Pallisers I am talking very specifically about the film as I have not read the books.
A book, and therefore film, about the lives of one family, in detail, fine.
Jane Austen managed the whole of her canon with no reference to the wealth coming in from the plantations except a reference in Mansfield Park, I think, and focused on life as her characters saw it, and the lives and (lack of) freedoms that her women have.
What I found extremely tokenistic in LW was that they apparently inserted a quick ‘right on’ comment from a single black woman character who appeared for less than 10 seconds, to say “you should still be ashamed of your country “. No further debate, comment or context. So just there to try and insert some politics. A tick against that box. Film makers liberal conscience: tick.
The book is set in a time of huge social change and upheaval. There may be, probably is, there usually is, more actual detail about how they lived and why, in the books. What we get in the film is 4 women with different artistic talents / interests. 1 died, 1 gives it up for true love, 1 turns out to be of middling hobbyist talent despite a huge opportunity to train, and one makes it because she is good and determined. But amidst all this what we hear about is clothing and romance.
I just don’t find this of great feminist force.
Not surprised you raised this because there is a long history of women being expected to budge over to make room for racial politics
No wonder black women talk of white feminism! I dare say the black character glimpsed in the film has her own feminist frustrations.
I think it is valid and interesting to write one character’s story. In which case don’t insert clunky political tokenistic extras, or allow your readers / film spectators to say “I would have found the details of the Alcotts involvement with the Underground Railway and suffrage more Interesting than mooning about over Laurie, and see long shots over fabulous clothes’.