Happy Sunday! My lazy weekend continues. Which means, today I am going to make y’all talk about Bridgerton, instead of killing myself trying to review it for you.
Bridgerton! It’s a Netflix miniseries based on a series of Regency Romance novels by Julia Quinn.
I’ve read all the books, and they are very good for what they are. Good character backstories, good central conflicts, fun flirting, good sex scenes. But they are awfully light. It’s really just “man with backstory meets woman with backstory, they flirt, and then he teaches her about oral sex, and then they have a misunderstanding, and then they have vaginal sex”. I was a little confused about how you make this into a miniseries versus, say, a porn film.
My sister and some of y’all watched the series and say it is great so I decided to check it out. But ultimately it didn’t grab me, I just wasn’t in the mood, and also I wasn’t really on the edge of my seat since the central plotline pretty much follows the beats of the book and I always remember everything I have ever read in enormous detail. But I did watch 2 and a half episodes! And I was ready to force myself to keep going so I could discuss it with you, and then I decided “No Margaret! You are going to be more relaxed and indulgent with yourself, you aren’t going to force yourself to watch a thing you don’t want to watch!”
So, let’s discuss! Without me doing a full review or even watching the whole thing!!!
Things to Discuss: What do we think about adding in politics and history stuff to a frothy romance plot? Does it add something to the show, or would you rather it was just romance?
Race blind casting!!! Obviously I am pro race blind casting because it gives you by far the best cast. But in this case, it seems like it is also something about an alternate reality where there is a racial struggle in England among aristocrats? Or am I wrong?
Can anyone tell the 3 Brothers apart? Because I can’t.
Do you want the hero and heroine to come back for another season, or would you rather they just stay tucked away in a boring Happy Ever After forever?
On a scale where Austen is 10 and Porn is 1, where would you put this?
dontcallitbollywood 
The youngest’s hair sticks out more, to compensate for his chin. And I think this is why they had to be named in alphabetical order, so at least we’ll be able to remember the respective name once we’re finally able to tell them apart.
I think I really like what the colorblind casting does to the setting, acknowledging that it’s a fantasy version of – well, whatever era it most resembles. Austen times, I guess. It allows the show to be much more colorful in other respects, too. I really like the saturated colors. And I felt the effect was kind of spoiled when they tried to explain it with something about the royal couple’s marriage. (Which doesn’t even make sense, seeing as the queen’s nephew is white.)
I am not quite as sure of my Austen as I am of my porn, but I’m not sure I’d put this show on the same continuum. Some complex number, I guess, so we’d have ourselves a nice triangle.
I’m not quite finished with the last episode yet, but I don’t think I’ll be mourning too much after Daphne and her duke. Now if only Eloise and Penelope had had some real chemistry …
Also, did anyone else feel like the story was basically one big deconstruction of the concept of gentlemen’s honor? I mean the duel that nobody wanted was bad enough, but how can you make yourself, AND those you love, miserable for the sake of an oath that you took to spite someone who’s now dead anyways? Boggles the mind.
LikeLike
Definitely think it is a deconstruction of honor! Or more generally, soft power versus hard power. The Boys think what they want is most important, and what they think, and that they control the world. But it is the world of women that really sets the world turning, all those balls and things that “don’t matter” really do matter.
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 4:58 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
There is a line, somewhere in some episode, where the woman who raised the Duke talks about how the king fell in love with the queen and raised their people up. Thus explaining the addition of black aristocrats, and also in a way the lack of all other color variations.
I think I fell in love with the tension between the the Duke and Daphne, even though Daphne is not my favorite. Already today I mentioned that I have a soft spot for the love stories where the protagonists hate each other at first. I can tell the brothers apart, they look nothing alike. And the middle brother looks older than the oldest…
I haven’t finished the last episode. But I look forward to some sort of montage about how the character who IS whistledown was able to write and print her papers without her family knowing. If no montage is forthcoming I will be annoyed. Speaking of annoyed, I am highly annoyed that many of the sex scenes were NOT montages, and yet tried to convince us that 30 seconds of sex is in fact fantastic and fulfilling. Sorry, I cannot believe any female came in 30 seconds, no matter how happy she looks, and she didn’t look that happy. Someone in my book club said they had a sex coordinator, and personally I think that sex coordinator did a bad job.
