(by Doba)
Those of us who were not satisfactorily entertained by the drama at the Capitol – no offence to the fine performances of the ladies and gentlemen, there, but they were sadly lacking in sex appeal – have turned to Netflix’s period drama Bridgerton in the last few weeks. With the devastatingly handsome leads (I am looking at you Rege Jean Page), shimmering costumes and steamy sex, the show has been described, by numerous reviews as Jane Austen meets Gossip Girl. Now, I have no clue about Gossip Girl but I plunged in for Austen. And what I did discover is that the series is a very faithful rendering of a Mills a Boon novel, which of course I have never read (“You insult me, dear reader!”). All that I know of it comes from my “Mamma” (sighing tremulously).
So, like any self-respecting romantic novel, you have the devastatingly sexy leads (have I said that before?), the ingenue looking for love, and the filthy rich rake looking for sex. When they first meet, they spar with each other, so that the audiences can realize that the girl is spirited and not vapid. The girl also has a fine sense of humour. Of course, she does not say or do a single funny thing in the series. But her “Mamma” promises us that she is funny. So, there’s that.They (the rake and ingenue, I mean, not the mamma) get hot and heavy, where the rake teaches the ingenue about sex and the latter teaches him tenderness. They quarrel over something and after thestipulated tears, quivering lips, heaving bosoms and hand wringing, there is a passionate declaration of love that washes away a lifetime of angst making way for a happy ending (more sex!). I am not complaining. If an actor can render predictable, trite and silly lines (“In the mornings you ease, in the evenings you something else, the dreams you inhabit…”), without a diminishment of his appeal, he is worth watching. In fact, I highly recommend the show, especially on mute.
But Jane Austen it is not! Just because it is set in the 1813, doesn’t make it Austenite. That’s like someone, two hundred years from now, saying Breaking Bad and Curb Your Enthusiasm are the same because they belong to the same era. Austen did not do romance. Some mean commenters have said that it is because she was a spinster and did not know passion. I rather believe that it is because she had too much of a sense of irony, the ridiculous and the absurd. Seinfeld and Curb are more Austen than Bridgerton. Those of us who return to Austen multiple times, do so, for the comedy. For the priceless gems of wisdom from Mr. Collins (Pride and Prejudice), for the machinations of Mrs. Norris (Mansfield Park), the friendship between Isabella and Catherine (Northanger Abbey) and the utterly unstoppable Mrs. Bates (Emma). There are no passionate declarations in Austen. In fact, Edmond and Fanny (Mansfield Park) are like brother and sister for most part (not the Lannister version); the declaration of Wentworth to Anne (Persuasion) is a couple of lines in a letter and when they do meet, their speeches are passed over; no love speeches in Sense and Sensibility, Northanger Abbey or Emma that I can recall. Austen heroines, had too much sense to enroll inproject “reformation of rake” and no character transmogrifies from frog to a prince from the kiss of love. Fanny turns down Henry Crawford (Mansfield Park), Willoughby and Marianne (Sense and Sensibility) do not get together, and Elizabeth ends up feeling repulsed by Wickham (Pride and Prejudice). Like many normal level headed women, then and now, more than romance books would have us believe, Austen women did not romanticize poverty. But neither were they stupid enough to think that marriage was the only way out for “genteel” women to be happy. In fact, Austen draws great fun from the vulgar husband hunting ways of the Steeles (Sense and Sensibility), the silly infatuations of Kitty and Lydia (Pride and Prejudice), and the more sophisticated tactics of Miss Crawford (Mansfield Park) and Miss Bingley (Pride and Prejudice). Women, then and now, had other interests besides men. They liked people, art, music, books, conversation and dancing. Every woman, who entered the dance floor looking for a good time, was not calculating her chances of getting married in three weeks. Many women knew, I would like to think, that the life and lot of a dependent spinster could not be a whole lot worse or unhappier than that of a woman married to someone of little sense or principles. If Austen had written Bridgerton, Simon would have, in a short while, gotten bored of the utter domesticity of it all and returned to his rakish ways and traveling. And Daphne, would have found herself busy with her children and the distinction of her title. Their marriage would have been as happy (or unhappy) as the average couple that marries for such stupid reasons as title and honor. In fact, I could never understand in the series, why Daphne and her mother are so desperate that she marries in the first season. They seem very well off. So why did she not have the “privilege” (as she calls it) of taking more than four dances to fall in love and get married? Anyway, such questions are not to be asked. The good news is that the Americans, and the rest of us republicans, apparently, love the regency England and its aristocracy with is fine clothes, dancing and sexy people tearing their clothes off each other. The even better news is that there will be seven more seasons.
p.s. Have I set a record for the number of times sex is mentioned in a review? I hope so.
