S01.E07: The Other Side

[Ragingviolet]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 9:11 AM, NorthstarATL said:

 

 Also, would have appreciated more of the rest of the world having changed. But I had to go downtown yesterday for the first time in years, and rode my bike through my old stomping grounds, and noted hijabs there where there had been none before, and realized that we really were not THAT far away from what the show/book predicted. Scared the heck out of me. Kind of like the last scene in Cabaret.

I'm confused about your reference to more hijabs. Could you expand on  that a bit? 

[Ragingviolet]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Kuther2000 said:

Yea. Sometimes I don't understand the comments about people not being able to see why June chose Luke. To me, this all boils down to June chose him. She wasn't given to him. She made a decision as a woman about her own life and fate. We shouldn't try to take it away from her just because we don't like Luke. 

It makes me happy to realize that people didn't just sit down and take it. There was resistance. They knew that what was happening wasn't right. Although they may have waited too late, they stood up.

I have noticed this on other shows as well. Some characters get voted worse person EVA on shows over rapist serial killers. cough **Catelyn Stark** cough

I find the condemning of Luke ironic because I personally suspect it started with the fact he cheated on his first wife. Puritanical views cone out to play.  A lot of dissection of his words seems nitpicky. This episode finally made me get it a little bit why June and Luke were together. They were equally passive and clueless.  If in to condemn Luke for these things I must too condemn June. 

 

 

I do find it highly unrealistic an educated black man dismisses any oppression but whatever. 

[EC Amber]

1 hour ago, Ragingviolet said:

I do find it highly unrealistic an educated black man dismisses any oppression but whatever. 

Ben. F-ing Carson. 

It's odd, just yesterday I was sharing a thought I've long since held since I was a teenager (more than a few decades ago). Namely it's this: general estimates vary wildly, but it's suggested that approx 20 billion humans have walked this planet in our short history. 

The variety of actions and worldviews is staggering. To that end I cannot conceive of at least one individual of any given demographic not fulfilling some batshit criteria. 

Intelligent women that hate other women. 
POC who defend the Confederate Flag
Any black American who claims we live in a post-racial society
etc etc. 

I suspect that what we see (at are repulsed by) in Luke is far more widespread than we are comfortable admitting. Perhaps the vitriol is because we see ourselves a little too clearly in him. That's awkward. 

[Umbelina]

I don't see myself in Luke, or in any of the men I've loved.  It's certainly not just his adultery or lack of concern for the wife he cheated on and unceremoniously left, I get that shit happens..  I would have dumped him in a heartbeat not because of that, but mostly because of the other things we've seen him do and say on the show.  June, from her actions on the show and in the book

Spoiler

her recorded tale

shows a woman of intelligence.  It's very hard for me to believe she would endure Luke for long.  He must be great in bed.  It's also possible she was a shallow person as well, but her experiences as a Handmaid have made her grow up and examine things.  It's equally possible that the SHOW is making Luke do the same thing now, and he will improve as a human.  I'm OK with that, even though it didn't happen in the book. 

So, June is paying dearly for her choices, and that may be why she is more acceptable than Luke as a character.  She's already suffered, and paid, and changed her views.

I'm also unimpressed with his acting so far.  During the crying scene all I could think about was how red his eyes were, which implied chemical help to get the tears flowing, but mostly I kept thinking "why is he in and out of focus?"  Either the camera person sucked, which is possible, (but the cinematography until this episode has been stellar) or the actor simply couldn't emote and hold his mark at the same time. 

I do see Luke in one friend of mine though.  A nice woman, super sweet, completely unaware of the world around her and what it all means right now.  She doesn't read.  She doesn't watch the news.  She has her head buried in the sand about every single issue out there right now.  She has her completely uniformed opinions, but blessedly rarely shares them.  My plan is to appreciate her for what she is, and maybe that's what June did with Luke.  In addition having simple minded sexist Luke may have been a relief for June because in the book,

Spoiler

she was raised by a very aware activist mother, so maybe that impacted her choice of a partner.   It may have been a relief to have someone in her life that was so completely unaware and unconcerned with Human Rights, especially women's.  I think not including that character in the show may have made the choice of Luke even more of a head scratcher. 

Watching Luke on this show is making me dislike my friend at times, and separate myself from her in some ways.  She's very pleasant and a happy person, but there is no there there.  So, in a way, I spend time with my own "Luke" (without the sex) quite a bit.  This show is making it wear on me a bit.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Umbelina

[Kuther2000]

3 hours ago, Ragingviolet said:

I find the condemning of Luke ironic because I personally suspect it started with the fact he cheated on his first wife. Puritanical views cone out to play.  A lot of dissection of his words seems nitpicky. 

