maybe this is explained in the novel (which i haven't read), but it looks to me like the political prisoner/"rapist" that the girls attack gets his head ripped off. call me crazy, but i didn't think that was anatomically possible for a group of frenzied girls to rip a head clean off...
morbid and nitpicky, yes, but it confuses me...
One flew east, one flew west...
He did get his head ripped off. In the book, the women, full of fear and anger, beat him to death, although he was actually innocent in the book. Funny, I didn't see that part in the movie.
shareOfglen mentions that he was a political prisioner not a rapist.
No Gods, No Masters
he wasn;t a rapist....but the women were so angry and furious they literally ripped him apart with his bare hands. I can't remember in the film, but in the book Ofglen kicked him in the head, knocking him out, and Offred is at first horrified by her action but is then later told she did it for his own good...
share[deleted]
The shot goes by very quickly. If you slow down the tape/disc, you can see the stump where he was decapitated. The handmaids were lied to by Aunt Lydia when she told them he raped a handmaid, to stir up their anger.
In the book, the epilogue contains a comment by a history scholar that it was useful for women to be able to rip apart a man with their bare hands every once in a while. (presumably to blow off a LOT of steam)
It's been a while since I read the book, but I thought there was an explanation about the women being "in charge" (for lack of a better description) of the punishment - although I had remembered (wrong apparently) it was only punishment for rapists not all prisoners. But yes, they do rip apart the men with their bare hands. I remember that scalp scene too and the look of, I don't know, accomplishment on her face. Sort of a "yes, I will drink the Kool-Aid" gaze in her eyes. Disturbing.
shareIn the book, they are told the man is a rapist because that is seen as an extreme sin by the handmaids. He is, in fact, a rebel, as Ofglen tells Offred. "Don't be stupid. He wasn't a rapist at all, he was a political." As for the decapitation, there is nothing in the book about this. All it says is that one of the handmaids has a clump of blond hair clenched tightly in her fist.
shareI am studying this book as part of my English A level in comparison with Nineteen Eighty-Four, and I believe that it is all part of a controlled mass hysteria organisation.
In the book the Handmaids are so strictly controlled under the regime that they need to have an outlet for all their frustrations. The Aunts manipulate this to their advantage and to encourage the Handmaids loathing of men and *unlawful* sex.
For the repressed women it is their only chance to vent their fury and disgust of their own lives, and they grab the opportunity to blame someone at the Salvaging. After being forced to join in with the hanging of another Handmaid, their emotions are clearly going to be vengeful and the Aunts use this.
A large group of highly emotional women could quite easily rip a man to pieces, simply because it is the only available outlet for the rush of their usually repressed desires.
i did both of those books for alevel and they are utterly fantastic, but the films are awful. good for entertainment but watch them after youve done your assesssment
shareIts seen as catharsis.
A last drop of freedom to keep woman happy.
<< call me crazy, but i didn't think that it was anatomically possible for a group of frenzied girls to rip a head clean off... >>
Well, perhaps they chewed their way through...
.