Kay
January 18, 2021
As a fan of both Jane Austen and the Bridgerton series, and feel good historical romance novels in general, I can say the show is nothing like the books either. To begin with, the book Daphne has a great sense of humour and she’s already out in the society for a few seasons. She’s looking for love because most guys can see her only as a friend. I was surprised to see the show compared to Downton Abbey too. And contrary to popular opinion, I didn’t understand the admiration for Rege either. As a friend of mine commented, he looked ready to break into a ballet routine at any point . For some reason, he reminded me of Chris Rock and hence, Marty the Zebra from Madagascar. 🤷🏻♀️
It looks the like the show creators wanted only pretty costumes, steamy choreographed sex and blind casting.
LikeLike
Vikram s
January 18, 2021
Doba, very well written. You are able to write about the weightiest of issues with a light touch… Keep at it…
LikeLike
MANK
January 18, 2021
so much sex, and a recommendation from Doba!, I’m intrigued now.
I have heard things about this show, being a sexy Downton Abbey and all.
i think i should check this out
LikeLike
krishikari
January 18, 2021
Oh my, the Duke of Hastings was indeed a hot entry into the genre! Unfortunately, the bland young Miss Bridgerton was not. When I watch a steamy romantic comedy, I want both leads to be sexy.
I enjoyed the colour blind casting which was not as ahistorical as some people might think. This was the elephant in the room that I was expecting to read about in a piece about Bridgerton, so puzzled but not unduly so by Doba not going there at all! In fact I think there should have been a few Maharajas and Nawabs at the balls too considering they were agents and beneficiaries of the empire too.
LikeLike
Doba
January 18, 2021
Thank you Kay, Vikram and MANK :).
MANK, you should absolutely watch it and pen your thoughts here :). I am very interested in hearing your take.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 18, 2021
Doba, your writing is more sparkling than the series. I watched a bit of it because of the aforementioned ‘Austen’ connection. And I was supremely bored because, where was Jane Austen’s wit? Or her delicious sense of irony? This was like a bad Mills & Boon (and yes, I will confess to having read them in my misbegotten youth).
But… loved your take on it. It was both deliciously wicked and humorous. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doba
January 18, 2021
Thank you for reading Krishikari and Anu.
Krishikari, the treatment of race was so superficial that I did not think it warranted a discussion.
Anu, Some review said that it is like Austen, except more realistic. I got so mad that I wanted to register my two cents worth protest in some way. Petty, I know. But there you have it :).
LikeLike
tonks
January 18, 2021
Austen did not do romance
Thats factually incorrect, she did. But the romances are a different league altogether than this (rightly said)
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 18, 2021
@Doba, and any other Austen fans, this take on the series. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/opinions/bridgerton-escapism-and-jane-austen-fantasies-maltby/index.html
One thing I am sure of – get an American to do a series set in England or in Europe, and you can forget historical accuracy. They just don’t seem to care. They are as bad as our ‘historicals’.
(And I don’t know about you, Doba, but I tore my hair out at the period anachronisms!)
LikeLike
Doba
January 19, 2021
Dear Tonks,
I have to confess that I am not very well read. Based on my understanding, romance as a genre, has elements of the fairy tale. So “love” conquers all (money, status etc.) and more importantly, people change for love. This essential but implausible factor is what makes this genre generally less regarded than others. So while Austen has love stories in her books like many other romantic authors –starting with eligible women and ending with marriage– the books are not romantic. Her characters grapple with many real problems besides love and many non-romantic relationships (especially those between siblings) are explored at great depth and length. My worry is that if people keep calling her a romantic author, her legacy as a seriously funny writer with a sharp eye on human relationships will be diminished and eventually forgotten.
