Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Australasian Journal of Popular Culture
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Adaptations, Reboots and Remakes in Popular Culture
  • ISSN: 2045-5852
  • E-ISSN: 2045-5860

Abstract

First released in 1985, Margaret Atwood’s has since become a seminal work of feminist speculative fiction. Set in the former United States, the fictionalized Republic of Gilead presents a terrifying reproductive theocracy in which all women are subjugated and fertile women are forcibly conscripted into biological slavery. Often satirical and wry, the novel has been celebrated for its depictions of biological essentialism which reduces the titular Handmaids to the status of reproductive vessels for the state. Such representations of biological essentialism define Atwood’s novel as a work of eugenic fiction which echoes the policies and practices of reproductive control that dominated the early eugenics movement in the first half of the twentieth century. Furthering this connection is the novel’s use of botanical and agricultural metaphors that continually liken women to both fertile plants and breeding stock, reflecting the language employed in early eugenic rhetoric. In transforming the novel for television, the Hulu adaptation of (2017–present) extends such metaphors, visually literalizing them to create a work of eugenic horror, which violently and emphatically depicts the consequences of reducing women to their reproductive capacity. In doing this, the television adaptation not only heightens its source text’s eugenic themes but also provides a space in which to reframe Atwood’s Handmaid protagonist, Offred, reconfiguring her as the horror genre’s Final Girl, who not only survives the eugenic horror to which she is subjected but also overcomes it.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • The Australian Government Research Training Program
© 2024 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ajpc_00098_1
2025-01-22
2025-03-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atwood, M. (2010), The Handmaid’s Tale, London: Vintage.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Brabazon, T. (2020), ‘“I will not be that girl in the box”: The Handmaid’s Tale, monstrous wombs and Trump’s America’, in N. Chare, J. Hoorn and A. Yue (eds), Re-Reading the Monstrous Feminine: Art, Film, Feminism and Psychoanalysis, New York and Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 146–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Carey, J. (2006), ‘“Not only a White race, but a race of the best Whites”: The women’s movement, White Australia and eugenics between the wars’, in Historicising Whiteness Conference, University of Melbourne, 22–24 November, Melbourne, pp. 162–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Creed, B. (2022), Return of the Monstrous-Feminine: Feminist New Wave Cinema, New York and Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Croisy, S. (2020), ‘Characteristics and consequences of 20th century eugenic policies against Indigenous people in Australia and the U.S.’, Cultures of the Commonwealth, 23, pp. 29–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Currell, S. (2010), ‘Breeding better babies in the eugenic garden city: “Municipal Darwinism” and the (anti)cosmopolitan utopia in the early twentieth century’, Modernist Cultures, 5:2, pp. 267–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Domingo, A. (2008), ‘“Demodystopias”: Prospects of demographic hell’, Population and Development Review, 34:4, pp. 725–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. England, M. (2006), ‘Breached bodies and home invasions: Horrific representations of the feminized body and home’, Gender, Place & Culture, 13:4, pp. 353–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Feldman Kołodziejik, E. (2020), ‘Mothers, daughters, sisters: The intergenerational transmission of womanhood in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale and The Testaments’, Elope, 17:1, pp. 67–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Game of Thrones (2011–19, USA: HBO).
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Garland-Thompson, R. (2017), ‘Eugenic world building and disability: The strange world of Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go’, The Journal of Medical Humanities, 38:2, pp. 133–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hernández-Santaolalla, V. (2019), ‘Chapter seven: Final Girls and female serial killers: A review of the Slasher television series from a gender perspective’, in S. Gerrad, S. Holland, and R. Shail (eds), Gender and Contemporary Horror in Television, Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 83–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hutcheon, L. (2012), A Theory of Adaptation, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirby, D. A. (2007), ‘The devil in our DNA: A brief history of eugenics in science fiction films’, Literature and Medicine, 26:1, pp. 83–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kuznetski, J. (2021), ‘Disempowerment and bodily agency in Margaret Atwood’s The Testaments and The Handmaid’s Tale TV series’, The European Legacy, 26:3–4, pp. 287–302.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Lovett, L. L. (2020), ‘Eugenic housing’, WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly, 48:1–2, pp. 67–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mein Smith, P. (2002), ‘Blood, birth, babies, bodies’, Australian Feminist Studies, 17:39, pp. 305–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Mortimer, D. P. (2003), ‘The new eugenics and the newborn: The cousinage of eugenics and infanticide’, The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, 3:2, pp. 265–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Muñoz-González, E. (2019), ‘“Two legged wombs”: Surrogacy and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale’, Revista de Estudios Norteamericanos, 23, pp. 231–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Palmer, R. B. (2017), ‘Continuation, adaptation studies, and the never-finished text’, in J. Grossman and R. B. Palmer (eds), Adaptation in Visual Culture: Images, Texts, and Their Multiple Worlds, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 73–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Rees, A. (2012), ‘“The quality and not only the quantity of Australia’s people”: Ruby Rich and the Racial Hygiene Association of NSW’, Australian Feminist Studies, 27:71, pp. 71–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Rutherford, A. (2022), Control, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Selgelid, M. J. (2014), ‘Moderate eugenics and human enhancement’, Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 17:1, pp. 3–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Sturges, F. (2018), ‘Cattleprods! Severed tongues! Torture porn! Why I’ve stopped watching The Handmaid’s Tale’, The Guardian, 16 June, https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/16/handmaids-tale-season-2-elisabeth-moss-margaret-atwood. Accessed 20 October 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Subramanian, J. (2013), ‘The monstrous makeover: American Horror Story, femininity and special effects’, Critical Studies in Television, 8:3, pp. 108–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Tennant, C. (2019), Religion in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’: A Brief Guide, Minneapolis, MN: 1517 Media Fortress Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. The Handmaid’s Tale (2017–22, USA: Hulu/MGM).
     [Google Scholar]
  28. The Walking Dead (2010–22, USA: AMC).
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Thompson, L. V. (1971), ‘Lebensborn and the eugenics policy of the Reichsführer-SS’, Central European History, 4:1, pp. 54–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Victor Vinoth, V. and Vijayakumar, M. (2022), ‘The dystopian scourge of women in Gilead society as portrayed in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale’, Theory in Practice in Language Studies, 12:12, pp. 2704–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Weber, B. R. (2018), ‘Torture porn in dystopic feminism’, Communication, Culture and Critique, 11:1, pp. 192–94.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/ajpc_00098_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): animalization; dystopia; Final Girl; Margaret Atwood; power; subjectification

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test