The Eyes: News and Media

[Sara2009]

2 hours ago, kathe5133 said:

I just saw a Facebook post saying the first three episodes drop at 8pm est.  So I went to Hulu and it says they are available on 6/4.  That’s today!  I guess I’ll know in 10 minutes!  I’ll share what I find.

Well, I guess not........

8:00 pm on the West Coast!  12:00 midnight EST.  Sorry for any hopes I got up!

Wouldn’t that be 11 pm EST?

[alexvillage]

Not very spoiler-y, not details. Interesting take, with a bit of OUCH! directed at the writers and EM - which they deserve. Whoever wrote this must be in this thread because it is what many of us have been saying 

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jun/05/sympathy-for-the-devil-how-the-handmaids-tale-finally-goes-too-far

[charmed1]

Poor little Holly/Nicole inherited her father’s brows.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I full on cackled when I saw that picture! 

I’m glad that the cast manages to have fun like this. It seems like you’d have to find ways to laugh when you’re filming a show that’s so dark in tone. I remember Tom Hanks said he started writing That Thing You Do because he needed something light and happy while he was working on Philadelphia. 

[Umbelina]

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/06/the-handmaids-tale-season-three-review-hulu/590992/
 

Quote

Real empowerment, though, isn’t the storytelling equivalent of a branded tote bag bearing the words Burn. It. Down. It isn’t endless close-ups on June’s face, her eyes blazing rebellion because surliness is the only dissent she can manifest that won’t get her killed and fed to livestock. Empowerment isn’t making another woman a kicky green-leather sling to accessorize her amputated finger. And, most crucially, empowerment isn’t the same thing as brazen stupidity. In the final moments of Season 2—a 13-episode stretch that invested heavily in portraying the violence and brutality of Gilead—the show asked viewers to believe that June, set up for escape with her baby, would decide to stay instead and fight the regime from within. For me, it was maddening. Not only because it was such a conspicuous example of narrative problem-solving, but also because it so neatly encapsulated the paradox of The Handmaid’s Tale: The series continually asserts how empowering it can be, straining all the while to keep its central character in complete subjugation.

Quote

Story-wise, though, it’s blotchy as hell. If you were enraged by June’s decision to ship her baby off to Canada without her, you won’t be mollified in the opening moments of Season 3, when she justifies it by thinking breezily, There are always reasons. I’m sorry, baby girl. Mom’s got work. To be clear, this is state-sanctified rape and torture she’s talking about returning to, not late nights at the office.

-----

Even more disorienting, though, is the show’s complete lack of consistency when it comes to Gilead itself. It’s either a police state or it’s not; it can’t be both a brutally efficient disciplinary environment and a world in which June has the freedom to enter any room she pleases, smoke conspiratorial cigarettes with Serena, and kiss her baby’s father, bareheaded, outside the home of an impossibly powerful (and well-guarded) leader of Gilead. Moss, who’s charged with selling June both as an impuissant figure of roiling resentment and as a plucky member of the underground, tries valiantly to reconcile these two disparate roles, but she’s boxed in by every bad decision the writers force June to make.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/5/18642707/handmaids-tale-season-3-premiere-recap-night-mary-martha-watch-out

Quote

Commander Lawrence is, essentially, a Reddit dude. He’s a guy who has convinced himself that his intelligence makes him superior to everyone else, and then isolates himself in his house so that he never has to hear any evidence to the contrary. And he justifies his hatred of women not with religious puritanism but with vague hand-waving about science and biology.

This article is mostly a rave, especially for certain characters, specifically Emily.

[AnswersWanted]

3 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Even more disorienting, though, is the show’s complete lack of consistency when it comes to Gilead itself. It’s either a police state or it’s not; it can’t be both a brutally efficient disciplinary environment and a world in which June has the freedom to enter any room she pleases, smoke conspiratorial cigarettes with Serena, and kiss her baby’s father, bareheaded, outside the home of an impossibly powerful (and well-guarded) leader of Gilead. Moss, who’s charged with selling June both as an impuissant figure of roiling resentment and as a plucky member of the underground, tries valiantly to reconcile these two disparate roles, but she’s boxed in by every bad decision the writers force June to make.

Blessed be this post. Really it sums up one of my major issues so nicely, and I cannot agree enough. 

If they wanted to make Gilead so easy for such a protected figure like a Handmaid to navigate and trick as long as you know the right people and places, then they should have established that during season 1.

They are now trying to sell it to us that June somehow has become more bold and daring and brave as time goes on when the opposite should be true since this is Gilead and she keeps getting captured. 

This place tortures and kills to teach its' lessons, and after all the chaos of recent, anyone stepping out of line would immediately lose their foot or tongue or hang from a crane, etc. 

The show wrote the shit marsh its' now trying so desperately to escape from. Their laziness and lack of foresight and planning is to blame, imho. 

[alexvillage]

I agree with the article and commentary about it but this: "Hulu’s Craig Erwich stressed was about maintaining the quality of the series" made me laugh. The quality has sailed long ago dude.

I thought the episode was a doozy. Not only they kept the close ups of June, now we need close ups of Serena too. How original! The fire scene was an attempt to enhance the artistry of the show but then they dove into fantasyland where the two characters linger among suffocating smoke and a burning room and don't even flinch. 

It is not going to happen, but they should now focus on Emily, Moira and Luke. Emily has the drive and spunk to move those two couch potatoes into real resistance from the outside. People are already communicating and June is the most inefficient resister inside Gilead. The unnamed Handmaid had the information about Emily and Nichole, there is a resistance inside Gilead, June is simply making everything worse. I really wanted the house to coming crashing down on her. 

As pointed out in the article and here, Margaret Atwood's vision of Gilead has disappeared. June had her head uncovered while in the presence of the whole fire department, and she was looking them in the eyes, doing whatever she wanted while the van, her Uber, waited for her. 

[Anela]

I'm glad that others pointed out the misogyny shown by Lawrence. 

[Anela]

😂

[Sara2009]

6 hours ago, Anela said:

I'm glad that others pointed out the misogyny shown by Lawrence. 

It’s intentional. The actor has talked about it in interviews recently.

[Umbelina]

25 minutes ago, Sara2009 said:

It’s intentional. The actor has talked about it in interviews recently.

Do you have a link?  He strikes me as someone (as I just said in another thread) that looks down on just about anyone, male or female. 

I took it as him humoring those idiot men, so easily amused.

As I said there, the only person I've heard him praise is Emily.

[LordOfLotion]

14 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Do you have a link?  He strikes me as someone (as I just said in another thread) that looks down on just about anyone, male or female. 

I took it as him humoring those idiot men, so easily amused.

As I said there, the only person I've heard him praise is Emily.

Lawrence is highly intelligent, and he values people who are also intelligent because he feels like he's surrounded by idiots, and that's frustrating for him. In the regular world it was irritating, and in Gilead, a moron can get you killed, especially when you're doing illegal stuff.

He looks down on anyone he thinks is dumber than him. The problem is that he thinks everyone is dumber than him. Eventually, that gets you killed, because there is always someone smarter, and he's going to underestimate people-- assuming we have a logical character arc, which I know is a lot to ask considering the way the writing is. But why he is where he is and why he acts that way, and does what he does all make perfect sense to me.

[AnswersWanted]

I am going to take my thoughts about Lawrence to this thread: Commander Waterford and his ilk.

[AnswersWanted]

I just came across this article and it basically reflects all my thoughts about Serena and then some. 

This article may contain spoilers if you haven’t seen season 3 yet. 

How do you solve a problem like Serena Joy on 'Handmaid's Tale'?

I truly believe the show wasn’t originally set up to keep Serena around as long as it has. 

Just like with Emily and Janine, thanks to the actresses amazing work during season 1, I think the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Yvonne’s portrayal made them focus on giving Serena more and more to do. 

But now it’s become a lot of lip service as to what purpose Serena can truly serve now, especially where June is concerned. 

[alexvillage]

7 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

I just came across this article and it basically reflects all my thoughts about Serena and then some. 

This article may contain spoilers if you haven’t seen season 3 yet. 

How do you solve a problem like Serena Joy on 'Handmaid's Tale'?

I truly believe the show wasn’t originally set up to keep Serena around as long as it has. 

Just like with Emily and Janine, thanks to the actresses amazing work during season 1, I think the overwhelmingly positive reaction to Yvonne’s portrayal made them focus on giving Serena more and more to do. 

But now it’s become a lot of lip service as to what purpose Serena can truly serve now, especially where June is concerned. 

We talk about how Serena was a co-rapist but not enough how she was also a pimp, setting up June and Nick and watching what was also a rape, at the time. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Madeline Brewer & Amanda Brugel discuss S3 of The Handmaid's Tale:

Samira Wiley discusses S3 of The Handmaid's Tale:

Edited June 16, 2019 by ElectricBoogaloo

[scrb]

On 6/13/2019 at 3:08 AM, alexvillage said:

We talk about how Serena was a co-rapist but not enough how she was also a pimp, setting up June and Nick and watching what was also a rape, at the time. 

I didn't get the sense that June objected too much to doing it with Nick.

Serena may have gaslit her a bit, telling her that handmaids who don't give birth to babies would be discarded into the colonies.

It may have started out as them just trying to produce a baby but seems like Nick and June got into it eventually.

[Umbelina]

9 hours ago, scrb said:

Serena may have gaslit her a bit, telling her that handmaids who don't give birth to babies would be discarded into the colonies.

Nope.  That was the truth, and June already knew it before Serena mentioned it.  All the handmaids know it, that's why Emily didn't want to take that nice wife up on continuing to skip the ceremonies. 

No baby after 3 placements?  Off to the colonies for the fallen women, since they failed to redeem themselves by producing babies.

[alexvillage]

10 hours ago, scrb said:

I didn't get the sense that June objected too much to doing it with Nick.

June might have had pleasure even. It was still pimping.

[PamelaMaeSnap]

Apologies if this is in the wrong thread but I honestly couldn't figure out where it should/could go! And I couldn't find question posed anywhere ... so if I'm rehashing something already discussed, apologies and please send me in right direction!!! 

Like many shows based on books, once this got past S1 we were veering into mostly uncharted plot territory (I say "mostly" because we have book's epilogue to give basic guidelines). 

I don't know how much input Atwood has/had on where the show went S2/3 ... but with the slated release in September of her sequel, The Testaments (pre-ordered on Amazon, duh!) I wonder what to expect ... 

Do we know (or if not, do you guys think) if it will follow the plot lines already shown in S2/3? Or go somewhere completely different? I'm looking forward to the book but if it's just chapter and verse what we've seen/are seeing on the show it may be good reading because she's a good writer but obviously won't be as compelling if we know what happens. 

Wondering if anyone's read anything that gives some insight here!

[LordOfLotion]

9 minutes ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

Apologies if this is in the wrong thread but I honestly couldn't figure out where it should/could go! And I couldn't find question posed anywhere ... so if I'm rehashing something already discussed, apologies and please send me in right direction!!! 

Like many shows based on books, once this got past S1 we were veering into mostly uncharted plot territory (I say "mostly" because we have book's epilogue to give basic guidelines). 

I don't know how much input Atwood has/had on where the show went S2/3 ... but with the slated release in September of her sequel, The Testaments (pre-ordered on Amazon, duh!) I wonder what to expect ... 

Do we know (or if not, do you guys think) if it will follow the plot lines already shown in S2/3? Or go somewhere completely different? I'm looking forward to the book but if it's just chapter and verse what we've seen/are seeing on the show it may be good reading because she's a good writer but obviously won't be as compelling if we know what happens. 

Wondering if anyone's read anything that gives some insight here!

There is book talk in the thread below. The last post mentioned the sequel but it was back in November. Maybe if you post there people who have read the first book and keep up with Margaret Atwood can answer your questions.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, PamelaMaeSnap said:

Do we know (or if not, do you guys think) if it will follow the plot lines already shown in S2/3? Or go somewhere completely different? I'm looking forward to the book but if it's just chapter and verse what we've seen/are seeing on the show it may be good reading because she's a good writer but obviously won't be as compelling if we know what happens. 

I seriously doubt it, is the short answer.  Without being specific, the show has left out major plot points of Atwoods incredible book, so there is not much chance her sequel will have much, if anything, to do with the show.

There were also some articles early on about her bowing nearly completely out of the show after season one specifically.  My personal impression is that she isn't completely thrilled with the show (probably mostly because a significant theme was dropped.)

11 hours ago, alexvillage said:

June might have had pleasure even. It was still pimping.

The first time Serena stood there watching, I seriously doubt pleasure was involved.

June had no choice, without a baby she was about to be sent to the colonies (show version) and Fred being sterile was likely.  So, for two reasons, she could not defy Serena, and she needed to be pregnant in order to live, it was definitely forced.

After that?  The secret meetings?  Definitely a place to find comfort and some pleasure, and she does like Nick. 

[AngelaHunter]

32 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Definitely a place to find comfort and some pleasure, and she does like Nick. 

I think "comfort" is the keyword. When all alone in a very hostile and alien world where the only touch you receive is painful and/or rape , the comfort of having someone's arms around you - the arms of someone who does care about you - would become a very fine and desirable thing. That closeness and comfort is a basic human need and even if it's only momentary it's not something many people would pass on, given these circumstances. 

[alexvillage]

12 hours ago, Umbelina said:

The first time Serena stood there watching, I seriously doubt pleasure was involved.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that she had. I was just trying to point out that if the sex is because someone tells you to do so, it is pimping. It is still pimping if the result is a relationship that is "healthy" after the initial sex. I agree with your observations about the reasons and consequences. 

[AnswersWanted]

Here’s another recently released interview with Bradley Whitford, 

Bradley Whitford Is More Confused by His Handmaid's Tale Character Than You

I keep getting the impression that if Bradley was in full control of Lawrence, that character would be 10 times more developed and impacting. He really seems to get so much of what meaningful context this show alludes to, but yet the writes often just don’t explore that or expand on it. 

[alexvillage]

14 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

Here’s another recently released interview with Bradley Whitford, 

Bradley Whitford Is More Confused by His Handmaid's Tale Character Than You

I keep getting the impression that if Bradley was in full control of Lawrence, that character would be 10 times more developed and impacting. He really seems to get so much of what meaningful context this show alludes to, but yet the writes often just don’t explore that or expand on it. 

I am not a big BW fan, I think he is on the positive side of average, but not a great actor. You are right, though. He is capable of much more. The thing is, no actor, average or great, can do much with bad writing. Add bad direction and bad editing, the talent goes unnoticed. That's how TV works. 

On the other hand, his "I think Lizzie is giving the performance of a lifetime" fell totally flat. Not necessary to exaggerate Bradley. We know you are friends but we also watch the show.

[AnswersWanted]

6 hours ago, alexvillage said:

I am not a big BW fan, I think he is on the positive side of average, but not a great actor. You are right, though. He is capable of much more. The thing is, no actor, average or great, can do much with bad writing. Add bad direction and bad editing, the talent goes unnoticed. That's how TV works. 

On the other hand, his "I think Lizzie is giving the performance of a lifetime" fell totally flat. Not necessary to exaggerate Bradley. We know you are friends but we also watch the show.

Heh, you too caught his hyperbolic praise of her as well? I rolled my eyes at it, it’s almost seems contractual with this group to heap praise on her at every turn.

And I agree about the writing, I think you and I are definitely in the same boat about that. I am tired of feeling as if the actors do a better job explaining their characters’ POVs than the writing in the show ever does or ever will. 

Miller is too busy thinking he’s doing a great job to be bothered to realize just how off course this show has gotten. 

[AnswersWanted]

This article covers episode 6 and says everything I feel and have felt about this season and the show as a whole in perfect detail. It’s just brilliant and I wanted to share. 

Hey, Handmaid's Tale, I Have Some Questions About This Body Horror Thing

Who knew when the show jumped the shark they’d also seal its’ mouth shut with rings...

Edited June 26, 2019 by AnswersWanted

[AnswersWanted]

Just saw this today, and it’s Miller and Littlefield at their oblivious finest, trying to explain their sloppy storylines as usual. 

The Handmaid's Tale EPs Answer Our Burning Episode 6 Questions (Rings! Winslow! Marthas! Nick?!?)

WTF are they even talking about with this drivel? They are just making shit up on the fly, I am fully convinced of it. 

[kieyra]

As an aside, it is now all but impossible to find a source for Bruce Miller admitting that he didn’t think Serena getting shot in the stomach would cause viewers to assume that’s why she’s infertile. It’s quite easy to find lots of internet commenters (such as on the tv line article upthread) who do believe she’s infertile and that the shooting is why.

Someone please tell me they remember that this happened and that I’m not crazy. 

[Anela]

2 hours ago, kieyra said:

As an aside, it is now all but impossible to find a source for Bruce Miller admitting that he didn’t think Serena getting shot in the stomach would cause viewers to assume that’s why she’s infertile. It’s quite easy to find lots of internet commenters (such as on the tv line article upthread) who do believe she’s infertile and that the shooting is why.

Someone please tell me they remember that this happened and that I’m not crazy. 

I remember reading it myself, and all of us talking about it. 🙂

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

I think it was in one of your the after show features 

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, kieyra said:

As an aside, it is now all but impossible to find a source for Bruce Miller admitting that he didn’t think Serena getting shot in the stomach would cause viewers to assume that’s why she’s infertile. It’s quite easy to find lots of internet commenters (such as on the tv line article upthread) who do believe she’s infertile and that the shooting is why.

Someone please tell me they remember that this happened and that I’m not crazy. 

It's probably either in this thread or in the episode thread.  It was in an interview, and it was posted here (possibly by me?) somewhere.

I don't think it was in the after show features, but who knows?  It may have been there as well.

[Umbelina]

ETA I just did a search too, and can't find it among the seemingly endless interviews Bruce Miller does about this show.

Grrrr

I specifically remember his statement being shocked that anyone would think that gunshot made Serena infertile though. 

[kieyra]

Yes, it’s somehow been search-engine-optimized into oblivion, I couldn’t find it in this thread, and the specific episode thread (First Blood) mostly discusses the Nick/Eden issues. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by kieyra

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Yes, it’s somehow been search-engine-optimized into oblivion, I couldn’t find it in this thread, and the specific episode thread (First Blood) mostly discusses the Nick/Eden issues. 

Yeah, I could see it being discussed on Reddit and on Quora as well (same words) but couldn't find the link to the articles on either, then again, I didn't look that hard on either site, but they are saying the same thing.  IF there is a link on either though?  I missed it.

[Umbelina]

“I don’t think you get in his position without being a master of manipulation and subterfuge,” Meloni said. He wanted Winslow to be unpredictable—and once he heard how many kids the character had, he felt he had the character locked down. “It’s a guy who has voracious appetites, you know? He can’t have enough works of art. Whatever the power and monetary things are, whatever gives someone status and power, he can’t have enough.”

The role is a relatively small one, at least so far this season. But Meloni makes the most of each moment he occupies—and, most delightfully, seems to intimidate even Joseph Fiennes’s slimy Fred Waterford, who deserves to get knocked down a peg. Then again, Waterford did vow this week to bring baby Nichole back to Gilead, directly defying Winslow’s instructions to let the infant remain in Canada so that she could be added leverage during negotiations between the nations. Given the way this world works, retribution for his action seems likely—and given the way Meloni describes his character’s management style, it seems safe to guess that his good-natured chats with Fred might be short-lived.

“I think he’s very much hands off—knowing that you know that if you eff it up, there will probably be severe consequences,” Meloni said. “Everything is great, everything’s fantastic, until it’s not. And then—[insert ominous, lingering silence]. That’s how I would kind of think his governing style would be.”https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/07/handmaids-tale-christopher-meloni-commander-interview

[Umbelina]

The Handmaid’s Tale Has a Serious Villain Problem

Quote

When it first began, The Handmaid’s Tale was a terrifyingly plausible dystopia based on a consistently prescient novel. But now that it’s left its source material behind, it’s become a melange of ideas with no real drive or focus. In its third season, especially, the series continually throws up its hands when it comes to passing judgment on its more villainous characters, while simultaneously insisting that we invest ourselves in their journeys. One could argue that its writers want to avoid being too didactic, and instead mean for us to make our own decisions when it comes to all of these people’s relative morality. But in some moments—moments like that cuddle session between June and Aunt Lydia—the show’s refusal to cast judgment feels misguided, a deflection born out of confusing motives.

[Deputy Deputy CoS]

I am not sure if you guys found evidence of Serena's fertility. I came across this screenshot of a Business Insider article with Miller on Reddit 

[Umbelina]

2 hours ago, Deputy Deputy CoS said:

I am not sure if you guys found evidence of Serena's fertility. I came across this screenshot of a Business Insider article with Miller on Reddit 

Thanks.

We were looking for that article where the idiot showrunner says something like "I'm SHOCKED that anyone would even think that the gunshot wound to Serena's lower abdomen caused her infertility!"
 

[chocolatine]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

We were looking for that article where the idiot showrunner says something like "I'm SHOCKED that anyone would even think that the gunshot wound to Serena's lower abdomen caused her infertility!"
 

It looked to me like the bullet hit her on the right side of her lower abdomen, so I always thought she probably lost her right ovary, but her uterus and the left ovary are still functional. I also remember Joel the Spy telling her she would have access to state-of-the-art fertility treatments in Hawaii. The shooting happened pre-Gilead and was public knowledge, so if it had damaged her uterus, Joel would have known.

Even though I despise Serena and don't think she deserves redemption, I *am* curious how she's going to end up getting pregnant. Fred is obviously shooting blanks, and I don't see her having a fling with a guard despite it being what the DC wives like to do. For her to take the risk of committing such a huge "sin", I think she'd have to have an emotional connection.

[Umbelina]

38 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

It looked to me like the bullet hit her on the right side of her lower abdomen, so I always thought she probably lost her right ovary, but her uterus and the left ovary are still functional. I also remember Joel the Spy telling her she would have access to state-of-the-art fertility treatments in Hawaii. The shooting happened pre-Gilead and was public knowledge, so if it had damaged her uterus, Joel would have known.

Even though I despise Serena and don't think she deserves redemption, I *am* curious how she's going to end up getting pregnant. Fred is obviously shooting blanks, and I don't see her having a fling with a guard despite it being what the DC wives like to do. For her to take the risk of committing such a huge "sin", I think she'd have to have an emotional connection.

Well, she's have to run if she gets pregnant, or get Fred drunk enough to bang her.

I don't think the show will last that long, but maybe one of the "eye candy" guardians would help out with the sperm.

[Umbelina]

Quite a long interview with Samira Wiley here, warning, it's quite political, it also talks quite a bit out this season (3) of The Handmaid's Tale, as well as her life, being outed before she was ready, her pride in her father, and a bunch of other things.   https://www.inverse.com/article/56751-handmaid-s-tale-samira-wiley-profile-2019-interview

Season 3 visits the heart of Gilead in Washington, DC, where the physical punishment for Handmaids is much more severe, and sadistic corruption runs far deeper than anywhere else.

“Season 3, out of all the seasons, really does show women understanding the strength they have in numbers, and understanding the strength that they have in having alliances across the caste system that is set up for them,” Wiley tells me. “I sometimes see it even mirrored in our own society. There’s this idea that, ‘I’m better than you because of A, B, and C,’ or, ‘If you succeed that means I can’t succeed.’ This idea of scarcity, all of that.”

Wiley hints at unification, saying that “those walls come crashing down a little bit this season.”

----

[Umbelina]

Ashleigh LaThrop on That Shocking Ofmatthew Twist in The Handmaid's Tale Episode 8

"Everything that she believes has fallen," LaThrop says of her character's final descent. "I think that Ofmatthew is a survivor, and I think that she does believe, to a certain extent, that she is right. To suddenly realize that everything you believe is wrong, and to be confronted with the horror of Gilead for really the first time, is what makes her break."

Below, LaThrop breaks down exactly what's happening in Ofmatthew's mind at Loaves & Fishes, her warped friendship with June, and the "terrifying" parallels between Gilead's fictional tyranny and the real-life abortion legislation passing nationwide in the U.S.

