Nichole back. That could be interesting, tense, and satisfying if they do it right. And by right I do not mean a sobbing Moira and Emily handing Nichole over to Canadian authorities to send the baby back to Gilead. That might do it for me.

I'll combine comments on Episodes 2 and 3 - I think we are seeing a re-setting of the chess board, so to speak. Someone asked if Commander Lawrence is good or bad. I think he's both. He was the academic that developed the economic system, but I don't think he was ever really invested in or believed that it could be implemented. But.....I don't think he was hugely pro-woman in the past. A flashback episode on him would be good. I see him as someone who is now reluctantly trying to make the best of it - protecting himself while allowing some level of resistance to exist inside his home - unless he gets caught. The whole storyline with moving the bombmaker Martha, him opposing it, and then making June dig the grave was really well done. As was his Sophie's choice. He's setting limits. I thought his statement about Emily being unnaturally smart was really interesting.

I wish they could kill Fred off, but they need him. I just feel like he doesn't add a lot. Serena, on the other hand - a lot going on there. I am sure she will be crappy to June again, but deep down I think she's figured out that this whole Gilead deal is a nightmare.

Overall, I'm liking it and I think the character development is very good. Everyone is straining under actual reality. That scene where Aunt Lydia is first so kind and then turns on June was great.

Am looking forward to Emily's real reunion with her wife and son. I thought that storyline was so well done, if a little unbelievable in that Emily's arrival in Canada would have been all over the press.

also going to agree with this poster - they are still drawing from source material. she is a producer on the series after all. Ep. 4 has a direct quote from the original text (something like when I look at him I feel something, not love, etc...). Also I happen to be reading the Maddadam Trilogy - and Lawrence reminds me an awful lot of her other "elite mad genius" characters - like Crake. Genuinely thinks he has the key to creating a better world, manipulates some system to implement his plan, like he says, to "create a better world." He doesn't buy Gilead but is using it as a tool to create what he wants. Mad scientist/academic type.

Anyone catch the book on the bookshelf when she went to get Darwin's text off of there? "Problematic Populism" by Jospeh Lawrence....there is a lot of depth to the character development. It remains very "Atwood"

[Anonymous]

https://www.facebook.com/handmaidsonhulu/videos/1308840252623271/

14 sec's in - and a second one I didnt notice the first time about relaunching the mercantile system in developed nations...religion and economy....gives some insight into his background

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spoilers for episode 4

I did warn you guys

Why in the ever-loving frack did Luke *GO ON TV* with Gilead's most wanted baby?!?!

It's not like he was accidentally caught on camera!!! He did an interview!! It's like he doesn't think they'll try to assassinate him to get that baby back.

Totally agree. You’d think he’d consider how being visible with Nicole could endanger June and Hannah. Totally failure on behalf of the writers. I hope that won’t continue to compromise believability to advance the plot.

Luke seems like a great guy, but I think it's believable that he'd be clueless enough to do that.

And June seemed happy to see him doing that, so presumably she hasn’t thought it through yet either.

I thought the same at first - why would he purposefully go on camera?! But, maybe he wanted it to get back to June that she successfully got the baby out?

Unfortunately for June it is strong evidence that the “kidnapping” was her doing.

I love the show but Luke and Moira both getting face to face time with the Waterfords despite huge crowds and security (last season) followed by Luke conveniently being video recorded in a crowd and June happening to stumble upon the recording while it is being played is a little far fetched. No access to electronics for her, but she happens to be in the right place at the right time to see the very video that she would most want to see.

Also, why didn't she lie when the guards asked her to confirm Luke's identity?

Maybe she thought that his identity could be easily proven so lying would work against her.

Also, Nick told June last season that Like confronted the Waterfords in Canada, revealing his identity. June knew that Fred and Serena knew it was Luke. Lying would have done nothing to protect him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found the Emily scenes to be heartbreaking but also I'm getting a little frustrated with the narrative. I just think Emily as a character deserves to do more than look beautifully traumatized now that she's in Canada. I hope they give her something more to do.

Similarly, Luke and Moira are going to all these protests but they're not connected to the resistance? Are we supposed to believe that the refugee community there just shows up with signs and chants but there's no connection to the active military conflict or underground resistance in conquered Gilead? That just makes no sense to me. Moira made it at Jezebels and killed people, etc, but now she sees her place in the struggle as just volunteering at the refugee office or something? I'm not saying that's wrong for her to do, I'm just saying they've not explained it.

It's been clear that Canada isn't willing to confront Gilead, but it is willing to take refugees, but they haven't really explained that tension imo. Plus there was that guy pitching to Serena at the hotel bar who I gathered was government-connected? That's pretty high-level interference for a country that seems to be trying to remain neutral? I know they're about to explore this hopefully with the whole baby custody struggle.

Finally, Canada seems fine. How is it possible that a fertility/environmental problem could topple the US and lead the Mexican government to buy slaves but Canada seems fine? They haven't shown any abandoned cities or serious shortages or whatever else would seem likely. At a minimum their consumer goods should be all f&*ed up, right? Oil seems fine? Cars driving around? Medical supplies have no problem replacing America? Just seems very unlikely.

Because June is a handmaid, we can only see into lives of the elites in Gilead. The commanders and their families wouldn't be the ones suffering the consequences of food or medicine shortages. For all we know, the Waterford/Lawrence families live in a gated community where everything looks normal but once you're outside the gates, it's a different story. We don't really know other people live in this society.

