‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ showrunners on the unattainable finale reunion: ‘It was heartbreaking’

by

This article contains spoilers for the series finale of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

As a devoted film enthusiast, I found myself at the end of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” ushering in a fresh start, yet the struggle remains unabated at a distance. Whether this new beginning sparks hope or not, only time can reveal.

Following an on-board explosion of a bomb that claimed the lives of high-ranking officials from Gilead, the Hulu series ended on Tuesday with June (Elisabeth Moss) and their group strategizing about the way forward as the United States’ occupation by the totalitarian government starts to unravel. The liberation initially spreads in Boston and other Northeastern areas. However, June remains restless until liberty extends to Colorado, where her oldest daughter, Hannah, resides under the regime.

Throughout “The Handmaid’s Tale” series, June has consistently aimed to be reunited with her daughter. However, the series concludes on a bittersweet note, leaving us hoping that they might be together someday. This emotional cliffhanger is connected to practical matters, as a follow-up titled “The Testaments” is set to premiere later this year. Written by Margaret Atwood, the author of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” this spin-off sequel will delve into June’s daughter’s life, who was given a new name, Agnes, by her new family, and the experiences of other young women in Gilead.

Similar to Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel “The Handmaid’s Tale,” the series offers a chilling portrayal of what may occur when power goes unchecked, totalitarian ideologies flourish, and religious extremism intertwines with social engineering intended to undermine women’s freedom. Initially, it was meant to seem like an unsettling work of fiction. However, Yahlin Chang and Eric Tuchman, who have been series writers for a long time and took over as showrunners during the final season from co-creator Bruce Miller (now adapting “The Testaments”), understand that some viewers perceive parallels between this fictional warning and current events.

In their discussion, The Times interviewed Chang and Tuchman regarding the similarities in the real world and wrapping up the series with Miller, who penned the final episode. Below, you’ll find highlights from the talk they had.

In June’s return to the Waterford residence, she records her monologue – reminiscent of the dialogue from the initial episode. Was this scene always intended to serve as the finale?

As a passionate movie enthusiast, I found myself deeply moved by the final scene in the series. Initially, Bruce had planned it as a precursor to the climax, but its impact transformed it into the heart of the story for me. The realization that June was narrating the tale to Hannah, and more importantly, for Hannah, became crystal clear. This revelation made the entire series feel like Hannah’s journey, a narrative woven around her.

Due to certain constraints, such as “The Testaments” which prevented June and Hannah from sharing screen time, it was a challenge to satisfy our audience’s expectations, including my own. However, the emotional resonance of June narrating the story to Hannah proved too compelling to ignore. I believe Bruce wasn’t primarily concerned about Hannah’s absence, as there is another sequel centering on her.

Lizzie also played a significant role in shaping the poignant scene between June and Holly, portrayed by Cherry Jones. This scene evolved into one where Holly expresses, “This story is for those who have lost their children; this is for them.

Tuchman explained that it was painful for them when they realized they couldn’t bring June and Hannah together as the audience had eagerly anticipated throughout the series. This reunion seemed to be June’s driving force. However, once they understood that this wasn’t possible due to a boundary they had to respect, it changed June’s emotional journey. Now, it seems like a strong message – keep going, never stop loving, hoping, wishing, and dreaming, no matter the challenges. As a parent, you will do whatever it takes to keep moving forward. Seeing Lizzie climb the steps of the Waterford house to Offred’s room and sit in that window seat in the iconic pose felt like an incredibly emotional experience because it symbolized a full circle.

Voices

Commentary: From ‘The Last of Us’ to ‘Handmaid’s Tale,’ women are angry and vengeful. Good

On several modern TV series, women are no longer just reacting to dangers; rather, they are actively confronting these threats and frequently doing so with assertive retaliation.

2018 saw the news that Margaret was penning “The Testaments,” a sequel series, though an official commission from Hulu came only in April of this year. At what point did it become apparent that adjustments were required while concluding “The Handmaid’s Tale”?

According to my recollection, Bruce initially reviewed the manuscript, which gave us an early indication that a successful reunion of the characters might not be possible. Hulu was keen on developing a sequel series, but we were aware by Season 4 of the restriction concerning Hannah. Throughout this season, we continuously brainstormed ideas to fulfill the desire for a reunion without literally reuniting them. Yahlin, in particular, came up with some impressive pitches regarding how to achieve this indirect reunion.

