Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the diversity of the cast, too!

I read that Julian Fellows (Downton, Belgravia) defends only casting white people. This shows that a diverse cast in a period piece works!

It totally works. It’s a little odd at first to put race aside especially in this historical context, but it doesn’t take long and then it’s fantastic to see a mix.

I don't really understand the forcing of a diverse cast into non diverse rolls. People would be shouting to burn the network down if Roots was re shot with a diverse cast. This just seems like exceptional jumping on an issue and timing. And at the end of the day, fluff. Which is fine.

What do you mean “non-diverse roles?” Its pure fiction. The roles are whatever the creatives decide they are. Unlike Roots which is specifically about Black people.

And don’t tell me it’s historical fiction because it’s Regency. There was no queen during the Regency period and Katy Perry melodies didn’t exist then. Black people being Dukes is no less out of keeping with a Regency drama.

Queen Charlotte was a real person, wife to the mad king and mother of the prince regent. The real life queen was of course white. I loved the Bridgerton casting and that it shows race blind casting works fine. It does not in any way harm this story to have her played by a black woman. In the same way, it would be fine for Mr Darcy to be played by a black actor in Pride and Prejudice. The "inaccuracy" is not a problem for the story.

There are stories specifically about race where doing that doesn't work. But I would argue that for most stories, even "serious" ones, it works fine. Also, there were plenty of black people in England at the time, they were mostly impoverished but they were there and it's not weird to see them in period drama.

There were not plenty of black people in Regency Britain. That is what we call historical revisionism to satisfy woke modern ideologies. Just to use as a reference point, in the 1940 census (living memory) there were only 40,000 non whites recorded in the entire UK out of a population of 40+ million.

You did have a very, very small number of people of African heritage who had been brought to Britain in individual capacity, as household servants. But it doesn't lend legitimacy to passing off British aristocrats as Africans or Asians. Having a black Mr. Darcy would be incredibly unrealistic and undermine the entire story because it would be as silly as casting a white actor to play an African chieftain.

Bridgeton is silly tv and will be forgotten so it's no big deal, but future efforts at colorblind casting in more serious historical productions will be more problematic without seeming silly (which certainly includes Austen's books for the reason that the person's non white origin fundamentally changes the character and how the world reacted to that character that cannot be glossed over).

Per Wikipedia, it was about 1% of the London population at the time we're talking about, and there were a handful of famous black authors and political thinkers, largely connected with the abolition movement that predated the regency.

Even if there were zero black people in England, though, I completely disagree with you that having a black actor play a British aristocrat is a problem. The actor is not the character: the character of Ms. Bennet does not react differently to Mr. Darcy because he is played by a black man.

[Anonymous]

If Lady Whistledown was published for the DMV do you think it would be popular?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what they do with the infamous rape/nonconsensual scene.

That’s not rape. I read the Vox article, and I found it troubling to equate the scene with rape.

And, the whole storyline is irrational.

“I love you so deeply, but I won’t sleep with you anymore.” Riiiiiiiight.

What rape scene? There wasn’t one in the book.

It might be over the top to call it rape but people are referring to the scene where Daphne gets Simon to finish inside of her when she suspects he doesn’t want to.

I don’t get the rape reference either. They were having consensual sex...she made him finish in her instead of on the bed. It’s definitely deceptive but not rape.

Yeah I mean if the genders were reversed I think I’d feel the same way. If you just sort of whisper mutter “wait” at the very end, is that really revoking consent? But I think she was in the wrong and should have apologized for it. It bothered me that it was never portrayed as a bad thing. Or maybe I’m missing something.

I agree with you.

Im in the middle of this plot line. I think I’m on episode 5/6...she just got her period.

I feel like this was definitely bad but I mean...they are mad at each other for like two whole episodes at this point. It’s causing marital discord and he’s not apologizing either. I’m assuming he comes around based on what this show is (delightful trashy romance) but it seems definitely like it’s portrayed badly. He’s furious!

I will say that one thing that mitigates her guilt, to me, is that she wasn’t even fully aware what she was doing was a gotcha until it happened. Her extreme naïveté and lack of concrete knowledge abdicates her of a lot of responsibility. Like the Duke was an idiot, of course there would be whoopsies when you’re banging that much. Like through the lens of a perfectly experienced and knowledgeable 2020 woman that is super super screwed up. Through the lens of a teenager who found out what a man looks like without pants two weeks ago, that is different. I think Marina’s scheme was much more ethically problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what they do with the infamous rape/nonconsensual scene.