One of the the things that stuck out to me, was how people were supposed to find love in a single season, and in the show how many believe they had (before it was stripped away due to things like, premarital pregnancy). Honestly it reminded me of Indian matchmaking, which is an old an ancient tradition. I knew my husband for 10 years before we fell in love, and we were together for an additional five years before we married… I suppose historically we are not the norm.
Also stunned at how the main actress, Daphne, really looked sixteen, and continued to look sixteen even after marriage.
For all the talk I thought it would be sexier, but the sex is really just two actors, one glance of small boobies and a bunch of butt, thrusting, for 30 seconds. I kept thinking of the five thrust story in that Netflix compilation, but at least then the wife is obviously underwhelmed. I’m worried Bridgerton will create more five thrust men.
LikeLike
I can tell you that the books go into exhaustive detail about how the Whistledown thing works/worked. To the point where I skipped a few pages thinking “all right already, we get it”. So the details are there if the showrunners want to use them.
One of my coworkers does some work as an “intimacy coordinator”. She’s also a stage fight coordinator, and really it’s the same thing. You have to design physical movement to look “real” while keeping in mind the limitations of the people doing it. So if someone says “I have a trick knee” you design a fight scene to work around that, and if someone says “I am simply not comfortable kissing on stage” you design a love scene to work around that. With stage work, part of it is also being at every performance because the actors have the opportunity to say “I’m sorry, I know usually we kiss, but I just can’t do it tonight” or “I threw my back out moving boxes yesterday, so I can’t do the roll in the fight”, and then you give them an alternative. I find the whole thing fascinating, and I assume the “sex coordinator” for this show had a similar balance of making sure the actors felt comfortable (I think since MeToo there is now supposed to be a trained intimacy coordinator on set of every film and TV show? So no more stories of actresses being pressured to do something that made them feel sick), while also making it seem realistic. I will assume that they did the “make sure everyone is comfortable with what they are doing” part of the job, but sounds like they failed at the realistic part.
That “meet someone over the season” thing is a common trope in Regency Romances and I don’t know how realistic it is really, but I can sort of believe it. The idea being, everyone is scattered around England at their own individual country estates. You’ve only got this few month period when all the people of the “right” class are gathered together in the same location meeting each other. So either you marry the aristocrat down the road, or you have this limited time to meet all the other potential matches for you. But the “first season”, that I think might be an invention of this show a little bit to put on pressure. Loads of other stuff I have read have heroines in their second or third season. And I really don’t think anyone of the times was looking for “love” nearly as much as “a nice house, good family, pleasant enough”. Again, invention of the show. But all of this really does feel similar to Indian arranged marriages! I just watched the documentary “Meet the Patels” with my parents, and at one point they go to a Patel convention where young Patels from all over America have gathered. It’s the exact same thing!!! You have to marry within your very particular class/caste, there aren’t that many options, so you meet as many as you can and settle for the one who seems not-horrible.
The disappointing sex, this is what I was wondering about! The books, like all good romance novels, do a very good job with the sex scenes but it is all internal. She feels a warmth flowing over her, an opening inside, blah de blah de blah. You can’t show that in a TV show. I guess maybe a montage with a voice over?
