S04.E02: Nightshade

[ReganX]

I didn't see Serena's pregnancy coming, but one potential implication that has me worried is that, if Fred could get Serena pregnant, the possibility of him being Nichole's father is on the table. She takes after June in colouring, so there's no knowing who her father is just by looking at her.

[chaifan]

1 hour ago, ReganX said:

I didn't see Serena's pregnancy coming, but one potential implication that has me worried is that, if Fred could get Serena pregnant, the possibility of him being Nichole's father is on the table. She takes after June in colouring, so there's no knowing who her father is just by looking at her.

oooh... good point.  I actually hope this is the only reason that Serena is pregnant, to introduce this possibility of Nicole's paternity. 

Also, it says to Gilead, hey, look what happens when women aren't under constant stress and fear of death or losing body parts for the slightest of offenses - their reproductive systems may actually work! 

[ReganX]

6 minutes ago, chaifan said:

oooh... good point.  I actually hope this is the only reason that Serena is pregnant, to introduce this possibility of Nicole's paternity. 

 

Even if Serena miscarries, her being pregnant proves that Fred's swimmers work. Right now, he believes that Nichole is Nick's daughter, and she was of interest to him only because of the benefits he gleaned from fatherhood in Gilead. If he is given reason to believe that she is his biological daughter, he won't want to let go. Even under arrest, he would probably still have rights as a father in Canada. What if he demands visitation, or objects to Luke being allowed to have custody? Would the wishes of a father who is physically in Canada be given more weight than those of a mother who is not?

[chaifan]

27 minutes ago, ReganX said:

Even if Serena miscarries, her being pregnant proves that Fred's swimmers work. Right now, he believes that Nichole is Nick's daughter, and she was of interest to him only because of the benefits he gleaned from fatherhood in Gilead. If he is given reason to believe that she is his biological daughter, he won't want to let go. Even under arrest, he would probably still have rights as a father in Canada. What if he demands visitation, or objects to Luke being allowed to have custody? Would the wishes of a father who is physically in Canada be given more weight than those of a mother who is not?

I have no idea about Canada's laws, but even if he's the bio father, he's the father as a result of rape.  So I would hope that would negate any legal rights he has to access the child or to contest Luke adopting the child.  Which makes me wonder...  has Luke officially adopted Nicole?  I'd hope so by now, or at least has been granted legal guardianship.  I really don't want a plotline revolving around legal custody of Nicole, as that would be incredibly dull.

But Fred being Nicole's bio father would really steam Serena, as he would have greater connection to Nicole than Serena does.  Ha! 

 

[ReganX]

7 minutes ago, chaifan said:

I have no idea about Canada's laws, but even if he's the bio father, he's the father as a result of rape.  So I would hope that would negate any legal rights he has to access the child or to contest Luke adopting the child.  Which makes me wonder...  has Luke officially adopted Nicole?  I'd hope so by now, or at least has been granted legal guardianship.  I really don't want a plotline revolving around legal custody of Nicole, as that would be incredibly dull.

But Fred being Nicole's bio father would really steam Serena, as he would have greater connection to Nicole than Serena does.  Ha! 

 

Hopefully, Fred would have no parental rights. Heck, in some jurisdictions, because June was married to Luke at the time of Nichole's conception, he is the legal father.

Either Serena's head will explode if Fred is Nichole's father, or she could revert to her belief in God wanting them to have Nichole. Under the Handmaid system, she had the right to claim a child Fred fathered on a Handmaid. By Gilead's logic, law and theology, a baby conceived in the Ceremony is the Wife's child in the eyes of God. Even the position used in the Ceremony implies that the Wife is in control of the process and the resulting offspring. When Serena was going around the rules to push Nick and June to conceive a baby, that baby wouldn't be hers in the eyes of God. If she learns that Nichole was conceived in the "godly" or "right" way, she could feel that she has more of a claim to her, especially if her pregnancy is not successful.

According to June, the chances of a pregnancy resulting in a healthy baby are 1 in 5. Serena being pregnant does not mean that she will have a healthy baby.

[Trillian]

2 hours ago, chaifan said:

I have no idea about Canada's laws, but even if he's the bio father, he's the father as a result of rape.  So I would hope that would negate any legal rights he has to access the child or to contest Luke adopting the child.  Which makes me wonder...  has Luke officially adopted Nicole?  I'd hope so by now, or at least has been granted legal guardianship.  I really don't want a plotline revolving around legal custody of Nicole, as that would be incredibly dull.