Care to share one of those pitches?

Chang: As a mother myself, I often found myself pondering, “What more could I add given that there’s a sequel?” I proposed some extensive flash-forwards, reaching far into the future. Essentially, “The Testaments” would have had to span over three decades. However, I completely empathize with why we couldn’t go ahead with this approach.

Is it your interpretation that June persists in her struggle, asserting that their enemies will never cease, and that giving up led to the establishment of Gilead which must be dismantled. Would you describe the conclusion as victorious? Does this outcome represent a triumph for June?

Chang expresses that the show’s triumph lies in its portrayal of a character who endures and continues to fight, but it’s also tinged with sadness because the character doesn’t achieve her desires. He compares this to life itself. The strength of the show has always been in its realism, according to Chang, as Bruce, the creator, didn’t want the finale to feel like a typical television series ending. Instead, it should seem like we’re catching up with these characters on this particular day. He believes that the finale gives off that impression of dropping in on them at this moment in time.

In relation to the uprising, what were your thoughts on how it might unfold and be experienced? On social media, there was a desire expressed for something akin to a gruesome spectacle; they hoped for men to endure pain and torment. To some extent, we witnessed that, but not to a great extent.

Chang: To be clear, I didn’t intend for our event to resemble the infamous “Red Wedding” from “Game of Thrones.” Initially, I envisioned multiple murders, but due to budget and time constraints, we weren’t able to execute them as planned. Producing television often involves making tough decisions when you have limited resources: How can we best tell our story? We wanted a satisfying murder of the despicable character, Commander Bell, which is one reason we cast Tim Simons. In fact, we based Bell on Tim from the beginning.

In our group, we nicknamed him Jonah due to his resemblance to the character from “Veep.” However, we couldn’t refer to him as Jonah Bell all the time, but that was his private moniker among us.

Television

Ann Dowd’s character from ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ initially perceived as the antagonist, has evolved into a representation of change and serves as a connection point between the different seasons.

Was there much discussion among the team about handling these commanders in Episode 9? Was the ultimate decision always going to involve their demise via an explosive device on an airplane?

Tuchman: We conceived this concept quite early during the initial stages of the season planning. I recall discussing it casually within our team. I’m confident I suggested Lawrence to introduce this climactic explosion. Similarly, I believe I proposed Nick making a surprise appearance at the same time. This was intended as a major, attention-grabbing event later in the season.

In discussing the direction of the show’s revolution, it seems fans might have yearned for more brutal scenes, but it’s crucial to recall the nature of this particular series. Our aim was to preserve the character-focused, emotional narrative that has been a hallmark of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” While we haven’t shied away from spectacle and action, our goal was to maintain a balance in episode nine, where viewers see the rebellion ignite, while staying true to June’s perspective. We usually keep her centered on events, rather than venturing into other stories. However, what I found incredibly rewarding this season was bringing June and Moira [Samira Wiley] back into their handmaid outfits, revisiting the series’ origins. The uprising had to be led by the handmaids; it’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” after all. June played a pivotal role in this rebellion, and she seized her last chance to instigate the revolution on that execution stage.

In the series finale of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” characters Serena (Yvonne Strahovski) and Aunt Lydia (Ann Dowd) were at the center of attention. Co-showrunner Yahlin Chang explained their development during the final season: “We didn’t focus on their redemption arcs; instead, we questioned how to open their eyes to reality, given their intentional ignorance. It was about showing them the truth and observing how they would respond.” (Steve Wilkie/Disney)

As a fan, I’ve been pondering about the character arcs of Yvonne Strahovski as Serena and Ann Dowd as Aunt Lydia in The Handmaid’s Tale. These characters played crucial roles in depicting the hardships faced by women in Gilead. I’m curious to know, what was the dialogue between the creators about what justice or redemption might look like for these complex characters?