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 9:42 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
From what I’ve learnt from academic works about the lives of the gentry and also a bunch of 19th and early 20th century society novels I’ve read, the reality was more like you used the season to mingle and get to know as many possible matches as possible. The actually getting to know and getting to the stage of marriage was more usually done in the rest of the year during a series of country house visits. You see this in Jane Eyre, for instance. You’d also already know a lot of people by the time you were launched into society through family, neighbours, family friends, house parties at relatives’ houses. A girl could also be launched to get married through a series of house parties instead of by having a season.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, that matches with what I have read in regency romances. I’ve never actually ready historical stuff about that era (although I have read a little about Late Victorian/Edwardian), but I know that most good romance novelists do historical research before writing so I semi-trust what they say. Semi-trust, meaning they throw in random obstacles that don’t really make sense, but they do at least use house parties as settings and stuff like that.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:00 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
One problem I’ve noticed is that they use Georgette Heyer as a source, who did use a lot of great primary sources, but also used her own experiences of high society from the 20s and 30s, when, based on stuff like Nancy Mitford, some norms were different and because transport was much easier, society seemed to focus more on the season and on London. If you look at Jane Austen and Fanny Burney, as well as silver fork novels, London society plays a part but the visits people pay and society in their immediate surroundings are more important. Plus you also had aristocratic families who didn’t like the Royal family for one reason or another and therefore didn’t go to court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh that’s FASCINATING!!!! Thanks for the perspective.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:27 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Well, I went in blind, hadn’t watched the trailer even and I’m currently obsessed with it (watched it twice and have been listening to podcasts)! Sad to know you didn’t enjoy it, would have liked discussing some aspects. Could it be because you read the books? I haven’t read the books but have read enough romance (Regency and otherwise) to know the conventions, tropes and this followed all of that. I was debating whether to read the books, but I figured most of what I liked is exclusive to the show (from what I read, the show improves upon the source material in many ways). For example the world they build – I like that we get the personalities and motivations of most of the characters, not just the central couple; I could be wrong but I’m guessing each book in the series focuses only on the leads. But ultimately, it’s Simon and Daphne’s story that kept me hooked (especially Simon). To be honest, I’m not a fan of the trope of the rakish hero ‘teaching sex’ to the painfully clueless heroine, that kind of dynamic doesn’t come off as sexy or romantic to me in books. So the show had its work cut out and the fact that it sells that aspect so well is down to the writers and actors. The actress embodies pure innocence without coming across as stupid (which is not easy, as I’ve seen recently) and the actor pulls off sensitive, charming and sexy perfectly. The chemistry just works!
To your questions – I’m not sure there’s much history beyond the fact that it’s set in that time period and I suppose the allusion to the real king and queen, which was smart. Same with politics, they have a couple of discussions about race and that’s it, which brings me to the next point. It looks like race-blind casting up until the point they address the race aspect in ep 4. I’m not sure how I feel about it; I would’ve been fine without it but I’m not mad they did it, though I guess they could’ve done it better. Either way, I’m so happy to see people of color playing royalty and nobility; I’ve never seen that in these kind of shows.
In 2 episodes, it’s easy to get confused between the brothers; they each have their arcs later on. As much as I’d like to see more of the duke, I’m happy how they wrapped up the couple’s story. They could come back as secondary characters but they can’t be the focus if they’re following the books. Are you ranking quality (7-8) or raciness (4-5) of the series?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s definitely because I read the books. The episodes have these great twists and cliffhangers and jawdropping moments. And none of them landed for me, because I already knew everything that was going to happen. If I were in the right mood, I could have enjoyed the show anyway for the costumes and things. But I wasn’t in the right mood and without the cliffhangers to keep me watching, I just wasn’t interested.
I vote, you DON’T read the books, so you can appreciate all the twists and surprises in the show more. And not be bored like me. And yes, the books do just hint at what is happening with other characters until it all comes together in their own individual books, so the show is sort of mashing things together by bringing in individual plotlines from the start.
Agree that the casting was very very good. Daphne, like you said, pulls of innocent but not stupid. But the Duke also, he pulls off seeming powerful and mature and wise, but also vulnerable. We can believe he is good at being a Duke, and we can see why everyone finds him scary and mysterious, but we can also sympathize with him and see him as just a man.
I think I am ranking “are you watching for quality or raciness” of the series. What’s the biggest appeal?
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:09 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
I wanted both and found it satisfying on both accounts. All the raciness would mean zilch if there wasn’t an emotional core and it had me invested in the characters. Austen has a different appeal for me and I wasn’t looking for another Austen adaptation. I actually went back to watch the BBC North & South after this, for some reason I was craving for that!
Don’t get me started on the Duke, he’s an excellent actor! The small things he does throughout are so effective. The pivotal scene in ep 3 could have easily gone wrong in so many ways, but he carries it very well.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree, the Duke was a great actor! Even just watching eps 1-2 and half of 3, I could see that. He is able to go from charming to angry to a little lost and make it all seem part of the same character.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:15 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t do with it because for me, it either has to be properly historical, or all out fantasy country and time (a la Count of Monte Cristo), and this is some kind of combination. I can’t with the Coppola Marie Antoinette or Moulin Rouge for that reason either. Because it’s so successful, I bet every costume drama is going to be like this now, which sucks for me, so that makes me dislike it too.
LikeLike
I reread this and wow, me disliking postmodernism???!! so shock, much surprise.
LikeLike
Have you tried The Great? The new post-modern series about Catherine the Great?