I thought on that myself that some not all the hate he gets is because he cheated on his first wife with June. Then he went on to have a happy pre-Gilead life with June and their daughter that seemed to have no consequences before. No guilt.

[Ragingviolet]

1 minute ago, Kuther2000 said:

I thought on that myself that some not all the hate he gets is because he cheated on his first wife with June. Then he went on to have a happy pre-Gilead life with June and their daughter that seemed to have no consequences before. No guilt.

What makes this so ironic is the condemning him for being a cheater comes from the exact same place of black and white thinking that allows for the type of misogyny depicted in the show to exist in the first place.  Any kind of oppression comes from one group of people believing they're pov is law and anyone who disagrees is wrong with no attempts at understanding the other side. 

 

 

The tongue in cheek way of saying it's the men's turn didn't sit well with me either.  I'm interested in knowing everyone's pov.  Not just the women so i found this interesting. 

[Umbelina]

7 minutes ago, Kuther2000 said:

I thought on that myself that some not all the hate he gets is because he cheated on his first wife with June. Then he went on to have a happy pre-Gilead life with June and their daughter that seemed to have no consequences before. No guilt.

I think that's true.  Many people have experience the pain of adultery, divorce, or infidelity, or simply the lies a partner or spouse has told while cheating.

I don't fault them for seeing their cheating partner in Luke's callousness about it all. 

That particular thing has minimal impact on my personal feelings about Luke, well, except for the cheery "OK!" when June told him to leave his wife.  Couldn't the writers or the actor have drummed up some small bit of thought for the woman he married?  Was that writing, or an acting choice?  It was an odd note.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Umbelina

[NorthstarATL]

4 hours ago, Ragingviolet said:

I'm confused about your reference to more hijabs. Could you expand on  that a bit? 

Women wearing a symbol of oppression in a country that affords them freedom is worrisome. One assumes, just as with previous generations of Catholic nuns, that the devoutness is voluntary, but what if it's not? How do you know unless you ask? It's the same sort of situation that pre-Gilead or pre-Nazi Germany calls to mind: that the clues were there, out in the open...but only if one allowed oneself to see them.

[Stillhoping]

On 5/26/2017 at 1:17 AM, Shangrilala said:

I thought the very last scene was the best we've seen from the actor (part of why I don't like Luke could have to do with acting choices).  You know that when they handed that envelope he thought she was dead, then realizing she was alive, what she asked of him ("save hannah" - as a mom, THAT is the point that made me cry), but back to the sheer relief that she was alive and there was just the slightest glimmer of hope.  The actor did a good job with that.

Timeline question:  they say June is 31.  It's been 3 years.  That means she was 28 when she fled and Hannah was supposed to be 5 at the time.  That means she bad Hannah at we, but was pregnant at 22.  So....when did she meet and marry Luke?  Thinking they should have made her a few years older here.  She met Luke as a professional, not a student. Right?

True... But older maybe not fertile? They might have made Hannah a bit younger? The girl who plays her is cute and talented! 

[Stillhoping]

I read the book.. Fantastic and memorable . I saw the original clumsy movie...very little introspection...very rushed...little explanation

I admire the acting here but for me the impact of the first few episodes is dimming. I think they are drawing it out .. As opposed to the awful 90s movie that shortened everything. 

   I think the fashbacks.  Canada...Mexico...even the ?? Luke said about the 200 and ? School? I think the writers and producers are showing their plans for season 2. 

Then again I prefer movies...tv movies...short mini series...comedy series...and reality unreal tv vs drama series. 

I really see the writers plotting here sorry.

[NoSpam]

18 hours ago, Ragingviolet said:

I find the condemning of Luke ironic because I personally suspect it started with the fact he cheated on his first wife.  

That's not in my reason for disliking him. We don't know what his relationship with his first wife was like, and I've been on both sides of the adultery coin so I've never judged it. Sex lives can be complicated, messy, and ugly. I don't judge him for that.

He's just really immature, and a total "bro." He thought it would be kinky if June and Moira had gotten it on (I despised him for the "all women are bisexual in college" line). He was patronizing with the "I'll take care of you" bit -- completely not giving June the right to be enraged and scared of the elimination of her working rights. He didn't go to the march with her and Moira (even though other men did).  Now we learn that he didn't want to leave when Moira did, and he got out of Gilead without much suffering to himself. He's like the embodiment of white male privilege, which is odd since he's not white.