That’s not rape. I read the Vox article, and I found it troubling to equate the scene with rape.

And, the whole storyline is irrational.

“I love you so deeply, but I won’t sleep with you anymore.” Riiiiiiiight.

What rape scene? There wasn’t one in the book.

It might be over the top to call it rape but people are referring to the scene where Daphne gets Simon to finish inside of her when she suspects he doesn’t want to.

I don’t get the rape reference either. They were having consensual sex...she made him finish in her instead of on the bed. It’s definitely deceptive but not rape.

Yeah I mean if the genders were reversed I think I’d feel the same way. If you just sort of whisper mutter “wait” at the very end, is that really revoking consent? But I think she was in the wrong and should have apologized for it. It bothered me that it was never portrayed as a bad thing. Or maybe I’m missing something.

I agree with you.

Im in the middle of this plot line. I think I’m on episode 5/6...she just got her period.

I feel like this was definitely bad but I mean...they are mad at each other for like two whole episodes at this point. It’s causing marital discord and he’s not apologizing either. I’m assuming he comes around based on what this show is (delightful trashy romance) but it seems definitely like it’s portrayed badly. He’s furious!

I will say that one thing that mitigates her guilt, to me, is that she wasn’t even fully aware what she was doing was a gotcha until it happened. Her extreme naïveté and lack of concrete knowledge abdicates her of a lot of responsibility. Like the Duke was an idiot, of course there would be whoopsies when you’re banging that much. Like through the lens of a perfectly experienced and knowledgeable 2020 woman that is super super screwed up. Through the lens of a teenager who found out what a man looks like without pants two weeks ago, that is different. I think Marina’s scheme was much more ethically problematic.

She knew what she was doing. She asked her lady maid to explain to her in detail how pregnancies happen. She intentionally positioned herself in a way that he would not be able to withdraw. She should have apologized for this act. He was also wrong for not being honest with her about having kids.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe I just wasted an hour of my life watching the first episode. What mindless drivel. The candy colors, horrible acting, ridiculous storyline... what a trashy, lowbrow show.

[Anonymous]

I wanted to like this because it seemed lighthearted and different, and the costumes looked great, but we found it so incredibly slow and boring. Watched two episodes last night and won’t be tuning in to more. It’s definitely like Gossip Girl as OP mentioned crossed with that cheesy Drew Barrymore movie Ever After. Maybe just too YA for my tastes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the diversity of the cast, too!

I read that Julian Fellows (Downton, Belgravia) defends only casting white people. This shows that a diverse cast in a period piece works!

It totally works. It’s a little odd at first to put race aside especially in this historical context, but it doesn’t take long and then it’s fantastic to see a mix.

I don't really understand the forcing of a diverse cast into non diverse rolls. People would be shouting to burn the network down if Roots was re shot with a diverse cast. This just seems like exceptional jumping on an issue and timing. And at the end of the day, fluff. Which is fine.

What do you mean “non-diverse roles?” Its pure fiction. The roles are whatever the creatives decide they are. Unlike Roots which is specifically about Black people.

And don’t tell me it’s historical fiction because it’s Regency. There was no queen during the Regency period and Katy Perry melodies didn’t exist then. Black people being Dukes is no less out of keeping with a Regency drama.

Queen Charlotte was a real person, wife to the mad king and mother of the prince regent. The real life queen was of course white. I loved the Bridgerton casting and that it shows race blind casting works fine. It does not in any way harm this story to have her played by a black woman. In the same way, it would be fine for Mr Darcy to be played by a black actor in Pride and Prejudice. The "inaccuracy" is not a problem for the story.

There are stories specifically about race where doing that doesn't work. But I would argue that for most stories, even "serious" ones, it works fine. Also, there were plenty of black people in England at the time, they were mostly impoverished but they were there and it's not weird to see them in period drama.

There were not plenty of black people in Regency Britain. That is what we call historical revisionism to satisfy woke modern ideologies. Just to use as a reference point, in the 1940 census (living memory) there were only 40,000 non whites recorded in the entire UK out of a population of 40+ million.

You did have a very, very small number of people of African heritage who had been brought to Britain in individual capacity, as household servants. But it doesn't lend legitimacy to passing off British aristocrats as Africans or Asians. Having a black Mr. Darcy would be incredibly unrealistic and undermine the entire story because it would be as silly as casting a white actor to play an African chieftain.

Bridgeton is silly tv and will be forgotten so it's no big deal, but future efforts at colorblind casting in more serious historical productions will be more problematic without seeming silly (which certainly includes Austen's books for the reason that the person's non white origin fundamentally changes the character and how the world reacted to that character that cannot be glossed over).

But Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love the diversity of the cast, too!

I read that Julian Fellows (Downton, Belgravia) defends only casting white people. This shows that a diverse cast in a period piece works!

It totally works. It’s a little odd at first to put race aside especially in this historical context, but it doesn’t take long and then it’s fantastic to see a mix.

I don't really understand the forcing of a diverse cast into non diverse rolls. People would be shouting to burn the network down if Roots was re shot with a diverse cast. This just seems like exceptional jumping on an issue and timing. And at the end of the day, fluff. Which is fine.

What do you mean “non-diverse roles?” Its pure fiction. The roles are whatever the creatives decide they are. Unlike Roots which is specifically about Black people.

And don’t tell me it’s historical fiction because it’s Regency. There was no queen during the Regency period and Katy Perry melodies didn’t exist then. Black people being Dukes is no less out of keeping with a Regency drama.

Queen Charlotte was a real person, wife to the mad king and mother of the prince regent. The real life queen was of course white. I loved the Bridgerton casting and that it shows race blind casting works fine. It does not in any way harm this story to have her played by a black woman. In the same way, it would be fine for Mr Darcy to be played by a black actor in Pride and Prejudice. The "inaccuracy" is not a problem for the story.

There are stories specifically about race where doing that doesn't work. But I would argue that for most stories, even "serious" ones, it works fine. Also, there were plenty of black people in England at the time, they were mostly impoverished but they were there and it's not weird to see them in period drama.

There were not plenty of black people in Regency Britain. That is what we call historical revisionism to satisfy woke modern ideologies. Just to use as a reference point, in the 1940 census (living memory) there were only 40,000 non whites recorded in the entire UK out of a population of 40+ million.

You did have a very, very small number of people of African heritage who had been brought to Britain in individual capacity, as household servants. But it doesn't lend legitimacy to passing off British aristocrats as Africans or Asians. Having a black Mr. Darcy would be incredibly unrealistic and undermine the entire story because it would be as silly as casting a white actor to play an African chieftain.

Bridgeton is silly tv and will be forgotten so it's no big deal, but future efforts at colorblind casting in more serious historical productions will be more problematic without seeming silly (which certainly includes Austen's books for the reason that the person's non white origin fundamentally changes the character and how the world reacted to that character that cannot be glossed over).

Per Wikipedia, it was about 1% of the London population at the time we're talking about, and there were a handful of famous black authors and political thinkers, largely connected with the abolition movement that predated the regency.

Even if there were zero black people in England, though, I completely disagree with you that having a black actor play a British aristocrat is a problem. The actor is not the character: the character of Ms. Bennet does not react differently to Mr. Darcy because he is played by a black man.

NP. There's a difference between historical fiction where historical accuracy (including accuracy in terms of racial casting) is important to the story itself and fictional stories that use history as a backdrop.

This is a romance story that uses Regency England as an interesting backdrop to tell its story. Historical accuracy is irrelevant to this story. If you want to point out inaccuracies in terms of racial casting, then you have to point out all the other historical inaccuracies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte was actually biracial, directly descended from black family iof Portuguese descent. She, not Meghan, is the first black royal.

Allegedly.

That theory has largely been debunked.

No it hasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Just watched the first 2 episodes. I love it! And the Duke is smokin’ hot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just watched the first 2 episodes. I love it! And the Duke is smokin’ hot!

This. ESp the last sentence.

[Anonymous]

If you liked bridgerton, watch harlots on Hulu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Queen Charlotte was actually biracial, directly descended from black family iof Portuguese descent. She, not Meghan, is the first black royal.

Allegedly.

That theory has largely been debunked.

No it hasn’t.

Yes, it has.

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/february-2020/the-mulatto-queen/

This article is by a legitimate historian who debunks the theory point by point.

[Anonymous]

I have a hard time with period pieces that ignore race issues of the past. So why are the costumes accurate but literally everything else that they culturally display is total fiction. Why not just make it happen today? Looks very dumb.

[Anonymous]

I’d watch all 9 seasons.