Own the rights?
31 out of 41 people found the following review useful: as good as commercial film gets, 7 January 2003 Author: realreel from United States
I'm surprised by some of the negative comments on this film. In my opinion, it represents the best kind of literary adaptation that the cinema offers: One in which the screenwriter and director clearly remained faithful to the spirit of the book without attempting to reproduce it. How can you go wrong with a Margaret Atwood book, a Harold Pinter screenplay and Volker Schlöndorff's direction? Some have suggested that the film suffered from "wooden" acting. Personally, I thought it was a fantastic cast: Robert Duvall and Victoria Tennant at their evil best; Faye Dunnaway as the "defeated" wife; Elizabeth McGovern as saucy as ever; Aidan Quinn and Natascha Richardson in the necessarily bland roles that drive the narrative. What holes here?Commercial film doesn't get any better. "The Handmaid's Tale" is a dark portrait of a world unlike ours and yet so much like ours... in which a right-wing, bureaucratic patriarchy dominates the land. Women have three main functions (for which their clothing is color coded): Red for the handmaids, who are walking wombs; white for the innnocent children; blue for the sterile trophy wives. Brown is worn by the "aunts", a futuristic equivalent of the Sonderkomando (i.e., Jews who worked on behalf of the Nazi's in the death camps), evil schoolmistress types who both train/brainwash young women for assignment and occasionally destroy them. A fifth function, for which the garb is particularly interesting, is "working" in Gilead's underground social club (essentially a den of iniquity, rife with prostitution and drugs.) Point is... by splitting up these functions, hasn't Atwood described the basic roles that women play within our own male-dominated society, in various different permutations and combinations? To the patriarchy, women are mothers, models, sluts, angels and, when professionals, they are not to aspire to more teaching posts. In Gilead, the lines are clearer; in our own society, aren't most women "supposed to" play some combination of all of these roles?I get the feeling that most moviegoers are looking for something else in "sci-fi." Here's a new plot twist: The rebels feed Kate some kind of medication that allows her to read the commander's mind while destroying his brain. Wait... that's "Scanners." Oops. Seriously, two of the reviews on this site made spedific mention of Schlöndorff's "horrible", "atrocious" directorial skills. Ahem. Perhaps before they weigh in on the auteur, they ought to see "Young Törless", "Coup de grâce", "The Tin Drum" and all of his other wonderful efforts. As a matter of fact, to insinuate that someone who could bring Grass' Tin Drum to the screen in such a stunning fashion is a lousy director is PREPOSTEROUS. Schlöndorff is a giant of the New German Cinema, and it underscores the ignorance of the Hollywooders when they cast such baseless aspersions.
29 out of 40 people found the following review useful: A Taliban-like Christian theocracy in the US, 2 February 2002 Author: Dennis Littrell (dalittrell@yahoo.com) from SoCal
This is a haunting, psychologically compelling story about what the United States might be like under a right wing, fundamentalist theocracy. Adapted by the acclaimed playwright Harold Pinter from the novel by Margaret Atwood, this is a tale of the suppression of women by a totalitarian state called the `Republic of Gilead.' In some respects one is reminded of Orwell's 1984: the endless war from without, designed to keep the populace preoccupied and beholden to the state; the paucity of basic food stuffs and consumer goods expect for the ruling class, the general hopelessness, etc. There is horrendous pollution so that most women are not fertile, yet the state needs babies for the war effort and the economy. Consequently women's bodies are taken over by the state, and those women that are fertile are made to bear children for the sterile leaders. Those who are not fertile are reduced to servitude. All overt sexual expression and any kind of activity not in keeping with the strict dictates of the fundamentalist religion is forbidden, and transgressions are punishable by death, sometimes in public hangings. In one ugly scene the handmaids themselves are made to pull the rope that attaches to the noose that strangles a wayward handmaid. This is followed by a man accused of rape being thrown to the handmaids, who literally rip him apart with their bare hands.Natasha Richardson has the starring role as a fertile handmaid for the Commander (Robert Duvall). She is not artificially inseminated (presumably since that would be against the dictates of the religion, which is, by the way, a kind of repressive fundamentalist Christianity), instead there is a `ceremony' in which the Commander's wife (Faye Dunaway) holds her hands (as they both wear veils) while the Commander with his clothes still on--Well, one can imagine.I read the novel some years ago and was struck not by Atwood's attack on fundamentalist Christianity as much as I was by her attack on men, period. Harold Pinter's screenplay and Volker Schlondorff's direction emphasize the hypocrisy, willful ignorance and anti-human aspects of fundamentalism while attributing the sexism to the patriarchal religion. What is stunningly topical (viewing this in the year of Our Lord 2002) is the parallel between the repressive fundamentalist theocracy of Atwood's vision and that of the Taliban. The subjugation of women, using them strictly as servants or as reproductive machines, their bodies covered and their heads veiled (in bright red), is a striking bit of dead-on foresight by Atwood, Pinter and Schlondorff. This movie was perhaps made a decade ahead of its time.Richardson is very good in her characteristic way. She has a quality unlike most movie stars in that she projects primarily not her looks or charisma or even her vitality, but instead her individual will, a quality that is exactly right for the part. Faye Dunaway as the commander's wife acts out (in contrasting blue) a kind of Daughters of the American Revolution club woman mentality to a tee. Duvall is wonderfully slimy as a warlord hypocrite always claiming to act in the name of God. (Seems familiar.) Elizabeth McGovern is believable as a sexy lesbian handmaid (a `gender criminal') while Victoria Tennant ("Aunt Lydia") is a kind of drill sergeant housemother to the handmaids. Aidan Quinn gets to be Richardson's heroic lover.This may not be entirely faithful to the book, but it is a fine work in its own right. The direction is intelligent and focused and the script by Pinter excellent. The acting is superior all around and the story is true in a psychologically sense. This movie is also a warning that it could happen here.
36 out of 58 people found the following review useful: Must See for Those Who Still Care About Women's Rights, 26 February 2006 Author: Max A. Lebow from United States
Margaret Atwood, a Canadian novelist (and poet) wrote the dark fantasy novel on which this film is based. It is set in The Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, or at least the parts of it that are not radioactive. The radioactive parts are called the colonies, where bad girls are sent to die of radiation poisoning. The time is the near future, after the inevitable nuclear war, and the breakdown of government as we know it.The society depicted in The Handmaid's Tale is a nightmare: everyone is watched by the Eyes, unknowable, unseen government spies. Women are forbidden to have jobs. They are irrevocably assigned to classes. At the top are the chaste, but morally superior, Wives, almost all of whom have been rendered infertile by the inevitable unclear war. At the bottom are the housekeepers, or Marthas, who are non-entities. In the middle are the Handmaids of the title, who are fertile, but tightly controlled. The term Handmaid is a Biblical term that is used in the Old Testament stories of Abraham, Sarah, Jacob and Rachel. In the Bible, the wives gave their handmaids to their husbands in order to produce heirs.Handmaids, in the film and the book, are forced to have sex with the Commanders, the husbands of the Wives. During this sex, the Wives are intimately present to take in any "love" their Commanders have to give.The Handmaids are trained to remain unattached to the Commanders. They are prohibited from using makeup or doing anything to make themselves attractive. Handmaids are forced to turn their offspring over to the morally "fit" Wives.Robert Duvall, a Commander in whose home Offred is placed, gives a family Bible reading performance that will curdle the blood of true people of faith. It is a breathtaking, heart-stopping performance.The government is totalitarian and monotheistic. The one god is very strict, and has His Eyes everywhere.Offred, who was once known as Kate, is a Handmaid who, despite her training (read brainwashing), recalls her past, her loving husband, and her adored daughter. She tells with sparkling, and terrifying clarity, how the society came to be the way it is.This governmental aspect of the story is instructive, however, they are almost totally absent in the film.Offred's/Kate's personal story is heartrending. It reminds one of the miseries of, say, the women of Darfur. When the government breaks down, she and her husband and daughter attempt to flee to Canada. Unfortunately, they are caught. Her daughter is "confiscated." Her husband is taken away. She never sees her husband again.Offred's training is not as extensively portrayed in the film as it is in the book, but her feeling of terror and helplessness are palpable, in an exquisite performance by Natasha Richardson. Warning, blood is shown.As we ride down the slippery slope toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade, this film is a must see for those who still care about women's rights.