 I have never had patience for his type, even when I was in my twenties.

[EC Amber]

3 hours ago, NoSpam said:

He's like the embodiment of white male privilege, which is odd since he's not white.

Because privilege isn't limited to white people. 

[EC Amber]

21 hours ago, Umbelina said:

 

I don't see myself in Luke, or in any of the men I've loved.

 

No, and I doubt most people do. That was my point - it's uncomfortable to see our ugly sides on such bright display as our tv sets. I think a lot of us want to be August Landmesser. We want to be the one strong enough to not be swayed by the masses, to fold our arms and openly defy the regime. But there were so many more around him more than willing to raise their hand in that salute and I think that same concept is at play with Luke and the society of the US as it transitioned into Gilead. When a moment like that comes along I genuinely think *most* people are like Luke - and it's not a slight or insult. 

We certainly see it with the people of the US pre-Gilead and those after the transition. People were reluctant to act until it was too late. It was easier (relatively) to run than to stay... and there are some elements here that make Luke's behavior even more understandable and more human - the continental US was pocketed and ravaged by war, environmental and medical disasters. I suspect the environmental states of the country made everyone feel trapped. This is our only planet after all and one can't actually leave a contaminated area, you can only move further away. 

I suppose that is why i don't feel overly compelled to crucify Luke for his latent misogyny and complacency. It's pervasive and widespread. One would have to crucify everyone involved including June (who was also complacent enough that she was unable to escape when she needed to). 

 

[Umbelina]

Or, you know, I just don't put up with people like Luke in my life.  A man who blew off my loss of a job, and all of my money, with some bullshit patronizing comment about always taking care of me?  See ya bud.  Actually, I would have been gone the moment this married man started hinting around for a threesome with my best friend.  Had he approached it another way?  No biggie, but he didn't, he was creepy and childish, and I've never found children "sexy."

I understand people being slow to act when the world is changing, even when it's changing in such horrifying ways.  That's not the only thing about Luke that made my skin crawl, it was the cherry on top. 

[nodorothyparker]

The existence of the note at the end shows that whatever we might personally think of Luke matters less than the fact that June loves him and considers him not irredeemable, that she was willing to lose a finger or even a hand to write him that note.  The previous episode ended with her and us as viewers unsure if the Mexican ambassador's assistant was on the up and up or an Eye testing her or what.  Now we know both that he was for real and that June considered it worth the risk of what they might do to her if she guessed wrong to get that message to Luke, not even revealing her location or asking for help but to tell him she loves him and let him know Hannah isn't with her and needs rescuing.  

Beyond that I'm willing to see how it plays out.  Some people don't rise up until they're left with no other options.  It may not be particularly admirable but it's more realistic than portraying everyone as a fully woke hero out of the gate.

[Umbelina]

I agree, but it's not about expecting people to be heroes, let alone super heroes.  I love that she made them average, flawed people.

I just don't care for Luke's particular flaws.  ;)  He creeps me out, and I don't know how much is the dialogue and how much is the way he delivers that, or his acting. 

We can all agree to disagree.  Luke in the book was pretty much a jerk too,

Spoiler

though very slightly less creepy, and I didn't feel like I needed a bath.

They are apparently making him a hero now, at least according to what the ambassador's assistant said.  I'm not sure how I feel about that.  If this ends up being a "man rescues woman" thing, depending on how they handle it?  I may be pretty pissed off.  Of course, in the book,

Spoiler

Nick does rescue Offred, but Nick didn't bother me as much as Luke, and Nick is in the fight in Gilead, if you believe he's an eye and in Mayday, which I do.

  They've shown men and women in Mayday, so it's not like it's depending on the hero man alone in that.  Both genders fought, those bodies hanging in the churches and on the walls were both male and female.

[nodorothyparker]

Show Luke is pretty much the same as book Luke.  

Spoiler

Am I imagining it or didn't book Luke want to have sex very shortly after the news about women being cut off from their money came out?

Both versions are fairly complacent about what's happening around them until it's far too late.

I didn't get any vibe that he was going the hero route yet, but it's possible I missed it.  He showed up with a folder of newspaper clippings clearly desperate to talk to someone about what he thought was going on.  It read to me like a man grasping at straws.  Maybe he's been doing some investigating in the three-year time skip, maybe he hasn't.  I honestly don't know and am hesitant to read too much into that.  Either way, I question how much heroing he can really do from a refugee apartment in Toronto without being part of a larger organization.

I'm thinking the power and social structure of Gilead will require the efforts of both genders for any successful resistance/rescue effort.   It would be extremely tough for any lone woman to get herself out without some help.

[stagmania]

Very late to this one, and my main takeaway is that I'm just not that into Luke. I knew they'd need to do some padding to take the book plot through the end of the season, and that's what this felt like to me: mildly interesting filler. Looking forward to getting back to June.

[chocolatine]

44 minutes ago, nodorothyparker said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Am I imagining it or didn't book Luke want to have sex very shortly after the news about women being cut off from their money came out?

 

That's exactly right.

Spoiler

Offred also says in the book that Luke wasn't as bothered by what was happening as she felt he should have been. So she's definitely not seeing him in a "perfect" or "hero" light, but she loves him anyway.

[Bec]

This episode bored me at first, but picked up towards the end when those new people entered the picture. I’m so bummed that most of the crew that rescued Luke is probably dead. I would have liked to follow their story. They were all far more interesting than Luke. Do I think he’s hatable? No, he is just exceedingly meh. He’s basically human benadryl. Yawn! I can barely muster up enough energy to stay awake when he's on, much less have the energy to hate him.

The “cheating on his wife” thing isn't that interesting, either. Just another thing that makes him so banal. Add him to the ranks of dull guys who got bored and had an affair under the delusion that this makes them more exciting. That this makes them some kind of rebel or romantic hero. When really, they're as mediocre as people can get.

I see nothing wrong with people being critical of common failings like his cheating and his complacency in the rise of an evil regime. Yeah, there certainly are no shortage of people who do the same things. We might make the same mistakes ourselves. So? Do we just shrug and say “oh well, that’s how it is, nothing to be done about it”? Or do we try to do better, which requires us to recognize that this kind of behavior is a problem? To put it into words so we can remind each other that this is not okay?

If anything, the purpose of Luke’s character is probably to show us an example of “what not to do”. See Luke? Don’t be like Luke. So no, the story doesn’t need to make him a hero. And people don’t need to excuse his shortcomings. We can learn from those shortcomings.

I suppose that weird part where Luke was like “You want me to leave my wife for you? Sure! That’ll be fun!” was meant to make him “better” than the typical cheater. It’s so weird because we expect a guy to hem and haw when his mistress asks him to leave his wife. That’s how it usually works - they want to have their cake and eat it, too. But Luke just instantly made a decision, and actually stuck to it. Gotta give him credit where credit is due.

Who knows if he was ever going to leave his wife of his own accord if June never asked him to do it? I would guess “no”. Why rock the boat if you can get away with not rocking it? Why yes, I do have a low opinion of him, thank you!

I wonder if Luke will be pissed when he finds out June technically cheated on him? It would be pretty hypocritical of him. But it would create drama, so I'm placing bets on "yep".

Hey, when a woman thinks her husband is dead and she would get sentenced to a slow death if she doesn’t produce a baby, those are really good reasons for cheating! Not gonna judge June for it! I don’t know what Luke’s reasons were. It sure seemed like he could have easily left his wife if he wanted to date around. That’s the other implication of having him be so easy-peasy about leaving his wife for June. Heh, “for June”, as if he’s doing her a favor by sorting his own life out.

Another stray observation: June felt so guilty about having sex with Nick. She felt like she was cheating on Luke even though she didn’t know Luke wasn’t dead. But Luke apparently never felt a lick of guilt about cheating on his previous wife, who he knew very well was very much alive. This is kind of a brilliant bit of detail, if it’s meant to illustrate how women are conditioned to prioritize other people over their own well-being, contrasted with how men are conditioned to feel entitled to their pleasure, to the point that they don’t care if it hurts other people (though in real life there are people who defy that societal conditioning, we’re looking at the average here).

[Shangrilala]

.I won't lie, I think part of it is the actor and his delivery.  I'm not a huge fan (as opposed to the commander who makes my skin crawl and takes the role to such a sinister level, beyond what I ever thought in the book - mucho kudos to the actor).  I don't know what I envisioned for Luke, but this definitely isn't it.  I want to reach into the screen and shake him, every step of the way.  

Luke is probably a tough role to play I imagine.  What exactly are you supposed to do with him?  I don't like the portrayal, but I have no suggestions either.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Shangrilala

[AllyB]

On 5/28/2017 at 7:53 PM, Umbelina said:

During the crying scene all I could think about was how red his eyes were, which implied chemical help to get the tears flowing, but mostly I kept thinking "why is he in and out of focus?"  Either the camera person sucked, which is possible, (but the cinematography until this episode has been stellar) or the actor simply couldn't emote and hold his mark at the same time. 

I think that was a directorial or editorial decision. The coming in and out of focus was to create a sense of how he was feeling. Swinging between sharp relief and utter, lightheaded dreaminess. He was experiencing a moment he would have dreamt of for years and his brain was having trouble differentiating between reality and fantasy. I have super low blood pressure when I'm stressed and sometimes, when I've had really awful news, the world feels exactly like it's going in and out of focus.

[Umbelina]

Well, it failed for me, and took me completely out of the scene.

Also @Bec, great post, and it reminded me of something.  I kept wondering if Luke is already banging the mute woman, he's certainly not a faithful guy, and it's been years, and they do live together.  While I doubt he would fault June for getting any comfort and pleasure she could (even I don't think he's that big of an ass) he would also completely understand that she thought he was dead.  Which he probably would have been, I can't see them bothering to save him, let alone call an ambulance for him.  That was pretty whack frankly, why would they bother to keep him alive? He shot at them, he doesn't have a womb. 

Anyway, in all those years?  I'm relatively certain Luke got laid too.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Umbelina

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

I kept wondering if Luke is already banging the mute woman, he's certainly not a faithful guy, and it's been years, and they do live together.

I wondered that too, but if the woman is still too traumatized to speak after three years, I don't know that she would able/willing to have sex again. 

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

 Anyway, in all those years?  I'm relatively certain Luke got laid too.

I agree with that part. I'm sure he's had casual hookups if not more serious relationships.

[boes]

5 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I can't see them bothering to save him, let alone call an ambulance for him.  That was pretty whack frankly, why would they bother to keep him alive? He shot at them, he doesn't have a womb.

 

I thought the same until I caught part of a conversation one the guys in the ambulance was having on the phone, something about how he was stabilized enough for the "Captain" to interrogate him.  Then, the crash.  So I guess Luke would live long enough to see what they could get out of him.

[AllyB]

That doesn't make sense though as they had June and could interrogate her just as well. I'd say it was a lazy plot device in order to explain Luke's escape except it wasn't even necessary. He could just as easily have been shot and presumed dead by guardians prioritising capturing June and Hannah. Then he could have woken and stumbled to the town where he met the people trying to escape.

[JasonCC]

My hand-waving of Luke being taken somewhere in an ambulence is that when the escape happened it was still in the in-between time before full-blown Gilead we see at the Commander's house three years later. The handmaid system was not fully implemented or public yet (the rescuers in the van were just figuring it out to their horror with the rescued mute girl) and the executions still have a bit of an "unofficial", lynching flavor to them rather than the state executions: full hanging on a wall displaying official Gilead-supplied symbols denoting the crime. I bet people in before-time with official roles (paramedics, traffic cops, border agents) were still kind of in this limbo of doing what their position's protocol was (stabilize gunshot suspects and take them in) and the new fascist rules consuming them bit by bit.

Edited May 30, 2017 by JasonCC

[Shangrilala]

9 hours ago, boes said:

I thought the same until I caught part of a conversation one the guys in the ambulance was having on the phone, something about how he was stabilized enough for the "Captain" to interrogate him.  Then, the crash.  So I guess Luke would live long enough to see what they could get out of him.

It's interesting, I'm rereading the book and I just past the part where Offred envisions what happened to Luke - either dead in a ditch or in an empty cell.  Yet everybody assumes, given what we know of the regime, that he is dead.  But I don't think the story ever actually confirms that.  So I guess the show took some liberties here.  Unless confirmation of his death comes later and I just haven't gotten to it yet.  I only remember 

Spoiler

Serena Joy showing her a picture of her daughter, alive and in a white dress

[EyesGlazed]

On 5/26/2017 at 9:57 PM, Eureka said:

 Wondered about that too. In the book she's 33. Don't know why they aged her down.

I do.  It's so that the June character will have a longer period of being in her "fertile" years; hence more potential seasons of a show about a Handmaid.  I'm onto you, Hulu!

[TV Anonymous]

On 5/24/2017 at 8:46 AM, Eureka said:

I haven't watched yet but I didn't change my name and this summer will be our 20th anniversary. My only point being if the series is saying "before" was circa 2015 then I am not surprised at all that she kept her name, especially in the Boston area. We lived in that area when we got married and even back then, it was a very common choice among professional women to not take your husband's name. I live south of the Mason-Dixon line now and it's much less common here.

