Reply to Bridgerton: new Netflix series

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bridgerton: new Netflix series "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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![/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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). [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics