#13 Bridgerton, Color-blind Casting and Social Media News
Hey! This week on the menu we have a take on the concept of color-blind casting in Bridgerton and consumption of news through social media.
BRIDGERTON: The Good, The Bad and The Questionable
- Diti
In 1813, Daphne Bridgerton, the belle of the year’s London season, is escorted into a ballroom filled with people of colour by her eldest brother accompanied by a string quartet rendition of Ariana Grande’s ‘Thank You, Next’; and you already know that you are not watching a typical period costume drama. The only way that you have not heard about the new Netflix series Bridgerton is if you have been living under a rock because the show has taken the internet by storm. Bridgerton comes to us from Shondaland the same people who gave us Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal. But unlike its predecessors, Bridgerton is a Period Fantasy Drama that gives the audience a great route for escapism while attempting to be inclusive.
The show is adapted from a series of books by Julia Quinn that follows the eight alphabetically named Bridgerton siblings as they either attempt to either escape or immerse themselves into the marriage market of London’s season during the Regency era. The first book, The Duke And I, follows the eldest daughter, Daphne, as she attempts to find the perfect husband for herself by the end of her first season. During this search she comes across her brother’s old friend Simon Bassett, the new Duke of Hastings, who is the perfect match for her in the eyes of everyone except for her brother who knows all the things that his friend has done that cannot be spoken off in polite society. As Daphne and Simon decide to fool everyone by pretending to be ‘attached’ it is revealed that Simon’s redeeming quality, that excuses his rakish behaviour, comes from his childhood and the trauma that his father inflicted on him. Like any self-respecting romance reader knows, no fake-dating ends without the characters falling in love. That is exactly what happens to Daphne and Simon and they fulfill their Disney-Princess-happy-ending destinies.
Unlike the books the show does not focus on one sibling at a time and instead gives us an all-encompassing storyline that starts at the beginning of London’s 1813 season. Unlike every other book adaptation, the fact that this one strays from the source material is not a bad thing. The first book disguises a woman raping a man as something she does because of her desperate need to get pregnant, the second one tries to excuse adultery by giving the readers a sad backstory and in the third installment the man basically gives his love interest a choice between either being his mistress or a servant in his house. (I can imagine where the rest of the series is headed.) All the stories in this series, like most other regency / period dramas, are about white people and the makers of the show right from preliminary interviews and posters marketed it as an inclusive and racially integrated show.
In my opinion, the showmakers could have gone one of three ways: 1. Make a show that was historically accurate in its representation of the lives of POC characters of the time. 2. Give us a fantasy world where POC lived lives of the aristocracy without their skin colour playing any role in their characterisation. 3. Develop the world in such a way that explains how the POC became part of high society while commenting on its socio-economic repercussions. Instead of sticking to any one of these options, the showmakers gave us a confused, half-hearted mixture of all three, resulting in the audience feeling like the initial marketing aimed at duping them in the same way that clickbait YouTube titles do. Nothing about this show is historically accurate and I don’t see anything wrong with this decision. I call it a fantasy period drama because the characters wear clothes with dyes and beading that did not exist in the time. They interact in ways that were not prevalent during the regency era. Queen Charlotte is played by a woman of colour and the Prince Regent is completely missing. To be frank, the show could have easily been set in any time period and nothing much would have changed. And that is fine for what the show is trying to position itself as; escapism. So why could they not have just had people of colour in prominent roles and left it at that? In this fantasy version of the 19th century where women step out without bonnets and people make out on the roads, we could have just as easily digested the idea that people of colour were part of those circles.
Instead, the showmakers perfunctorily attempt to explain how such a society came to exist. This explanation comes only in the fourth episode and it feels like a cop-out because while it hints at the existence of racial inequality in society it does not take the conversation forward. Slavery still existed in 1813 and if the showmakers want us to believe that people of colour were allowed into high society for the sole reason that the King fell in love with a black woman and then do not tell us what happened to those slaves it is bad world building. The racial subtext is buried under so many layers of other issues like classism, gender equality and the ‘campiness’ of the other characters that it is easily missed if you’re not looking for it.
Whether you support Bridgerton’s brand of colourblind casting or don’t, the colourism and stereotypes in the casting are evident. Simon Bassett and Marina Thompson are the only two primary characters of colour, both played by fairly light-skinned actors who fit into the Western idea of beauty. Even then, Marina’s storyline is the saddest in the show and it further propagates the stereotype of the black woman in trouble. The Duke of Hastings, Lady Danbury and Queen Charlotte are all secondary characters who are dark-skinned, the first is the main villain in the show, the second a woman deemed ‘scary’ by most of the other characters and the third an eccentric, who is mostly the comedic relief. The rest of the people of colour are ancillary characters or fillers in the ballroom scenes. The only person of, what I’m assuming is, Indian descent has two dialogues and is characterised as the ready-for-anything sex symbol. So what does this say about the show’s claims of racial integration?
