Since the Black Lives Matter movement regained global popularity in the summer of 2020, racial equality became a prominent issue in the media. Shortly after, Shonda Rhimes’ post-heritage drama Bridgerton, based on Julia Quinn’s romance novels, was produced by Shondaland, and released on the streaming platform Netflix in December 2020. Since racial issues had been dominating the media, a possible reason for the series’ immense popularity might be its multiracial cast. Bridgerton, whose fictitious storyline is set in London during Britain’s Regency era in 1813, tries to create an alternative historical past in which people of colour are not being victimized because of their skin tone. It can be assumed that in such an alternative history the characters must start on an equal footing, regardless of their skin colour (Romano). However, it turns out that the series is not clear about what message it wants to bring across, since the racial identities of black characters are almost entirely muted leaving the series as one that opts for escapism over a nuanced exploration of real-time racial dynamics (Tillet). Even as people of colour and other marginal groups of society have gained more visibility in the American film industry, they are still subject to discrimination and severely underrepresented in television (Hunt and Ramón). Considering that racism describes “policies, behaviours, rules etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people … based on race”, the purpose of this essay is to reveal racist aspects about the series (“racism”). Although Bridgerton tries to represent people of colour progressively by casting diverse actors, the series creates the opposite effect by concealing relevant racial issues, destroying the idea of a black solo reigning queen, and by silencing and stereotyping black characters negatively.
The Racist Representation of People of Colour in Bridgerton
Since the Black Lives Matter movement regained global popularity in the summer of 2020, racial equality became a prominent issue in the media. Shortly after, Shonda Rhimes’ post-heritage drama Bridgerton, based on Julia Quinn’s romance novels, was produced by Shondaland, and released on the streaming platform Netflix in December 2020. Since racial issues had been dominating the media, a possible reason for the series’ immense popularity might be its multiracial cast. Bridgerton, whose fictitious storyline is set in London during Britain’s Regency era in 1813, tries to create an alternative historical past in which people of colour are not being victimized because of their skin tone. It can be assumed that in such an alternative history the characters must start on an equal footing, regardless of their skin colour (Romano). However, it turns out that the series is not clear about what message it wants to bring across, since the racial identities of black characters are almost entirely muted leaving the series as one that opts for escapism over a nuanced exploration of real-time racial dynamics (Tillet). Even as people of colour and other marginal groups of society have gained more visibility in the American film industry, they are still subject to discrimination and severely underrepresented in television (Hunt and Ramón 70). Considering that racism describes “policies, behaviours, rules etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people … based on race”, the purpose of this essay is to reveal racist aspects about the series (“racism”). Although Bridgerton tries to represent people of colour progressively by casting diverse actors, the series creates the opposite effect by concealing relevant racial issues, destroying the idea of a black solo reigning queen, and by silencing and stereotyping black characters negatively.
Firstly, instead of portraying Great Britain as a significant force behind the Atlantic slave trade, Bridgerton regulates many colonial questions to the margins of the diegesis (Brody 252). Especially, the system of slavery as well as the British abolition movement, which flourished in London in the early 19th century, are simply ignored. Historically, although the British abolition movement culminated in the removal from Atlantic slaving in 1807, the British Empire still ruled over more than one million slaves at the beginning of the 19th century (J. C. Miller 434; Drescher 205). It took another twenty-six years, the period in which the series is set, until slavery itself had been abolished in the British Empire (Drescher 225). In contrast to the genuine historical events, in the fictitious world of Bridgerton characters that were predominantly white are played by people of colour (Tillet). Therefore, the post heritage drama creates the illusion that the system of slavery and suppression is not relevant in its alternative history. Nevertheless, as a result of not erasing Britain’s racist past entirely, racial dynamics are vitally important because in the series’ fictional world slavery had been abolished previous to the plot (Hinds). Rhimes’ decision to end the system of slavery in Bridgerton ’s alternative history, which is revealed in the fourth episode, is substantive enough to pull an audience of colour into the plot without nagging colonial questions pulling them out (Cottom). Unfortunately, the series pretends that race is not of consequence even though “the world these characters inhabit was created in part through racism” (Hinds). As critic Salamishah Tillet states in the New York Times, only black characters speak about issues of race “enabling white characters to be free of racial identity”. It can be argued that if race does not matter, an equal number of Black, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc., and white actors can be expected in the show, which is not the case (Hinds). Paradoxically, Bridgerton ’s scriptwriter Chris Van Dusen states: “Race is as much a part of the show’s conversation as class and gender are” (Valentini, “How Showrunner Chris Van Dusen Brought Regency London to Life in ‘Bridgerton’”). As Van Dusen explains, the production wants to attract an audience of colour that can relate to the characters they see on screen by creating an alternative history that reflects on the world we live in today (Valentini, “How Showrunner Chris Van Dusen Brought Regency London to Life in ‘Bridgerton’”). However, through avoiding essential questions of race, which are still crucial today, people of colour cannot relate to Bridgerton ’s characters. Eventually, through creating an alternative history in which issues of race are still relevant but ignored by all the white characters, Bridgerton cannot represent people of colour progressively by simply casting some diverse actors.
Secondly, next to the avoidance of addressing racial inequality, the heritage drama does not well in trying to make a statement by creating the illusion of a British monarchy ruled by a queen of colour. Understandably, the viewer would expect the kingdom to be ruled by the regent Prince of Wales instead of his brother King George III, who became permanently mad in 1811 (Dunn). In Bridgerton, King George’s wife Charlotte, who is played by the British-Guyanese actress Golda Rosheuvel, represents the King as his regent (Valentini, “Meet the Women of ‘Bridgerton’”). The idea of a queen of mixed race derived from the recent historians’ debate over whether Queen Charlotte had multiracial ancestry (McKenzie). Initially, the show makes the viewer believe that Charlotte is the solo reigning British monarch until an abrupt and disconnected scene in the fourth episode reveals that she is the King’s consort, as she was historically (Romano). This essential scene shows a conversation between two main characters of colour, in which the reason for the recent black emancipation becomes visible. Lady Danbury, the mentor of the protagonist’s love interest Simon Basset, is telling him: “Look at our queen. Look at our king. Look at their marriage. Look at everything it is doing for us, allowing us to become. We were two separate societies, divided by colour until a king fell in love with one of us.” (“An Affair of Honor” 20:40). The evidence suggests that the queen does not inherit her position because Bridgerton has created a world in which a person of colour is able to ascend the throne, but because she owes it to her husband’s illness. Without King George’s decision to end slavery by marrying a woman of colour, non-white characters would still be suppressed by the previous racist system. Even Simon, having elite status as a duke of colour, believes that racial emancipation is fragile and dependent on whichever white king is in charge (Tillet). In contrast, appointing a solo reigning queen of colour, whose racial identity would not matter to her ascension to the throne, would have been the better choice. It can be argued that the scene reveals an important aspect of race, since it shows that racial equality is completely dependent on the permission of white characters, creating a disadvantage for certain characters based on their race. Bridgerton ’s attempt to make a queen of mixed race stand out as progressive fails, as she is still defined by her racial identity and therefore unable to rule the kingdom independently.