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:20 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Frockflicks did a series of posts about it and I’m not going to watch it but it did look hilarious and actually more appealing to me than Bridgerton. Weirdly, The Scarlet Empress is one of my favourite movies, but I guess it can’t be postmodern if it was the 30s.
LikeLike
It’s by the guy who did The Favourite, which I haven’t seen, but it sounds like the same post-modern sensibility. Show royals as shallow sex-obsessed kind of gross people, like they really were, not as perfect examples of noble perfection. also, the clothes are AMAZING. And very well done to support the characters, since Catherine is supposed to be recently arrived from mainland Europe with a better awareness of fashion and taste than everyone else.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:50 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
The series is shallow but fun.
I didn’t like how it explained the race problem though.The entire “there was an interracial marriage and true love conquers all’approach felt rather trivializing.They could have explored more of Queen Charlotte introducing reforms to actively fight racism than things automatically falling in place.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen the full series, so I can’t really comment. But in general, this would have been an era when the divine right of rulers was supreme. So royalty really could just wave their hand and change everything, especially for the aristocracy. There were Jewish and Catholic aristocrats who had similar stories, raised to powerful positions with a wave of the hand, but then struggling to maintain their foothold as the world looked to take it away from them.
LikeLike
If you’ve seen the scene with the throwaway comment about true love, you’ve seen all of what the show does to explore that situation. That is why I for one think it would have been better off without any explanation.
LikeLike
I do have to say I really enjoyed the subplot of Daphne knowing nothing of sex and then being SO ANGRY when she demanded the truth, AFTER marriage, from her maid, and being so angry that her husband lied/omitted some facts to her.
LikeLike
I also found it really clever in the author. The idea of “your husband will explain sex” pops up in all kinds of books, but this idea of “but what if he misinforms you?” is original and smart.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 7:13 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Liar liar pants on fire! I just read the second book in the Bridgerton series and there is no oral sex! Harumph!
Okay, now on to the series. I loved that the show didn’t just engage in blind casting thoughtlessly. First, the writer did the research and there was actually a biracial queen around that time. Second, while Simon’s father is an abusive jerk, in the flashbacks it shows that the reason he was so obsessed with having a son/heir that was in every way perfect, because it was just under Queen Charlotte that people of color had been elevated and he is afraid without a perfect heir, it will be taken away. He expressly states it. It doesn’t excuse the father’s actions in any way, but it puts it more in perspective.
Next, I think the show displays variations of the female gaze exceptionally well! There is the actual female gaze, such as the scene where Simon is engrossed in coaching/cheering his man in a boxing match, and Daphne is just watching him roll up the sleeves of his shirt clearly lusting after his physique. Such a simple action, yet the way the camera captures it, it made me blush. Then there are variations of the female gaze – i.e. not strictly female gaze but done in a way that the woman on screen is providing the female gaze and we as the audience are clearly invited to enjoy it as well – such as when Simon is stripping and Daphne is watching him and figuring out her feelings because she has clearly never seen a man naked before and the audience is enjoying it as well. There are also numerous other scenes with other characters that show this as well. Again, what I love is that it was done very purposefully. The writers were mostly female writing for a female audience and knew they wanted the content and framework to display the female gaze.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s no oral sex in book 2??? Is that the Anthony book? I remember it was my least favorite, maybe that is why. Not the lack of oral sex in particular, but what it means for the relationship progression, that they don’t have that moment of him being loving and generous. Anyway, my favorite book is the Gregory one waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay at the end, with the Colin one next. So keep reading until you get to those. Best Heroines.
Okay, one vote firmly for race blind/not blind casting! It’s a tricky balance, the true “race blind casting” often feels like it erases actual differences in experience depending on the color of your skin. Most of the cast feels truly race blind, except for the hero and the Bridgerton family itself. Everyone else, they just cast the best actor for the role, and they could look like anything. Although I do hope we get some South Asians in here, it would make sense for the era and it would be so cool.
Weirdly, your female gaze point reminds me of Tribhanga which I just watched last night. Not because it has female gaze, it is remarkably un female-gazey, but the idea of “so it’s not perfect, the mere existence is a big BIG deal”. A show that leans so heavily into female desire is important just for that factor, even if the sex scenes aren’t perfect and the plot is thin and stuff, having female desire forefronted is important.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 10:40 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
It is the Anthony book and unless I missed something, there is no oral sex. I really liked the heroine in that book but really hated the way they were married. Looking forward to reading the other books.
