Zero mention of Bridgerton here?!
I watched the first episode and was as disappointed as I've been with any TV show in years.
Coming off Queen's Gambit and The Great, and hearing this one compared to Downton Abbey, I was expecting something a lot more substantial and at least a
little more subtle about gender issues. There's something bordering on offensive in 2021 about women characters whose key personality traits are snarky superficial bitching about the gender limitations of their fabulously privileged lifestyle, while also worrying endlessly about pursuing conveniently rich, sexy men who are just beyond their reach. From a gender perspective, there's nothing to distinguish this story from an actual Victorian novel with an actual Victorian ethic.
There's also something unsettling about the fact that the Bridgerton universe appears to be drawn up without
any reference to the existence of people outside the upper aristocracy. I mean, how can you have a show set in 1813 London -- including multiple scenes set in the public outdoors and showing wide-angle views of the streets -- and not even
see an extra in the background who looks like they live an ordinary life? "We try to imagine history and the world in the way we wanted to see it" is an actual quote from the executive producer about the decision to include POC in the casting. Even granting credit for strong casting, apparently "imagining history in the way we wanted to see it" means wiping the entire concept of ordinary people out of the picture and focusing exclusively on the rich and beautiful and unimaginably privileged. Which is... not much of an improvement.
It's basically a Victorian 90210. There's a place in the world for frivolous TV, but this really isn't my thing and felt like a major missed opportunity to do something important with a social message that goes beyond "I need a man".
The costumes, scenery, and cinematography are really good.