13 out of 18 people found the following review useful: Startling visual impact, 21 May 2001 Author: ddelamaide from United States
The handmaids in brilliant red, the wives in electric blue, the children in white--Margaret Atwood's neo-fascist state comes startingly alive in Schloendorff's film. The bright colors are oppressive in their uniformity, whether in the "ceremony"--Robert Duvall's passionless copulation with Natasha Richardson as she lies in the lap of his sterile wife, Faye Dunaway--or in the party to celebrate the birth of a handmaid's child, or the execution of another handmaid for fornication. There are several fine actors--Elizabeth McGovern and Aidan Quinn also play memorable, if brief, roles--but the cinematography steals the show here, giving this anti-Utopia the same oppressive tension as the original 1984 and far surpassing any version of Brave New World. It may be that Atwood's book, which I haven't read, adds layers of depth to the characters and plot, but Schloendorff's visualisation is a real enhancement to the tale. He creates the tension of a police state with only momentary intrusions of brutality or machinery. A strong film that will gain its following with time.
14 out of 20 people found the following review useful: Absolutely engaging.. weird.. couldn't turn it off., 29 May 2001 Author: s.wright from Australia
Such a completely alien world, I was shocked and intrigued and disgusted and weirded out and engaged all at the same time. Very odd, but really great quality for the era (89).I couldn't bring myself to even make a cup of tea for fear of missing something, so I guess it kept me on edge and really interested the whole time. Opening sequences grabbed me, made me instantly curious, and Aidan Quinn's name, well, that had me anyway.Recommend that people watch this, especially if they appreciate slightly odd, artistic films.. as this is, but on a large scale.Weird. Loved it.
26 out of 44 people found the following review useful: great book but why did the creators decide to ruin this film?, 26 May 2004 Author: lorna_dunc from Leeds, England
I have just one point to make about this film, and that is why on earth did the director decided to name Offred kate. In the book, which I hope to god the producers etc actually read, there is no mention of the name kate what so ever, the only name that we could possibly guess would be June which is supplied to us in the first chapter but even then we never learn her real name. And this is of great significant importance, the fact that we as readers or viewers never learn her name means something and to simply choose a name out of a hat is destroying a piece of the character created for us by Margaret Attwood. Also reading the plot outline makes me wonder whether whoever wrote that even saw the film, especially where it says "Kate is a criminal, guilty of the crime of trying to escape from the US, and is sentenced to become a Handmaid." when really "KATE" becomes a handmaid as her husband was married once before and their marriage never really existed in the eyes of the law. Also i read on to see that "After ruthless group training by Serena Joy in the proper way to behave, Kate is assigned as Handmaid to the Commander." Well that is not at all true as anyone who has seen this film will notice that Serena Joy is the commanders wife and not one of the Aunts and the Red Centre. Please in the future get your facts right and also thanks to director Volker Schlöndorff for ruining a perfectly enjoyable book. My advice stick to the book and not the watered down version for the small minded.
9 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Not a bad movie, kind of slow at times though, 15 October 2002 Author: tex-42
This movie based on Margaret Atwood's story, concerns a woman living in the not too distant future in the Republic of Gilead, a country that was once the United States. The country is now run by fundamentalist Christians who have demoted all women to a second class citizenship. Nuclear war has made most women infertile, so the government has forced all the fertile women to serve as handmaids and bear children for the leaders and their infertile wives as part of a biblical prophecy. The infertile women are sent off to toil as slaves and clean up nuclear waste. This movie concerns one handmaid, Offred (Kate) and her struggle to escape Gilead, find her daughter, and flee to Canada. Not a bad movie at all, all the actors do very well. The material just runs very slow at points, and the character's aren't all that well developed.
9 out of 13 people found the following review useful: It portends to be deep and meaningful...not a big crowd-pleaser, 13 April 2008 Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca
Margaret Atwood's acclaimed novel, adapted for the screen and turned into a high-minded but posed, uncomfortable human drama, despite an expert cast. Taking place in the soulless distant future, all young women have been turned into child-breeders for wealthy, infertile couples, with Nastasha Richardson assigned to nightmarish twosome Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway. Elizabeth McGovern plays a lesbian who hopes to make a break for it (every totalitarian society should have one). Certainly watchable, though an icy cold presentation which promises to be much more than it is. Richardson doesn't flash a hint of her feisty personality, though McGovern is very good and Duvall does what he can with a terrible role. ** from ****
9 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Fairly faithful to the book, gripping & disturbing (as it should be), 1 October 2004 Author: Roucas from Toronto, Canada
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Having just finished the original book written by noted Canadian author Margaret Atwood, I was eager to see this film to see the world depicted within recreated visually. Immediately I was drawn into this disturbing world. ** SPOILERS **The USA as we know it is gone, replaced via a coup d'état by right-wing Christian fundamentalists who establish the Republic of Gilead in it's place where literal interpretations of the Old Testament take the place of the Constitution and laws governing the land. (The name Gilead comes from the Bible from an area NE of the Dead Sea, why Atwood used this I do not know). As a result of nuclear waste, radiation and pollution, only a tenth of the population can reproduce. Women who are still fertile are brainwashed and trained as handmaids, subjugated as virtual sex slaves and sent to live in the households of high-ranking state officials to bear their children.Does the film diverge from the book? A fair bit, but not as bad as other film adaptions like Ludlum's "Bourne" series or "Interview With the Vampire" & "Queen of the Damned."Again, more spoilers: in the book, there is a great deal more emphasis on the narrator's history, especially with her mother and her husband, Luke, who only appears in the film's beginning. In the book, Luke's fate is unknown, as he was taken away from her and never seen again. In the film, Luke is shot and killed within the first few minutes. In the book, the narrator's mother is a free-thinking feminist who winds up sent to the Colonies, but we never see her in the film. Moira in the book is virtually the same, but she knew the narrator prior to being sent to the Red Centre - they were friends in college. The most startling change from book to film was the ending: Kate in the movie slashes the throat of the Commander she is assigned to before being whisked away by the Mayday resistance group to freedom. In the book, this does not happen - she is led away and the Commander is told she was secretly stealing information from him.Also, in the book the narrator is not named, while in the film she is given the name Kate. Following the climax there is a fictional seminar synopsis set hundreds of years after the events in the book where the characters and their possible identities are examined. In this, the reader learns the Republic of Gilead eventually fell.Overall, a great read and a decent adaptation to film. Definitely worth a read, especially during the year of an election. It will scare the hell out of you.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Women enslaved in a nightmare version of the future, 19 March 2009 Author: maatmouse-1 from United Kingdom
This movie is a version of Margaret Atwood's book about a dystopian future society in which society, by virtue of an unseen war, is divided up into the elite who want babies, the establishment who can procure the fertile young women who will give them children and an underclass who do drudgery.The late Natasha Richardson plays Kate or Offred, a young woman who, in the destruction of normal society, is force-ably parted from her husband and family and taken to a military style barracks where all the women in a similar situation are being 'groomed' (brainwashed) for having the babies of the rich (and largely infertile) elite. Kate is placed in an ultra-wealthy household ran by the Commander played easily by Robert Duvall and his beautiful, infertile and cold wife played by Faye Dunaway. Each month Offred is forced to take part in the 'Ceremony', in which her Commander has sex with her in order to conceive his child. To make matters worse, the Commander's wife is also present at the embarrassing and excruciating 'ritual'. Tired with the Commander's unsuccessful copulating, his wife proposes that Offred sleeps with the couple's chauffeur, which she does.There is a lot not explained in the film which can only be drawn from the book. There is the explanations behind the society's class system and Offred's attachment to some phrase she finds written by another woman within her prison. The Commander also tries to establish a kind of relationship with Offred, something which is strongly disapproved of, but he encourages, seeing it as an opportunity not only to achieve his wife's goal of raising a child but also of having more tender sexual encounters with his 'concubine'.Natasha, Faye, Elizabeth McGovern and Robert Duvall along with Victoria are all excellent in this film. Aidan Quinn is really only there for his good looks but it doesn't matter. The film is satisfactory but now sadly is starting to look quite dated.
Add another review