I think this show just does such an excellent job about female desire and female agency. Yes, the women are constrained based on the rules and norms of the time period and all the young women desperately need sex-ed classes, but the female characters are all so interesting and strong. Anthony might be the “owner” of the Bridgerton house on paper, but Violet clearly rules it, despite Anthony’s tantrums. Marina (the opera singer whose plot I am so happy was fleshed out in the show) struggles between wanting to be a part of high society while also knowing there are things about her she does not want to change and makes her own decision regarding who she wants to be with. Daphne sticks up to her brother and Simon when they forget that she has a voice in her life and marriage. The modiste is in charge of her sexuality and desires and unapologetically engages in an threesome with Benedict and continues her affair with him.
I really hope that after this season, the writers look at the books for broad guidance/ framework and continue to flesh out these other storylines and characters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is such a tricky balance, which I think this show just nails perfectly, of accurately showing the restrictions of female power in that era (it only takes one man’s word to ruin your reputation), but also the way they are able to still exercise real power. Too often it feels like historical shows go too far one way or the other, make woman completely without weapons or else make them as powerful as a man, instead of finding that balance.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:40 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
It is a very tricky balance and yes, this show nails it. I also like that it was a purposeful decision not to get into race relations or other serious topics too heavily. I can’t remember if it was an interview with the director or Shonda, but one of them was specifically asked this question, and their answer was simple, because they didn’t want to. They wanted to make a show that was quintessentially “escapist” – light, fluffy, sexy. They did not want to make something that was gritty or heavy. Again, I love the thought behind these choices, but it also made the show much more fun to watch for me.
LikeLike
It reminded me of the first season of Scandal, which makes me nervous. Because Scandal had that ridiculous silly frothy feel and then by season 3 was drawn down into darkness. I’m hoping churning through new romances and storylines every season will help them avoid that.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:14 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Oh, it did NOT remind of of Scandal, which I thought was great! I could never get behind Fitz and Olivia. I felt like Scandal was weird from the beginning, could not decide what it wanted to be, and noone was likable from the start. One of best parts of Scandal to me, was Jake Ballard and they completely ruined that storyline.
LikeLike
To Margaret’s point about blind casting, the show gives a reason why Simon’s family and Lady Danbury are black, so I don’t know if we can call it that. And I think I saw some South Asian background characters.
Given that it’s based on a romance novel, it’s expected to be about the female gaze and perspective, I’m just glad that it’s done well! They literally slow down that boxing scene and spoon scene to convey how Daphne is feeling, love it! What made me nearly blush was the ‘talk’ between Simon and Daphne. I think I was bracing for it to be sleazy, but his matter-of-fact delivery and expressions sold it the right way.
The major gripe I have with the show is how they don’t address Daphne’s actions in ep 6 at all! I’m glad they changed that aspect from the book (which is even worse), but still they could have shown her realization that what she did was wrong.
LikeLike
My husband and I had a long discussion about the scene in episode 6 and here is the summary of it:
On one hand, Simon consistently deceived Daphne and kept her in the dark by saying that he “can’t” (as opposed to won’t) have children, and she took certain actions to figure out for herself if that was the case (i.e., he took away her agency, she took it back). This would seem ludicrous today because how does an 18 year old not understand the mechanics of sex. But clearly, these women really did not know.
On the other hand, Simon said stop and Daphne did not. That is rape. His actions before sex really don’t matter.
LikeLike
I really like this summary and agree with it. The only thing I can think of to add, which is really just an interesting thought experiment, is if there is a difference between making a man a father against his will and making a woman a mother against her will. In both cases, the end result is emotionally and financially and all kinds of complex all over the place. But with a woman, there is also the question of pregnancy, which a man escapes.
If I switch this to being a story in which a woman does not wish to become pregnant and a man, in the middle of consensual sex, does not listen to her when she says “no”, then it is obviously wrong three ways. Consent, risking the emotional responsibility of a child you do not want, AND the pregnancy physical challenges.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:10 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
My point is even if we leave the argument about how to label her actions from our perspective, there is no argument that she wronged Simon, and they could have simply included a line of dialogue of her apologizing. Beside everything else, it would have made their love story and eventual reunion that much more powerful!
