Bridgerton: new Netflix series

[Anonymous]

Too much Daphne. I would have liked more on the Feathertons or Lady Danbury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I love trashy and lowbrow TV. I’d say this is more midbrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. The idea of this is to give a "feel" of regency london. Not to create a recreation of a historical event. It is fiction. I loved the show. Thought is was fun. Loved the set, costumes, and music. Loved the race-blind casting.

[Anonymous]

Anyone else felt bad for Penelope? I knew there had to be a reason she always got the worse of everything.

[Anonymous]

I binged the whole thing and went to bed at 3am.
The duke is hot! Why is Daphne so plain? Chemistry is blah between the two.
Is it a season per book? Can’t wait for season 2!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

[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).

But Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra.

The Egyptian royal family was the Ptolemaic dynasty, a Greek/Macedonian family. She wouldn't have been, say, Ethiopian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

You are my people.

[Anonymous]

I hope people calling this trashy dont have a higher opinion of John Grisham or Dan brown novels turned into movies, or game of thrones, or anything else that’s formulaic and relies on unlikely plot devices to move the story forward. People tend to look down on romance because it appeals to women (sorry, we basically all suffer from internalized misogyny), but we have lower standards for media that appeals to men. Also about the racial makeup of the cast, do you have the same objection to that in Hamilton as well? Because those were definitely white, actual historical characters that were white, whereas in Bridgerton the characters are basically all fictional. And do you dislike the picture of Dorian gray because the mirror is unrealistic?

Suspend some disbelief! Look at the characters, their motivations, their interaction with society and its constraints, etc. “That would never happen” is a weak objection.

[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).

But Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra.

Cleopatra wasn't black, she was Greek.

[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.

We all know Wiki is a very reliable and viable source used by professional historians.

There certainly were a handful of blacks in Britain, but Britain of the Regency era was also a place where many if not most people went years without seeing any people or color.

Having a black character play the role of a Regency Duke is a problem depending on the context. A cheesy non historically accurate production? Sure, we know it's fake. A serious production? Yes, it's a problem. Because the Regency society would have treated a black person very differently. It would not be accurate. Just as it is not accurate to have a white actor, however talented, play an African chieftain. It cannot be separated from the character and his history.

You could plausibly create a story with a biracial figure, someone who was the illegitimate offspring of a wealthy plantation owner and brought back to Britain as the heir to the wealth. There were a few women in the 18th and early 19th century who were in this position, and they did marry well, into the gentry, as money always triumphed, even in class riddled Britain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d watch all 9 seasons.

Yep. The fancy pps calling this trashy TV obviously haven't seen trashy TV.

You are my people.

+1. I watched it over 3 nights. It wasn't perfect (I would have preferred an actress with more oomph playing Daphne), but it was the ecscape I needed. I'd watch a second season.

[Anonymous]

Loved it and binged watched it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s stylized. Not meant to be exactly historically accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It reminds of Drive Me Crazy.

I wish they would have cast a better Daphne. She’s too plain.

I love seeing Nicola from Derry Girls!

+1 to this, but not so much because of her looks. She seems mismatched to the Duke. Unlike Outlander where Clair and Jamie seemed matched, Daphne seems more like a girl, rather than a woman. I didn't read the books though so maybe this is how the character is supposed to be.

Daphne is plain and girlish in the books though. I haven't seen the show yet but the Duke is supposed to be way out of her league in every way possible (socially, financially, even looks wise). That's why they become friends first, because neither assumes there will ever be anything between them, and it will be mutually beneficial, He doesn't want to get married at all and she's having a hard time finding a husband. All the men look at her like a "little sister/friend" type. So she will repel husband hunters for him and his interest in her will make her more valuable to other men.

+1. In the book she comes across as far more plain and very little sister like - it starts out that the best she can do was Nigel - all the other suitors were far worse.