But Fred being Nicole's bio father would really steam Serena, as he would have greater connection to Nicole than Serena does.  Ha! 

 

While it is not my area of speciality, I know some basic Ontario family law. The focus would be less  on parental rights than the best interests of the child, although paternity would at least give Fred the legal standing to try to seek custody. It’s obviously an usual, and unusually messy, situation since i) June, the undisputed mother, gave her child into Emily’s custody in order to escape an abusive home (and country) and ii) Holly/Nichole is herself a refugee. Because I’m a geek and take this show way too seriously, I asked a friend who practised Canadian refugee law about that last point. He says that a litigation guardian would be appointed for her to oversee her legal rights:  that person may or may not be the person who rescued her (Emily) or the person with current defacto custody (Luke).

All of these children, in fact, would be in a similar legal situation, of course.  They are not property to be given over to Moira and Emily to distribute, and virtually all of them (assuming none is a Canadian citizen otherwise) would eventually have to establish a legal right to remain in Canada.  I can handwave the former, because watching bureaucrats do what Moira and Emily are doing would be boring, but Holly/Nichole is not the only one whose legal status in the country would be in question. 

[Zonk]

On 4/29/2021 at 8:43 PM, SourK said:

When June was talking about how Not All Men are made of garbage, the guardian who was helping them was one of the first people I thought of. And then, he wouldn't leave her when they walked into an obvious trap. And he got unceremoniously murdered, but we're supposed to be relieved because June survived. :(

Sadly he didn't know that June has plot armor made of titanium and would have been fine regardless. There was really no reason for him to die. June is always going to be fine. You could drop a nuke on her.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Zonk

[Umbelina]

15 hours ago, aghst said:

I wonder if they will try to dovetail this show into the sequel Atwood wrote (like Game of Thrones supposedly tried to do based on the outline Martin gave to the GoT show runners) or just come up with their own ending.

It's being discussed in the Palimpsest thread and the Testaments thread.

 

16 hours ago, mamadrama said:

Dead or close to it. Meanwhile, June bears no outwardly physical signs of punishment.

Pretty sure we saw a lot of bruises on her in that shower, and of course gross images of her bullet wound.

Emily lost her clitoris as well, another wound not visible.   Actually only Serena and Janine do, one covered by a glove or camera angles, the other covered by a pirates patch.  

Personally I'm not really interested in watching the walking maimed that much.    

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Umbelina

[EllaWycliffe]

23 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Personally I'm not really interested in watching the walking maimed that much.   

I think its less a desire to see maimed bodies and more a plea for realism. Jeanine lost an eye because she was mouthy and spoke out of turn. Serena lost a finger for reading scripture out loud. Emily was forcibly circumcised for, well, ok, murder... OfGlenn the 2nd had her tongue cut out for verbally disagreeing with Aunt Lydia. So, we know Gilead believes in harsh physical punishment involving maiming for very minor infractions.

June's bullet wound, while painful and gross, wasn't *punishment* per se - she was shot in the midst of a policing action. So while other people lose limbs, are blinded, etc, for much lesser crimes, June continues to be untouchable. I mean, I understand she has "leadcharacteritis" but maybe stop putting her in places where logically she would be maimed. Honestly, for all the trouble she's caused, and considering her age, her value as a breeder doesn't seem to make up for all the trouble she causes.

[Umbelina]

2 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Jeanine lost an eye because she was mouthy and spoke out of turn. Serena lost a finger for reading scripture out loud. Emily was forcibly circumcised for, well, ok, murder... OfGlenn the 2nd had her tongue cut out for verbally disagreeing with Aunt Lydia. So, we know Gilead believes in harsh physical punishment involving maiming for very minor infractions.

Only two of those injuries are visible, and those two covered by an eye patch and a glove.

June's feet were either burned or beaten raw, she couldn't walk for weeks.  We saw them.  Not all torture involves wounds, though June's often has.  I just watched the episode where June had to stay in the hospital on her knees for weeks, and began to go insane, but also, in some ways, solidified her resolve to bring Gilead down, at any cost.  It was physical torture as well, but mostly psychological.  I consider that equally damaging.

Anyway, hopefully she's out of Boston and away from Lydia and the rest now, and can evade any further capture.

 

[EllaWycliffe]

The feet beating was probably the last time we saw June treated like an ordinary Handmaid when it comes to punishment. It's not really about the visibility of the wounds, its that severe physically permanent punishments are meted out for minor offenses and June is the most agregious breaker of rules and still possessing all her limbs and senses.

I'd also point out that we've seen unnamed handmaids missing hands and showing facial scars- at the banquet for the Mexican delegates Serena had the damaged handmaids removed and there was a bunch. I think it was Alma (maybe, they all kinda blur) who had her hand burned... Physical permanent punishments are a standard for minor offenses so June's lack is becoming noticeable. As I said - maincharacteritis is in play but it hurts the character more than it helps.

[Umbelina]

It's easy to bring in make up artists to disfigure extras for one or two scenes.

It's not so easy to disfigure leads and recurring characters, both time and cost prohibitive.  That's why Serena's "disfigurement" can be solved with a glove.  She broke a MAJOR rule, not a minor one, by the way.  Women are not allowed to read.  That's why Janine, except for a few episodes, just gets to wear an eyepatch.  That's why Emily's doesn't show too.

It's just practicalities of TV shows, so it doesn't bother me.  At all.

[EllaWycliffe]

Serena broke a rule with an established punishment - first timers lose a finger, second time lose a hand. So if she messes up again and doesn't lose a hand, I'll be annoyed.

Look, you seem to be thinking I want June disfigured - not the case at all. I get the practicalities of the lead portraying a physical injury they don't really have. But if they're going to keep putting June in positions where we watch her get tortured over and over. then people are going to wonder why she never takes the physical hits that other characters take. If they don't want to address her special status, then they might want to ease off on plots that would get other characters physical disfigurement. I like June (there's no character I dislike at this point) but I can see why there's some hostility to the character and it's partly wrapped up in June not facing the same level of intense physical punishment the lesser characters get. Like I said earlier - for all the trouble she's caused, is it really realistic to keep her around just so she might pop out another baby? The last time she did that - her kid and 86 others ended up in Canada. 

I'm fine if it doesn't bother you. It does bother me and at last check, I think I'm allowed to hold that opinion. We're not in Gilead after all. 

[Umbelina]

17 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

But if they're going to keep putting June in positions where we watch her get tortured over and over. then people are going to wonder why she never takes the physical hits that other characters take. If they don't want to address her special status, then they might want to ease off on plots that would get other characters physical disfigurement.

Oh I agree with you there.  

I'm hoping June is out of Boston forever, and this latest escape is the end of any captures, though it's pretty obvious that she'll be hunted even more now.  They've completely overdone that part of things IMO, but I do think she's suffered plenty of severe punishment.

I have a theory about all of this, but it's book based, so can't discuss it in this thread.  Among other things, I think the writers may be leaving little clues for the non book readers (both books) kind of like a mystery or suspense/murder writer does.  I think some of those little clues/red herrings may be in the things that don't make sense.  

[Kel Varnsen]

Interesting episode, although by the end all I could think of was that I hope those women in that slavery brothel have an excellent exit strategy. Because if a bunch of commanders die suspiciously at the same time they will of course be the ones blamed. Unless the poison has some kind of delayed reaction.

[Umbelina]

26 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Interesting episode, although by the end all I could think of was that I hope those women in that slavery brothel have an excellent exit strategy. Because if a bunch of commanders die suspiciously at the same time they will of course be the ones blamed. Unless the poison has some kind of delayed reaction.

Yeah, speaking of that, Gilead will have to make up a lie about that right?  I'm not clear if drinking is allowed legally on the show, I can't remember, but I do know they can't say they have brothels around for the Commanders, even though, obviously, some of the wives know that, and many of the drivers know as well.

[chocolatine]

4 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

Emily was forcibly circumcised for, well, ok, murder...

She hadn't murdered anyone at that point. Her crime was "gender treachery" i.e. sleeping with a woman, a Martha in her commander's household. The Martha was hanged (and Emily was made to watch), but since Emily was fertile she was circumcised so she could fulfill her duties without being "distracted" by her urges. Aunt Lydia told her how much easier things would be for her that way. It was only after that that she stole a car and ran over a guardian, and for that she was sent to the colonies (along with Janine, who had kidnapped her own baby and threatened to jump off a bridge with her).

[EllaWycliffe]

My bad...but its kinda more on point then that she was viciously physically punished for not so much :)

[chocolatine]

2 minutes ago, EllaWycliffe said:

My bad...but its kinda more on point then that she was viciously physically punished for not so much :)

Yes, exactly.

[Kel Varnsen]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Yeah, speaking of that, Gilead will have to make up a lie about that right?  I'm not clear if drinking is allowed legally on the show, I can't remember, but I do know they can't say they have brothels around for the Commanders, even though, obviously, some of the wives know that, and many of the drivers know as well.

Which shouldn't be that hard by comparison. The commanders were obviously taking part in some military strategy session when the Marthas and other women serving food poisoned them. Anyone who doesn't believe that must be a traitor who probably helped.

[ReganX]

20 hours ago, EllaWycliffe said:

I think its less a desire to see maimed bodies and more a plea for realism. Jeanine lost an eye because she was mouthy and spoke out of turn. Serena lost a finger for reading scripture out loud. Emily was forcibly circumcised for, well, ok, murder... OfGlenn the 2nd had her tongue cut out for verbally disagreeing with Aunt Lydia. So, we know Gilead believes in harsh physical punishment involving maiming for very minor infractions

I think that practicality has a part to play too.

Having June lose an eye means a lot more time in Make-Up for Elisabeth Moss, in addition to being uncomfortable. She has expressive eyes, so they probably don't want to limit that. Having June lose a hand means having to CGI Elisabeth Moss' hand out. They couldn't rely on using an eye-patch; Janine is only allowed to wear it as a special concession. They don't want to silence June, so having her tongue cut out is out. Giving June scars means keeping track of where they are and replicating them whenever that part of Elisabeth Moss' body is showing.

Janine losing an eye was probably as much, if not more, about sending a message to the other newly conscripted Handmaids as it was about punishing Janine for speaking out of turn. It wouldn't surprise me if, with every batch of new Handmaids, the Aunts made a point of mutilating one of them for some offense or another, preferably a relatively minor offense, to put the fear of God into the others. Basically, they wait for somebody to do something wrong, and pounce. If Janine hadn't spoken out when she did, whichever of them was the first to show a spark of defiance would probably have been the one to lose an eye.

Emily's mutilation wasn't a punishment for murder. It was "redemption" for her relationship with the Martha, on the logic that if she would no longer want what she couldn't have. Even Fred claimed that it was to help her. She was sent to the Colonies for killing the Guardian.

[SourK]

4 hours ago, ReganX said:

I think that practicality has a part to play too.

Having June lose an eye means a lot more time in Make-Up for Elisabeth Moss, in addition to being uncomfortable. She has expressive eyes, so they probably don't want to limit that. Having June lose a hand means having to CGI Elisabeth Moss' hand out. They couldn't rely on using an eye-patch; Janine is only allowed to wear it as a special concession. They don't want to silence June, so having her tongue cut out is out. Giving June scars means keeping track of where they are and replicating them whenever that part of Elisabeth Moss' body is showing.

 

I'm sure that this is part of it. I strongly suspect the meta reason Janine has an eye patch is so they don't have to keep doing makeup on her eye.

The show also backed itself into a weird corner, though. The source material is hella depressing because Gilead is a hopeless place where people get tortured and murdered and the state has full, oppressive control over the population. It ends on a pretty down note. If you want to spin that into a long-running TV show, people are not going to want to watch a never-ending string of human rights violations that make them feel scared and upset -- and it's sort of irresponsible to ask them to. What would be the point of it? You'd just be bumming everyone out.

So, because they wanted this to continue beyond the source material, they automatically had to give us something or someone to root for, and break up the horrible scenes with something hopeful or positive. I also think that, because things got really scary in the USA while the show was airing, that might have also pushed them in the direction of saying, "We need a hopeful message about how you can resist and fight back -- it's not okay to tell people they should just give up because the fascists are going to destroy them."

When you couple that with the practical consideration that the show is built around Elisabeth Moss, and that the producers would be afraid to change the set-up where the character the audience has bonded with is the center of the story, we end up with June the revolutionary. Which is a character who shouldn't be able to exist in the universe this story is set in. But TV is weird.

[Umbelina]

47 minutes ago, SourK said:

I'm sure that this is part of it. I strongly suspect the meta reason Janine has an eye patch is so they don't have to keep doing makeup on her eye.

