and the TV series such a hit? Anyone see the movie? Was it that bad?
| by Anonymous | reply 36 | September 25, 2020 10:11 PM |
I loved the book AND the movie. I did not watch the TV series because it did not stay true to the book, and thus, pretty much blew the whole premise. Plus, Elizabeth Moss is NOT the woman I picture when I think of Offred.
I posted the trailer, but the movie is truly much better than the trailer indicates. See it if you can. Or better yet, read the book.
Natasha Richardson, who played Offred in the movie, was beautiful. She went far too soon.
Offsite Link| by Anonymous | reply 1 | November 25, 2017 10:14 AM |
The movie had 2-3 hours to tell the story, the TV show had 10 hours, so they could get much more involved and draw you in.
| by Anonymous | reply 2 | November 25, 2017 10:46 AM |
Yes that is it at R2
The movie was pretty good
| by Anonymous | reply 3 | November 25, 2017 11:13 AM |
It has always been my favorite movie of that era. It was filmed in Durham where I went to school.
Fun fact* The home of Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall lived in with Offred was the home of the murdering bisexual Michael Peterson and his late wife. The one with "the bloody staircase."
| by Anonymous | reply 4 | November 25, 2017 11:18 AM |
The movie has its own set of departures from the novel - even giving Offred Hollywood-style revenge against her oppressors and a happy ending of sorts - and between the two, I'll take the TV series' choices over those of the film. Natasha Richardson was a fine actress, but the film didn't use her very well IMO. One of the main problems with the film is the dumping of Offred's POV. The novel is told in the first person, so if you don't intend to give Offred a voiceover throughout the film, then you need to make her more articulate than she was shown to be. Richardson herself was frustrated with the film for that reason, and she was right. And to be honest, the script overall is a bit of a mess - it was written and rewritten, directors came and went, and in the end, there's a sense that these people didn't really know what the story was about or what kind of film they were making. Even the studio didn't seem to have a clue - look at the poster, with Richardson bare-shouldered, wrapped in a sheet - in a film about the Christofascists sexually exploiting and oppressing women! There is some very good acting - most notably by Faye Dunaway - but the whole thing feels like a missed opportunity to me. It's not awful, by some miracle, but it could have been so much more.
The first three episodes of the TV series are magnificently done, and quite true to the novel. It's in the latter half of the series that things get iffier, as they try to expand beyond Offred's POV and set up for the second season. Still, Margaret Atwood's themes are mostly very well served, and the acting is top notch. The series was also lucky that the zeitgeist was with it in a way it wasn't back in 1990 with the feature film; the election of Trump, the right's chipping away at women's bodily autonomy and the rise of many Christofascist types in Trump's new order (like Mike Pence, who would fit into this story easily) gave the series a chilling relevance.
| by Anonymous | reply 5 | November 25, 2017 11:20 AM |
I was the true star of the film.
| by Anonymous | reply 6 | November 25, 2017 11:49 AM |
Plus most people are physically at home to see a tv series, more of a captive audience, whereas you had to seek out the film. It was viewed as an "arty" choice which means most would not consider it.
| by Anonymous | reply 7 | November 25, 2017 12:00 PM |
In 1990, the idea of a christofascist society was preposterous. Now, not so much.
Same thing with Chicago. When the show was originally written, the idea of criminal justice as entertainment was risible. Then we had OJ and the Menendez brothers and court TV etc so when the revival came along, society got it.
| by Anonymous | reply 8 | November 25, 2017 1:44 PM |
I disagree, R5. Any version of The Handmaid's Tale that has black handmaids undermines the premise of the book. The "children of Ham" were sent to the Colonies and allowed to die off. Nobody in power in Gilead wanted more of them born.
That was a major departure from the book, and implied a sort of open-mindedness that Gilead did not possess.
Fail.
| by Anonymous | reply 9 | December 3, 2017 11:39 PM |
I agree R5. When I first saw the movie I wondered how anyone who had not read the book would understand what was happening. Also the end was truly disappointing. I haven't seen the TV show.
R8 - You're wrong about the 1990s. You seem to be forgetting Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition and Ralph Reed. Don't forget the 700 Club.
| by Anonymous | reply 10 | December 4, 2017 12:07 AM |
Elizabeth McGovern was great in the film. She has a quirky quality that is sometimes odd but it worked in this film.
| by Anonymous | reply 11 | December 4, 2017 12:11 AM |
Yes, we heard a LOT about the "Moral Majority" fundamentalists, etc in the 80s. I am sure that was what inspired the book.
| by Anonymous | reply 12 | December 4, 2017 12:18 AM |
This story is always sort of confusing in its feminist issues. Sometimes it seems like women abusing other women and reads more as a class thing. Rich women having poorer women carry their baby's for them. It is like all these movie stars like Sarah Jessica Parker who have surrogates carry their kids for them.
| by Anonymous | reply 13 | December 4, 2017 12:23 AM |
Loved the film and book back then. Haven't seen the TV show yet, because the horrors we're living now are too similar.
| by Anonymous | reply 14 | December 4, 2017 12:38 AM |
[quote] R5 The series was also lucky that the zeitgeist was with it in a way it wasn't back in 1990 with the feature film; the election of Trump, the right's chipping away at women's bodily autonomy and the rise of many Christofascist types in Trump's new order (like Mike Pence, who would fit into this story easily) gave the series a chilling relevance.
This.
And, the original was low budget, and not particularly well publicized. The hulu version was more expensively produced and marketed. So people were more aware of it.
The original didn't get great word of mouth. I think Elizabeth McGovern gives the only really compelling performance in it (she is sheer perfection, and funny, as sidekick Moira)....though Our Faye would SURELY differ.
Offsite Link| by Anonymous | reply 15 | December 4, 2017 12:50 AM |
[quote]R6 I was the true star of the film. — Serena Joy
We know, Faye. We know.
Once again, you were robbed.
(Don't anybody start with her!! We'll be here all night...!))
Offsite Link| by Anonymous | reply 16 | December 4, 2017 12:55 AM |
R13, surrogate births, when they started, used to be in news and were controversial when they started.
Then it just wasn't talked about. Women were expected to go along with and be silent about the most controversial issues re women as they are today.
| by Anonymous | reply 17 | December 4, 2017 1:25 AM |
Actually Faye wanted to quit the movie because she was afraid the sex scenes where the wife holds the handmaid down while the husband has sex with her would come off as comical or awkward.
She was reassured by the director it would work and she wanted to work with Duvall again so she took the role.
| by Anonymous | reply 18 | December 4, 2017 1:26 AM |
r17 yes, thanks. I've seen that "Baby M" mini-series with Jobeth Williams on TV. That was pretty interesting and shows the pitfalls for surrogate women.
| by Anonymous | reply 19 | December 4, 2017 1:28 AM |
And now no one talks about it, R19. There are more than ever, and no one talks about it.
| by Anonymous | reply 20 | December 4, 2017 1:31 AM |
[quote]R18 Actually Faye wanted to quit the movie because she was afraid the sex scenes where the wife holds the handmaid down while the husband has sex with her would come off as comical or awkward.
Our Dorothy Faye has a very slanted view of her life. Like most stars, she's only going to tell things in a way that reflect well on her. The truth is she'd blown her career in Hollywood (through a coke addiction, and her demanding temperament) and was desperate for anything resembling distinguished work in England. The screenplay was by Tom Stoppard, so this was a prestige project. Dottie would only have left the production if carried out in a body bag. And who knows how many throats she slit to get the role in the first place.
Offsite Link| by Anonymous | reply 21 | December 4, 2017 1:52 AM |
r21 the screenplay was by Harold Pinter my old friend for whom I had done Old Times. Please reread my biography. I'd already returned home from England at this point.
| by Anonymous | reply 22 | December 4, 2017 2:07 AM |
It's no longer an issue, R20.
| by Anonymous | reply 23 | December 4, 2017 2:14 AM |
[quote]R22 the screenplay was by Harold Pinter my old friend for whom I had done Old Times.
You are right on that point, my dear friend. And I suspect you may even be right about having ended your self-imposed exile to England by then. But you have burned so many bridges, Faye, told so many half truths...I just don't know if I can trust you on anything. YOU SAID YOU WOULD BRING "MASTER CLASS" TO THE SCREEN, AND YOU DIDN'T!! And this may be but the least of your sins.
Offsite Link| by Anonymous | reply 24 | December 4, 2017 2:17 AM |
R22 PS: You announces the wrong winner at the Oscars. Did you notice?
| by Anonymous | reply 25 | December 4, 2017 2:20 AM |
[quote]It's no longer an issue, [R20].
Really? Or has talk about it been silenced?
| by Anonymous | reply 26 | December 4, 2017 2:21 AM |
E26 No-one's stopping people who object to it talking about it, which they do, ad nauseum. Most don't, however, because they don't care.
| by Anonymous | reply 27 | December 4, 2017 2:59 AM |
No, no one is talking about it "ad nauseum" - it has been "normalized"
| by Anonymous | reply 28 | December 4, 2017 3:01 AM |
R28 Dykes talk about it ad nauseum, as do the Christian right. Everyone else has accepted it, and moved on.
| by Anonymous | reply 29 | December 4, 2017 3:04 AM |
"Dykes" do not talk about it ad nauseum. This is not 1988. I have no idea if the Chistian right does.
It may be "accepted" but it is still buying babies
| by Anonymous | reply 30 | December 4, 2017 3:18 AM |
I loved the film version. Elizabeth McGovern and Faye Dunaway stole the picture. I just re-watched and it actually seems better now than back in 1990.
| by Anonymous | reply 31 | December 4, 2017 3:33 AM |
[quote]It may be "accepted" but it is still buying babies
Oh Shelby, it's done everyday.
| by Anonymous | reply 32 | December 4, 2017 4:23 AM |
[quote]This story is always sort of confusing in its feminist issues. Sometimes it seems like women abusing other women and reads more as a class thing.
It's not confused, it's just showing that it's not men alone who are oppressing women in Gilead - it's other women as well. In fact, Gilead would not be possible without the complicity of other women - the Aunts, the wives. We have gotten a whole new look at such women during and after the 2016 election, with all the women who voted for and support Trump. He couldn't have 'won' without them.
| by Anonymous | reply 33 | December 4, 2017 5:27 AM |
r9 I read an interview with the showrunner, who seems to have had a change of heart about black handmaids and hinted that this would be fixed in Season 2. Moira will always be black in this Gilead, though.
r18 Comical or awkward? THIS after Mommie Dearest AND Supergirl.
| by Anonymous | reply 34 | December 4, 2017 9:40 AM |
R1 her American accent was pretty good!
| by Anonymous | reply 35 | September 25, 2020 10:03 PM |
She looks like a more beautiful Kathleen Turner in R21’s pic! Gorgeous.
| by Anonymous | reply 36 | September 25, 2020 10:11 PM |