----

Bruce [Miller, the showrunner] was there for my audition, and he was like "You know, it's gonna be really great for you, this character is really fun, she’s really antagonistic and people are gonna hate her, and you kill someone! So it’s gonna be great!" I was like, 'Wait, what was that?' He never addressed it again! I thought okay, I obviously can't play that I killed someone since I have no information about that, so I'm just gonna go for the holiness!

----

Everything that happens at the beginning of Episode 8 is what leads up to the grocery store scene. This is someone who doesn't really have any friends in Gilead, but she is a favorite of all the Aunts. And so when June turns all the Handmaids against me, that's horrible, and the idea is that this has been going on for weeks and weeks, just constant torment between the Handmaids. But then that scene when Aunt Lydia, my only supporter in this entire regime, also turns against me when she forces me to go in the circle of shame, then it becomes this idea of, I have no one. I have nothing. I truly believed in this, and it turned against me. The idea that I’m alone in this awful world, with a baby that I want to have and will never have, is what helped me to play that scene.

This entire Q and A is very interesting.  I hope we see more of this actress (in flashbacks.)  Well worth reading!  Much more at link.

[AngelaHunter]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Bruce [Miller, the showrunner] was there for my audition, and he was like "You know, it's gonna be really great for you, this character is really fun, she’s really antagonistic and people are gonna hate her, and you kill someone! So it’s gonna be great!" I was like, 'Wait, what was that?'

And I'm like, has the word "said" been written out of the millennial dictionary?

Edited July 12, 2019 by AngelaHunter

[Umbelina]

She did a fantastic job with the limited direction she was given.

I bought it all, her snitching, her fears about this baby, and her eventual breakdown when she realized that everything she'd hung her hat on was a horrible lie.

[Umbelina]

A fairly recent interview with much of the cast.  One of the most interesting things they talk about is near the beginning, where they confirm that Margaret Atwood has remained involved, and is signing off on things they are doing, although she did ask to change a baby's name.  ?!

[AnswersWanted]

Emmy nominations 2019: See the full list

Welp, the Emmy nominations came out today and it does appear that the academy may be over all the THT hype as a lot of us are. 

Only two acting nods were given, and they went to the two guest stars, Whitford and Jones. 

I hope Littlefield and Miller both are suffering right now especially. Though knowing those two they will still pat one another on the back for being recognized at all. 

It's a shame some really good actors are still attached to this show, but I am actually glad to see that there seems to be a disconnect growing with the show’s direction.

Maybe this embarrassing showing, or lack thereof, will force some much needed changes for the future. 

But then again considering the egos involved, I sincerely doubt it. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by AnswersWanted
Typing on one’s phone can be hard...

[Umbelina]

It's so obvious when this show runner tries to write "emmy episodes" for the various actresses, and I think there is backlash for that, which I applaud.

They are all very good, just write a coherent story, and let them deliver it, without endless super-closeups or unbelievable behavior.

They did get noms for Cinematography as well, for "Holly" and for "The Word."  Also for costume design for "The Word." For production design, "Holly."  Directing nom for "Holly."  Editing for "The Word."  Music for "The Word."  Sound Mixing for "The Word."  Writing nod for "Holly."  

That's all I could see, I could have missed one or two though.

  https://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/71st-nominations-list-v1.pdf

Edited July 16, 2019 by Umbelina
added stuff

[alexvillage]

1 hour ago, AnswersWanted said:

Welp, the Emmy nominations came out today and it does appear that the academy may be over all the THT hype as a lot of us are

I don't really think the Emmy Awards is a measure of good/awesome anything, but they do indicate what is "hot" inside the industry - itself a mess of preferences, deals and extreme PR attacks. It is good then, that the show and the main actress got snubbed. I don't know why Alexis Bledel is not there, but I don't follow shows closely, although I do watch some - probably none of the ones that get nominated, since I don't have cable, only watch streaming stuff. I would like to see her being widely recognized, even if it is by an somewhat rigged award. 

Maybe this is the beginning of the end. 

Out of the nominees for Drama, I only watch This is Us, which I like but don't think it is amazing, and Ozark , which I thought was very well done and acted, something new. Couldn't finish Killing Eve, although it was the first time ever that I liked Sandra Oh. The rest, it have no idea and don't even feel like trying either. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by alexvillage