The show also backed itself into a weird corner, though. The source material is hella depressing because Gilead is a hopeless place where people get tortured and murdered and the state has full, oppressive control over the population. It ends on a pretty down note. If you want to spin that into a long-running TV show, people are not going to want to watch a never-ending string of human rights violations that make them feel scared and upset -- and it's sort of irresponsible to ask them to. What would be the point of it? You'd just be bumming everyone out.

So, because they wanted this to continue beyond the source material, they automatically had to give us something or someone to root for, and break up the horrible scenes with something hopeful or positive. I also think that, because things got really scary in the USA while the show was airing, that might have also pushed them in the direction of saying, "We need a hopeful message about how you can resist and fight back -- it's not okay to tell people they should just give up because the fascists are going to destroy them."

When you couple that with the practical consideration that the show is built around Elisabeth Moss, and that the producers would be afraid to change the set-up where the character the audience has bonded with is the center of the story, we end up with June the revolutionary. Which is a character who shouldn't be able to exist in the universe this story is set in. But TV is weird.

True, but there is more source material now, the second book, which does give substance to things that may have only been hinted at in the first book, and outcomes for Gilead and major characters, places, etc. 

That's one thing I did want to comment on as well though.  This isn't original material, so the show producers/writers of course have some leeway (for many reasons) but I seriously don't think they are going to change outcomes of major characters or plot points in either book.  Minor characters have a lot more leeway, as do created characters.

Not book talk, just saying that with original material, say Breaking Bad, writers can do whatever they want to do with anyone they created.  With sourced material, say for example, the Hunger Games series?  They were never going to change events, or kill the major characters unless they also died in the books.

I don't think the show is built around Elizabeth Moss, I think it's built around June.

[akr]

I resolve this problem by reasoning that we're hearing the story of the improbably lucky one because the improbably lucky one is the one who lived to tell the tale. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by akr

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Inside the episode:

One burning question: what's up with Nick?

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Zonk]

On 5/2/2021 at 2:18 AM, akr said:

I resolve this problem by reasoning that we're hearing the story of the improbably lucky one because the improbably lucky one is the one who lived to tell the tale. 

Problem is, luck has nothing to do with it. She should have been dead 20 times over and yet everybody lets her go every time. That isnt luck, that is plot contrivance.

[mamadrama]

On 5/3/2021 at 9:23 AM, Zonk said:

Problem is, luck has nothing to do with it. She should have been dead 20 times over and yet everybody lets her go every time. That isnt luck, that is plot contrivance.

And with each interview Elisabeth Moss gives it gives me less and less hope that this will change. 

It's gone from reasonable to unrealistic to irrational. 

There have been MANY recent tv shows based on books (Game of Thrones, Vampire Diaries, Big Little Lies, Outlander, Orange is the New Black, The 100, Anne with an E, Pretty Little Liars, Sharp Objects, The Queen's Gambit, The Sinner, etc) and they've followed their source material on different scales. IMO if they're more focused on staying true to the source than in telling a good, engaging story then that's a real problem. A very close relative of mine wrote a book that was turned into a popular and critically acclaimed period series on Netflix last year. The author died several decades ago but we, the family, had many sit down discussions with the various series developers. Nobody is ever under any illusion that it's going to strictly  follow.

Edited May 5, 2021 by mamadrama

[ElectricBoogaloo]

2 hours ago, mamadrama said:

There have been MANY recent tv shows based on books (Game of Thrones, Vampire Diaries, Big Little Lies, Outlander, Orange is the New Black, The 100, Anne with an E, Pretty Little Liars, Sharp Objects, The Queen's Gambit, The Sinner, etc) and they've followed their source material on different scales. IMO if they're more focused on staying true to the source than in telling a good, engaging story then that's a real problem. A very close relative of mine wrote a book that was turned into a popular and critically acclaimed period series on Netflix last year. The author died several decades ago but we, the family, had many sit down discussions with the various series developers. Nobody is ever under any illusion that it's going to strictly  follow.

Nick Hornby has had several of his books turned into movies/tv shows (High Fidelity, About a Boy, Fever Pitch, A Long Way Down, Juliet Naked, Slam), some of them multiple times (there are two movie versions of Fever Pitch, and both High Fidelity and About a Boy were made into movies and then were later made into tv shows). He said that even when they give him a vanity credit as a producer, he knows that once he sells the rights to a book, the way they choose to use the material is out of his hands. He said that he looks at the movie/tv adaptations as completely separate work from the source material. As a fan, it's frustrating when a book you love is changed but I can see as an author why having his attitude is much healthier (if I were in his shoes, I would probably be crying about every line that got tweaked or cut and sobbing about what they were doing to my precious).

[mamadrama]

53 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Nick Hornby has had several of his books turned into movies/tv shows (High Fidelity, About a Boy, Fever Pitch, A Long Way Down, Juliet Naked, Slam), some of them multiple times (there are two movie versions of Fever Pitch, and both High Fidelity and About a Boy were made into movies and then were later made into tv shows). He said that even when they give him a vanity credit as a producer, he knows that once he sells the rights to a book, the way they choose to use the material is out of his hands. He said that he looks at the movie/tv adaptations as completely separate work from the source material. As a fan, it's frustrating when a book you love is changed but I can see as an author why having his attitude is much healthier (if I were in his shoes, I would probably be crying about every line that got tweaked or cut and sobbing about what they were doing to my precious).

It's true. I've sold the rights to 3 of mine and I know if they ever make it out of developmental hell (not likely) I'll be lucky if they resemble the original. Some things just don't translate well to screen. Some things need to be condensed or add no real value when the story's time needs to be economical. As a big fan of a book, part of me wants to see the show or film adaptation follow everything to the letter-kind of like Polanski did with ROSEMARYS BABY. The other part of me, however, treats it as a completely separate entity. It makes it easier to enjoy it on its own merits. 

You kind of expect liberties to be taken and some of them might be huge. After all, it's one short book compared to what's now 4 seasons on television. Shit's gonna change. Every scene needs to happen for a reason and that reason shouldn't always be "it was in the book."

So far I'm liking a lot of the new settings and characters they're giving us. I wish we'd had more time at the farmhouse because the little missus was/is a trip. I like watching the Handmaids interact with one another. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by mamadrama

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

(if I were in his shoes, I would probably be crying about every line that got tweaked or cut and sobbing about what they were doing to my precious)

But you could soothe yourself by looking at your bank statements. My understanding is that authors often get more money from film/TV adaptations of a book than they do from the original book.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

10 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

But you could soothe yourself by looking at your bank statements. My understanding is that authors often get more money from film/TV adaptations of a book than they do from the original book.

Haha, good point. I could cry about how they've massacred my baby and then wipe away the tears with crisp $100 bills.

[gaucho91]

When they brought June up to the roof, I was wishing so badly that she would throw herself off. That would solve a lot of problems and put all of us out of misery.

[Anela]

It’s good to see that more women might get out, but this was feeling like June = The Equalizer.  
I missed what she was injecting into the drinks, until I came here, and remembered the girl Mrs. Keyes, talking about giving something to her husband/rapist.  

[Beatriceblake]

So the theme of this episode seemed to be about June not thinking through all the consequences of her actions.

There were two concerning strands to her plan to poison the Commanders at Jezebels:

1) Putting the poison in the bottles made me wonder if any of the women ended up dying from drinking the booze or if they managed to warn the others. Also as other people have noted it seems like all the lives of the Marthas and women who work in the brothel would have been in danger, if the plan works and the three Commanders die. There was also something chilling in the way June was again manipulating another woman to commit murder rather than just putting poison in the drinks herself and taking it to the Commanders while pretending to be a Martha.

2) I don't really understand why the Guardians came by to investigate what was happening at the farm and then went away again. You would think their suspicions would have been aroused by the incoherent Commander.  However leaving this aside, since the Guardians did go away, if I'm the Handmaids and Mrs Keyes, I would be running pretty much straight after that in case they go away and do the maths that there are not that many places where seemingly 20 Handmaids can hide out for any length of time.

I'm also still irritated by any time we have to spend with Fred and Serena. I wish they had used their likely fate from the book and just had them executed by Gilead for their numerous breaches of Gilead law. Also it's pretty clear that Serena was a damaged and abusive person before Fred ever did anything to her. She was happy to help construct a society where other women would be enslaved and raped. So I will be unimpressed if the show tries to do some half-arsed "cycle of abuse" story with her.

I liked that the show took the time to acknowledge that although the Angel's Flight children were rescued from growing up under an abusive repressive regime, lots of them have been taken from their families for a second time and are likely to struggle to adjust.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Beatriceblake