Margaret Atwood

It’s not Game of Thrones but it also doesn’t aim at the same level of realism as Harlots. You can call it fanwanking if you like but you would be miles out, I didn’t like it for precisely the reason that I like my historical tv drama to be making at least an attempt to recreate the past plausibly and it didn’t even pretend to be doing that.

Bridgerton is a fantasy set in an alternate historical reality, much like Game of Thrones is.

Sorry but that is utter bollocks. I'll admit I watched it over Christmas when I was visiting family and mainly concerned with getting home due to rising Covid numbers. But I don't think I was distracted enough to miss the magic spells and dragons. It's in no way a fantasy or alternative universe. It's the televised version of Julia Quinn's book series set in Regency England. And they aren't remotely comparable to Shakespeare. They are long form Mills and Boon.

I do fully appreciate how satisfying an opportunity it would be for an actor to whom this kind of role isn't normally available. But compared to Harlots, a period drama which managed to have a racially diverse cast while also having at degree more realism of the realities for people of different races, minority sexualities, the exploitation of women and children in the sex industry and how trapped even the wealthy women were. Harlots isn't even a great series, imo, but it did manage to be inclusive without needing really, nonsensical fanwanking about it being a magical (but magic free) alternative universe.

Bridgerton is a fantasy set in an alternate historical reality, much like Game of Thrones is.
Its not meant to be a documentary, and to take issue with the casting of black actors is like objecting to a Shakespeare play performed in modern dress, or set against a backdrop of WW2, or any of the other ways artistic licence has been used to stage Shakespeare plays. Which the chattering classes don't tend to do, do they? Wouldn't it be considered a bit provincial to complain the the characters were not in doublets and hose..?
Plus, Bridgerton is a rare and fabulous opportunity for black actresses to wear beautiful period costume, so more of that I say.

Interesting link, @NecessaryScene, thank you!

Not sure I entirely agree with all his points, not least the bit about women (not stated explicitly but is implicit) just getting on with things and making the best of whatever situation they find themselves in - that's what got us into this hole in the first place!

Yes, they want to create more fools like Sarkar and Jamil who think women are oppressed because of their femininity/'gender identity', rather than the TRUTH that it is their biology.

I'm?

Yes I'm think Titania really nailed the reason for banning the Handmaid's Tale. A book portraying the oppression if women because of their reproductive role is" literal violence " as it implies both thst sex is important when discussing women's oppression and that only women give birth.

No nuance, despite Disney's best efforts in recent years to make the princesses able to rescue themselves more

I think, ironically, such recent Disney tropes may also be part of the problem. So much about "identity", and people not fitting into the world, ending up with rather narcissistic protagonists.

Relevant YouTube commentary, linked to relevant section:

Nuance is being erased again.

Thinking about this the same is true of the Ryan Murphy Hollywood series, where racism and homophobia in the film industry was all solved in the 40s by one amazing movie that sweeps the Oscars. The black female lead, the Asian female support, the mixed race Asian/white writer and the black, openly gay boyfriend of Rock Hudson all win Oscars. With him and Rock attending together as lovers. I will admit I was caught up enough watching it that I genuinely cried a little watching those scenes.

But I also feel they were a massive disservice in a big way, to the men and women who really did break those barriers decades later. And they lead to a very, very false impression of what life was like between then and now.

You can argue that Hollywood is pure wish fulfilment, Bridgerton a fantasy, Hamilton (which I haven't seen) a modern allegory of immigration. But you put them all together in a society increasingly incapable of critical thinking and existing in bubbles of likemindedness and it's all just a big ingredient in a recipe for disaster. Even the removal of the racist elements of the people behind the Republic of Gilead from the book when making the tv series. Like sure, the Commanders are evil misogynistic, homophobes but also racially colourblind.

Can I say I felt the same way about Hamilton?
When it was available online, because of COVID and lockdown, I started watching it but found it difficult to cope with, largely because I didn't deal well with the style of music/rap, but also because I kept thinking that it wouldn't have been that way.

I have absolutely no issue with actors being actors and playing parts - but when it's meant to be a representation of history then it's difficult to suspend disbelief if suddenly racism wasn't a thing, and, as has been said here, homophobia wasn't a thing. It was!