Chang discusses a different perspective in crafting their characters: Instead of focusing on their redemption arcs, we explored how to open their eyes to reality. These characters willfully ignore what’s happening around them, and our goal was to show them the truth and observe their responses. In our series, our villains struggle not because they’re inhuman but due to their excessive humanity. They grapple with insecurities, fears, and weaknesses that humans typically have. For Serena, it’s her narcissism and self-justification. Lydia justifies everything by claiming it’s God’s will. As the story progressed, we gradually removed these layers to reveal the truth to them. Once they saw the truth, we believed they would likely act righteously if they fully grasped the extent of their wrongdoings.

One recurring theme in this narrative is how June, with her unique ability to perceive the shared humanity in everyone, including those considered reprehensible, manages to connect on a deep level with others. For instance, it’s through June’s empathetic approach, particularly in Yahlin’s episode, that she eventually reaches Lydia. In a sincere and personal manner, woman to woman, she helps Lydia gain new perspective.

In the subsequent episode, there’s an impactful scene between June and Serena where Serena must disclose information essential for taking down a plane. This situation highlights June using Serena’s own religious devotion and maternal love as a catalyst to awaken her conscience. It’s through the influence of our main character that these two additional women are fundamentally changed.

In the concluding conversation, Serena expresses regret for her actions and June grants pardon. Was there more than one version of this dialogue?

The initial version of Episode 10 didn’t quite reach the point where June and Serena found forgiveness, but it seemed crucial to mark a significant step in their relationship during the last episode. After all, that’s what Serena has been striving for. Whether we agree or not, she views June as a means of redemption, deeply valuing this connection. She yearns for it so much, and when June offers forgiveness, it’s like a precious gift, granted also due to Serena’s actions in Episode 9.

In the final episode of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” characters Nick (Max Minghella) and Lawrence (Bradley Whitford) appear.

Earlier, you mentioned the concept of willful blindness, which got me pondering about Nick [Max Minghella]. I found it challenging to comprehend his character and the choices he made in the end, but perhaps this reveals my own instances of willful blindness.

Tuchman emphasizes that many viewers are deeply invested in the bond between Nick and June, understandably so, given Max Minghella’s captivating performance and undeniable chemistry with Elizabeth. Nick has been a source of love, comfort, and rescue for June on multiple occasions. However, it is essential to remember some facts about Nick’s character that were portrayed in the series. Although we didn’t delve too deeply into his life away from June, we learned in Season 3 that the Swiss delegation refused to speak with Nick because he is a war criminal who cannot be trusted. His rapid promotion from driver to commander suggests he’s not just given promotions haphazardly. Moreover, Nick had numerous chances to reveal himself and live freely in Canada but chose not to. This season aims to make both June and the audience face the reality of who Nick truly is, understanding that there is no such thing as a good Nazi, even if he appears adorable and helpful when needed.

It’s clear that people are feeling frustrated, but let me clarify our intentions. We provided Nick with one final opportunity to make his decision – either boarding the plane that will seal his destiny in Gilead or choosing to contact Mark Tuello [Sam Jaeger] and ask for rescue. However, he doesn’t do so. This action aligns with his character as he has chosen to stay in Gilead for the security and status he desires. In my opinion, Nick has remained consistent throughout, maintaining his true nature, and we, like June, were perhaps blinded by our expectations and failed to see the truth about him.

Chang’s take: Nick consistently chose to act as a commander, and this conversation sheds light on the fact that individuals aren’t purely good or evil; they embody various shades of morality. It’s important to note that when Nick opted to betray the plan to Wharton, it wasn’t a sudden transformation from heroic figure to villain. Instead, he was faced with challenging circumstances and made an impulsive decision under emotional duress. In hindsight, this choice may have been misguided, but it doesn’t make him into some sinister character with a mustache, twirling or otherwise. He remains the same complex individual we’ve seen so far.

As a key player in establishing Gilead, my journey has come full circle in a poignant manner. I, Commander Lawrence, chose to make the ultimate sacrifice by boarding the plane with the explosive device, thereby contributing significantly to the destruction of the very society I had helped build.

