The Case Against Reparations Through Art
April 30, 2024 12:23 PM Subscribe
You might call this kind of defiantly ahistorical setting the Magical Multiracial Past. The bones of the world are familiar. There is only one change: Every race exists, cheerfully and seemingly as equals, in the same place at the same time. History becomes an emoji, its flesh tone changing as needed.
And yet something is off, something that makes these stories impossible to get lost in. You can never fully envision the Magical Multiracial Past without having to mentally take apart the entire scaffolding of world history. “Bridgerton” is set before Britain abolished slavery, an institution that apparently exists, largely unmentioned, in the world of the show. What, precisely, are the rules of a world in which a Black queen reigns over a British Empire that sanctions the enslavement of Black people? (SLNYT gift link, article by Kabir Chibber)
And yet something is off, something that makes these stories impossible to get lost in. You can never fully envision the Magical Multiracial Past without having to mentally take apart the entire scaffolding of world history. “Bridgerton” is set before Britain abolished slavery, an institution that apparently exists, largely unmentioned, in the world of the show. What, precisely, are the rules of a world in which a Black queen reigns over a British Empire that sanctions the enslavement of Black people? (SLNYT gift link, article by Kabir Chibber)
And yet something is off, something that makes these stories impossible to get lost in.
It’s not the multiracial casting, which personally I think is awesome and plants the seeds of inclusivity for future generation of kids, it’s the horrible set and costume design that has no historical grounding. My husband saw French doors on a supposed English castle and rage quit.
Also, modern morals on supposed historical mores. Either clutch the pearls or admit it’s an mtv show. Change one thing (ie inclusivity) and leave the rest accurate. Otherwise it reads like a tweenager’s daydream.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:31 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
It’s not the multiracial casting, which personally I think is awesome and plants the seeds of inclusivity for future generation of kids, it’s the horrible set and costume design that has no historical grounding. My husband saw French doors on a supposed English castle and rage quit.
Also, modern morals on supposed historical mores. Either clutch the pearls or admit it’s an mtv show. Change one thing (ie inclusivity) and leave the rest accurate. Otherwise it reads like a tweenager’s daydream.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 12:31 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Maybe I have a different perspective because I used to go to live theatre a lot, but colour blind casting has long been a thing there. So I tend to interpret it the same way in TV and movies. In Renegade Nell I just kind of assumed the Earl of Poynton is a white character who happens to be played by a black man.
Just suspend your disbelief.
They don't have bad teeth, they don't torture cats, they don't piss in the corner of the room because they're not real people from the past: they're actors. They wear swords on their backs because a sword swinging from a belt is a continuity nightmare between shots and bangs into every doorframe. Regency gentlewomen have loose hair despite neither being madwomen nor sex workers, because tightly bound hair signifies a tightly wound personality in modern screen language.
It's not real, nothing there is real, so why can't you suspend your damn disbelief about this one little thing when it happens to be the colour of their skin?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:39 PM on April 30 [98 favorites]
Just suspend your disbelief.
They don't have bad teeth, they don't torture cats, they don't piss in the corner of the room because they're not real people from the past: they're actors. They wear swords on their backs because a sword swinging from a belt is a continuity nightmare between shots and bangs into every doorframe. Regency gentlewomen have loose hair despite neither being madwomen nor sex workers, because tightly bound hair signifies a tightly wound personality in modern screen language.
It's not real, nothing there is real, so why can't you suspend your damn disbelief about this one little thing when it happens to be the colour of their skin?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:39 PM on April 30 [98 favorites]
In live theater, the "magical multiracial past" is caused by the simple reality that race-matched casts are not just wrong to pursue, they're just impossible. Especially in musical theater, where if you don't cast African Americans in various parts, you have to settle for mediocre vocal casting (and you have to settle for being a lesser version of the person you an be). For that matter, almost every G&S production I've ever been involved in featured a parent-child casting that was cross-racial.
But so what?
The scripts and stories don't belong to any particular race. Victorian London as a setting belongs to anyone whoever read a novel set there. Yes, that does make it a magical past, but when did art NOT present a magical view of the past?
posted by ocschwar at 12:41 PM on April 30 [15 favorites]
But so what?