Anu, Thanks for sharing. But don’t you think the writer is taking a rather silly show too seriously?
LikeLike
krishikari
January 19, 2021
@doba Krishikari, the treatment of race was so superficial that I did not think it warranted a discussion.
You’re right, and I suspect that was Shonda’s intention that we ignore it. I should have said I found your lack of a take on it so refreshing, and the piece was as giggle inducing as the series itself.
@anu Ya, anachronisms abounded but when there is no intention to get the period right, it’s not worth tearing hair pieces out. I enjoyed it for what it was, a silly romp.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
January 19, 2021
@anu again, just read that article you linked. I would love to hear Meghan Markle’s take on this. Racism forgotten with one marriage. lol Why did this show even bother explaining the reason for the racial harmony, in real life mixed race aristocrats existed in this and other periods, but racism did not go away.
@doba hey, haven’t we always taken silly shows very seriously here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 19, 2021
Anu, Thanks for sharing. But don’t you think the writer is taking a rather silly show too seriously?
Doba, pop culture analysis is quite a rigorous field of study. So I suppose nothing is too silly to be analysed if it is what the public devours.
@Krishikari, I agree that ‘period’ pieces are very rarely historically accurate – see our faux historicals, for example.
But when you set a story in what’s ostensibly Regency England, one would expect a modicum of research. But again, that’s too much to expect from the Yanks. The ‘Hollywood-isation’ of subject material is not just restricted to films.
We are watching (have watched) several BBC series and always come away refreshed by the attention to detail, the wicked puns and sly self-referencing, and the always-excellent acting. I’m afraid I couldn’t stomach this series at all. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
krishikari
January 20, 2021
@anu I do enjoy the BBC adaptations for the humour and the acting, their Bleak House with Keely Hawes is a classic and Pride and Predjudice with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle has so spoiled me for any other version, I could not stomach the Keira Knightley version. Did you like the recent Emma on prime or netflix?
But… I have recently come to realize that the BBC have played a huge part in whitewashing history to the extent that we think that their homogeneous English period pieces are the “truth”. Almost every historical on screen whether it is made by Yanks or Brits have deliberately chosen a version of history that excludes non-white races and for this alone I like this irreverent take on the regency. I think the choices of costume, weird plotline, anachronisms are to be seen as farce more than anything, and sure there was no biting wit and the acting and casting and plotting was uneven as hell but somehow I enjoyed it.
On another completely different note, for those who like period drama, I would really recommend the Italian series My Brilliant Friend based on the book by Elena Ferrenti. It is sert in post war Italy, and absolutely the best thing I have seen this year. Okay the year is young but still… I wanted to write a piece on it, but this is enough i think.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 20, 2021
@ Krishikari – the homogenisation of an era. The ones I have watched – the BBC ones, that is, weren’t anachronistic in that sense; Bridgerton is – where in Regency England would you see a Black man as a duke? Let alone the Duke of Hastings?
I’m all for diversity in casting, and am not insisting that white people play white characters all the time, but the fact remains that in Regency England, the darkest skin you would have seen in English aristocracy would have been those with Spanish/Italian ancestry.
In any case, tastes differ. Vive le difference! 🙂
There’s a new Emma? No, I haven’t watched it. How is it?
LikeLike
krishikari
January 21, 2021
@Anu Miranda is Miss Bates! I liked it for the most part. Anya Taylor-Joy is Emma, just perfect. We get to see Mr. Knightley’s very white bum. (way too young looking but actually, probably about the right age, it was just in my imagination that I thought he was older)
where in Regency England would you see a Black man as a duke?
Sorry, cannot let this go: https://vanessariley.com/blackpeople.php
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 21, 2021
where in Regency England would you see a Black man as a duke?
Sorry, cannot let this go: https://vanessariley.com/blackpeople.php
I don’t think you read my comment. 🙂 I wasn’t talking about Blacks not being there in England during the Regency. I said, specifically, where do you find a Black Duke? Or indeed, a Black aristocrat?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 21, 2021
Reminds me of the way they included a black doctor on Murder On The Orient Express (the Kenneth Branagh movie). First of all, it is a little incongruous to see him aboard what seems to be a very posh train for the wealthy. And then, they have the character say a two line bit about racism. That’s almost the only reason the original doctor from the book has been turned into a black man for the movie. And that bit stands out for all the wrong reasons. I mean, if you want to rant, why not just rant about, um, imperialism and blow up the whole movie? Come on, go right ahead. If you ARE going to revisit THAT mileu, remember it the way they wanted it to be remembered. If you want to talk about slavery or Jesse Owens, talk about them instead. But celebrating the spoils of imperialism and also virtue signaling about racism is just…I can’t even.