In part of Canada that I was from, women's name do not legally change because of marriage. Upon marriage, the bride and the groom keep their own family name. Children can be named either by the father's or mother's last name or both in compound. If a woman wants her last name to follow her husband's, she needs to go to the court and legally change her name.

[greekmom]

On 5/27/2017 at 11:21 AM, AllyB said:

If I was an American refugee, unless I planned on joining the resistance, I doubt I'd stay in Canada. The vast majority of Canada's population live within 100 miles of the US border. If Gilead could pretty much take over 48 states of the US in a few short years, I would feel very insecure in most Canadian cities. It would just be too easy for Gilead to attack. I'd probably base myself in Nova Scotia and apply for visas to any country with less repressive regimes.

Just saw last night's episode. I actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would.  After last night's episode and what I know from reading ahead about the Nick centered episode, I would have to say I choose Luke over Nick.  Luke wasn't complaining about life before Gilead. He wasn't part of any political party.  He just wanted to live his life with June and Hannah.  Yes, they all underestimated the threat of Gilead but as a poster above noted, so have many people done before in actual history. 

I was sad about Zoe getting gunned down as well as the nun and the gay guy and only Luke and TBD made it over the boarder.  Seeing the photos on the wall of the missing people broke my heart and reminded me of photos from 9/11.  I was looking to see if Emily's face would pop up since her wife and child made it over the boarder safely. Missed opportunity by the producers/directors/etc.

I wish TBD did finallly talk in the scene with Luke outside the consulate.

One thing I am confused at is how much of the original USA does Gilead have?  How much of it is waste land colonies? And how much is still in question due to being fought over by resistance.  Anyone up to the task on making a map?

One last thing, up to the point when neighbour found Luke/June/Hannah there wasn't any indication that anyone was alerted that they took off. So how did neighbour find out on the scanner?

[Emily Thrace]

On 2017-05-29 at 4:38 AM, NoSpam said:

That's not in my reason for disliking him. We don't know what his relationship with his first wife was like, and I've been on both sides of the adultery coin so I've never judged it. Sex lives can be complicated, messy, and ugly. I don't judge him for that.

He's just really immature, and a total "bro." He thought it would be kinky if June and Moira had gotten it on (I despised him for the "all women are bisexual in college" line). He was patronizing with the "I'll take care of you" bit -- completely not giving June the right to be enraged and scared of the elimination of her working rights. He didn't go to the march with her and Moira (even though other men did).  Now we learn that he didn't want to leave when Moira did, and he got out of Gilead without much suffering to himself. He's like the embodiment of white male privilege, which is odd since he's not white.

 I have never had patience for his type, even when I was in my twenties.

I feel like with Luke people are reading a lot into the asking about Moira and June's relationship that isn't really wasn't his intent. If June's best friend had been a man he might have asked the same questions. Its June who actually makes the "all women are lesbians in college" joke. Luke back pedals and shakes his head. Also he was a lot younger in some of these flashbacks(He and June would have been together almost ten years at this point) so its less immaturity and more actually being less mature. He tried to make his wife feel better, when she lost her job. What was he supposed to do rage and throw things? I wonder what response would have actually gone over well on this board.  He probably skipped the protest to care for Hannah since it was more important for June to be there. If they were losing an income paying a babysitter probably wasn't the most practical idea. Luke is still mostly a cipher and an example of how we got here rather than an actual character at this point. He is someone with room to grow which isn't such a bad place for a character to start. I for one am not writing him off based on two comments. The show has many more characters worthy of my hate.

I also think the tale of black man escaping to Canada certainly has its place in a story about American oppression. As long as the show isn't saying Luke story is more important than Junes its not problematic. Feminism should be about inclusion not how white women's stories trump a black man's. A story like this should have room for Luke's story and Junes story and Moira's and anyone else who is being torn apart by this regime. The lack of POC is something that was a flaw in the original book that I'm glad is being corrected.

There were flaws in the episode execution and Lukes character in general. (The writers really haven't given him much characterization) It  does feel like a bit of a missed opportunity but the basic idea of focusing on another character wasn't the problem. Mostly the issue was them not wanting to commit to actually showing us anything about Luke or the greater world in which Gilead takes place.

[NoSpam]

Quote

 

Feminism should be about inclusion not how white women's stories trump a black man's.

 

That's part of where this disagreement stems from for me. I think feminism should be about women, not about men (of any color -- his color is not my issue).

 

Getting off topic now, so I'll just leave this.

[Kuther2000]

On crap phone so don't feel like linking to comments. It's very interesting to me. That people are talking about Luke's sex life when we got a 5 minute glimpse of three years into the future that supports none of this speculation. If Luke never had sex with anyone else and probably became a hermit after everythjng with June, it feels like some people would find fault in that or if he wasn't trying to find his wife and daughter. You don't fault June for finding comfort with someone else because she thinks Luke's dead. Well its quite possible that Luke thought June was dead until proof came later so along those lines should he be at fault. I know Luke was the married person; however,  some blame can also be placed on June for not being a decent human in that respect. It's quite possible she met his wife smiled in her face while she was sleeping with her husband.

Some/certain women want  feminism to be about all women of any color when it suits their narrative and them wanting other women to support their ideas.

[Umbelina]

People already said the wouldn't blame either Luke or June.

[Emily Thrace]

On 2017-06-07 at 5:33 AM, NoSpam said:

That's part of where this disagreement stems from for me. I think feminism should be about women, not about men (of any color -- his color is not my issue).

Except feminism is about equality not supremacy or exclusion and by its very nature has to include men. Women can never be accepted by society as equals unless men accept it too. We can pass all the laws and have all the marches but unless  we win over the male half of the population we're fucked. Men should care patriarchal structures hurt them too (male stats on mental health and suicide alone prove that) but many of them don't realize it. That's actually what makes Luke's journey so essential to this story. He starts off as a typical clued out male. Then slowly he becomes aware of what is going on and he becomes a victim of Gilead's system.  Finally he emerges out the other side someone willing to fight for himself and his family.  Its a completely feminist story even if it is based around a man.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Emily Thrace
English is my first language but grammar ain't

[EC Amber]

6 minutes ago, Emily Thrace said:

Except feminism is about equality not supremacy or exclusion and by its very nature has to include men. Women can never be excepted by society as equals unless men accept it too. We can pass all the laws and have all the marches but unless  we win over the male half of the population we're fucked. Men should care patriarchal structures hurt them too (male stats on mental health and suicide alone prove that) but many of them don't realize it. That's actually what makes Luke's journey so essential to this story. He starts off as a typical clued out male. Then slowly becomes he aware of what is going on and he becomes a victim of Gilead's system.  Finally he emerges out the other side someone willing to fight for himself and his family.  Its a completely feminist even if it based around a man.

Nothing to really add except noting that I both clapped, then raised my glass. 

Feminism without inclusion isn't actually feminism. 

[NoSpam]

We can have inclusion without having our stories be all about men.

 

Done here, now. Off topic.

[marinw]

Just catching up after a cable-free vacation.

Canada to  the rescue! It warms my cold Canadian heart that we Canuks have not drunk the Gilead Kool-Aid. And of course Toronto would have a Little America because multi-culturism.

That said, I missed the f*cked-up going-ons back in Gilead.

[marinw]

On 5/28/2017 at 8:42 PM, Stillhoping said:

I thought the very last scene was the best we've seen from the actor (part of why I don't like Luke could have to do with acting choices)

Agreed. I am just not connecting with Luke, but that last scene was very effective.

[Umbelina]

The dude that smuggled them out made him throw away the backpack, then he put them in the trunk of the car all the way to the safe house.

What was the point?

So Luke could keep the Teddy Bear and photos?  Because it made no sense at all.

[NoSpam]

16 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

The dude that smuggled them out made him throw away the backpack, then he put them in the trunk of the car all the way to the safe house.

What was the point?

So Luke could keep the Teddy Bear and photos?  Because it made no sense at all.

And when they get out of the car at the cabin, they have the backpack again. Sloppy continuity.

[mtlchick]

Finally watched it tonight while on my stationary bike: the tension from the show makes the sweat session worth it. A few takeaways:

 

1) Toronto being called "Little America" made me laugh considering the amount of times it gets passed off as New York and from my personal perspective, wants to be an American city anyway.

2) I'm not sure if it's actor or the character, but I'm not feeling Luke at all.  It was only at the end at the crying of relief at finding out June was alive that made me feel something towards him.  Outside of that...eh.  

3) for a show that is beautifully shot, the graphics for the gunfire were horrible! It was like looking at the lasers from the original Star Wars!

[secnarf]

25 minutes ago, mtlchick said:

1) Toronto being called "Little America" made me laugh considering the amount of times it gets passed off as New York and from my personal perspective, wants to be an American city anyway.