LikeLike
I am flying through the Bridgterton series and I am now I am seriously wondering if I am reading some weird abridged version because Bedinect’s story also didn’t have any oral sex. Not a big deal but I know you have mentioned that you remember details of the books very well and I trust your memory.
I am on Colin’s book now. I liked the progression of the storyline more in Benedict and Sophie’s book and overall it is a better book but I still love Kate (Anthony’s wife) so much because she is just so fiesty and cranky. I just love cranky heroines.
LikeLike
Maybe I am wrong? Maybe no oral sex? But it really feels like there was! You need to have something for that plot point of “I’m not really in love with you yet so we aren’t really really having sex”. Maybe I am thinking of Grace Burrowes?
Anyway, glad you are flying through it! Hermione’s boyfriend is the one my friend suggested for Hrithik, since he is a bit of a handsome devil (like Hrithik in Bang Bang). And Gregory has my favorite heroine. She’s very orderly and sensible.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 3:53 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Hermione? Do you mean Hyacinth or Francesca? Colin and Penalope’s story was so good! I like how the storylines in the book have gotten better with each book. Of course anyone who watched the show knew the spoiler but I the way both Colin and Penelope grew abs brought out the best in each other was very heartwarming.
I am going to skip Eloise’s book and jump to Francesca’s. Eloise, as a character might be one of my favorites but the book summary seemed kind of dark and not as fun. Plus, I really liked the character of Marina in the Netflix show and don’t want to read her the way it is portrayed in the book.
LikeLike
the youngest, whoever she is. Part of the plot point of the book is that her family always spoiled her a little because she was the baby, and then she meets a rakish gentleman who challenges her (Hrithik, ala Bang Bang). And I cannot remember Francesca’s book! Or Eloise’s? Anyway, I remember Daphne and Antony and Benedict and Colin and Hyacinth and Gregory, and then I remember one other one. So that’s either Francesca or Eloise.
Oh, it’s Eloise! Francesca is the one I skipped. Eloise’s book (to Sir Phillip, With Love) is a kick, no reason to skip it.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:24 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Oh good to know. One summary about Eloise’s book talked about a wounded man with a history of being abused and a wife who tried to commit suicide and that all just seemed a bit to dark for me. Glad it is not dark.
LikeLike
Nah, it’s just like the others, he’s got some bad stuff in his past that makes him Wounded so that he needs her to rescue him, but at the same time he is a strong handsome kind man who teaches her about love and stuff. Mostly I remember that Eloise remains a very difficult person and ends up with a guy who is her opposite (quiet, patient, steady).
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 9:52 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Now that there’s going to be a 2nd season, we can expect it’s going to be Anthony’s story. Apparently the casting agency put out calls for an Indian-Caucasian woman and an Indian woman and people are speculating they’re for Anthony’s heroine and her sister. I’m intrigued as to whether there’s anything in the books about their ethnicity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There isn’t! But this totally makes sense. In the books, there is the “pretty” younger sister and the “dark” older sister.
Also, Filmikudhi! This is your chance! Go for a try out!
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Dark’ as in complexion? Implying different ethnicity?
LikeLike
In the book, they kept it light. The younger sister is the perfect blonde beauty with a perfect happy personality. The older sister is grumpy and tough and has dark hair. Just your usual sort of “the pretty sister and the angry sister” divide, no race question at all. They also gave them different mothers, as part of their backstory in an interesting way. But I would LOVE to have that mixed in with racial mixing questions.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:00 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
This makes sense then why they might go for this casting choice. Oh how I wish to see known Indian actresses in the roles (Tripti, Sobhita or Radhika opposite Anthony)! But they’ll probably go for unknown actors.
LikeLike
Oh how fun!!! Now I can’t wait for season 2. Oh man, I were 10 years younger – and you know an actress – I totally would have been tempted to try out for this, even if I had no chance in hell. I can’t wait to see who they pick!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Preity’s come back role!!! She could play the younger pretty sister!!!! And Rani without make up as the older difficult one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes please!!! Preity and Rani would be perfect! But heck, if they are looking for a heroine in her late 30s then can definitely audition for the the role! I just assumed the audition would be for women in their 20s. It’s late, I’m half asleep and very delusional, and I really don’t want to work tomorrow, so dreaming of being in a Bridgerton series is so appealing right now.
LikeLike
I think clearly the next step from race blind casting is age blind casting. In which case, Jaya and Rekha!!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people