LikeLike
krishikari
January 21, 2021
That link may not show a duke specifically but it shows portraits of black aristocrats, some of which hang in Buckingham palace. And my other point in posting that link was also that the BBC erases ALL black or other non-white races from it’s ever so authentic representations of the period.
I’m no expert on history but I have been following some discussions on Bridgerton, a quick google will show you more historical references to black and mixed race aristocracy.
LikeLike
krishikari
January 22, 2021
Madan, that example is indeed cringey but that doesn’t mean that the only alternative is to show all white versions of history. Dunkirk for example.
Bridgerton is a silly show and there are many reasons to criticise it, casting an eye candy black duke is not one of them.
LikeLike
Madan
January 22, 2021
krishikari: I don’t know what part of Dunkirk was whitewashed as I haven’t seen it but it was about a war and I expect events in a film to mirror the real war. To me, taking fiction that was already a whitewash of an imperial age and then trying to forcefit diversity makes no sense. If that is your priority, you shouldn’t be celebrating imperialism anyway.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 22, 2021
Madan, Dunkirk was ‘whitewashed’ because there was no mention of the hundreds of thousands of Indian soldiers who fought there. We lost a generation of young men there.
@Krishikari, I did read that article to the end. The only Black duke was the Duke of Florence. Not Regency England. Queen Charlotte was a few generations removed from the ‘Black’ Portugal line, yet even she was reviled by the English, who didn’t consider her ‘White’. None of the others mentioned in that article are ‘aristocracy” as the English deemed it then, no?
I’m not denying the presence of Blacks in the ranks of the educated and the wealthy. But they were very very few of them and they were not very well received. Heck, English merchants who made money in India and were knighted for ‘services to the realm’ weren’t very welcome in aristocratic ranks either.
And miscegenation was frowned upon for a very long time after the Regency ended, as well. Racism was a huge issue then (as now).So, to see, as in Bridgerton, a Black Duke, and one who’s considered a ‘very elegible bachelor’ seems very jarring.
(Perhaps I’m less forgiving because the series bored the wits out of me. 🙂 I honestly hate people comparing any period piece to Austen when they have not a tithe of her delicious – and gently malicious wit, or indeed, her very ironical perspective.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 22, 2021
Oh, by the way, I wasn’t criticising the casting of a Black man as a white character either. As I said, the show just bothered me on so many levels that this was just the cherry on top.
Funnily enough, I didn’t have an issue with Peter Brooks interpretation of the Mahabharata – perhaps because the entire cast was multi-racial? Have to think about that a little. (I’m aware it created a stink because Sotigui Kouyaté played Bhima. I remember feeling bemused that no one cared that the rest of the cast were also not Indian – except Mallika Sarabhai. Perhaps because they were all ‘White’?)
LikeLike
Aman Basha
January 22, 2021
@Madan: With Dunkirk, there was a sizable chunk of Indians in the troops stranded there and a lot of the Indian troops were intentionally excluded from the evacuation and left to die. There was criticism of not depicting this particular facet of the event.
LikeLike
krishikari
January 22, 2021
I haven’t seen it but it was about a war and I expect events in a film to mirror the real war.
Exactly. So do I. It did not do that. Do you think those who criticise historical depictions want them to show Sikhs regiments and black soldiers just for the sake of racial diversity? Don’t be so condescending, I want to see them in the movie version because they were there in real life, on that particular day, on that particular beach.
I want us to look critically at whitewashed versions of history even when the mighty BBC produces them as light entertainment.
