My social media has been spammed lately with fans of the programme Bridgerton lamenting the departure of the much-loved Duke of Hastings (Simon) played by Regé-Jean Page. The seriousness with which people have taken this is what I am lamenting.
No, @regejean! You CANNOT leave me like that. I WILL NOT have it! @bridgerton!!!!!!
— Dionne Warwick (@dionnewarwick) April 3, 2021
I have an admittedly unpopular opinion on the programme
Bridgerton, in that I think it is objectively bad. Bridgerton is a Netflix
series based on a series of novels by Julia Quinn. The programme is set in
London during the reign of King George III, and the first series followed the
life of the upper-class Daphne Bridgerton, and her courtship with the aforementioned
Duke of Hastings during her first season out.
 |
| Daphne and Simon Bridgerton, Netflix |
I watched the first series of Bridgerton upon the recommendation of several friends, and I had (relatively) high hopes. I really like period dramas, and I am a fan of several of the cast members. However, from the first scene I couldn’t help but think the show was utter rubbish, and I only continued watching because I recognised Julie Andrew’s voice as the narrator. I am actually not sure why I watched the whole first series.
I think I have sufficiently talked around the subject now,
so here are the reasons why I don’t think Bridgerton deserves all the praise it is getting.
1. The race issue
Bridgerton did a lot of hinting or winking at race without actually ever going there. It was almost like they were scared to say it out loud.
I don’t have an issue with television including diverse races and ethnicities in period dramas, regardless of historical accuracy. Bridgerton promised to include a diverse cast, but whether this was achieved can be seriously questioned. As explains Khadija Mbowe, most people of colour on the show are only extras, and they are "mainly decorative". There are several characters with speaking roles who are portrayed by people of colour, but here we run into another issue: the show has been accused of both colourism and featurism. (I really recommend you watch Khadija Mbowe’s video on this topic, she expertly breaks down the diversity issues in this show.) For me, the most obvious thing was the lack of representation of other races and ethnicities. Where is the Asian and Latin American representation on this show? Bridgerton unfortunately did not achieve the diversity it promised.
That's it. That's all they say. Big hand for how Bridgerton expertly handled the race issue
everyone.
What really got me was this line didn’t even make sense. Here, Lady Danbury is referring to Queen Charlotte, who in the show is a Black woman. In the programme, Queen Charlotte is quite clearly younger than Lady Danbury. However, Lady Danbury has been a member of the upper class for quite some time, as she also knew the late Duke of Hastings, who himself is a Black man (and older than Queen Charlotte). So several people of colour were part of high society before Queen Charlotte could possibly have married King George? Yet we are to believe that Queen Charlotte’s marriage to King George III suddenly made this society totally equal and tolerant? And it was an interracial royal wedding that ended racism? Yeah, I don’t see a problem with that premise.
 |
| Lady Danbury and the Duke of Hastings Bridgerton, Netflix |
2.
Sex and gender
Let’s talk about queerbaiting. Once again, Bridgerton promised
to deal with certain issues, and then totally failed to do that. I don’t think
I was alone in hoping that Benedict Bridgerton would turn out to be queer and
have an affair with artist Sir Henry Granville. The show toyed with Benedict’s sexuality,
discussing wanting unconventional things with his sister Eloise, and seeming to
have a slight flirtation with Granville. But the big reveal? Graville is gay,
and Benedict is a mere witness to Granville’s affair with another man. This was
such a shame, as this queer romance was teased in the trailers, so many people expected
an actual queer plotline. Instead, Benedict’s plotline is that he is in love with a
woman who is out of bounds due to her lower social class. Disappointing.
 |
| Benedict Bridgerton and Sir Henry Graville Bridgerton, Netflix |
I also found it to be really disappointing that the only “feminist”
character is Eloise, and she, in my eyes, is also one of the least likable
characters. She is consistently belittling her sister Daphne, and she is also
very insensitive to her best friend Penelope’s heartbreak.
Of course, it is possible that these issues will be dealt
with further in future seasons, but I for one will not be sticking around to
watch.
Lastly on the sex and gender note, I would like to say that Daphne
is not a victim, as she is portrayed to be in the show. She literally sexually assaults her husband, and then
walks around like she is the one who has been wronged. This scene is described
even more graphically in the books, where it explains that Daphne used all her
weight to pin down her husband whilst he was drunk and powerless to stop her. The
worst thing about this plot is that it is never dealt with. The only person who
vaguely holds her to account for her actions is her husband, but even he has
forgiven her by the end of the series.
3.
On that note: costuming
My biggest issue with the costuming was that it was
painfully obvious from literally the first scene that Bridgerton would
fall victim to/perpetuate the sexist corset stereotype. In this scene, we see
Prudence Featherington being very tightly laced into a corset.
 |
| Corsets in the opening scene Bridgerton, Netflix |
Let’s talk about the tight-lacing trope (courtesy of fashion historian Karolina Żebrowska's excellent video on this topic). Modern media, Bridgerton included, portrays corsets as instruments of torture, something worn by women in order to achieve a smaller waist. Yes, corsets allowed women to achieve the contemporary fashionable silhouette. But let’s get one thing straight: corsets were a practical necessity in the period, as the bra hadn’t been invented yet. Corsets provided support that other clothing couldn’t. The fact of the matter is, everyone wore corsets, rich or poor, every day. They had to carry out their daily activities in a corset, and they seemed to do alright.
Corsets were not, then, as they have been made out to be, a reflection
of female vanity. Even men wore corsets in this period – and in fact, their corsets lacked the practical functions of female corsets: they mainly served to
shape the wearer’s torso and reduce his beer-belly.
The bad wrap corsets got was thanks to Victorian men, who
enjoyed ridiculing women’s fashion trends. The fashion industry was dominated
by women at the time, so of course the men of the period would want to
attack women through attacking their one avenue of self-expression. The corset
trope picked up by modern media is, therefore, essentially sexist.
To focus on Bridgerton, not only are corsets in the show worn
without a chemise underneath - which would never have been done because
seriously why would wear a corset directly on your body – but they are also
excessively tight. This doesn’t make sense, as during the regency era, women wore
“stays” – these were basically corsets made of cotton with no boning. Therefore,
trying to lace the corset tighter wouldn't make you look any thinner, especially once
you wear one of the regency era’s loose-fitting gowns.
The costume designer of Bridgerton has said that she wanted to rejuvenate regency era fashion by giving it a contemporary twist. This is nothing new, and it does go with the theme of the show. However, as explained by Karolina Żebrowska, if you want to modernise historical fashion, you need to have a solid understanding of what you are modernising. The ensuing fashion faux pas alter the overall aesthetic of the show. Moreover, as Żebrowska points out, if the show is all about how societal norms dictated people’s lives in the regency era, then surely it would make sense to have that reflected in the fashions?
Another quibble I have is with the sheer size of the show’s
wardrobe. Phoebe Dynevor, who plays Daphne, wears over 104 dresses, which in her own words is “madness”. It’s true: no one in that period, no matter how
rich they were, could just wear a dress once and then discard it. It’s yet
another trope which Bridgerton falls into. It’s especially ridiculous in Daphne’s
case, as basically all of her dresses look the same, notably because she makes
no distinction between daywear and eveningwear. This is unfortunate as it means
that in the ball scenes, Daphne’s dresses made less of an impact than they otherwise
could have done. Moreover, the only character who does seem to wear appropriate
daywear is Eloise, our “feminist” character. That in itself is ironic, as the
character who wants the most to defy societal norms ends up being the only one
to follow them in terms of her clothing choices.
4.
Quality and plot (or lack thereof)
In the words of Żebrowska, the show comes across as
a “Jane Austen fan fic” portraying “what Americans think British people are
like”.
Bridgerton is very obviously written and produced by Americans. I didn’t know that before I started watching it, but it became apparent pretty quickly. Even the surnames Bridgerton and Featherington are ridiculous. For me, the most jarring thing to watch were the random cuts between the different cities Bridgerton is filmed in (London, Bath and York mainly). These cities have markedly different architecture, and whilst I can understand why one might want to film in different locations in order to achieve a certain aesthetic, don’t do that if you are going to choose places which are very obviously recognisable as not in London (AKA, where the show is supposed to be set). The worst was when they randomly shot one scene outside THE ROYAL CRESCENT (which I am fairly confident any Brit could tell you is most certainly not in London), and then five seconds later the characters had magically teleported to London.
The whole intrigue of the first season was less intriguing
and more of a yawn-fest. Daphne and Simon’s romance was extremely predictable,
from their meet-cute to their happy reconciliation at the end of the first series.
I mean seriously: who was surprised that they got together? Boy meets girl, at
first they don’t get along, then they decide to pretend to be courting, but of
course that courtship become real bla bla bla... And both of the characters were so stupid! It was so obvious that they were in love with each other, yet Daphne and Simon were for some reason convinced the other disliked them, and somehow this conflict became the plot for about half the season.
All in all, I want to be clear that I recognise that this show takes place in a fantasy world, where practically nothing that is portrayed is in any way realistic. Its aim was not to be accurate, but rather to tell a story and maybe right some wrongs while they were at it. But I feel that this was extremely poorly handled. If you want to see “current” issues being dealt with in an historical context, watch Gentleman Jack, read Sara Videbeck. Bridgerton just doesn't compare.
The fact that I did watch the entire first series obviously
means that I did find it entertaining to an extent, but I will be the first to
admit that I watch a load of rubbish. It’s fine to watch Bridgerton, and if you
do like it, I don’t want to take away your enjoyment of the show. I simply argue that it is far from the masterpiece everyone is raving about.