I know what you’re thinking, “great, another Bridgerton-related think piece.” It’s okay, I would say the same if I were reading this on someone else’s blog. But what can I say, in the words of the great Frank Costanza, “I’ve got some things to say.”
As noted, there have certainly been a lot of opinions, discussions, narratives, and debates about Netflix’s breakout hit series. Remember all the heated discussions over “that scene” in Season 1? I’m sure you do. That controversy aside, perhaps the most oft-discussed and debated topic regarding the series, is race.
In particular, the show’s much-lauded approach to what is considered “color-blind casting.” Color-blind casting, in layman’s terms, means casting without bias to race, gender, age, etc. In the case of Bridgerton, the show is particularly praised for its color-blind casting with regard to race.
Set in Regency-Era England, historical accuracy would suggest that most members of the elite Ton would be all white. Certainly, it is highly unlikely that there would have been a prominent black Duke, as played by Regé-Jean Page in Season 1. And the most recent season featured a woman of Indian heritage as the lead romantic interest.
Along with the interracial lead romances of Seasons 1 and 2, the Queen, the most powerful woman in the country, is a black woman. And the myriad of ball and promenade scenes all feature supporting characters of various races. However, while the show has been lauded for color-blind casting, a significant number of criticisms have also been levied at the show’s creators and writers.
The most common is the debate of whether or not the show does a disservice by not acknowledging the dark reality of the show’s time period. In other words, as one scholar noted on a podcast I listened to some weeks ago; “as nice as it was to see dark-skinned Indian women represented in Season 2 with the Sharma sisters, the reality is that colonialism and British rule over India was a very ugly reality of that time.”
That was not the first time I’d heard this point made. But for some reason, that particular podcast episode struck a chord, and I found myself pondering the issue a little deeper. And after some careful consideration, here’s where I stand.
First, full disclosure, I am a black woman of color and History was also one of my favorite subjects in school. So I know all too well about the very dark period and atrocities of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, colonialism, and the early years of indentured servitude. I know and understand the history of exactly how Great Britain, and most Western European nations acquired much of their wealth and power. And two, I am always receptive to any piece of art that educates and continues to shed light on the atrocities and ugly history of that period.
However, I do not believe Bridgerton is the show to depict that history lesson. Simply because the show exists in a reality that well…isn’t. Let me explain. Many argue that Bridgerton should not be applauded for its color-blind casting, as long it refuses to acknowledge, in-show, the realities of what was happening at the time. However, to acknowledge that reality would take the audience away from the fictional one the writers have created.
Let’s be honest – Bridgerton is a soapy, romantic drama. Nothing more and nothing less. It’s a fun time for those who love historical romances and enjoy watching the pretty gowns, extravagant balls, and cliché romantic entanglements of two attractive leads. It’s escapism television. For eight hours, it invites the viewer into a beautiful, colorful, and sensuous world of lush scenery, good-looking characters, and all the twists, turns, and sex of any respectable soap opera.
To ask that realism be brought into this world of fantasy and escapism is by its very context, a contradiction. Because once realism invades, then fantasy no longer exists. And then it’s no longer the same show. For example, if we suddenly have the characters within the show start discussing and acknowledging the horrific realities many black people faced at that time, we would then also have to question the believability of a black Duke existing. And of course, the most powerful woman in the whole country, being a black woman.
Or perhaps if the characters start discussing the brutal colonization of India, then it would need to acknowledge the improbability of a dark-skinned woman marrying a white Viscount in Regency-Era England. In fact, introducing the realism of the ugly atrocities of people of color in that era would render the love stories of seasons 1 and 2 completely improbable. Because how many interracial marriages were really happening during this time period? There’s a reason most historical romances feature white lead characters. And in fact, Julia Quinn’s original books, the source material for the series, are one of those historical romances featuring white lead characters.
The point is that the entire purpose of the choice to feature color-blind casting for Bridgerton is to ensure that the audience views this less as an accurate historical period drama and more as a fantastical adventure. One where race is irrelevant to love, passion, family, and community. A utopia of sorts, if you will. Is it highly improbable and saccharinely unrealistic – absolutely? But that’s what makes it so much fun. And don’t we all need a little fun, and unrealistic soapy goodness now and then? The real world, with all its weighty issues and darkness, will always be there when we need to “get back to reality.”
PoPnOgR@PhY 