Thirdly, concerning the concealment of racial inequality and the miscarried endeavour of the illusion that Britain’s Empire is ruled by a queen of mixed race, characters of colour suffer discrimination by having less dialogue than white characters. Since the beginning of the film, producers rather cast white actors, even if a person of colour might fit a certain role better than a white person (Lee). In UCLA’s Hollywood Diversity Report 2021, published by the UCLA College Division of Social Sciences, several scholars investigated Hollywood’s diversity standards by analysing nearly two hundred top films of 2020 (Wolf). The research highlights that people of colour and ethnic minority groups still face immense levels of exclusion in television leads and among other roles (Hunt and Ramón 70). In another report entitled Race and ethnicity in the UK film industry, a study investigating whether the British film industry adheres to the BFI diversity standards that were introduced in 2014, Dr Clive Nwonka provided evidence for the same findings in British film productions (Pulver). Nwonka’s study also provides evidence that film productions holding a larger budget, such as Shondaland’s Bridgerton, “do not produce more racially diverse representations” (Nwonka 2). Equally important, UCLA states that the diversity problem in the film industry can only be overcome if people of colour are integrated into these defining spaces, meaning on-screen and behind the camera (Hunt and Ramón 70). Conversely, being a person of colour herself, Bridgerton ’s producer Shonda Rhimes puts black characters at a disadvantage by giving the majority of speaking roles to the white actors (Hinds). Paradoxically, the Bridgerton production communicated publicly to represent people of colour progressively by allowing black actors to appear on the screen (Valentini, “How Showrunner Chris Van Dusen Brought Regency London to Life in ‘Bridgerton’”). However, the only black characters with the most significant screen time are Simon, being the Duke of Hastings and the lover of the protagonist Daphne, his mentor Lady Dansbury, and Marina Thompson (Hinds). Nevertheless, besides Simon and Marina, all the other characters of colour, such as Lady Danbury or Simon’s father, whose name is not even worth mentioning in the series, are mostly unexplored and never really developed in contrast to Daphne’s entire white family (Romano; Tillet). Therefore, these unconsidered black characters “suffer from a lack of both interiority and context outside of their relationships to white characters” (Romano). Furthermore, questions of race can be raised suspiciously regarding the fact that the most powerful characters of colour, Simon and Queen Charlotte, are both light-skinned (Hinds). In addition, not only do white characters hold more screen time, but they also outnumber black characters. Considering that Shondaland wants to advocate for racial equality by giving black actors visibility on the screen, this goal cannot be achieved by casting people of colour and giving them less screen time than white characters. As a result, most of these black characters have little dialogue, are less explored, and were pushed to the margins of the diegesis filling the gaps of the white characters’ plots.
Fourthly, actors with darker skin tones find themselves not only in less developed roles but these characters are also connected to negative attributes and beliefs “that place them at odds with the white main characters” (Romano). Eventually, in Bridgerton race only matters when villainous storylines are given to characters of colour (Hinds). Black people are often portrayed within stereotypes which reduce them to a few characteristics that are often negative and construct the notion of ‘otherness’ shifting attention away from the racial issues of the white-dominated society (Hall 257; C. Miller 402). For instance, Simon’s abusive father fulfils one of the most prominent black stereotypes, a black man that is characterized by his aggressive behaviour (Hall 263). In retrospect, the viewer finds out that Simon was being abused and abandoned by his father when he was a child (Hinds). Simon’s father is even being described as a monster by certain characters (Hinds). Another person of colour is Simon’s friend and boxer Will Mondrich, whom the viewer gets to see in various boxing matches. Again, the evidence shows that a person of colour is depicted within the stereotype of the violent black man, serving as a device to fuel the narrative of the white characters (Romano). Interestingly, both characters who are portrayed with violent and aggressive behaviour are played by the two actors having the darkest skin tone amongst the entire cast (Hinds). Furthermore, the use of these stereotypes is highly problematic because black men grow up perceiving who they are through these media representations since the media does not only represent but also constructs our reality (Greene 28–29). Additionally, Marina Thompson, who is having a rather developed storyline, serves as another villainous black character that is depicted within the worst circumstances in contrast to all the other white women of the series. Marina struggles with the same patriarchal restrictions as all the other female characters, which is not problematic regarding issues of race. However, she is the only one of those women who got pregnant unexpectedly by an absent man who fights in a Spanish war, leaving her in the most desperate position of all characters. Needing to marry in order to save her reputation, “Marina is set up as a schemer [by her white family members] for wanting to marry Colin”, Daphne’s brother (Hinds). Once her deceit is exposed, she is rejected by Colin and her family leaving her dissatisfied in the most hopeless situation. As culture staff writer Aja Romano writes for Vox, Marina’s story “serves as a commentary on white privilege, classism, and casual racism”. To review, in contrast to white characters most black characters are presented with negative attributes. Here, the practice of stereotyping marks the exclusion of people of colour from the norm by giving the black roles characteristics of the abnormal and unacceptable (Hall 258).
[...]
- Arbeit zitieren
- Marvin Loye (Autor:in), 2022, The Racist Representation of People of Colour in Bridgerton, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1243962
-
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen. -
Laden Sie Ihre eigenen Arbeiten hoch! Geld verdienen und iPhone X gewinnen.