![]() That’s because Bridgerton appears - at first - to have tossed out historical fact in favor of putting a Black queen, the real-life consort Queen Charlotte ( Golda Rosheuvel), in charge of London society. You could be forgiven if you watched Bridgerton and thought, as I did up until midway through its 10-episode season, that the show was entirely a historical alternate universe (AU). But there’s a lot to unpack in that “almost.” Queen Charlotte is historically accurate - but is Bridgerton? Should it be? Liam Daniel/Netflix Bridgerton is almost an alternate universe. And those approaches, in turn, affect how we “read” Bridgerton as a cultural text - especially when we examine its handling of race. These evolving critical analyses of the show reflect very different ways of looking at it. “Consciously or not, Van Dusen’s creative team gave almost all of the Black characters with speaking lines negative attributes and beliefs that place them at odds with the white main characters. “The majority of the speaking roles belong to the white actors,” she pointed out. ![]() Yet the Observer’s Carolyn Hinds noted that “the characters’ race is practically ignored for almost the entire show.” The series features a mixed cast of white and Black actors in prominent roles. Particularly, early rounds of praise for the show’s diversity have given way to arguments that the show handles race clumsily. But it doesn’t always stick to this conceit, and that inconsistency has clearly complicated interpretations of the show. Bridgerton is almost - but not quite - an alternate historical universe, one where a colorblind view of society prevails. Some have begun to question the show’s approach to one nonconsensual sex scene, while most zeroed in on the show’s tricky handling of race. Since the show’s premiere, the response has transformed into something more considered. Yet Bridgerton has seen something of a reappraisal post-release. ![]() Many of the TV critics who liked Bridgerton framed it as silly, raunchy, overheated escapism, and seemed to be operating within the assumption that romance fiction is frothy and unserious by default - never something that can have serious artistic merit, capable of delivering profound views of society. Parsnips have been un-buttered since 2015 and are likely to remain so, as long as there are no political gains in truly stepping Twitter.Like the prim society debutantes at its center, Bridgerton, Netflix’s new, sumptuous historical romance series produced by Shonda Rhimes, has proven to be as controversial as it is popular.īased on a romance series by Julia Quinn and helmed by showrunner Chris van Dusen, Bridgerton is reportedly a solid hit so far: Netflix said that holiday streaming drove it to become the platform’s fifth-most-viewed original series to date.īridgerton initially drew mostly rave reviews from critics who praised the show’s “ feminist undertones,” marathon-ability, and “ frothy, silly escapism.” As a longtime reader of historical romance, I frankly found much of this initial praise of Bridgerton to be coated in condescension toward the romance genre. The old English proverb about “fine words buttering no parsnips” might have been written for this prime minister. Under this Liberal government, Canada has not stepped up, it has stepped back and allowed others to carry the burden. In light of all of that, it is breathtaking that Trudeau could stand up in front of an audience of policy professionals in New York and highlight the need to “step up”. The Auditor General recently pointed out that Global Affairs reallocated money from sub-Saharan Africa to support Ukraine. The recent budget slashed the foreign aid budget by 16 per cent this year, a move critics claim undermines this country’s ability to combat crises like climate change and human rights abuses that Trudeau has trumpeted as central to our role on the world stage. Meanwhile, serious countries like Britain, Germany and Japan have woken up to the new threat environment and ramped up military spending.Ĭanada’s soft power has also been neutered. The Defence Department was set to provide an update last fall but failed to do so and there was no new money in the spring budget. But the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not believe Ottawa has set aside enough money to pay for these procurements. Spending is forecast to rise in the coming years to pay for the 88 F35 jets and warships that have already been ordered. But that is still just 1.33 per cent of GDP, $18.2 billion short of NATO’s 2 per cent target. ![]() The Liberals spent $28.4 billion on defence in the last fiscal year - the highest amount in real dollars since the 1990s. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |