S02.E11: Holly

[LeGrandElephant]

19 hours ago, whoknowswho said:

I am not particularly a fan of June, either, she can be sly and sneaky, with her "Might hurt the baby" stuff.

Don’t you think it’s a normal reaction of a person in a completely oppressed situation to use any little bit of manipulation they can? Throughout history women (and/especially slaves and servants) have been accused of being sly and sneaky and I think that’s a fair product of the situation they were in, with no other power to work with. 

[AnswersWanted]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

I've known more than a few women (mostly young) who become  mothers because they want someone to love them unconditionally. Serena's reasons are similar - but on steroids, as it were. Like so many things, the motives and beliefs depicted on this show do come from the real world - which is why, I think, this show impacts us so viscerally.

 

Oh I have met some of the same, I cannot stand them personally.

But to me they aren’t “real mothers”, as in they have a baby but they really have no natural instinct or skill to mother it properly, which is what I was trying to get at about Serena. 

Wanting a baby for completely selfish reasons without putting any real, in-depth, thought into it, not bothering to think about or being prepared for the good, the bad, and the ugly, the hardships and low points, and painful, hurtful, heartbreaking situations, because motherhood is not a fairytale or a perfect fix all for an otherwise empty life. 

If anything, at least according to a lot of the mothers in my family, kids can and will damage your soul sometimes, heh. 

The existence of women like Serena is an all too real life fact, but my thinking is that they just aren’t capable of being true mothers, they aren’t real parents, their reasons for wanting children are all about themselves, a real mother, to me, can and should be thinking beyond that, not turning a tiny little being into an emotional crutch or a bandaid. 

It never ends well, and usually for the child themselves. 

 

4 hours ago, Becks said:

I am in the same boat - I like O-T as an actor and he's interesting offscreen as well, but I just find Luke totally bland and his relationship with June not all that engaging.

 

It actually annoys me that he seems to be quite talented from the few snippets the show has shown, and in real life he seems really charismatic to me. 

But Luke’s characterization hasn’t gotten much attention, to me, from the show. They use him but never to his full potential. 

If they were going to leave Luke so underdeveloped then - book spoiler below: 

 

Spoiler

Imo, Luke’s fate and survival after their initial attempt to escape was thwarted should have been left the way Atwood wrote it: undetermined with him likely dead. Saving  him and placing him in a new, accessible location with no obvious intentions to grow or mature the character overall just seems like a huge waste of time to me. Let him live in flashbacks and be done with it. 

[Ashforth]

@Baltimore Betty, now I understand what you meant. I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction to seeing the words "real rape." I work for a law firm that has represented victims of rape, and we've done focus groups on the cases. You would be horrified at the things regular people think about rape. Blaming the victim, saying she's lying, saying that since she had a drink (that was drugged) she deserved whatever happened. 

Sorry for the OT post, I just wanted to explain why I reacted the way I did.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Ashforth

[BonnieD]

Quote

Weren't those handles on the garage door the kind with the lock in the middle where you stick the key in and then turn the handle and lift? Why was she hacking at it with a shovel? I mean I get that things can freeze, but she had the keys and she never tried UNLOCKING THE DOORS.

THANK YOU! It drove me batshit that she went straight to the impossible--ramming the door with the car--before trying every other option to open the door. Locks, keys, de-icing with hot water, finding an ax or sledgehammer and battering it down,. Anything but that ridiculous ramming. Which I know was meant to represent her inner turmoil finally raging out but still.

And this:

Quote

You can't drive while giving birth, and you can't drive with a newborn without a carseat.

I hope you're being sarcastic about the latter half of the sentence. Of course you can drive without a carseat. A law and reality are two entirely different things. Hide baby on the floor wrapped in a blanket or whatever it takes to get across the border into Canada.

This entire season has been a buildup to what I imagine will be an eventual revolution. I keep waiting, thinking every week that things are finally going to start to happen. But they don't. Ready now for June's escape to Canada and the planning of an invasion/rescue squad.

[Clanstarling]

50 minutes ago, AnswersWanted said:

 

Oh I have met some of the same, I cannot stand them personally.

But to me they aren’t “real mothers”, as in they have a baby but they really have no natural instinct or skill to mother it properly, which is what I was trying to get at about Serena. 

Wanting a baby for completely selfish reasons without putting any real, in-depth, thought into it, not bothering to think about or being prepared for the good, the bad, and the ugly, the hardships and low points, and painful, hurtful, heartbreaking situations, because motherhood is not a fairytale or a perfect fix all for an otherwise empty life. 

If anything, at least according to a lot of the mothers in my family, kids can and will damage your soul sometimes, heh. 

The existence of women like Serena is an all too real life fact, but my thinking is that they just aren’t capable of being true mothers, they aren’t real parents, their reasons for wanting children are all about themselves, a real mother, to me, can and should be thinking beyond that, not turning a tiny little being into an emotional crutch or a bandaid. 

It never ends well, and usually for the child themselves.

  Reveal hidden contents

Imo, Luke’s fate and survival after their initial attempt to escape was thwarted should have been left the way Atwood wrote it: undetermined with him likely dead. Saving  him and placing him in a new, accessible location with no obvious intentions to grow or mature the character overall just seems like a huge waste of time to me. Let him live in flashbacks and be done with it. 

I understand your position, and agree somewhat, at least to the point that there are indeed terrible, selfish mothers out there. And that Serena Joy would be one of them.

However, I'm hesitant to paint all women who have children for "selfish" reasons who don't think through all the ramifications as women who aren't real mothers, and won't ever be capable of being true mothers. Becoming a parent in the first place is a bit selfish from the get-go, unless you're adopting. I don't think an initial decision necessarily colors the entirety of the rest of your life, and that many women who start out from a position of selfishness change when they have their children.

Unless they have a lot of experience with children in the first place, no one knows if they have the natural instinct or skill to mother a child. Motherhood is really on the job training. Women do the best they can. There are things no book, no forethought and planning that can prepare you for, because every person, every circumstance, and every child is different. 

[chocolatine]

16 minutes ago, BonnieD said:

I hope you're being sarcastic about the latter half of the sentence. Of course you can drive without a carseat. A law and reality are two entirely different things. Hide baby on the floor wrapped in a blanket or whatever it takes to get across the border into Canada.

I wasn't. Like I said earlier in the thread, a newborn's head and neck are very delicate, and I would be very concerned about killing the baby or inflicting a permanent injury. June would have likely had to drive off-road, drive really fast if a patrol starts chasing her, do some jerky maneuvering, crash or flip the car, etc. It's not a leisurely drive through the countryside. I know most posters here disagree with me, but I stand by what I said.

[deSchenke]

Car seats weren't even invented until 1962 and cars were around long before that.  Surely people managed to transport babies without a car seat.  There were clothes in the closet that June could have used to swaddle and support Holly on the floorboards of the passenger seat.

[AnswersWanted]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

I understand your position, and agree somewhat, at least to the point that there are indeed terrible, selfish mothers out there. And that Serena Joy would be one of them.

However, I'm hesitant to paint all women who have children for "selfish" reasons who don't think through all the ramifications as women who aren't real mothers, and won't ever be capable of being true mothers. Becoming a parent in the first place is a bit selfish from the get-go, unless you're adopting. I don't think an initial decision necessarily colors the entirety of the rest of your life, and that many women who start out from a position of selfishness change when they have their children.

Unless they have a lot of experience with children in the first place, no one knows if they have the natural instinct or skill to mother a child. Motherhood is really on the job training. Women do the best they can. There are things no book, no forethought and planning that can prepare you for, because every person, every circumstance, and every child is different. 

 

I see your point and I don’t disagree really, every case of motherhood is unique.

 I don’t think anyone can 100% prepare to be a parent, it is one of the many reasons why I currently am not one myself, I know for fact I’m not ready, heh. 

What I am more so getting at is the idea that one can use a child as a fix all for their problems that I think can never bode well.  

I’m not against the idea that having someone in your life can improve it, to me that’s a key part of humanity, it’s when someone is intentionally getting another person involved in their life because they think that person can now fix them, that they can fulfill them in a way that they feel is impossible to achieve all on their own, even though the initial problem or problems reside inside of the person, it is not something someone else can fix for them.

Personality or character flaws are just what they are, to be dealt with or ignored is often up to each individual . 

 Using a little innocent as an emotional Band-Aid for the soul, a coping mechanism for a shitty life, is not okay to me, the child cannot fix what is wrong with the parent, and with Serena’s situation I see that as being her main motivation.

The way she crumbled as she told Fred that she now had nothing, that all she ever wanted was a baby and now she would never have that, it was a desperation that was coming from such a broken place inside of her, it was not coming from a real maternal desire at all to me, it was about her losing out yet again on happiness for herself, even if that meant stealing a baby born from rape from its tortured mother.

That was “her baby” by right, she had spilled an enormous amount of blood to get it, and to think that she had lost it, it was driving her mad. 

The complexities of why anyone becomes a parent in real life are vast and great, but in regards to the show and Serena’s behavior and viewpoint, I see her only as a user, she wants the baby to use for her own selfish reasons, ane I don’t believe that she has ever once considered really the child’s feelings at all.

 The baby is a distraction from how terrible Gilead is for her to live in, but she is so self-centered she doesn’t mind bringing this beautiful life into the very world that she can barely stand to exist in on a daily basis, that kind of selfishness is just toxic to me. 

 And now that we know the baby is a girl, what limited bit of a life the child was always going to have is now even more restricted, freedom-less, harrowing and horrific in this world.

IMO, if someone is a person of decency, a person with an iota of compassion, a person that truly has a heart, they would not wish Gilead on their worst enemy let alone their child. 

 And just to touch on that a bit, heh, not to get too off topic, I do wonder if some of the wives, especially the older ones who obviously spent far more time in America before Gilead took over, if they really actually want to bring children into the society now that the regime has control. 

I feel like there are probably a lot of people who are trapped in Gilead, whether they be Wives or especially Econo women, the ones who supposedly are meant to have the majority of the children to increase the population but yet they really have no incentive to do that, they themselves are captives in this hostile land, if you truly love a child would you really want them to have to grow up in such a place?

It’s something that I’ve thought about, especially during this season, as so much torture and torment and death has been utilized by the show, unless you are a stark raving mad egotistical maniac, like Serena seems to be, the idea of become a mother in Gilead must haunt much of the majority at this point. 

There can hardly be a true sense of joy or excitement when you know good and well that your child is being born into a sort of hell. 

And the same goes for fathers as well, not wanting to exclude them, they are just as tormented and terrorized and trapped, I am just going from the general female perspective for this point.

Anywho, that’s my essay of a thought for the day, heh, this show always manages to reel me in one way or another, even with an episode that overall I was mostly bored with. 

Of course, ymmv about all of this, just my rambling thoughts. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by AnswersWanted

[alexvillage]

33 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

I wasn't. Like I said earlier in the thread, a newborn's head and neck are very delicate, and I would be very concerned about killing the baby or inflicting a permanent injury. June would have likely had to drive off-road, drive really fast if a patrol starts chasing her, do some jerky maneuvering, crash or flip the car, etc. It's not a leisurely drive through the countryside. I know most posters here disagree with me, but I stand by what I said.

The disagreement is that someone in June's position would more likely risk driving with the baby - as someone pointed out (sorry, cannot find the post now) - babies used to be driven in boxes before car seats became the law. 

[Lemons]

3 hours ago, LeGrandElephant said:

Don’t you think it’s a normal reaction of a person in a completely oppressed situation to use any little bit of manipulation they can? Throughout history women (and/especially slaves and servants) have been accused of being sly and sneaky and I think that’s a fair product of the situation they were in, with no other power to work with. 

Yes it’s a normal thing to do, but her smirky childlike petulant faces are not normal while she’s doing it.  

[chocolatine]

13 minutes ago, alexvillage said:

The disagreement is that someone in June's position would more likely risk driving with the baby - as someone pointed out (sorry, cannot find the post now) - babies used to be driven in boxes before car seats became the law. 

Yes, I understand. My opinion is that, even if I were in June's position, I wouldn't risk killing the baby. I'd rather risk being killed myself but know that my baby is safe.

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

 

I see your point and I don’t disagree really, every case of motherhood is unique.

 I don’t think anyone can 100% prepare to be a parent, it is one of the many reasons why I currently am not one myself, I know for fact I’m not ready, heh. 

What I am more so getting at is the idea that one can use a child as a fix all for their problems that I think can never bode well.  

I’m not against the idea that having someone in your life can improve it, to me that’s a key part of humanity, it’s when someone is intentionally getting another person involved in their life because they think that person can now fix them, that they can fulfill them in a way that they feel is impossible to achieve all on their own, even though the initial problem or problems reside inside of the person, it is not something someone else can fix for them.

Personality or character flaws are just what they are, to be dealt with or ignored is often up to each individual . 

 Using a little innocent as an emotional Band-Aid for the soul, a coping mechanism for a shitty life, is not okay to me, the child cannot fix what is wrong with the parent, and with Serena’s situation I see that as being her main motivation.

The way she crumbled as she told Fred that she now had nothing, that all she ever wanted was a baby and now she would never have that, it was a desperation that was coming from such a broken place inside of her, it was not coming from a real maternal desire at all to me, it was about her losing out yet again on happiness for herself, even if that meant stealing a baby born from rape from its tortured mother.

That was “her baby” by right, she had spilled an enormous amount of blood to get it, and to think that she had lost it, it was driving her mad. 

The complexities of why anyone becomes a parent in real life are vast and great, but in regards to the show and Serena’s behavior and viewpoint, I see her only as a user, she wants the baby to use for her own selfish reasons, ane I don’t believe that she has ever once considered really the child’s feelings at all.

 The baby is a distraction from how terrible Gilead is for her to live in, but she is so self-centered she doesn’t mind bringing this beautiful life into the very world that she can barely stand to exist in on a daily basis, that kind of selfishness is just toxic to me. 

 And now that we know the baby is a girl, what limited bit of a life the child was always going to have is now even more restricted, freedom-less, harrowing and horrific in this world.

IMO, if someone is a person of decency, a person with an iota of compassion, a person that truly has a heart, they would not wish Gilead on their worst enemy let alone their child. 

 And just to touch on that a bit, heh, not to get too off topic, I do wonder if some of the wives, especially the older ones who obviously spent far more time in America before Gilead took over, if they really actually want to bring children into the society now that the regime has control. 

I feel like there are probably a lot of people who are trapped in Gilead, whether they be Wives or especially Econo women, the ones who supposedly are meant to have the majority of the children to increase the population but yet they really have no incentive to do that, they themselves are captives in this hostile land, if you truly love a child would you really want them to have to grow up in such a place?

It’s something that I’ve thought about, especially during this season, as so much torture and torment and death has been utilized by the show, unless you are a stark raving mad egotistical maniac, like Serena seems to be, the idea of become a mother in Gilead must haunt much of the majority at this point. 

There can hardly be a true sense of joy or excitement when you know good and well that your child is being born into a sort of hell. 

And the same goes for fathers as well, not wanting to exclude them, they are just as tormented and terrorized and trapped, I am just going from the general female perspective for this point.

Anywho, that’s my essay of a thought for the day, heh, this show always manages to reel me in one way or another, even with an episode that overall I was mostly bored with. 

Of course, ymmv about all of this, just my rambling thoughts. 

Yes, in that context, Gilead and Serena Joy, I absolutely agree with all your points. Heck, this is the first time in my life (though I'm well past child bearing years) that I've wondered whether or not I'd choose to bring a child into the current world. I've always kind of scoffed at that - there are always bad times. But now, I worry a heck of a lot more.

[LeGrandElephant]

2 hours ago, Lemons said:

Yes it’s a normal thing to do, but her smirky childlike petulant faces are not normal while she’s doing it.  

I see it as part of her resistance,  not going along with the idea that she’s supposed to be subservient and grateful, like she did in the first season. It’s not the smartest thing if she thinks she has a chance of gaining trust leading to an escape, but if she’s given up on that, I think it’s totally fine not to help Serena pretend this is all cool. 

I guess what I think is that it’s not savvy, because playing along better might possibly help her have a chance to get away. But I think it’s totally understandable and it doesn’t in any way stop me having sympathy for her.  And I don’t like the idea that a woman who’s a victim in a horrible situation has to act exactly the right way in order for the audience to care about or sympathize with her. That’s a little too close to real life.

Edited June 29, 2018 by LeGrandElephant

[Baltimore Betty]

4 hours ago, Ashforth said:

@Baltimore Betty, now I understand what you meant. I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction to seeing the words "real rape." I work for a law firm that has represented victims of rape, and we've done focus groups on the cases. You would be horrified at the things regular people think about rape. Blaming the victim, saying she's lying, saying that since she had a drink (that was drugged) she deserved whatever happened. 

Sorry for the OT post, I just wanted to explain why I reacted the way I did.

No worries, I know that this show has a lot of hot buttons for all of us and rape is a big one. Stay passionate about your work, I am sure your clients appreciate your dedication, drive and heartfelt efforts to help them :).

[AnswersWanted]

23 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

Yes, in that context, Gilead and Serena Joy, I absolutely agree with all your points. Heck, this is the first time in my life (though I'm well past child bearing years) that I've wondered whether or not I'd choose to bring a child into the current world. I've always kind of scoffed at that - there are always bad times. But now, I worry a heck of a lot more.

 

Sorry if my early rambling was not fully clear, real life is a rich tapestry that differs from person to person, parenthood in our world is a very complex subject, but when it comes to Gilead and Serena, I feel a certain kind of way, heh. 

 Gilead is just such a shithole of a place (finally I can use that term and not feel dirty).

There’s really nothing in it for children, imo, most especially girls.

Little girls won’t be able to read or write, maybe they’ll have a simple doll to play with, pets seems scarce, there are no playgrounds, there is no school, it doesn’t look like there’s enough of a community exactly set up for playdates really, it just seems like a really wretched place to have to grow up, and then once she hits puberty then basically her life is over and she’s taken by some man to be a simple wife, and that’s if she’s lucky and remains a girl of so called “purity”. 

 Like you said, it is a lot to think about bringing a child into 2018 as it stands currently,  and there are plenty of places that struggle with a lot of the issues that are detailed in Gilead.

  It really has made me think long and hard about what I might decide to do if potentially a place like Gilead was my current landscape.

Knowing that your children will grow up with the hanging wall as a public Monument, random executions taking place on the street, seeing women walking around with mutilated and disfigured bodies because they weren’t “well behaved” handmaids, being openly and proudly exposed to constant misogyny, sexism, racism, and bigotry on a daily basis. 

[Umbelina]

 Rena Gross from Billboard

She caught something I completely missed, and I don't think I've seen it mentioned in this thread.  She catches a few other "easter egg" type clues as well.

Quote

Commander and Mrs. Mackenzie. The Commander and Mrs. Waterford enter the mansion as Offred is prepping for her getaway. Fred calls out “Commander Mackenzie! Mrs. Mackenzie!” It seems like a throwaway line, but overhearing it could be June’s key to finding Hannah someday, if she has the presence of mind to remember that Hannah Bankole may be on the record as Agnes Mackenzie.

That seems kind of intentional by the writers, I wonder if it will pay off?

I also kind of like this:
 

Quote

 

Garage Door. June attempts to bypass that closed garage door by driving through it. She fails. Her lack of planning, or cunning lack of planning, is realistic -- most people in desperate situations wouldn’t think to do any of the reasonable things the viewers in our comfy homes want to mutter at the screen as we play the Monday morning quarterback for situations we have never experienced. The garage is not two but four doors wide -- could June not try to open one of the other doors manually from the outside, or look for a fuse box to turn the power back on in the garage so that she can open a door? Or shoot out the locks? Maybe she could try one of the other doors and then maneuver out of the garage? But honestly, how much of that would you think of if you were panicking and freezing in the woods, about to give birth?

June is not James Bond or Harry Houdini, nor should that be expected of her. The show deserves praise for not making June a paragon of cleverness under extreme pressure. She does a number of things over the course of her escape attempts that the viewer can immediately identify as impudent -- standing too close to windows, running when she should hide, hiding when she should run -- but that any average human would be likely to do. It isn’t her job to be clever. It’s society’s job to not install theocracies.

 

[millennium]

On 6/27/2018 at 6:11 PM, DrSpaceman said:

I tend to agree about June.

But I don't blame Elizabeth Moss and her acting.  Her WHOLE story, not just this episode, is just so dull and plodding and overwhelming.  And her backstory is just really not that interesting. 

This show needs something like a Saul Goodman like on Breaking Bad to lighten the mood.  The spunky comic relief, as it was called in Galaxy quest. 

 

On 6/27/2018 at 8:43 PM, mamadrama said:

I could watch an entire season about the Waterfords. I find their story to be fascinating and I want to see both their origin stories and how they'll eventually fall. I guess June is meant to reflect kind of an "everywoman" and her character is supposed to be flawed enough that she's not really a saint and yet we still root for her, but I just can't with this. I'm bored now. I don't want to eat quiche with Serena Joy and paint each others nails while we reflect on America's Next Top Model, but, as a viewer, I'd sure as hell gleefully sit back and watch her descent in gradual madness on my television. The only interesting people I am finding right now are the "evil" folks and, therefore, they're the only ones I am invested in watching. 

Maybe shows like Breaking Bad have reoriented our interests to bad guys rather than heroes and victims.  Or maybe it's just that The Handmaid's Tale sucks.   I haven't read the book, but to me the televised version feels topsy-turvy and that's why I'm not enjoying it.

IMO, June/Offred doesn't bring enough to the table to merit her position as lead character.   The Waterfords should be the main characters, with June as an antagonistic supporting character who has the power to bring them down.   June could turn the screws, threatening to reveal Fred's unsanctioned dalliances, exploiting Serena's fuckery, her desperate need for a child, etc.   The messers would become the messees, and we'd get to watch as everything goes to hell.  

That's the show I want to see.

[Lemons]

2 hours ago, LeGrandElephant said:

I see it as part of her resistance,  not going along with the idea that she’s supposed to be subservient and grateful, like she did in the first season. It’s not the smartest thing if she thinks she has a chance of gaining trust leading to an escape, but if she’s given up on that, I think it’s totally fine not to help Serena pretend this is all cool. 

I guess what I think is that it’s not savvy, because playing along better might possibly help her have a chance to get away. But I think it’s totally understandable and it doesn’t in any way stop me having sympathy for her.  And I don’t like the idea that a woman who’s a victim in a horrible situation has to act exactly the right way in order for the audience to care about or sympathize with her. That’s a little too close to real life.

She’s not being smart.  She’s getting into all of the house drama and not planning long term.  If the show was consistent she would have been sent to that toxic dump next episode.  And not everyone watching the show has to like her, hate him, etc.  I think this character has gotten repetitive and some focus on other characters would liven up the show.  

[NoSpam]

9 hours ago, AllyB said:

I don't want to watch June try and fail to escape, Elizabeth Moss isn't Patrick McGoohan and this isn't The Prisoner. (Though if her latest escape attempt had been thwarted by a giant white ball, I might have been intrigued.)

At least in The Prisoner we learned more about the intrigue and espionage, and the plot moved along and changed as the episodes progressed. And it didn't go on for season after season in exactly the same place.

 

THT doesn't move along to any new places, other than June was pregnant for a while.. I watched episodes 7, 8 and 9 of THT out of order and it didn't make one bit of difference to the overall plot. And it really pointed out to me how many episodes end with June saying "fuck it."

I'm tired.

[AnswersWanted]

36 minutes ago, NoSpam said:

At least in The Prisoner we learned more about the intrigue and espionage, and the plot moved along and changed as the episodes progressed. And it didn't go on for season after season in exactly the same place.

 

THT doesn't move along to any new places, other than June was pregnant for a while.. I watched episodes 7, 8 and 9 of THT out of order and it didn't make one bit of difference to the overall plot. And it really pointed out to me how many episodes end with June saying "fuck it."

I'm tired.

 

This post made me laugh and snort, so I thank you immensely. 

I also completely agree with you, the pacing is rather pathetic considering the source material contains so much information that they could easily utilize in every single episode, instead we see the same people going through the same motions almost like clockwork, torture, rape, kill, or rape, torture, kill, and then a mystical dog wolf shows up as if that will improve anything.

[chaifan]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Rena Gross from Billboard

She caught something I completely missed, and I don't think I've seen it mentioned in this thread.  She catches a few other "easter egg" type clues as well.

Quote

Commander and Mrs. Mackenzie. The Commander and Mrs. Waterford enter the mansion as Offred is prepping for her getaway. Fred calls out “Commander Mackenzie! Mrs. Mackenzie!” It seems like a throwaway line, but overhearing it could be June’s key to finding Hannah someday, if she has the presence of mind to remember that Hannah Bankole may be on the record as Agnes Mackenzie.

That seems kind of intentional by the writers, I wonder if it will pay off?

I also kind of like this:
 

Quote

 

Garage Door. June attempts to bypass that closed garage door by driving through it. She fails. Her lack of planning, or cunning lack of planning, is realistic -- most people in desperate situations wouldn’t think to do any of the reasonable things the viewers in our comfy homes want to mutter at the screen as we play the Monday morning quarterback for situations we have never experienced. The garage is not two but four doors wide -- could June not try to open one of the other doors manually from the outside, or look for a fuse box to turn the power back on in the garage so that she can open a door? Or shoot out the locks? Maybe she could try one of the other doors and then maneuver out of the garage? But honestly, how much of that would you think of if you were panicking and freezing in the woods, about to give birth?

June is not James Bond or Harry Houdini, nor should that be expected of her. The show deserves praise for not making June a paragon of cleverness under extreme pressure. She does a number of things over the course of her escape attempts that the viewer can immediately identify as impudent -- standing too close to windows, running when she should hide, hiding when she should run -- but that any average human would be likely to do. It isn’t her job to be clever. It’s society’s job to not install theocracies.

 

I agree and disagree with the points in the Billboard article.  First, I don't buy that the shouting of the Commander's name is some Big Clue June is supposed to get.  She was in the Commander's office and his desk.  Certainly there's a letter in there or something else with his name that she could have easily found.  During the episode I sort of assumed that she knew Hannah's new family name, as she didn't ask the Martha or Nick or bring it up at all. 

As for the garage, I'm still of the opinion that the door was actually frozen shut, not locked.  I think electricity was turned off for the season, the garage openers act as the door "locks".  If there were manual locks, there would have been a little give in the movement of the doors when she tried to manually open them.  I think if June had enough presence of mind to get a shovel to try and break away ice, she had enough presence of mind to figure out whether or not the doors were locked.  The fact that she took the shovel outside to break up ice shows it was an ice issue, not a lock issue.  She's not James Bond, but she was thinking enough to gather provisions, a blanket, fill water bottles (why the water wouldn't have been shut off for the winter is another mystery), look in logical places to find the keys (although I was really hoping it would have shown that the Mackenzies have that one junk drawer in the kitchen, just like the rest of us), try the manual door release cord, not freak out at the wolf, etc.  She was thinking all through that sequence.  But I totally agree she should have tried the other doors!  (Side note: the cross bars that someone thought was a security bar are part of the door mechanism.)

I also think not firing the shotgun was a good decision.  She had one shot, to take out two people, and if she missed that was it.  Yeah, it's a shotgun, which increases the chances she'll hit something.  But there's also a hefty recoil that could cause her to just take out the chandelier. 

I was still hoping for a snowmobile to be in the garage and have her escape through the woods. 

[ferjy]

8 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I understand your position, and agree somewhat, at least to the point that there are indeed terrible, selfish mothers out there. And that Serena Joy would be one of them.

However, I'm hesitant to paint all women who have children for "selfish" reasons who don't think through all the ramifications as women who aren't real mothers, and won't ever be capable of being true mothers. Becoming a parent in the first place is a bit selfish from the get-go, unless you're adopting. I don't think an initial decision necessarily colors the entirety of the rest of your life, and that many women who start out from a position of selfishness change when they have their children.

Unless they have a lot of experience with children in the first place, no one knows if they have the natural instinct or skill to mother a child. Motherhood is really on the job training. Women do the best they can. There are things no book, no forethought and planning that can prepare you for, because every person, every circumstance, and every child is different. 

My thoughts exactly. Quite frankly, if most of us knew what we were getting into, the human race might die out. lol You couldn’t anticipate all the work and hurt involved until you’re in the situation. Certainly there’s joy as well, but the other aspects are a learning experience. 

[ferjy]

9 hours ago, AnswersWanted said:

It actually annoys me that he seems to be quite talented from the few snippets the show has shown, and in real life he seems really charismatic to me. 

But Luke’s characterization hasn’t gotten much attention, to me, from the show. They use him but never to his full potential. 

If they were going to leave Luke so underdeveloped then - book spoiler below: 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Imo, Luke’s fate and survival after their initial attempt to escape was thwarted should have been left the way Atwood wrote it: undetermined with him likely dead. Saving  him and placing him in a new, accessible location with no obvious intentions to grow or mature the character overall just seems like a huge waste of time to me. Let him live in flashbacks and be done with it. 

That's what was going through my mind when I was watching his interviews, the charisma. We see none of that in Luke. He really is a wasted talent in this show. And I completely agree with your spoiler. 

[DrSpaceman]

2 hours ago, millennium said:

 

Maybe shows like Breaking Bad have reoriented our interests to bad guys rather than heroes and victims.  Or maybe it's just that The Handmaid's Tale sucks.   I haven't read the book, but to me the televised version feels topsy-turvy and that's why I'm not enjoying it.

IMO, June/Offred doesn't bring enough to the table to merit her position as lead character.   The Waterfords should be the main characters, with June as an antagonistic supporting character who has the power to bring them down.   June could turn the screws, threatening to reveal Fred's unsanctioned dalliances, exploiting Serena's fuckery, her desperate need for a child, etc.   The messers would become the messees, and we'd get to watch as everything goes to hell.  

That's the show I want to see.

That's an interesting idea about the "bad people" being the protagonist so often now that this show is quite a switch.  I think there is a lot of truth to that.  Its all the fact that though June/Offred is supposed to meant the "common woman", no on special, has her good and bad points but in general represents the typical woman of the "modern" world.  That works much better in a book than a TV show. 

And while I agree it would be a more interesting show as you described, by shifting the focus away from June you would be diminishing the idea of the point of the book and show being the problems of the common modern woman in the male dominated society and the results if the extreme political conservative movement is allowed to go unchallenged. 

Now I would be fine with a shift from that perspective, for the sake of a more interesting story,but I imagine many would object to that shift even if it improved the show. 

[DuckyinKy]

8 hours ago, chocolatine said:

I wasn't. Like I said earlier in the thread, a newborn's head and neck are very delicate, and I would be very concerned about killing the baby or inflicting a permanent injury. June would have likely had to drive off-road, drive really fast if a patrol starts chasing her, do some jerky maneuvering, crash or flip the car, etc. It's not a leisurely drive through the countryside. I know most posters here disagree with me, but I stand by what I said.

 

 

 With abuse, rape and all the other inhumane things going on in Gilead a carseat shouldn't be an issue.  

Edited June 30, 2018 by DuckyinKy

[LordOfLotion]

1 hour ago, chaifan said:

Garage Door. June attempts to bypass that closed garage door by driving through it. She fails. Her lack of planning, or cunning lack of planning, is realistic -- most people in desperate situations wouldn’t think to do any of the reasonable things the viewers in our comfy homes want to mutter at the screen as we play the Monday morning quarterback for situations we have never experienced. The garage is not two but four doors wide -- could June not try to open one of the other doors manually from the outside, or look for a fuse box to turn the power back on in the garage so that she can open a door? Or shoot out the locks? Maybe she could try one of the other doors and then maneuver out of the garage? But honestly, how much of that would you think of if you were panicking and freezing in the woods, about to give birth?

June is not James Bond or Harry Houdini, nor should that be expected of her. The show deserves praise for not making June a paragon of cleverness under extreme pressure. She does a number of things over the course of her escape attempts that the viewer can immediately identify as impudent -- standing too close to windows, running when she should hide, hiding when she should run -- but that any average human would be likely to do. It isn’t her job to be clever. It’s society’s job to not install theocracies.

Look, unlocking a garage door, or trying one of the others is not James Bond or Harry Houdini level thinking. If there was a garage door opener attached, maybe she would have had trouble figuring it out, but who gives up after tugging on a string when the stakes are like that? She wasn't trying to go to Starbucks; she was trying to escape a crapsack world. And if it was cold enough for the door to freeze, what was the wolf doing running around like that if it wasn't looking for something to eat? This is just excuses.

[jhjhjh]

On 6/28/2018 at 4:09 AM, alexvillage said:

a really great actor needs to be effortless. EM is not effortless.

EM exceptionality is a media construct. We were told she was great even before we (many of us) had the chance to form our opinion.

I don't agree with this. There are people who you can see the effort and it's amazing; multiple Meryl Streep performances, for example. While there are other lesser actors who are effortless and...you can tell that there's no effort because they don't seem to have any emotion. Emilia Clarke often, for example. 

Also I found Moss great and the best part of the great show Mad Men from season one, when the show got 3 acting nominations and she was not among them. Based on the media coverage if we were so beholden to the media to not have minds, I should be thinking Jon Hamm is the brightest star of the show. 

[NoSpam]

1 hour ago, LordOfLotion said:

Look, unlocking a garage door, or trying one of the others is not James Bond or Harry Houdini level thinking. If there was a garage door opener attached, maybe she would have had trouble figuring it out, but who gives up after tugging on a string when the stakes are like that? She wasn't trying to go to Starbucks; she was trying to escape a crapsack world. And if it was cold enough for the door to freeze, what was the wolf doing running around like that if it wasn't looking for something to eat? This is just excuses.

And she's in a garage...go find an axe!

I also found it hilarious that the electricity was shut off in the winter, but the water was not. Backwards.

[alexvillage]

8 hours ago, jhjhjh said:

I don't agree with this. There are people who you can see the effort and it's amazing; multiple Meryl Streep performances, for example. While there are other lesser actors who are effortless and...you can tell that there's no effort because they don't seem to have any emotion. Emilia Clarke often, for example. 

Also I found Moss great and the best part of the great show Mad Men from season one, when the show got 3 acting nominations and she was not among them. Based on the media coverage if we were so beholden to the media to not have minds, I should be thinking Jon Hamm is the brightest star of the show. 

Definitely in the eyes of the beholder. I have no idea of who Emilia Clarke is and I couldn't stand 10 minutes of Mad Men, so I cannot even opine on that. 

I don't think we are beholden to the media but I think a lot of us is swayed by what the media says we should be watching, or how great one or another actor is, or why the show is so (insert adjective of grandiosity here). That's the reason for the "top ten whatever" or the "the shows you should be watching" lists. It is also no secret that how much lobbying an actor or nominee has during award show will influence the final results.

P.S: the media influences us in more ways than the obvious praise. Sometimes it is just a PR move coming from the agents that schedule a lot of appearances and interviews to make the actor (or the show) more visible, therefore increasing interest over time. Plus the connections they might have with journalists and publications that are willing to run with the pieces, helping with the promotion.

[Clanstarling]

10 hours ago, NoSpam said:

And she's in a garage...go find an axe!

I also found it hilarious that the electricity was shut off in the winter, but the water was not. Backwards.

I've never had an ax in my garage. But then again, like June, I'm not a country girl. So it might not have occurred to her (but to be fair, when I saw the shovel, I thought it was an ax).

2 hours ago, alexvillage said:

Definitely in the eyes of the beholder. I have no idea of who Emilia Clarke is and I couldn't stand 10 minutes of Mad Men, so I cannot even opine on that. 

I don't think we are beholden to the media but I think a lot of us is swayed by what the media says we should be watching, or how great one or another actor is, or why the show is so (insert adjective of grandiosity here). That's the reason for the "top ten whatever" or the "the shows you should be watching" lists. It is also no secret that how much lobbying an actor or nominee has during award show will influence the final results.

P.S: the media influences us in more ways than the obvious praise. Sometimes it is just a PR move coming from the agents that schedule a lot of appearances and interviews to make the actor (or the show) more visible, therefore increasing interest over time. Plus the connections they might have with journalists and publications that are willing to run with the pieces, helping with the promotion.

I think media can sway us to try out a show, but I don't believe that for most people, the hype will keep them watching if the show doesn't appeal to them. For me, I've discovered marvelous shows I never would have tuned in to see. On the other hand I've watched a few episodes of critical darlings, thought they were awful, and didn't stay. In my experience, it generally needs a couple of episodes to really know if I might like it - I give them a little time to develop the characters. But I've certainly seen shows where a single episode had me reaching for the remote to turn it off.

The same is true of what I think about acting ability. Whatever critics say, I think for most of us, either the acting works for us or it doesn't. We have widely divergent opinions, because we have different opinions about what seems realistic and compelling. I tend to give the actors a little slack, because directing, script and editing also play a role in how well the performance works. But there are some Oscar winners I thought were terrible in the roles they won for. So, yes, it is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

[alexvillage]

23 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

I think media can sway us to try out a show, but I don't believe that for most people, the hype will keep them watching if the show doesn't appeal to them. For me, I've discovered marvelous shows I never would have tuned in to see. On the other hand I've watched a few episodes of critical darlings, thought they were awful, and didn't stay. In my experience, it generally needs a couple of episodes to really know if I might like it - I give them a little time to develop the characters. But I've certainly seen shows where a single episode had me reaching for the remote to turn it off.

The same is true of what I think about acting ability. Whatever critics say, I think for most of us, either the acting works for us or it doesn't. We have widely divergent opinions, because we have different opinions about what seems realistic and compelling. I tend to give the actors a little slack, because directing, script and editing also play a role in how well the performance works. But there are some Oscar winners I thought were terrible in the roles they won for. So, yes, it is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

I agree with you, it is just something that annoys me and I stubbornly and annoyingly point this out, quite often. One reason I come here is because I can see what others think, share praise and frustrations, and play critic, while venting.

About the acting, you are right. I would add that TV is not an actor's medium. TV is mostly writing and directing. Those will define if the show is successful or not, and appeal to certain audiences. Some people might watch a show because of a certain actor, but actors alone are not the deciding factor on the worth and/or success of a show.

In my opinion, the place to see how good an actor *really* is would be the theatre. I have been mesmerized by actors on stage, even when I didn't care much about the story being told.

[Stephanie23]

On 27. 06. 2018. at 11:35 PM, millennium said:

Big NO.   What an awful episode.   I don't value "Elisabeth Moss Grunts and Makes Faces" as good acting or good writing.   The only true performance in this episode came from the Waterfords, which was like "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?: Gilead Edition."   I would much rather watch a show about the Waterfords -- a true believer couple gradually realizes that the dystopia they helped to create is fucked at its core -- than this insipid and pointless Elizabeth Moss vanity project.  

June isn't even a likable character, either in her present Offred existence or Before.    I don't know what Luke and Moira saw in her.

Yes, I agree so much. 

IMO Ann Dowd outshined Moss in the first season and now Yvonne Strahovski stole the spotlight with her performance.

 

This episode was the weakest in the season, no progress whatsoever besides the birth of Holly and the promo and the spoilers for the two final episodes doesn't give me hope.

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, alexvillage said:

I agree with you, it is just something that annoys me and I stubbornly and annoyingly point this out, quite often. One reason I come here is because I can see what others think, share praise and frustrations, and play critic, while venting.

About the acting, you are right. I would add that TV is not an actor's medium. TV is mostly writing and directing. Those will define if the show is successful or not, and appeal to certain audiences. Some people might watch a show because of a certain actor, but actors alone are not the deciding factor on the worth and/or success of a show.

In my opinion, the place to see how good an actor *really* is would be the theatre. I have been mesmerized by actors on stage, even when I didn't care much about the story being told.

You keep on doing you. :) That's what we're all here for.

[ferjy]

4 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I've never had an ax in my garage. But then again, like June, I'm not a country girl. So it might not have occurred to her (but to be fair, when I saw the shovel, I thought it was an ax).

No ax in your garage?? What do you use for protection? Wait, do you keep a shotgun in there?

That's a good point about country vs. city tools. Never having lived in the country, my weapon of choice would be a kitchen knife or toilet brush (I’m struggling to remember in which show I saw the protagonist grab a toilet brush to protect herself with). I’d be doomed if anyone broke in while I’m home. I’d have to use my wits. (Again, I’d be doomed.)

[Bnwcat]

39 minutes ago, ferjy said:

No ax in your garage?? What do you use for protection? Wait, do you keep a shotgun in there?

That's a good point about country vs. city tools. Never having lived in the country, my weapon of choice would be a kitchen knife or toilet brush (I’m struggling to remember in which show I saw the protagonist grab a toilet brush to protect herself with). I’d be doomed if anyone broke in while I’m home. I’d have to use my wits. (Again, I’d be doomed.)

Killing Eve :)

[spaceghostess]

24 minutes ago, ferjy said:

No ax in your garage?? What do you use for protection? Wait, do you keep a shotgun in there?

That's a good point about country vs. city tools. Never having lived in the country, my weapon of choice would be a kitchen knife or toilet brush (I’m struggling to remember in which show I saw the protagonist grab a toilet brush to protect herself with). I’d be doomed if anyone broke in while I’m home. I’d have to use my wits. (Again, I’d be doomed.)

Heee!

I, too, would be doomed. I don't even have a garage; I have a shed out back ("There's something nasty in the woodshed!"), which is hardly helpful, regardless of whatever I might have in there that could be used for protection. What's in there, anyway? A snow shovel, a rusty pair of manual hedge trimmers, and a manual lawnmower. My poor kids--we're all in deep shit if The Purge is scheduled during my custodial time.

The fact that the car wouldn't break through the garage door(s) flummoxed me until I saw that it was iced shut. Running water in a home shut down for the winter bothered me more, but I was fan-waving stuff left and right--more than I usually would--for some reason.

[chaifan]

7 minutes ago, spaceghostess said:

The fact that the car wouldn't break through the garage door(s) flummoxed me until I saw that it was iced shut. Running water in a home shut down for the winter bothered me more, but I was fan-waving stuff left and right--more than I usually would--for some reason.

The garage door not breaking didn't bother me.  I found it to be somewhat realistic.  My old garage door was very heavy, real wood, had the metal crossbars at each hinge point.  I don't think I could have broken it down with my car even if I had 10 feet lead, let alone the 3-4 feet June had.  New aluminum ones would get dented, but at that point all you're doing is making a big dent and then pulling it off the tracks, so it wouldn't open anyways.  It's not like breaking through a side of a barn Dukes of Hazzard style.  I really wonder if the writers intended viewers to get so hung up on whether June should have been able to blast her way out of the garage. 

If an intruder found me upstairs, my best defense is my cats - I would hurl them at the intruder to freak him out while I ran past him and down the stairs.

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, ferjy said:

No ax in your garage?? What do you use for protection? Wait, do you keep a shotgun in there?

That's a good point about country vs. city tools. Never having lived in the country, my weapon of choice would be a kitchen knife or toilet brush (I’m struggling to remember in which show I saw the protagonist grab a toilet brush to protect herself with). I’d be doomed if anyone broke in while I’m home. I’d have to use my wits. (Again, I’d be doomed.)

I'm in a small town in a rural area now - but garages still freak me out (black widows...eeek). Lots of people toting guns around here, but not me.

When I was younger, however, I had a crowbar next to the couch. Sketchy next door neighbors in my 4-plex. I planned to use it for stabbing, not swinging and hitting. Learned somewhere it was too easy to disarm a small woman swinging a bar, but if you get up close, the angle's perfect for good sharp thrust under the rib cage. I'm little, but fierce. (excepting spiders and toilet brushes)

45 minutes ago, Bnwcat said:

Killing Eve :)

Yes it was! It would have worked on me. I don't even like using one, though it's better than the alternatives.

[WearyTraveler]

10 hours ago, alexvillage said:

In my opinion, the place to see how good an actor *really* is would be the theatre. I have been mesmerized by actors on stage, even when I didn't care much about the story being told.

In 1993, I took advantage of an exchange program my college had and went to London for a Winter session course in Theater.  We had to read a bunch of plays in advance, then go to the theater ever night for two weeks, then have a two hour class discussion about the play and we had to keep a journal with our observations to be handed in at the end of the course. It was heaven!

I saw Alan Cumming performing as the MC in Cabaret and never forgot him.  He was that great.  I still remember him.  When he finally made his debut in the US markets, I went: "hey! it's that amazing guy from Cabaret!!"  He was just that awesome.

Theater is definitely a huge test for any actor.  The presence of the audience and the fact that you can't stop to do a second take surely do influence the level of emotion a person brings to the role.

RE: Elizabeth Moss, I first saw her as Zoey Bartlett in The West Wing, and she was fairly good.  Then I saw her in Mad Men, and I thought she was great.  But I will say I don't know the extent of her range because the roles I've seen her in so far are on one end of the spectrum.  I think YS is doing a great job here, but I first saw her on Dexter where she bombed hard.  Strange, because she was playing a serial killer, and it's clear from her performance here that she can do that, but I wasn't feeling it then. Also, it got worse when her role evolved to be Dexter's girlfriend, absolutely horrendous. I first noticed Ann Dowd's talent in The Leftovers, where she was absolutely amazing, but she has been acting since 1985 (check her imdb, it's quite extensive).  I saw her in an episode of Freak and Geeks and she was a stunner (played a mom to one of the teens).  Now, when I see her in an old episode of something, I will immediately recognize her, but I never really noticed her until The Leftovers.

All this to say that the script, the direction and the actor's experience all play a role (pun not intended) in how good an actor's performance is.  The most talented and experienced actors elevate any material, no matter how small or thin it might be (see Sir Anthony Hopkins), but they also get more freedom to try out anything they want to do, as I imagine any director would be less likely to be overly involved with a performance from a legendary actor/actress,

TPTB of THT clearly like their artistic visuals of black, red and white, and they adore EM's big blue eyes, which is why we have so many shots with the Handmaids walking in the snow during a grey, snowy day and so many close ups of EM's face.  I think EM does well with the material she has been given and I admire that she's committed so much to the role that she would be willing to shoot that birthing scene completely nude.  That took guts.

[DangerousMinds]

Omg Ann Dowd was in Freaks and Geeks!?

[kilda]

On 6/27/2018 at 8:30 AM, julia1130 said:

You can’t drive a newborn without a car seat 

seriously?  I'm a big believer in always using the car seat, but I'm pretty sure this is one situation where you could make an exception.

[WearyTraveler]

42 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Omg Ann Dowd was in Freaks and Geeks!?

She was Kim Kelly's mom, Cookie Kelly! 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by WearyTraveler

[secnarf]

On 6/27/2018 at 11:38 PM, SHD said:

I wonder if there's a reason or underlying message as to why the studio version of Hungry Heart was used for the radio broadcast but during the credits they used a live version where the audience sings the entire first verse.

The radio version was used for the radio (as is logical) but I thought they selected the live version at the end to show the people rising up/joining together. The song was earlier used as an example of American patriotism (I don't know if that is exactly the right word but that is the sense I got). I was just wondering why they didn't pick Born in the USA or Born to Run. I thought either of those would have been more fitting.

I also thought it was curious that the commander's secret/illicit car was tuned to this particular radio station. I hope that doesn't turn up as a dropped plot thread.

[DangerousMinds]

19 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

She was Kim Kelly's mom, Cookie Kelly! 

 

So cool! One of my favorite shows ever. She was crazy (in a good way!) in Hereditary.

[Catri]

June tuned in the radio station herself, after she started the car.  When it came on it was just static and then you can hear her dialling past other stations to get to Radio Free America. 

[SHD]

39 minutes ago, secnarf said:

The radio version was used for the radio (as is logical) but I thought they selected the live version at the end to show the people rising up/joining together. The song was earlier used as an example of American patriotism (I don't know if that is exactly the right word but that is the sense I got). I was just wondering why they didn't pick Born in the USA or Born to Run. I thought either of those would have been more fitting.

I also thought it was curious that the commander's secret/illicit car was tuned to this particular radio station. I hope that doesn't turn up as a dropped plot thread.

Good points! I do like the choice of that song over the others you mentioned because it is more subtle. It's about yearning for different circumstances and seeking what you really want. 

I also think the live version singalong does represent a sense of community - we're all in this together. 

Or maybe they just wanted to give Bruce more money - ha ha.

[lucindabelle]

I hate bottle shows.

 

i like dialogue. 

[Emkat]

10 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

"There's something nasty in the woodshed!"

Omg thank you for this! "There's no butter in hell!" 

[Scarlett45]

I wasn’t impressed by the episode, and on a series rewatch I may skip it. 

Elizabeth Moss did pull her weight acting alone with minimal dialogue. Her determination, desperation, and pain was evident on her face. 

 

Side note- she didn’t put on any of the wife’s clothes because they wouldn’t have fit her. All the wives outfits are fitted and she was quite pregnant. 

[Ashforth]

16 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

She was Kim Kelly's mom, Cookie Kelly! 

 

 

I have so much love for actresses who age naturally instead of ending up as plastic surgeried, freakified versions of their former selves. Ann Dowd would still have her immense talent, but she would not have the impact she does as Aunt Lydia if her face was pulled tight, her lips plumped up, and there was that oh so disconcerting disconnect between the "young face" and "old neck" (sorry Lori Metcalf, I love you but...).

ETA: I understand the immense pressure that actresses and actors are under to look "young." I'm hoping to not be too judgmental, hell, I had upper and lower blepharoplasty myself because at a (relatively) young age, I looked exhausted all the time and wanted to look like myself again.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Ashforth