Bridgertons take on Diversity: Is it all so thoughtful?
What was it like to be a lady in the eras of the past? Much information can be learned from the culture of the time period. In the Roaring 20s, women wore flapper dresses to embrace sexuality; in the 60s, it was flare jeans and the art of protest; in the 90s, it was neon patterns and grunge girls that lived in the crevices of community malls.
All of these eras have one major thing in common: women were not always liberated in their existence, especially women of color. Now, as stories and perspectives of the past are brought to the big screen, we see how women, and especially women of color, are represented in eras of the past. How can producers accurately portray different components of a woman, as multidimensional beings, beyond the traits we are sexualized for.
Recently, Netflix released season two of its hit TV show Bridgerton: a regency era drama. Known for its reimagined portrayal of women and its inclusive production, Bridgerton has pushed the envelope on period dramas in more ways than one, and garnered some warranted side-eyes in the process.
Firstly, its diverse representation has made it stand out in the period-piece genre. In season two, the audience warmed up their seats—or rather, their Netflix couches—and tuned in to watch two South Indian women take the stage as the main love interests of the season. This was something new for the genre, given that period dramas usually only include people who were of the aristocracy during that time period (read as: only rich white people). Bridgerton Producer Shonda Rhimes’s goal for the series was to cast ‘colorblindly’, creating a fantasy for the genre. By taking this approach, a conversation in India was also started on how they cast for Bollywood movies. Indian women with darker skin are rarely portrayed in Indian films because of Eurocentric beauty standards. Bridgerton also set out to include Indian cultural and ceremonial details while filming, including a haldi ceremony.
On the other hand, critics have noted that Bridgerton handles race clumsily. In season two, the show reveals that Queen Charlotte isn’t the one reigning on the throne, but her quote-unquote “mad” husband, George the lll. So, what is Bridgerton trying to do? It creates a purposeful historical fantasy, but uproots it with a detail of history that changes everything! This scene contextualizes the time period more, reminding the audience that it is 1813, when England's society was still overtly racist, yet they brushed past it. This shatters the Bridgerton historical fantasy. The world during that time was created on the back of slavery, so when historical context is given with legitamate details, how can you contiously throw race out the window?
Up until season two, characters of color in the show were quite two-dimensional. In season one, the love interest was Simon, played by Regé-Jean Page: a black man with a mysterious past, whom we don’t learn much about. It’s almost as if these people of color were there to push the narrative for the eponymous Bridgerton family, not to stand as their own, multi-faceted characters. Despite this, Regé-Jean Page himself did not feel as though this was evident.
“With color-conscious casting, I get to exist as a Black person in the world…It doesn’t mean I’m a slave. It doesn’t mean we have to focus on trauma. It just means we get to focus on Black joy and humanity,” he said in an interview with Entertainment Weekly. This statement rings true for any minority groups—the idea that the representation of happiness, not solely struggle, is crucial in the media.
Overall, Bridgerton has to make some structural changes to the way they take on diversity in the genre, especially staying away from historical events that contradict the historical fantasy. However, they must continue to include women of color in the spotlight, and not just create them to further the narratives of white characters.