Jump to content
Forums forums
Tara Ariano

S01.E10: Night

Recommended Posts

On ‎24‎.‎1‎.‎2018 at 5:36 PM, John Potts said:

I would assume hypocrisy would run all the way to the top ("If he strayed, it must have been some strumpet using her womanly wiles to lead him from the straight and narrow") and get at most some tap on the wrist, like a public confession ("For a man of his station, the humiliation is punishment enough!"). 

Maybe they would have been merciful if the matter hadn't become public. And because the wife demanded the harshest punishment, they had no choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎26‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 5:08 AM, Rockstar99435 said:

I assumed she played the part of the concerned and pious wife when she asked for the harshest punishment. Given how the men feel about all women (even the wives), I think if she had gone to Pryce and demanded angerly that they cut off her husband's hand, she would have been accused of being a disloyal, jealous, spiteful bitch and her husband would've been given a lesser sentence. So instead, she pretended to be worried about his immortal soul being damned to hell forever for his sins and begged them to give him the harshest punishment in the hopes that God will think he's been punished enough and forgive him.

I believe she was genuinely angry towards her husband who had had private moments with the Hand Maid, i.e. had emotional closeness that was forbidden in the system, although he had lied to her them becoming a family.

Sweden (to which Finland then belonged) adopted in 17th century Mose law according which the punishment for adultery was death, but the people strongly disagreed and the spouses usually asked for mercy.   

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎28‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 6:23 AM, chocolatine said:

I see Canada in the show's context as similar to Jordan and Turkey for Syrian refugees. They can provide short-term relief, but they don't have the resources to permanently absorb all incoming refugees. So most of the refugees go there to escape immediate danger, but once there apply for permanent resettlement to other countries.

I don't think your comparision is valid. Turkey and Syria are poor countries whereas Canada is wealthy. Evidently there wasn't many refugees as they could afford to give Moira all the items straight away. (I can well remember 2015 when refugee centers were grounded ad hoc and people were asked to buy underwears and donate other clothes.) 

Most of all, the US refugees would speak and write English and have education and profession, so other English-speaking countries would be willing to take people like them who would easily find jobs.   

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 12:26 AM, AnswersWanted said:

Recalling Moira's reactions after being rescued and how she was suddenly overwhelmed with kindness and grace that had been snatched away from her in Gilead, it reminded me of a former prison inmate.

Someone who had lost all rights, all choice, unable to make even the most basic decisions for themselves regarding everything from person hygiene (when, where, if to have a bath/shower), to being told when to eat, when to sleep, where they're allowed to go and with whom, under watch at all times, and always likely to be harshly punished for even the slightest infractions, and so forth and so on.

Moira was shell-shocked as she was given things that had nothing to do with her gender or sex, that had nothing to do with her diminished social role, that weren't plants or traps that would spell her doom.

She was handed a phone, a piece of technology that had become completely restricted to her; a phone to call and talk to people, to those she cares about and those who care about her. After Gilead it would seem like a dream to have such a freedom again.

Then she was given clothing, not a uniform, not a regulated outfit that would make her standout like a hunk of meat on display, it wasn't meant to "show her worth" but merely keep her warm and comfortable.

Next came money, she was handed money, her own money to use as she saw fit, without needing permission, without needing a man to gain simple access to it. To have that power restored was one of the most hard hitting.

And then, lastly, she was asked what she wanted to do in how long? It'd been years since she had been given such an opportunity, to openly say what she wanted, what she needed, what she desired, and there would be no searing cattle prod jabbed in her side as punishment for her insolence.

She was asked if she wanted to find somewhere quiet to read, an act in Gilead decreed to cost her an eye or a hand, or earn her a beating or solitary confinement. What had been made illegal was now, once again, not only freely offered to her but she was encouraged to indulge.

Her lost expression at all of this really hit me hard, It was proof of what Gilead had succeeded in doing. No, they hadn't broken her spirit completely but they had left their marks, they had stolen something from her that wouldn't magically just reappear because she had gotten away.

She escaped in one piece physically but internally, mentally and emotionally, she is in pieces that will need to be put back together, and while she will heal she will never be the same.

Yes, these scene was meant to be an antithesis to Gilead, but it's another matter if it was realistic or a fantasy.

On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 6:07 AM, EC Amber said:

Something about this scene was bugging me and you clued me in on what. The in take officer. Yes, he was warm and gracious and as helpful as he could be. But we're years into this - too many women who ran and survived would be seeking out positions of support for Handmaids who escaped. They would be driven to the work to help them process and provide a better reception, better sensitivity. There would be a network already growing (and perhaps gaining international traction?)... pure speculation. But it just seemed a little off. 

Even such a treatment as was shown could be possible only if there very few refugees, not even daily.

When suddenly more asulym seekers come in a week than earlier in a year, as happened in 2015, they just can't be handled individually because it's already enough work to get food and shelter to them.    

On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 5:33 PM, Baltimore Betty said:

When Moira got to the refugee center I would have thought there would have been a conversation with the intake person about what she had to do in Gilead such as the being a Handmaid and a lady of the evening and how it was government sanctioned rape and all.  Are there any other handmaids or a Martha that escaped from Gilead?


On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 5:53 PM, chocolatine said:

I think the social workers have been trained to give female Gilead refugees a minute before barraging them with painful questions. As we saw by Moira's reaction to being free, at first shell-shocked and incredulous, then breaking down and crying (for perhaps the first time since it all started) when she saw Luke, those women need some time to process what's happened to them before they can talk about it. And if they never want to talk about it (c.f. Luke's mute friend), they shouldn't be asked to.

But is Moire accepted as a refugee straight away? In Finland each asulym seeker is interviewed by Immigration Office that decides whether he or she will get a refugee status, or at least a "humanitarian protection". 

Edited by Roseanna

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎26‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 6:49 AM, SeanC said:

The population ratio between the US and Canada has been a fairly consistent 10/1 over the centuries.  Even a small percentage of the US population turning into refugees across the border would be a huge strain on resources, given the disparity in size.  If even 2% were refugees (and given the scale of the crisis, it seems like that would be conservative), that's 6.42 million people.

You are right, I only thought about this episode where only a handful refugees are coming per week. But most of them have probably come in the same time as Luke or before,

Historical comparision: Estonia had about a million of inhabitants from which about 75 000-80 000 fled across the Baltic sea in the end of the WW2, afraid of the second Soviet occupation. Hundreds of people perished in the sea. The Estonians had already experienced Sovjetization in 1940-1 and the first mass deportation in June 1941 when 10 000 people were sent to Siberia. 

June and Luke knew that women were forbidden to work and own anything, but did they know about the handmaidens and other traits of the Gilead system?

Also, a researcher who studied the great Estonian author, Jaan Kross, compared Finland and Estonia: to the Finns losing Karelia in WW2  to Soviet Union was a thraumatic experience, as it was experienced a great injustice but is was reacted in an unambiguous way: the whole population (400 000 of nearly 4 million inhabitants) was evacuated. There was simply no alternative as nobody wanted to stay. Instead, in Estonia people had to make an individual choice but it concerned also many others. If a husband and a father regarded as self evident that he would take his wife and children with him, what would he do with his aged parents?     

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎28‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 3:15 AM, Umbelina said:

I keep reading this.  Honestly it  makes not sense to me at all, no offense intended to you FEX, I just happened to respond to your post on this.  Many others have said the same thing.

Put yourself in their position.  You are surrounded by men in combat gear carrying machine guns.  The ONLY powerful person there that is stopping them from mowing you, and your fellow Housemaids down is Aunt Lydia. 

Why on earth would you try to kill the only person of authority there that is preventing them from shooting all of you?  Why would you use ONE rock to take on machine guns? 


Rationally you are right, but it's not at all certain that people in such situation can think rationally. There are many examples about irrational violence conducted by a mob. 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎15‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 7:21 PM, Baltimore Betty said:

I loved Serena Joy telling Fred the baby wasn't his etc...He knows he is sterile and he knows he is not the father of that baby but will never admit it.

I think it was a dangerous and therefore stupid thing to say. Fred could have reacted by putting death Offred and Nick as well as his wife who had brought them together. Of cpurse it would be a shame also to Fred but shame didn't prevent Henry VIII.     

  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎16‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 7:29 AM, Stillhoping said:

The acting was very powerful but my logical side cant get over all the coincidences. Just me maybe...I can get into a drama or futuristic movie or mini series but when it becomes seasons my questions start. 

That pretty well sums it up for me too. When I read the book years ago, I simply accepted its world as it was. When the series tried to explain things, some explanations seem likely but others don't. 

As others have above pointed out, the "revolution" wouldn't have succeeded if there hadn't been enough supporters inside the army.  

The most unlikely phenomen is the short span when the totalitarian system was created. Even the Bolsheviks used the former experts until they had their own cadres trained. Hitler attacked the former elite only in 1944 after Stauffenberg's assassination revealed the conspiracy of the officers.  And in Gilead there weren't only informers about people's opinions, but the most intimate life sphere, sex and family, was completely changed and controlled. 

Most of all, we have told about the "religion" but not enough of the environmental and nuclear (?) catastrophe that was the primal cause.      

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎25‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 11:54 PM, Brn2bwild said:

This conversation, Canada v. U.S., makes me think of something that has bothered me: there is no way a group as hell bent on control would simply stop their conquest at the border.  They would be invading Canada, Mexico, and any other place within reach.  They have nuclear weapons at their disposal and clearly no hesitation about destroying large parts of the continent to achieve victory.

I think you make a generalization because of Hitler. Franco was a Fascist too but he wouldn't go to war and remained his power until his death.    

Even Hitler had reasons to go war, even if they seem strange to us: to create a "living space" in Eastern Europe for the Germans, a colonization imperium like other great powers had created outside Europe. 

What would Gilead achieve with the war? Is there anything in Canada they lack and they desperately need? How would they rule millions people? Are they enough Canadiens willing to colloborate with the enemy? Or would all Canadiens be killed or put to slave camps.  But would Gilead have enough men for the latter?