They were referring to a neighbourhood in Toronto, not Toronto on the whole. Similar to Little Italy, Little Portugal, etc which are currently 'neighbourhoods' in Toronto. Those neighbourhoods are more historical, and though they do still serve as hubs for cultural events, they're fairly diverse demographically nowadays.

However, I also laughed at the reference to "Little America" because of course while Americans want immigrants to America to adopt an American way of life, when Americans are refugees in another country they will do the exact opposite and form a little enclave for themselves. I thought it was an interesting writing choice. It's easy when you are the host country to want immigrants to quickly integrate, but THT shows it from the other side and forces empathy for the refugees.

[chocolatine]

33 minutes ago, mtlchick said:

1) Toronto being called "Little America" made me laugh considering the amount of times it gets passed off as New York and from my personal perspective, wants to be an American city anyway.

I don't think the show was implying that the entire city of Toronto was called "Little America". It's probably just a neighborhood that has a high concentration of Gilead refugees.

[bijoux]

I get what the episode was going for but I have to admit it was my least favorite of the bunch.

It's funny how our personal experiences can color things. Luke taking the album seems to have annoyed a number of posters. Yet it resonated with me. As a kid I was living in a war zone and we left the town for a few months, not really knowing how long it would last. Guess what my mom had to take with her? Photos pulled out from albums. It's a connection to your past, your family and yourself really. So that part got to me. Another thing that struck me was the snow. There was something poignant about everything being white when June and Luke were discussing the lack of snow during the early stages of their relationship.

I missed the reference to three years passing since the escape attempt. When did they say so? The only three I caught were the three weeks since June gave the note to the ambassador's aide.

[Whimsy]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 10:10 PM, secnarf said:

However, I also laughed at the reference to "Little America" because of course while Americans want immigrants to America to adopt an American way of life, when Americans are refugees in another country they will do the exact opposite and form a little enclave for themselves.

Hmmm...  I don't see that at all.  In every major city I've been to in the US there has been areas that are pretty much all of one type of group or another- Italian, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Greek, etc.  I think it's just natural for anyone immigrating to a new country to find solace in their "own kind". 

[EC Amber]

2 hours ago, GenL said:

In every major city I've been to in the US there has been areas that are pretty much all of one type of group or another- Italian, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Greek, etc.  I think it's just natural for anyone immigrating to a new country to find solace in their "own kind". 

Agree. It's a pretty normal trait of all humans. We move to a new place and to make adaptation easier we make it look familiar. I don't think that is an American trait... or any other nationality or culture. It's just being human. 

[secnarf]

3 hours ago, GenL said:

Hmmm...  I don't see that at all.  In every major city I've been to in the US there has been areas that are pretty much all of one type of group or another- Italian, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Greek, etc.  I think it's just natural for anyone immigrating to a new country to find solace in their "own kind". 

 

54 minutes ago, EC Amber said:

Agree. It's a pretty normal trait of all humans. We move to a new place and to make adaptation easier we make it look familiar. I don't think that is an American trait... or any other nationality or culture. It's just being human. 

To clarify - my point wasn't that it is not natural to group together with those who are similar. I was pointing out the irony that this is the exact opposite of what Americans traditionally expect of their immigrants and refugees - the "melting pot" concept of assimilation.

THT presents the story from the point of view of the refugee - and these are refugees that look and speak like the majority of the viewing audience - which makes the audience sympathetic to the refugee situation in a way that is difficult from the other side. This is very timely given the current state of things and general antipathy towards refugees that seems to be creeping up worldwide.

As someone pointed out earlier (on this thread or another? I can't remember), if even 10% of Americans were refugees fleeing into Canada (likely a gross underestimate), that's equivalent to doubling the Canadian population. That's such a huge strain on resources - which was alluded to in this episode - that there must be people who are less than pleased to see Canada be so welcoming to refugees that the system apparently cannot support.

[Umbelina]

Those are good points.  With Climate Change being mentioned though, I wonder what impact that had on Canada, lose some shorelines, but possibly much more growing season weather?

Also, many of the early refugees were probably the more intelligent people who weren't "asleep" so presumably they would help add to the economy rather than simply be a drain on it.  Doctors and teachers, and other skilled workers are, to me anyway, much more likely to have run early on, since they were being killed.  In addition, the lack of language differences would probably help with assimilation. 

One other point mentioned on the show was that they might be relocated to other European areas, so presumably Canada was getting help, and other countries offered, Canada may have simply been the first stop for many.