Very often while reading books categorised as classics we use the phrase ‘product of its time’ to explain away certain problematic tropes that were acceptable during the time it was written. I, however, refuse to do that when talking about historical fiction shows and books written now. I spent several episodes of Bridgerton being annoyed at the actions of the characters. It might have been acceptable at the time for Anthony to behave the way he did with respect to Nigel Berbrooke’s marriage proposal, but watching him enforce his decision on his sister in 2021 just made me furious. (Side note: Anthony has to be the shadiest character in the show.) Statements like ‘If I am unable to find a husband then I am worthless.’ and ‘It is because I regard you so highly that I cannot marry you.’ are made quite seriously. The idea that the fake-attachment made Simon ‘unavailable’ and Daphne ‘desirable’ because of her association with the duke is promoted. Violet Bridgerton says to her daughter, ‘I have taught you to believe that marriage is the best that life has to offer, and that remains true. But it is not simply a partner that marriage provides. You will have comfort, a house to tend, and most importantly, children’ as a way to convince Daphne that it was right for her to accept Nigel’s marriage proposal, which was thinly-veiled blackmail. And while the repercussions of premarital sex faced by men and women are vastly different, even today, I deciphered that the subtext of Marina’s story was to hold her in contrast to Anthony or Benedict, but anyone else watching the show who was not looking for this idea would have completely missed it. Just like the issue with race it was implied and never explicitly mentioned. Eloise Bridgerton is by far the most relatable character with her dreams of doing more than what was expected from women in the time and her distaste for the theatrics of London’s season, yet as the token feminist character she doesn’t really do anything substantial. And for someone who constantly criticises media for representing progressive women only as the ones who smoke, drink and have sex, the scene where Eloise smokes on the swings with Benedict was jarring.
As a fantasy, the show has a lot of potential. The aesthetic is immaculate and every frame is vibrant and picturesque. It is rare to see people of colour in shows set during the time and it is easy to get lost in the opulence and melodrama of the show. But when a show is being praised for half-hearted attempts at racial integration by doing the bare minimum we need to reevaluate the bar we are setting for creators. The show is romantic and the perfect world it represents is an antidote for the horrible times we live in, but enjoying a piece of fiction does not mean we close our eyes to the problems in it. So even though I am pointing out the flaws in the books or the shows, it does not take away from the fact that people everywhere, including me, immensely enjoyed it. The show, especially seeing a black man play the soft, romantic lead, (spoon scene anyone) was to me the perfect amount of cheese and I am probably a little in love with Nicola Coughlan. My criticism should not be taken as advice against watching Bridgerton, instead as a reminder that while we enjoy the steamy romance we must point out how the show can do better. At the end of the day, Bridgerton’s casting of people of colour in a period drama is a step in the right direction We just need to see much more of it and better attempts at it.
Recommendation: Watch the TV show Harlots that follows the lives of sex workers in 18th century London if you want to see some more People of Colour in the Regency period.
Many creators today talk about colourblind casting today, but is it all that it is cracked up to be? Read: The Guardian
A discussion on the colourism problem of Bridgerton. Watch:
There’s, I think, a running joke about the costumes in Bridgerton. Watch:
Place For Everyone And More
- Sneha
Social Media is an amusing place. The internet has offered us the gift of connectivity, shrinking the globe for us into the invisible interwebs to be accessed through screens. And what do we do with it? Binge-watch funny animals videos, of course. Or, we doomscroll through our social media feed. Social networking sites are a world of their own. It’s an introvert’s favourite way of making friends and an Elon Musk fanboy’s place to find fellow buddies. You can now connect with your friends from different continents and nosy uncles and aunties have found a new way to keep an eye on you, all at the tip of your fingers. Social media has in many ways changed the way we socialise for better or for worse.
Lately, our feeds have also been acting as a replacement for the news we consume. In fact, people our age, and younger, probably started consuming their news first on social media and then from different sites. While traditional news sources like newspapers, TV news etc are slowly fading from importance, digital media is picking up with online-only news platforms springing up. Even then, dissemination of news on social media is a whole game of its own. While most news outlets will have their own social media handles, it’s really the users that participate in discussions on social media about politics and other issues that we consume more. This provides space for opinions, debates and interactive discussions from varying corners and as a result, people are more exposed to differing ideologies. Platforms like Youtube, blogs, etc., also offer space for people to put forth their analysis through their ideologies to the audience. Political analysis is no longer coming from just the elite, corporate media barons, but ordinary people like us now have the chance to give our versions of it too, our newsletter being an example of this. There is an obvious democratization of information dissemination brought to the world thanks to the internet and social media. However, any information of such kind must be consumed with caution. Because these are often published by people who may not be professional journalists, we can never hold them to the standards of journalistic ethics. This means there is a huge scope for fake news, misinformation and deceitful, heavily partisan and biased analysis. And there aren’t many strong means to hold them accountable. Most of them just get away with it. For real, this whole article could be a pile of lies and my propaganda to get you off social media but guess what you can do about it. Nothing. Sure, you could choose to not read this because you know I’m lying but can you convince our other two readers to do the same? Hah, thought so!
