The stark reality of ‘The Handmaid's Tale' in Trump's America
Margaret Atwood is often asked where she got the inspiration for her magnum opus, 'The Handmaid's Tale.' In interviews, she tends to answer the same way: 'The Handmaid's Tale' comes from real events. Everything in the novel, she'll say, looking straight into the camera or squarely into the face of a fan, has already occurred.
History repeats itself; that much we know. Everything in the novel is still occurring. It happened on the MSNBC franchise I write and produce: the Velshi Banned Book Club. Atwood sat down for an interview with host Ali Velshi and clearly elucidated that she was far more worried today than when she wrote the novel in 1985. Just one day later, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Her worry, it seemed, was correctly placed.
It's hard not to think about that prescience, that condemning foresight, when watching the sixth and final season of the 15 Emmy award-winning Hulu adaptation of Atwood's novel.
While it's hard to say enough about Elizabeth Moss' stunning portrayal of June in Hulu's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' in this final season, which concluded Monday, what — or who — rings the truest to me in our present political moment is the character of Serena Joy, played by Yvonne Strahovski.
When the series debuted in 2017, there was no meaningful Trad Wife movement or any other so publicized return to traditionalism. We saw glimmers of an uptick in women-led conservatism, in the 52% of white women who voted for Donald Trump the first time he ran for office, for example. But Serena still felt paradoxical to me.
If you're somehow unfamiliar with the book, television, stage or film adaptation, 'The Handmaid's Tale' takes place in a near-future America called the Republic of Gilead, now governed by a theocratic dictatorship. With much of the population left infertile from environmental disasters, Gilead has implemented forced surrogacy and sexual slavery. (Indeed, the environmental component of the book has become alarmingly more relevant, but that is best left explored for another column.) Fertile 'handmaids,' a term and concept taken directly from the Book of Gensis in the Old Testament, are enslaved, raped by high-ranking officials, impregnated and then forced to surrender their children to their rapists and their complicit wives. Our hero, June, is one such handmaid. Strahovski's Serena, one of the show's most callous and complex antagonists, is the wife of Commander Waterford, to whom June is enslaved. The first season of the show follows the novel very closely, but the subsequent seasons are the creation of Bruce Miller with input from Atwood.
A true believer in Gilead, Serena is not a woman carried by the tide of a regressive Puritanical movement out of her control. Serena herself helped make the waves. It was her Cult of Domesticity-type polemic, her written work and public-facing persona, that helped create Gilead.
Season six opens with June and Serena, joined once again by fate, on a train with other women seeking refuge from Gilead. As the two women speak about the horrors they have experienced in Gilead with other refugees, someone exposes Serena by calling her by her notorious married name: Mrs. Waterford. The refugees want revenge, and Serena, now a war criminal for the role she played in Gilead, doesn't back down. 'Before Gilead, America was full of whores,' she tells them, with indignant eyes and gritted teeth. 'Women were getting raped and killed every day, and nobody cared, and that was your country. You were unfit. I am not responsible for your tragedies; your children were not taken from you, they weren't stolen, they were saved. God hated America because America turned their back on God, and God took your country away. God bless, America.'
Serena is always both an oppressor and a victim. This consistent duality, up until the very end when Serena marries another Gilead Commander under the false pretense that he is one of the good and progressive ones, is one of the most compelling aspects of the show. Why? Because Serena, as a phenomenon and as a woman, is real. Many American women perpetuate and then ultimately suffer under patriarchal structures. Their reasons for aligning themselves with an oppressor may be varied, but the outcome will always be the same. There is no room for women in a world like that. Serena proves that to us.
Like the increasingly popular conservative influencers who substantially profit from advocating a return to biblical subservience, Serena is incongruous. Crucially, 'The Handmaid's Tale' doesn't demand we view her in any one way. Serena is nuanced, willing to bend the rules of the society she created to meet her own needs and sometimes sympathetic. She, too, has suffered physical and emotional abuse.
In the final episode, Serena apologizes to June while boarding a bus bound for a U.N. refugee camp. Tearfully, holding her son, Noah, wrapped in blankets, she says, 'When I recall some of the things that were done to you and the things that I did and that I forced you to do, I'm ashamed.'
June forgives her, the two women embrace, and Serena gets on the bus. After, a U.S. Commander commends June's 'generous' forgiveness. June demurs and says, 'You have to start somewhere.' Like so much of this show and the source material, that small moment is thought-provoking. Is forgiveness the place to start?
Serena no longer feels improbable to me. Atwood warned us, in the pages and in the scenes of 'The Handmaid's Tale,' that women like Serena have existed and will continue to exist. I don't know why I didn't believe her.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Maddow Reveals A Sure Sign Trump Is "Absolutely Panicking" Right Now
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday argued that President Donald Trump is 'absolutely panicking' over what she described as the 'trenchant and joyful and sustainable opposition' against him. Maddow argued that Trump has 'no freaking idea' how to respond to the protests over his administration's immigration raids — and that his deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles proves it. Trump, in his second term, has 'decided to throw out all the rules,' Maddow said. But instead of appearing bold, she claimed, it's made him 'very boring.' Related: "Honestly Speechless At How Evil This Is": 26 Brutal, Brutal, Brutal Political Tweets Of The Week 'It's like, it's all on the table. We know exactly what he's doing. We know exactly what his intentions are,' she said. 'He's blonde Berlusconi. He's just trying to do the same thing all the other strongmen and would-be dictators do.' Related: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It The real test now is what citizens allow him to get away with, said Maddow. 'I think the really interesting question is, what the country lets him get away with,' she said. 'And we're seeing a really interesting test of that right now, all over the country, especially this week.' Watch Maddow's commentary below: This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Republicans Are Calling Tim Walz "Tampon Tim," And The Backlash From Women Is Too Good Not To Share Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It'
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why the Warner Bros. Discovery merger was doomed from the start
Warner Bros. Discovery's split is the latest proof that conglomerates are deeply out of fashion. Glomming diverse operations together smooths out profits through business cycles. It mutualizes economic risk. But it also mutualizes scandal, tainting a corporate empire with the real or perceived sins of one subsidiary. And with President Donald Trump looking for points of leverage, corporate sprawl is a real liability. ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are blips on the bottom lines of Warner Bros., Disney, Paramount, and Comcast. But they're lightning rods for controversy — Trump has sued two of those channels and complains constantly about the other two — and suck up executives' time and attention. News channels were never cash cows, but at least they were trophy assets that were fun to own. Not so much these days. It's not just the president: These companies' broad footprints leave no easy choices in the culture wars. Hollywood talent, middle-America cruise passengers, coders building streaming apps, and the guy installing your cable all get mad about different things. Conglomerates have lots of ways to get in trouble. This isn't entirely a new problem. In 1996, Martin Scorsese was shopping a movie about the Dalai Lama. Universal Studios, which was owned by Seagram at the time, passed. 'I don't need to have my spirits and wine business thrown out of China,' then-CEO Edgar Bronfman said. His fears were well-founded, and a preview of what we're seeing now: Disney made the movie, and landed on a Chinese blacklist that threatened the opening of its Shanghai theme park. Breakups like those announced by Warner Bros. Discovery and Comcast might be freeing for both sides. The next time Trump criticizes MSNBC, he can't threaten Comcast with (hypothetically) OSHA agents descending on Universal Orlando. Mark Lazarus, who will run Comcast's new cable spinoff, will be more exposed to political pressure without a corporate parent. But he can decide what to put on MSNBC without wondering what it will do to Harry Potter theme parks. For the second time in seven years and the third time this century, a company that bought the Warner Bros. entertainment empire wishes it had not. Failures to foresee tectonic changes — and the lure of media moguldom — has turned one of the most storied names in Hollywood into a dealmaking albatross. The split unwinds the 2022 merger of CNN and HBO owner WarnerMedia with Discovery, a jumble of cable channels offering humbler fare. It was a bet that content companies needed to be bigger to compete with Netflix, and that consumers would want to watch , Anderson Cooper's war zone dispatches, and in the same place. Its previous owner, AT&T, bought what was then called Time Warner in 2018 for about $100 billion, including debt, and almost immediately regretted it. In 2021, it struck a deal to sell it to Discovery for a package of cash and stock worth about $43 billion — a roughly $40 billion writedown (AT&T has disputed the latter number.) Go back further, and its predecessor was party to what is widely considered the worst corporate merger in history, the union of AOL and Time Warner in 2001. The M&A math is a bit hard to decipher, but a business worth around $100 billion to AT&T seven years ago is now roughly half of Warner Bros. Discovery, which trades at $24 billion today. It's not even the good half: Cable is in long-term decline, and CEO David Zaslav's parting gift to SpinCo is a 20% stake in the more valuable studio and streaming businesses that will stay behind. Why do companies keep getting this so wrong? After all, Netflix launched its streaming service in 2007, and Bob Iger first sounded the alarm about cord-cutting in 2015. AOL presaged the confluence of tech and media, but broadband killed dial-up and the dot-com bubble burst. AT&T, too, was onto something when it aimed to deliver shows directly to people's phones. But it was outmaneuvered by nimbler streamers, slowed down by a creaking debt load, culture clashes, and the Justice Department. Tech giants like Amazon have paid up for sports rights, a key part of the cable bundle. The result is a cable business melting faster than bosses expected. The winner in all this? Rupert Murdoch, who agreed to sell 21st Century Fox — a collection of cable channels plus a movie studio, more or less identical to Warner Bros. — to Disney for $71 billion in 2017, at what would prove to be the top. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Geek Vibes Nation
an hour ago
- Geek Vibes Nation
‘Predator: Killer Of Killers' Review - Dan Trachtenberg's Animated Anthology Is Sublime Franchise Fodder
In 2022, director Dan Trachtenberg proved Predator still had steam with Prey, a gloriously high-concept and brilliantly realized reinvention of the previously DOA 80s action IP. It was a bold departure from previous films in that it set its story in the early 18th century and centered it on a Comanche warrior, inevitably begging the question, 'If we can do a Predator movie there, where else can we put a Predator?' Fans quickly began generating ideas for what new potential Predator installments could look like. How about a Predator in ancient Egypt? How about a Predator in feudal Japan? How about a Predator during Vietnam? Well, at least one of these wishes has come true in Predator: Killer of Killers, a previously secret Predator project that has now graced our television screens (Hulu in the States, Disney+/Star everywhere else). Trachtenberg has taken his initial experimentation in Prey and blown it up threefold, presenting an anthology of three vignettes that imagine a Predator fight in three distinct time periods: 'The Shield' follows a horde of viking warriors who, in their efforts to take down a warring nation, come face to face a Yautja; 'The Sword' sees a samurai warrior seek vengeance against his estranged brother only to then find himself battling two foes; 'The Bullet' takes the fight to the sky as an inexperienced World War II naval pilot is forced to take down a Predator and his spaceship. While the first two entries feel thematically linked in the emptiness of vengeance and the importance of familial bonds, the third entry feels a bit more loose, though one could argue its underdog story helps link all three stories. Despite this, each vignette is bolstered by excellent voice acting and has just enough story to maintain thematic intrigue throughout. Killer of Killers marks the second time Disney has unceremoniously plopped an exquisitely crafted production straight to streaming, a criminal act for a company that allows hollow cinematic detritus like the new Lilo & Stitch to rack up Memorial Day dollars. Thankfully, this critic was able to experience the film in a theater as part of the Tribeca Festival's 'Escape to Tribeca' midnight programming slate, and calling the experience transcendent would be underselling it. The most notable difference is in the soundscape, which is booming with an absorbing surround mix and an intense, enrapturing score from Benjamin Wallfisch (Alien: Romulus). This is especially stirring in the film's third and final vignette, which incorporates the sounds of aerial combat a la Top Gun to bombastic effect. Unless you have a solid home theater setup, this is something you simply can't fully appreciate from the comfort of your home. Then, of course, there's the animation. This film marks the first foray into full feature animation for visual effects company The Third Floor (Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3) and the results are magnificent; though its 2.5D cel-shaded animation is not rendered as fluidly as other, more premiere examples of the format (Arcane is a particularly good comparison, with whom this film shares a lead animator), it is brimming with gorgeous detail and unafraid to get gory throughout its masterfully choreographed fight sequences. By the time the first sword is slashed, you are able to fully immerse yourself in the film's unique style and let its high-octane action and gruesome kills whisk you away. The film's second vignette, which is essentially Predator versus a samurai, is undoubtedly the film's highlight, bringing the stealth of the franchise to new stylistic heights that echo Asian cinema of the 1980s. It's undeniable that these three short films are infectiously entertaining, taking a previously militarized franchise and imbuing it with the kind of acrobatics, combat, and ingenuity that feel reminiscent of a John Wick-meets-Mortal Kombat bloodbath. It's a shame, then, that Killer of Killers succumbs to the MCU-ification of modern filmmaking and insists that 'everything is connected.' Though it isn't worth getting into for fear that it will spoil what is an admittedly electrifying third act, the final scenes of the film do explicitly connect the three vignettes and imply a much larger story world than Killer of Killers initially lets on. Each film is strong enough on its own that the additional narrative work, while fun, feels both narratively superfluous and vaguely exploitative. One can't help but fear that the film's story devices may eventually be abused to provide nostalgia-fellating franchise fodder. Arnold Schwarzenegger has certainly been brought back to his franchises with less effort. All of that said, the film is so invigorating from a pure genre perspective that it's easy not to care. Unlike franchises within the Marvel machine or even other blockbusters like Mission: Impossible or James Bond, Trachtenberg has proven he is only interested in pandering continuity porn when it comes secondary to expanding his franchise's lore in his own image. Though we expect his next film, Badlands, to be a more narratively coherent experience, there's nothing wrong with letting him experiment with a few creative exercises if they look, sound, and feel this good. Obsessive easter egg hunters will surely have some things to pick apart, but, for the most part, Killer of Killers is a sublime standalone project that invites endless possibilities to the Predator franchise while providing a cutthroat action romp that never takes its foot off the brakes. Predator: Killer of Killers held its New York Premiere as part of the Escape From Tribeca section at the 2025 Tribeca Festival. It is now streaming globally on Hulu and Disney+.