I know it didn't claim to be historically accurate - but the vague reference to "now that the Queen is not white, racism is over and everyone's happy" made it very hard to suspend disbelief!

I don’t mind so much with Bridgerton because it never claimed to be a real representation of English history- it openly takes place in a fantasy space which was reflected in the overall style and costumes.

Bridgerton was weird! I thought it was just colour blind casting at first, but no, racism was just ... over!

Oh god. I actually wrote out my very similar thoughts on Netflix' Bridgerton series on this thread yesterday but deleted it in case I sounded racist. But I couldn't help but watch it and feel that it was deceptive in a way that would lead to way too many people unaware of how ludicrous a fiction it was. That while I understand how great it can be for actors to get cast in these roles, that ultimately this huge pretence that the racism of the past hadn't happened, that we do a massive disservice to the people who suffered it and the people who across generations fought to change it. We lose so much understanding of some of the worst and best that people are capable of. It would be fine if everyone truly understood that it's a complete fantasy, that the past wasn't like that. But we know that's not how it works. For huge swathes of the population, this shit is their main exposure to "history." And they are left with an utterly distorted picture of the past.

The problem seems to be that they don't want, or don't seem to believe the audience can cope with, any complexities in the characters. It's not possible to have a sympathetic character that has views other than what are currently trendy, no matter how ridiculous.

The good guys are only allowed to be good, they can't be nuanced or complex. Unfortunately I think that is then felt IRL, you can't agree on some things and disagree on others, or understand that someone can be largely a good person but sometimes get things wrong. If anyone puts a foot wrong, even if they are normally saint like, they must be written off as a lost cause.

Is the misogyny why they are getting rid of the handmaids tale?….thats stupid, I don’t get it

Unless it really is just because Atwood wrote it, I really can't see what else could be meant by this sentence:

"Other books recently removed from Canadian school libraries and/or curriculums in response to complaints about racist, homophobic, or misogynistic language and themes, include Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird and Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid’s Tale."

The whole thing is so completely anti-liberal and bizarre

The problem seems to be that they don't want, or don't seem to believe the audience can cope with, any complexities in the characters. It's not possible to have a sympathetic character that has views other than what are currently trendy, no matter how ridiculous.

I used to sometimes watch Father Brown for mindless relaxation, keeping in mind it was really nothing to do with the books. But it became increasingly difficult to maintain any pretense that he was a Catholic priest in the 1950s. To the point where it seemed disrespectful to actual Catholics.

If you ban books how can you discuss them and what potentially could be wrong with them .

We must learn from history not obliterate it .

This is very scary .

‘It's such an insult to people in the past who were discriminated against because of their sex or sexuality or colour. Because apparently they would have been fine if they had just styled it out hmm

See also much 'Queer' historical fiction’

Couldn’t agree more!
I have read several otherwise well researched histfics in recent years where the goodies are anachronistically comfortable with gay relationships, even sexual ones, and the baddies are nasty homophobes who get their comeuppance.

@Alektopteryx I've started doing this with DVDs like Peep Show, Father Ted, Fawlty Towers, Porridge, Life on Mars, Casablanca, Hitchcock, and various other classics. I'll start doing the same with books now, too

That recent BBC series about WW2 where there was a mixed race homosexual relationship that everyone (except the Nazis - because they were bad) thought was just great. And the young unmarried woman who got pregnant and was like, 'I am just fine with this' and everyone else thought she was brilliant too.

It's such an insult to people in the past who were discriminated against because of their sex or sexuality or colour. Because apparently they would have been fine if they had just styled it out

See also much 'Queer' historical fiction.

Titantia nails it

I think the underlying impulse is the same as with things like removal of statues.

People who want to get rid of these things - to ban the books, often think it's about removing wrong and dangerous ideas. A kind of intellectual purity.

That's not what it is about for the leaders, however. For them, it is removing evidence that there was ever another way of thinking that normal, regular, people ever believed or subscribed to in good faith.

Because if they did, and we now think those things are not entirely correct, it could be that some time in the future, the ideas we have now may need to be questioned and possibly rejected.

It's all about preventing people from thinking critically about the books being written now, the heroes we have now.