The scripts and stories don't belong to any particular race. Victorian London as a setting belongs to anyone whoever read a novel set there. Yes, that does make it a magical past, but when did art NOT present a magical view of the past?
posted by ocschwar at 12:41 PM on April 30 [15 favorites]
What a ludicrous article. "Shows about the imaginary past should be full of white people because history" is not a take I would want my name anywhere near.
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:43 PM on April 30 [11 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 12:43 PM on April 30 [11 favorites]
Props to any Austen riff that bothers to ask where the money comes from, honestly.
posted by Artw at 12:49 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:49 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
I’m still turning over my thoughts on the article but I am completely shocked by there being no mention of Hamilton (despite mentioning AI creating a multicultural version of the founding fathers!) as either an example of the problem central to the thesis or as a foil.
I noted the author had many examples of how historical fiction with POC casts could be done well, but they were all built from the ground up around the experiences of people of color (Blazing Saddles, Dark Star, Moana). The central thesis seemed to be that we can’t just paste POC into stories that were built by and for white people—and, well, whatever my thoughts on that I can’t see how that argument can be made at this point in time without engaging with Hamilton, which is one of the defining examples of the phenomenon. But you would also have to engage with its sociopolitical aims in doing so and I don’t know what that would do to the thesis (as someone who tried very hard not to get involved in Hamilton discourse and didn’t get around to seeing it until a year or two ago). But maybe the author too is trying to repress Miku Binder Thomas Jefferson for which I don’t blame anyone.
posted by brook horse at 1:00 PM on April 30 [13 favorites]
I noted the author had many examples of how historical fiction with POC casts could be done well, but they were all built from the ground up around the experiences of people of color (Blazing Saddles, Dark Star, Moana). The central thesis seemed to be that we can’t just paste POC into stories that were built by and for white people—and, well, whatever my thoughts on that I can’t see how that argument can be made at this point in time without engaging with Hamilton, which is one of the defining examples of the phenomenon. But you would also have to engage with its sociopolitical aims in doing so and I don’t know what that would do to the thesis (as someone who tried very hard not to get involved in Hamilton discourse and didn’t get around to seeing it until a year or two ago). But maybe the author too is trying to repress Miku Binder Thomas Jefferson for which I don’t blame anyone.
posted by brook horse at 1:00 PM on April 30 [13 favorites]
Hamilton doesn’t exactly impress on its treatment of slavery mins - they’re going to mention it until they’re gonna not and the it’s just dropped. Possibly some clever commentary on the history of revolutions but probably not.
posted by Artw at 1:04 PM on April 30
posted by Artw at 1:04 PM on April 30
I’m having a little trouble parsing you as I think autocorrect or typos may have garbled one or two things, but my understanding is that’s the author’s same issue with Bridgerton, is my point.
posted by brook horse at 1:07 PM on April 30
posted by brook horse at 1:07 PM on April 30
Gimme a court drama around Thomas-Alexandre Dumas and his family, FFS! I want real stories of powerful and important actual non-white people in historical 16th-19th C European courts, but trashy and salacious. Why is this hard?
posted by Headfullofair at 1:09 PM on April 30 [23 favorites]
posted by Headfullofair at 1:09 PM on April 30 [23 favorites]
I can only RTFA down to the paywall, but about the Black Queen question, there is a bit of discourse about Queen Charlotte potentially having African ancestry. (CW for quoted historical racial slurs.) The article also mentions Queen Philippa of Hainault. I've also heard similar things about Catherine of Aragon.