Chang: Lawrence, right from the start, was a profoundly mysterious character. He was instrumental in creating Gilead, and our portrayal of him was as this elusive economics professor, engrossed in his work at the university’s corner. His theories were adopted by Gilead, given serious consideration, and it was thrilling for him to reshape the world. He felt he had saved humanity. Despite not subscribing to religious beliefs, he acknowledged that religion was useful in getting people to comply because they needed a spiritual motivation to follow Gilead. His methods proved effective, but of course, he harbored immense regrets. Being involved on both sides as a commander, yet trying to maintain his integrity by voting correctly and secretly doing other things, ultimately proved untenable for him. The story we present shows that one cannot straddle two worlds all the time.

As a passionate cinephile, I’ve always been captivated by the complex character of this man. He’s carried a heavy burden of remorse for the fate of his beloved wife, Eleanor. His heart has been set on transforming New Bethlehem into a more compassionate version of Gilead, a place where kindness prevails. However, he discovers that his fellow commanders have deceived him, turning his dream project into a trap meant to ensnare more refugees.

At the plane, he’s offered a chance to retaliate against those who betrayed him, people who are cruel and would ultimately cause harm and suffering to countless others if left unchecked. Initially, there’s an opportunity for him to find a way out, but at that critical moment, he seizes the occasion. He recognizes that this could be a viable means to make a significant impact – if he can thwart these hostile forces and deal a blow to Gilead, helping to dismantle it, he’s ready to act.

The series was created during the Obama administration, yet it’s frequently debated in relation to the Trump presidency. It’s regularly referenced on social media as users share or comment on current news articles – topics ranging from women being prosecuted for miscarriages, the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, immigration issues like deportations, and lawsuits against the press. You mentioned earlier that the intention behind the series isn’t to deliver a political message, but isn’t politics an integral part of the narrative?

Chang: It’s unsettling since daily events, like what happened yesterday, resemble some fictitious scenarios we’d normally invent. For instance, I was reading about conservative ideas suggesting parents, particularly mothers, should stay home with their children. This idea seems almost unrealistic, but it’s becoming a reality. As creators, we aim for our TV shows to feel authentic rather than fabricated. Ironically, the real world and current politics are helping us achieve this goal. The universe of “The Handmaid’s Tale” in Gilead is bizarre and improbable. If Eric and I had proposed this concept without Margaret Atwood’s book, people would likely laugh us out of the room due to its absurdity. However, it has become an iconic novel because it mirrors some deeply troubling aspects of our society related to misogyny, the suppression of women, and fascist tendencies.

The quote by Margaret Atwood that we often use for this show is, “Change doesn’t happen suddenly; it’s like being slowly boiled in a warming bath.” This is true because sometimes we need books, films, and shows that startle us and make us question things. When I began working on this series, I didn’t expect to have fewer rights than I do now. For instance, I thought Roe vs. Wade would never be overturned, but here we are. The show has made me continually shocked. This relates to our earlier discussion about Nick and the normalization of fascism. We’ve turned him into a romantic hero despite his fascist tendencies. It seems that we have a tendency to accept and normalize even the most outrageous things. I’ve joked with Eric that if people call the show a cautionary tale, then perhaps we’ve failed in our mission because reality has become even worse than it was before.

In the beginning of Season 1, when we assembled our writers’ room in 2016, I thought we were adapting a timeless work of speculative fiction about a dystopia for TV. However, as time passed, our show – initially intended as a cautionary tale – mirrored the reality and state of our nation, giving it a very distinct feel. Unintentionally, it became a cultural symbol of the events unfolding in our country. By the end of the series, I can’t help but feel we haven’t moved forward from where we started; instead, we may have regressed. If anything, our performance as a cautionary tale has been dismal, for not enough people seem to be paying attention, engaging, and contemplating the potential risks. It’s troubling to consider that more than half of the voters are comfortable with this gradual erosion of democracy. If there’s any lesson our show imparts, it’s that freedom is invaluable and democracy requires constant vigilance.

Chan: Are people suggesting that the show’s scenarios are based on real-world events that we read about and then incorporate into our series? That’s not the case. What’s truly terrifying is that we were merely envisioning the most catastrophic situations if the wrong individuals gain power, but it appears the world is following suit. As authoritarianism seems to be increasing in our world, a small part of me wonders, “Oh no, are Eric and I destined to end up on the proverbial ‘wall’?” This fear was never present before.

Read More

2025-05-27 08:32