But to be fair, I think the source material was more of a dystopian fable than anything else. Atwood never did enough world building to explain the practical details of how this world worked. It's unfortunate limitation carried over into the tv series.

You're misunderstanding the first PP's question. She's wondering why everything seems normal in Canada-- not totally polluted, normal consumer society, etc. The colonies of Gilead are a massive waste dump that is fatal to anyone living there, and even far away Boston (where the Waterfords live) and Mexico are so toxic that there is a fertility crisis. The PP wants to know why everything seems normal in Canada? It's not they have a magical shield that keep pollution from seeping over the northern border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found the Emily scenes to be heartbreaking but also I'm getting a little frustrated with the narrative. I just think Emily as a character deserves to do more than look beautifully traumatized now that she's in Canada. I hope they give her something more to do.

Similarly, Luke and Moira are going to all these protests but they're not connected to the resistance? Are we supposed to believe that the refugee community there just shows up with signs and chants but there's no connection to the active military conflict or underground resistance in conquered Gilead? That just makes no sense to me. Moira made it at Jezebels and killed people, etc, but now she sees her place in the struggle as just volunteering at the refugee office or something? I'm not saying that's wrong for her to do, I'm just saying they've not explained it.

It's been clear that Canada isn't willing to confront Gilead, but it is willing to take refugees, but they haven't really explained that tension imo. Plus there was that guy pitching to Serena at the hotel bar who I gathered was government-connected? That's pretty high-level interference for a country that seems to be trying to remain neutral? I know they're about to explore this hopefully with the whole baby custody struggle.

Finally, Canada seems fine. How is it possible that a fertility/environmental problem could topple the US and lead the Mexican government to buy slaves but Canada seems fine? They haven't shown any abandoned cities or serious shortages or whatever else would seem likely. At a minimum their consumer goods should be all f&*ed up, right? Oil seems fine? Cars driving around? Medical supplies have no problem replacing America? Just seems very unlikely.

Because June is a handmaid, we can only see into lives of the elites in Gilead. The commanders and their families wouldn't be the ones suffering the consequences of food or medicine shortages. For all we know, the Waterford/Lawrence families live in a gated community where everything looks normal but once you're outside the gates, it's a different story. We don't really know other people live in this society.

But to be fair, I think the source material was more of a dystopian fable than anything else. Atwood never did enough world building to explain the practical details of how this world worked. It's unfortunate limitation carried over into the tv series.

You're misunderstanding the first PP's question. She's wondering why everything seems normal in Canada-- not totally polluted, normal consumer society, etc. The colonies of Gilead are a massive waste dump that is fatal to anyone living there, and even far away Boston (where the Waterfords live) and Mexico are so toxic that there is a fertility crisis. The PP wants to know why everything seems normal in Canada? It's not they have a magical shield that keep pollution from seeping over the northern border.

I think this has something to do with the war (at least re more pollution/radiation in america) - they basically bombed the ($*&% out of the middle of the US and irradiated everything - they created the colonies. Doesn't explain the diff in fertility tho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I found the Emily scenes to be heartbreaking but also I'm getting a little frustrated with the narrative. I just think Emily as a character deserves to do more than look beautifully traumatized now that she's in Canada. I hope they give her something more to do.

Similarly, Luke and Moira are going to all these protests but they're not connected to the resistance? Are we supposed to believe that the refugee community there just shows up with signs and chants but there's no connection to the active military conflict or underground resistance in conquered Gilead? That just makes no sense to me. Moira made it at Jezebels and killed people, etc, but now she sees her place in the struggle as just volunteering at the refugee office or something? I'm not saying that's wrong for her to do, I'm just saying they've not explained it.

It's been clear that Canada isn't willing to confront Gilead, but it is willing to take refugees, but they haven't really explained that tension imo. Plus there was that guy pitching to Serena at the hotel bar who I gathered was government-connected? That's pretty high-level interference for a country that seems to be trying to remain neutral? I know they're about to explore this hopefully with the whole baby custody struggle.

Finally, Canada seems fine. How is it possible that a fertility/environmental problem could topple the US and lead the Mexican government to buy slaves but Canada seems fine? They haven't shown any abandoned cities or serious shortages or whatever else would seem likely. At a minimum their consumer goods should be all f&*ed up, right? Oil seems fine? Cars driving around? Medical supplies have no problem replacing America? Just seems very unlikely.

A lot of it makes no sense as you'd think Asia and Europe/UN would step in and deal with it if Canada didn't. But, just enjoy the show for what it is and don't overthink it.

[Anonymous]

Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

How do they test the women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

How do they test the women?

Possibly they had their tubes tied or had hysterectomies before Gilead. At least some must had had diagnosed infertility, but were not married to high status men like SJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

How do they test the women?

Possibly they had their tubes tied or had hysterectomies before Gilead. At least some must had had diagnosed infertility, but were not married to high status men like SJ.

I think this is another example of the show taking some liberties with casting. I believe in the book the Marthas were post menopausal. In the book, Serena Joy is definitely older and past childbearing age. I was pretty surprised when they cast a 30 something Yvonne to play her.

[Anonymous]

The wiki says all countries are experiencing infertility. Moira was a surrogate for a family.

[Anonymous]

You can see countries responding to infertility differently. A different country might choose to “go high” and just be truly supportive of women and children.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are all Martha's infertile? How is this known before they are designated their roles? Most seem quite young enough to still be able to bear children.

They test all the women, but not the men as men cannot be infertile.

How do they test the women?

They talked about it early on in the show. They do have medical care and test them. They don't test the men and men can never be at fault.