Bridgerton and Selective Outrage and Allyship

 This is a continuation on the last several pieces with the themes of fake outrage, over-stepping boundaries as an "'ally," and "representation matters."

This continuation is, unfortunately, about Bridgerton. 

First and foremost, I would like to thank the people who helped me with this piece, especially the ones who watched this show for me so that I did not have to. Secondly, I would like to make it very clear that I have not watched the programme. Its subject matter is too triggering for me, and so the basis of my analysis is based off of reading scripts of episodes,  listening to  way smarter people discuss these topics, and applying media critical thinking skills. "But how can you critique something you haven't seen?!" Well, you're about to find out. Also, again, I am so glad to have not watched this.

Before moving forward, please not that there will be mentions of sexuality, sexual assault, racism, slavery, colorism, etc. If these are not good topics for you, this may not be the essay for you, unfortunately. If something that escaped my content warning, please accept my apologies for my missteps (also, please let me know if there is anything I do miss). There will also be spoilers for the tv show.

I also understand that this series is produced by Shondaland, and that my criticism of the series are not a criticism of Shondaland or its head. I also understand that many of these issues probably have more to do with networks and American media consumption (and centering certain people) than anything else.

In previous entries, I have discussed the way that older films such as that dreaded film that shan't be named and Gone with the Wind (which, by my estimations, has NOT received the amount of scrutiny that it deserves, and that we are perhaps far too soft on it!) become salacious trivia tidbits at those dreadful cocktail parties to grandstand off of, because THEY know that it's racist because they're Not Like Other Girls (or something). Now, look, we all know that these films are deeply problematic, and contain deeply harmful and hurtful depictions of race and race relations, that is not a maverick Big Brained Take. That is just fact. Media from nearly 100 years ago now (good gracious that's wild to say) will most likely have not aged well. And that's fine. We should forever be moving forward. What I do not understand is why you may be, as a non-BIPOC person, be so fucking fixated and obsessed with those pieces of media and grandstanding on them, especially that dreadful film which shan't be named. I don't understand what you think you are achieving, by telling it on the mountain, by grandstanding, by monopolizing space. What I also do not understand is that these same people (because it's always these same people) consume modern media which checks off almost all of the same boxes as the aforementioned badly aged old movies. And they don't even blink.

The same people who consume Stephen King (who remarkably made it out of 2020 completely unscathed from criticism?!), Game of Thrones (someday I will unpack the racism in Game of Thrones, but today is not that day, I can only deal with so much bullshit in one day), and ...Bridgerton. In fact, I have seen a lot of the folks who grandstand and virtue signal about stupid shit  be avid consumers of all of these.

The television series of Bridgerton is based on the novels of the same name, only the Bridgerton tv show is... a decidedly different horse of a different color, because the TV show is a sugarcoated, whitewashed Regency era post-slavery, post-racism fantasy. Wait, which piece of media are we talking about? A film from the 1930's or 1940's or the year 2020? The difference is that it's a sugarcoated, whitewashed post-slavery, post-racism fantasy you enjoy. And, mark my words, I am not an apologist for either the dreaded film which shan't be named nor Gone with the Wind. I am not saying in any way, shape, or form, that these pieces of media are not problematic. I am saying that Bridgerton is also problematic in many of the same ways, with not so much as a fraction of the backlash. And that's, to put it mildly, a bit alarming.

That's, um, a lot of mental gymnastics trying to unpack the hypocrisy in this.

Bridgerton is set in the  English Regency Era, the first season opening in 1813. Slavery was abolished in England in 1833. The way that the show initially presents itself, is that race doesn't matter and doesn't exist.--until it does down the line in later episodes, randomly, out of the blue, when it gets brought up. Randomly. I am not sure why everyone is so comfortable and unbothered the handwaving away the realities of race in London, England in 1813. 

Granted, I initially thought this series was a fantasy series because of the special effects used in the trailers and the colorfulness of the costumes. (I mean, in a way, it's still a fantasy series because it presents a post-racial fantasy...). I am not, by any means, adverse to having BIPOC characters in historical media, and historical settings. That's not my issue. I don't like the terms "colorblind" or "rainbow" casting because it implies a level of stigma, or that even though we as BIPOC have been cast in those roles, that we really didn't actually deserve them. We also do not live in a colorblind  real world. Fiction and media cannot be completely divorced from the realities of the real world. They just can't.

Take the romance between Daphne and Simon. Daphne is from the titular family in the series, and Simon is a Duke. The Duke of Hastings. He is an incredibly talented, incredibly attractive actor. He is also a light skinned Black man. Daphne is, um, ❕. (I am not qualified to talk about colorism for Black people, but I will link someone who is way more qualified and way smarter than myself at the end.) Daphne (who is probably one of the least interesting people in the series) is THE debutante (you wanna talk about fantasy...). 

Now, my introduction to this series other than several trailers, was a friend of mine texting me, to let me know, that this series was not for me. This friend, who was, of course, a Real One, looking out for me, said that Daphne and Simon had a very explicit montage to a baroque orchestral version of "Wildest Dreams." Now, this person knows how I feel about "Wildest Dreams" and its artist, but I think now would be a good time for me to convey to you, the dear reader, why that is. The music video for "Wildest Dreams " is a racist colonial fantasy. And even though there were several well-written articles, a Karma Houdini emerged unscathed again. A ❕living out her.... wildest dreams of having...explicit moments with a Black man set to the tune of a song that has a music video of a colonial African fantasy is not.... is not a well thought out moment.

Daphne and Simon later get married...and she assaults him. Um, that's a lot. To unpack. That I will not touch with a 25 foot pole.

Again, I understand that this is fiction. However, fiction, even a fantasy version of historical fiction, cannot be separated from the real world.

There have also been some comments  brought to my attention about how Daphne "saved herself for marriage," whilst Lucy (who is played by a Black actress) did not. There is also some issue in the second season with how Indian representation is handled (spoiler, it's very badly).

It might be fiction, but it is not set in a fictional world. When you're using real life historical figures (which as the ones in Bridgerton, you cannot divorce them from historical reality.

Unfortunately, even in fiction, race is not irrelevant. My issues with series like Bridgerton having the same issues that many, MANY older films have: the absence of a racial reality. Only it is not met with the same amount of criticism that it should. I think this is largely in part due to the fact that it would require people to understand their own role in being complicit with these images. Whilst older media tropes continue to inform newer media, I am less concerned with media that has not aged well from almost one hundred years ago, versus media that continues to come out now. Especially since, much like the media that came out in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's, the media of today (and much of the people who actively consume it and tout it as "representation") only "representation" that is the least offensive or threatening as possible to a largely ❕ viewership as possible. Sanitized, neoliberal takes on race and history are as dangerous as some of the more overtly racist takes, because they both conduct themselves under the pretense of an absence of racial realities. The real danger of the sanitized liberalism is that everything exists to make these people feel as good about themselves and as least threatened as possible, and you, as a marginalized person, cannot get in the way of them feeling good about themselves.

Anyway, as promised, here are some great videos made by some much qualified and  smarter voices:

This video has some stuff about That Dreaded Film I Shan't Mention (discussed in a way that is meaningful and not virtue signal-y, thank God), Gone with the Wind, and HAMILTON, all of which I have been very critical of.