Not just improper and biased analyses, social media pages often engage in the curation of news. Just like at the end of all of our newsletters we offer you six pieces of articles that we think are important, many political profiles on Instagram and Facebook select pieces to present to their audience. These pieces would often be stories that suit their ideology and worldview the best. While there is nothing wrong with believing and defending your ideas, this may lead the audience of the profile to not be exposed to other views. Which gets me my next point - echo chambers. Echo chambers are when you are only surrounded by people and ideas that are exactly like yours to an extent that you tend to believe that as the only reality. Echo chambers are everywhere around us. The internet algorithms ensure that we keep seeing the kind of content that we’re already seeing and liking, further drowning us deeper in the ideological pit. On the political extreme-right, social media is notoriously known for being used as a tool for spreading violence and misinformation. Look at the role of social media behind the riots in the US Capitol earlier this month. It even led to the suspension of President Trump from several social media platforms. In India, the alt-right uses social media to spread hate and vitriol against minority communities. A 10-minute scroll through Twitter feed or a political Instagram post is proof enough of how hateful and Islamophobic people can get on there. These are users who are surrounded and supported by people who believe the same things, often running on fake news and misinformation. They are goaded on by their fellow believers until all of them are happily marinating in their hate and propaganda. So much so that even when pointed out, some people on my profile refuse to believe facts. Seriously, I tried pointing out to someone that the screenshot of an article they shared is fake because it doesn’t have a time-stamp and the article cannot be traced to the website. And they just refused to believe me. Just, straight up nope. On the left, echo chambers manifest in a different way where they tend to forget that people outside their circles do not think the same way or even have access to the kind of knowledge and information they have. Sorry, but a reader on Marx on the dreaded evils of capitalism and the bourgeoisie is not available in my school library. :(
A special mention for our South-Bombay friends who take out rallies against gun control in America, their echo chambers are set among their American peers. Please stay there, thanks.
Echo chambers not only reinforce our existing biases and provide a reality independent of the outside world, but they also lead to political polarization especially in a country like the US where they only have two sides to choose from. Social media has also fuelled the fires for hate that has eventually led to violence across the world. It provides platforms for hate speech and rumours against minorities like in the case of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar or Tamilians in Sri-Lanka.
Social media is a potent tool and one I adore for its ability to get the world together. It has been used to bring revolutions like the Arab Spring and offers safe spaces for so many communities to have open conversations about things like sexuality, gender and mental health. But when it comes to political discussions, we should be more mindful of what we consume. We should also not be dismissive of people or ideas that do not match our own. If we feel that their ideas and politics are only run on hate and lies, then we should be more bothered about why we as a country are so hateful.
Read more:
On echo chambers on social media: Read: The Conversation
Hate speech is rampant on all social platforms, and sometimes they lead to gross acts of violence: Read: Council On Foreign Relations
When social media consumption really did result in the manipulation of elections. Thanks to Cambridge Analytica. Read: Guardian
Somethings to watch out for this week from India and around the globe:
It’s been over a year since the first cases of COVID-19 surfaced but we may never find out who the first human being was to contract this virus. Read: Mint
Yet another reminder of how butt-hurt our people can get with jokes that aren’t even cracked yet. Read: ThePrint
Among other things, he has been accused of displaying a condom, which the FIR describes as an “objectionable commodity”, in “public before an audience comprising women and children”.
*gasps* a condom has hurt my sensibilities as a woman *louder gasps*
Everyone’s favourite journalist Arnab Goswami has found himself in a fix yet again. A true visionary. Read: ThePrint
On Trump and Modi’s cult following and the threat to democracy. Read: The Wire
Today, the ‘alternative reality’ that envelopes millions of followers of Trump and Modi has led to a breakdown of the constitutional consensus that shaped the politics of the two countries. Citizens no longer regard the ‘other’ as equal citizens with a right to participate and demand an equal share of the resources of the state. The notion of the ‘other’ differs in the two countries; while in the US it refers to African-Americans, Mexicans and other migrants, in India, it refers to the Muslims, Dalits and migrant workers or landless labourers.
The new anti-conversion “Love Jihad” law is a thinly veiled attempt at attacking Muslims. It’s also a classic case of the government trying to be our mummy and daddy and dictating who we can and cannot pray to or marry. Even a woman’s “yes” has little value in our country. Here’s a quick explainer all about the law.
Elon Musk is now the richest man in the world and Tesla’s new subsidiary in India has got everyone hyped. But the electric car may not be fit for Indian roads. Read: Arre.
That’s all from us this week.
Love it? Hate it? Disagree with us on something or have something to share? Reply to this email to write back to us. Or you know, you can always text.
Until next week
Love & Final Bombay Winters,
Diti & Sneha