 As for using nuclear weapons, there has been no information that Gilead has used them, instead that there has before Gilead been an nuclear as well an environmental catastrophe that has lead to infertility. It would extremely stupid to use nuclear weapons against Canada as the winds would bring radioactivity also to Gilead.         

The only reason I can think for Gilead going to war would be turn the population's interest from the internal problems, but there hadn't been any information that the population is restless because of them.

Share this post

Link to post
On ‎28‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 6:27 AM, secnarf said:

I often wonder about this - I think everybody, regardless of the country they live in, would like to think that other countries would intervene in case anything like this were to happen to their country. But then, look at how reluctant many countries are to intervene in conflicts elsewhere in the world today.

I think decades ago - with the world wars, Korean war, Vietnam war, etc there was a general sense of obligation and a (real or perceived) benefit to the countries that were intervening. The pendulum then swung the other way, so countries are quite reluctant to intervene unless there is a real tangible benefit to them. And then, it tends to be wealthier countries intervening in poorer countries. If the US were in trouble, it'd be difficult even with several other countries banded together to be able to intervene in their domestic affairs, and with something so insidious there wouldn't be the unity that you would see after something so blatant as 9/11. I could see the world letting Gilead take power in a similar way to how Hitler gained power, with appeasement and turning a blind eye.

The Finns learned during the Winter War that the other states don't help. To some older people, empathy became a dirty word.   

I don't think there has ever been a "general sense of obligation" - that's only been propaganda to the public but never a motive of the government.  

On ‎28‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 8:46 AM, Emily Thrace said:

That's not really what I was trying to say but the two conflicts would get a very different reaction for a couple of reasons. Gilead emerging in the US would be seen as in internal conflict so other countries wouldn't be allowed to intervene under most international statutes.  There would be a time when no one would be sure who was the legitimate US government so they would hold back on sending aid until they knew what was going on. We actually know they have responded somewhat with trade sanctions. Which would be the proper response to something like this. Invading Gilead even at the behest of whatever is left of the US government would be interfering in an internal matter and a violation of US sovereignty. Its the same reason no one has invaded North Korea and not officially chosen sides in Syria. As horrible as it sound they have the right to treat their citizens however they want that what being a sovereign nation is.    Invading Canada however would be an external conflict so Canada would have every right to ask for help from their allies. There probably would be countries jumping at the chance to to take on Gilead.


On ‎28‎.‎6‎.‎2017 at 4:48 PM, EC Amber said:

Mmmm, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. *What* specifically has been proven? My understanding is that nations tend to get involved when they are either feeling threatened directly or they have some incentive to get involved. Humanitarian reasons don't fall in either category. Gilead is too weak to be a legitimate threat to any country - including Canada and Mexico. And there really isn't much by way of incentive. As I pointed out - their resources have been damaged (so much so that people attempting to clean up the mess lose their skin "in sheets"), Gilead is a poor source of exports (so much that they are considering trading the only thing that has any value, and they don't have that many Handmaid's) and they are steeped in enforced ignorance and superstition. Gilead simply has very little to offer the world that would cause them to intervene. And the world has enough to deal with without taking on the problems of Gilead. 

A agree with you both. 

In addition to that other countries should have really strong reasons of their own in order to intervene, i.e. their national interests must be threatened by Gilead, it's not easy to carry enough armed forces to the other continent. No country could do it alone, there must be an alliance.  

Share this post

Link to post

got my free month of Hulu, so binged this first season.

For all the children produced at that 'party', it does seem that the Handmaids don't get pregnant all that often.  None appeared pregnant at the stoning, though I suppose its possible there might be another one like June, in the very early stages.  Still, one assumes that the Cambridge area was one of the more fertile areas, since that's where the Mexican entourage visited, as opposed to other Gilead cities.  Or at least maybe Cambridge is the most 'controlled' area.  You'd think it would be in the Southern states.

I too wonder how Moira made it out of Boston with all those checkpoints we saw even Fred had to go through.

How quickly the Gilead movement must have clamped down on the press to keep so much information from getting out until the boarders were literally shut down and women were being rounded up, en masse.  I hope the second season shows a bit more of how it all happened.  I am not surprised that the religious whackos won with them being the same ones that keep an arsenol of weapons ready for use.

and just the hubris of these men that impose all these rules on everyone else, but think themselves not really subject to it.  Oh, I hope we see the look on Warren's face when he wakes up to his lost hand.  And the wives really think that their husbands are not just like all other men with sexual appetites that need filling?  And SJ deserves all the misery she gets by her husband doing what he wants, when she helped put the whole thing in motion "for their own good."  Well, as Moira so eloquently put it, Praise be, bitches.

How come there are no scenes of anyone, especially the so-called pious wives and husbands, going to church?  And why would these so-called pious people, hang people in (what appeared to not be a catholic) church?    

I saw some earlier discussions about fertility rates as it relates to the show and real life.  I certainly don't think our current culture is having that much of a fertility problem.  At least in my kids' schools, they admit more and more kids every year.  As each old elementary school is replaced in our school district, the new ones add extra classrooms.  So if fertility was a major cause of Gilead's creation, at least that's not happening currently (though certainly other causes are seen - increased influence/control of so-called religious whackos).

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now