LikeLike
Madan
January 23, 2021
krishikari : I already differentiated the depiction of an actual event in a movie (like Dunkirk) from imperialist fantasies OR apologia like Bridgerton. In the first, I want what diversity there was to be acknowledged and that includes depicting Sikh soldiers. In the second, my argument is the whole genre itself is vile once you apply today’s racial rhetoric to it. So what purpose does tokenism serve? Their much admired lifestyle, manners and speech was all built on wealth obtained by plundering Asia and Africa. And they WERE racists, with some like Kipling being absolutely guiltless about it. If you want to enjoy it as a guilty pleasure of sorts, go ahead. If you try to mix that with virtue signalling, it falls flat. Be true to the tone, is what I am saying. Conjuring up a black duke serves no purpose and it doesn’t make us more tolerant when we are watching entertainment based on the vilest crime of Western society itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doba
January 23, 2021
Madan, Not just Asia and Africa. It extended to their own people. Even in this show, there is a scene where a peasant remarks that the rents have been tripled while the produce has shrunk or something along those lines. So those who worked the land, had to pay rent and that rent supported the lifestyles of the aristocracy. The duke is shown spending literally two seconds on the problems of the land and, for the rest of the show. seems to be on an extended vacation. So, the treatment of race and class was extremely superficial. But, when there is no authenticity in speech, clothes, dancing, music, lifestyles and even character development, then how can we expect something true or meaningful about race? I think you watch it as you would watch a Disney cartoon.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 24, 2021
I think you watch it as you would watch a Disney cartoon.
I agree. My problem with it was, I’m afraid, I didn’t even find it as entertaining as a Disney cartoon. And of course, I speak only for myself. American friends are raving about the series, and I’m aware of its immense popularity on both sides of the pond.
Madan, I think, in this series, at least, since they weren’t going for authenticity anyway – it’s just a Mills & Boon story, set in what the average American imagines is the ‘Regency’ period. (Which is precious little.) There’s no attempt at real research – it’s just pop corn entertainment. So the colour blind casting is par for the course.
As I confessed, the series bored me so much that everything irked me, so I picked on the anachronism to comment – because there is absolutely no way that a black man, however wealthy would have been knighted in Good ‘Ol England. And impossible that he would have been considered marriage material for a well-born English maiden, let alone ‘the most eligible bachelor of society’.
Apart from the fact that there was a real Barony of Hastings starting with the inimitable William.
and died out during the reign of Elizabeth 1, though by that time, they were no longer the Dukes of Hastings, but the Earls of Huntingdon. Neither line had any Black progeny.
LikeLike
MANK
January 24, 2021
But, when there is no authenticity in speech, clothes, dancing, music, lifestyles and even character development, then how can we expect something true or meaningful about race? I think you watch it as you would watch a Disney cartoon.
I agree. My problem with it was, I’m afraid, I didn’t even find it as entertaining as a Disney cartoon.
Doba, having watched the series, i agree with you and also, i agree with Anu. It took me some time to get into the mood of the show. I didn’t expect the tone to be so whimsical and silly; i should have picked up on the Gossip Girl reference. As you said, It’s like a Disney cartoon where you cant take anything seriously, not even sex , and that was my problem :). It was quite amusing for the first few episodes, but after that it got tiresome, and as Anu said, started boring the hell out of me. And for all that sex in you piece, the real sex doesn’t begin till 4th or 5th episode no?. I was quite taken aback when i first saw the black Duke and duchess and so on, i have mixed feelings about it, because even amidst all those silliness, it felt anachronistic. Maybe because race is too serious an issue, and even amidst all the silliness, it sticks out. Not that non-white actors playing white actors is anything new, it happens all the time in British theater where Asian and African-American actors play Hamlet and Macbeth and so on. Anu also pointed out the case of Brooks’ Mahabharata, which is again a very stylized theatrical interpretation of the epic with actors from multiple races. Here, it felt deliberately shoehorned in, keeping in with today’s times of inclusivity, etc. But it’s not bad as the black character in Murder on the Orient Express that Madan mentioned, that was atrocious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
January 24, 2021
I could not stomach the Keira Knightley version
Krishikari, in god’s name why?. I though Keira Knightley was spectacular as Elizabeth Bennet- she got an Oscar nomination for that performance- and director Joe Wright did a terrific job of adapting the novel to film.It’s the most cinematic of all Austen adaptations and the best, along with Ang Lee’s Sense and Sensibility (1995), with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet playing the Dashwood sisters
LikeLike