The Dust Of Bridgerton — Review
Based on Julia Quinn’s obsessively Jane-Austen-inspired nine novels, we as an audience step into a world laced with gossip, love, and historically inaccurate details.
Having audiences and the online world jump from their seats at the news of yet another romantically colourful period drama, Netflix’s 2020 Christmas release set off on a high note. However, it may not have been enough satisfaction to cover all viewers, as the overzealous series that is Bridgerton can be perceived as a cute attempt to outline high-society London, rather than a sweepingly romantic love story. From overplayed themes to the shallow one-liners, saturated costumes, and quite frankly, some controversy in a modern series, we’re not so sure that this was a 2020 release. Granted, some of the artistic involvements are wonderfully intoxicating, creating interest and having it for sure be a visual spectacle. Though this whirlwind historical insight by creator Shonda Rhimes seemed to be a whitewashed teen drama, instead of a maturely topical period piece.
Based on Julia Quinn’s obsessively Jane Austen-inspired nine novels, we as an audience step into a world laced with gossip, love, and historically inaccurate details. Set in 1813 Regency London, Rhimes’ series is a period drama surrounding the esteemed Bridgerton family, and particularly Daphne Bridgerton, the eldest daughter of the four sisters. All surrounding the pursuit and importance of finding a suitor eligible for marriage at that time, Bridgerton is the glossed-over, trivial version of Pride and Prejudice.
Yet there certainly still is wit, charm, enchantment, and change, grabbing our attention. It is these themes that we are known to love, yet rather make Rhimes’ series all the more predictable and repetitive. There is beauty and there are moments to remember throughout, yet all in all, I felt as though I was watching a weak showcase of what a mock Baz Luhrmann and Wes Anderson collaboration that exerted a blinding pastel macaron palette might look like. There isn’t really any distinguishable, first-class authentic directing or writing style. We have all seen it before, which is what makes it so popular. Bridgerton’s successful reception does not seem due to the fact that it is a beautiful show, but because it is something written knowing that audiences will not tire of yet another stylish, skinny period drama. We have seen many renditions of Pride and Prejudice, Emma, and Madame Bovary over the years, making Rhimes’ series simply another period drama that rather latches onto others for inspiration, rather than being a strong standalone piece.
Where Downton Abbey meets Gossip Girl, some might say that this show bursts with fervour, yet it can be deemed as shallow in its character development and attempted strong plots. Some might say that Bridgerton has riveting grandeur, but it was films decades ago that originated it so, as we have already marvelled at the magic of the many renditions of Pride & Prejudice. And sure, there is drama, eroticism, as well as there are whispers in the streets filling the scenes of Rhimes’ take on a royal drama. But to have to create excitement by only overdoing sex and violent scenes like this doesn’t speak too highly of its quality.
And it can be that this is what period dramas are about, yet Bridgerton’s over-embellishment of sex, drugs, and rock & roll sometimes paints it out to be taking the easy way out; a cheaply written series by just landing on what is easily stimulating to audiences. As though you’re at a stand-up, only to have the comedian joke about porn and a night out he might’ve gone on, simply to quickly catch the audience’s attention. It works but does not hold as much substance as a joke with true wit, or in this case, a script with deep quality. The character arcs end quickly, as does the mystery surrounding who the ‘Gossip Girl’-like character Mrs. Whistledown is. There isn’t much glory in the drama as there wasn’t enough of it. Yet, the focus on female empowerment and rather the female gaze was something that gets points for originality and undertaking a modern stance during the Regency period.
Amongst the budding romance, glory, and messy undertone of the series, the art department does deserve a pay raise, as there is no doubt that the costumes, set, and overall work on Bridgerton make it all the more alluring. In saying alluring, it doesn’t necessarily translate as the costumes being convincing. Yet the production and costume design is something that seems to define the esteemed privilege of the characters, as they dress in flashy tulle, silks, and organza. Luxurious gardens, ostentatious palaces, and velvet furnishings tie into the greatly pleasing aesthetics, as we are given the scoop on Bridgerton’s dramas, we also are taken in by their lavish lifestyles. Delicacy after delicacy in the ballroom scenes, as champagne towers flow & rich candles burn. Even in the overplayed sex scenes, velvet carpets and luxurious chaises sit on the backdrop. The combination of bountiful costumes, and turns this show into an elevated treat for the eyes.
However beautiful, it can still be said that the costume & set design was just overpowering & seemed like a parody of other period dramas aristocracy. The sickening yellow-green or floral orange gowns blinded, rather than astounded, as none of the costumes seemed entirely accurate. There are countless YouTube videos on the lack of historical accuracy in the dress. But not only are they inaccurate, they’re just unattractive. The completely saturated colours, ridiculous feathers, and overall lack of style are other elements that make Bridgerton just look like a parody of that period. Yet, cleverly enough, this may have been the point. By creating a romance-drama tale, we step into a fantasy world anyhow, so to change up the costuming can be seen as a good thing, as it does allow us to escape into it. We understand the era, but there is a twist in the aesthetic. If the intention was to accurately represent the time, then it was far from a success. But if it was to create their own take on it, then it was an interesting move.
As much as Bridgerton may have looked beautiful, there were certainly bouts of controversy throughout, showing that it may not have been making the progressive impact that it may have hoped to. Rhimes’ twisted world is created & attempts to include actors from different backgrounds, but it rather plays out as just performative diversity. The only main characters of colour are a light-skinned bi-racial man & a snooty-looking Asian queen.
Obviously and unfortunately historically inaccurate to 1813 London whatsoever, this pursuit to be progressive was admirable, but rather stuck out like a sore thumb & did not blend naturally or seem at all organic. This is because it more so seemed that characters of colour were rather sprinkled in the background with no definitive lines or moments, making even the inclusion of them quite ironic, as it was not fully inclusive, for a show that may have claimed to be diverse. In saying this, of course, along with the blinding costumes and sometimes plastic-like set design, Rhimes had created a fantasy version of 1813 London, yet still was unable to do it justice. Colour and race were a part of Bridgerton, but only comfortably and what is suited to the media.
As stringed instrumentals playing Taylor Swift’s ‘Wildest Dreams’ or Billie Eilish’s ‘Bad Guy’, make a modern take on classical music is made, this change much like the series itself. Whether or not Bridgerton was entirely convincing, it surely still was entertaining amongst all its inaccuracy or shallow writing. As to why it was renewed for three further seasons with Netflix, we are not sure. The fun and pompous nature of the series does grab our eye, but cannot hold it for too long, as we may see ourselves comparing it to any other period drama we previously loved. Shonda Rhimes’ ‘Bridgerton’ succeeded in becoming a household name on Netflix, thoroughly captivating and charming, it is a good teen-based and glossed over period piece. When it comes down to good filmmaking with Rhimes’ adaptation of the sprawling novels that Julia Quinn wrote, it really wasn’t all there.
Stars Out Of Five: 2.5/5