But, that question mark over this particular Queen of England makes it easier to make the imaginative leap: "well, supposing she were Black? What then?" and then we hand over to Golda Rosheuvel who herself said:
posted by Pallas Athena at 1:10 PM on April 30 [27 favorites]
But, that question mark over this particular Queen of England makes it easier to make the imaginative leap: "well, supposing she were Black? What then?" and then we hand over to Golda Rosheuvel who herself said:
“I am a dual heritage; my mother was white, English, and my father Black, Guyanese. And all my career, because of the color of my skin, I have played Black roles. Representing my father, I’ve done that. But to represent my mother’s side who is white, that is quite a unique opportunity. I get to be involved in a period drama that I never really saw myself doing because there weren’t any Black people being cast in those roles. So, to get the opportunity to play a Queen, I celebrate that.”So, how the white gaze sees an actor may be very different from how they see themselves.
posted by Pallas Athena at 1:10 PM on April 30 [27 favorites]
I'm conflicted between exactly what this article points out about how it feels weird/off/ignoring reality to do this, and also how sucky it is to be left out of parts because you were born the wrong ethnicity for them, especially when my PoC actor friends have this issue trying to get cast in period pieces--and I note a lot of stage shows are period pieces. Like Bridgerton tries....somehow... to make it plausible and work with the Queen and the Duke, but also has to ignore the whole slavery issue in order to do it, because how do you resolve that?
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:11 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:11 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
Bridgerton tries a bit to address its multi-racial setting. It isn't simply colour-blind casting with black actors playing otherwise white characters -- there's an ongoing sheen of 'the black Queen has made space for a black / brown aristocracy, but it is new and fragile and it could all be taken away from them again if she / they fall out of favour with the long established white aristocracy'. But it is definitely minimal.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:12 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 1:12 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
I feel like we’re not telling the same kinds of stories all the time, so there’s room for different ways to cast them? I mean, if you’re telling a realistic hist fic that’s expressly about the relationship of race or sex to power, I guess you'd cast that pretty strictly. But if you’re telling another kind of story, about wealth or religion or other types of power, there’s no reason not to cast more creatively.
Another issue is that the way we think of race in the US is not universal. Just because someone appears to me to be phenotypically Black, forex, doesn’t mean they consider themselves Black, if they are from a a place where race is codified in some other way. I’m thinking of the Dominican Republic*, but that’s not the only place.
*happy to be corrected — my experience teaching esol to students whose race/ethnicity was described as white Hispanic even though most Americans would visually consider them Black.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:35 PM on April 30 [11 favorites]
Another issue is that the way we think of race in the US is not universal. Just because someone appears to me to be phenotypically Black, forex, doesn’t mean they consider themselves Black, if they are from a a place where race is codified in some other way. I’m thinking of the Dominican Republic*, but that’s not the only place.
*happy to be corrected — my experience teaching esol to students whose race/ethnicity was described as white Hispanic even though most Americans would visually consider them Black.
posted by toodleydoodley at 1:35 PM on April 30 [11 favorites]
Thus have all of us, from around the globe, been retconned into the history of the West. Now we can watch ourselves speak languages we did not speak in rooms where we were unlikely to have been welcome. We are included, but our actual history is erased. We seldom see the stories of nonwhite people who, like my ancestors, lived on their home soil, or the complex stories of nonwhite people in the West in centuries past. The world’s history is reduced from many to one.
I mean, I get the part about erasure. And it feels like it gives (especially white) writers a pass on dealing with the reality of history. It just feels... misleading. And when I think of Victorian England I do think "a shitload of white people."
But as mentioned, there are already a ton of anachronisms. You aren't presenting your protagonists with bad teeth pissing in the corner. It's already a fictionalized take on a place that existed, but it never looked like what you're seeing on the screen anyway. So why should the role of a fictional Queen of England always go to a white person? People aren't watching this for a history lesson. They're watching for entertainment.
For fiction aimed at young people, anachronistic inclusivity seems like an obvious win. You want kids to have the opportunity to see themselves. For adult fiction? Erasure is a valid criticism. Inclusivity might be better tackled by not doing the same Euro-centric settings again and again. But either way, if you're already in that Euro-centric setting: it's fiction. If seeing a multi-racial fictional Victorian England feels "off" maybe that's an opportunity to examine why one thinks that when they don't about chamberpots and hygiene.
The vibe I got from the author was more or less "this is just to let white people feel good about themselves when addressing history in fiction." It's a valid criticism. But I don't think doing a historically-accurate cast is an improvement. Let the Queen of England be Black. How is that worse than magic and laser guns?
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 1:36 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
I mean, I get the part about erasure. And it feels like it gives (especially white) writers a pass on dealing with the reality of history. It just feels... misleading. And when I think of Victorian England I do think "a shitload of white people."
But as mentioned, there are already a ton of anachronisms. You aren't presenting your protagonists with bad teeth pissing in the corner. It's already a fictionalized take on a place that existed, but it never looked like what you're seeing on the screen anyway. So why should the role of a fictional Queen of England always go to a white person? People aren't watching this for a history lesson. They're watching for entertainment.
For fiction aimed at young people, anachronistic inclusivity seems like an obvious win. You want kids to have the opportunity to see themselves. For adult fiction? Erasure is a valid criticism. Inclusivity might be better tackled by not doing the same Euro-centric settings again and again. But either way, if you're already in that Euro-centric setting: it's fiction. If seeing a multi-racial fictional Victorian England feels "off" maybe that's an opportunity to examine why one thinks that when they don't about chamberpots and hygiene.
The vibe I got from the author was more or less "this is just to let white people feel good about themselves when addressing history in fiction." It's a valid criticism. But I don't think doing a historically-accurate cast is an improvement. Let the Queen of England be Black. How is that worse than magic and laser guns?
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 1:36 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
The vibe I got from the author was more or less "this is just to let white people feel good about themselves when addressing history in fiction."
If a casting director pats himself on the back for casting a PoC, then yes, that's an issue. Otherwise, it's just Tuesday.
posted by ocschwar at 1:43 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
Let the Queen of England be Black. How is that worse than magic and laser guns?
as long as the black queen is presented as fantastic, like magic and laser guns, I have no issue. I also have no issue if she's black for purposes that the creative artist is interested in pursuing. I do worry big time if we have a black queen because it satisfies some bureaucratic consensus
posted by philip-random at 1:56 PM on April 30
as long as the black queen is presented as fantastic, like magic and laser guns, I have no issue. I also have no issue if she's black for purposes that the creative artist is interested in pursuing. I do worry big time if we have a black queen because it satisfies some bureaucratic consensus
posted by philip-random at 1:56 PM on April 30
How do you tell the difference between the latter two? Is it just a matter of taste?
posted by sagc at 2:01 PM on April 30
posted by sagc at 2:01 PM on April 30
I also have no issue if she's black for purposes that the creative artist is interested in pursuing.
I am pretty certain that Shonda Rhimes is not bureaucratic box ticking when she casts black actors in her productions.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:02 PM on April 30 [27 favorites]
I am pretty certain that Shonda Rhimes is not bureaucratic box ticking when she casts black actors in her productions.
posted by jacquilynne at 2:02 PM on April 30 [27 favorites]
If seeing a multi-racial fictional Victorian England feels "off" maybe that's an opportunity to examine why one thinks that when they don't about chamberpots and hygiene.
I guess it's the brushing of inconvenient truths about the past/setting under the carpet in a sense? Like yes, they don't piss in chamber pots, but they also don't pretend Lime the hygiene situation was unproblematic and modern as today; characters aren't going to the loo and flushing.
I don't have strong feelings about this "issue" either way, really. I am firmly in favour of more diverse casting, but maybe some kind of acknowledgement or demonstrated awareness of the disconnect between the setting and the portrayal could be a thing? I dunno. But casting a black character and just carrying on like racism wasn't a thing back then feels more like a flushing noise as a character comes into shot buttoning up their britches than it does just not showing the chamber pots?
posted by Dysk at 2:06 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
I guess it's the brushing of inconvenient truths about the past/setting under the carpet in a sense? Like yes, they don't piss in chamber pots, but they also don't pretend Lime the hygiene situation was unproblematic and modern as today; characters aren't going to the loo and flushing.
I don't have strong feelings about this "issue" either way, really. I am firmly in favour of more diverse casting, but maybe some kind of acknowledgement or demonstrated awareness of the disconnect between the setting and the portrayal could be a thing? I dunno. But casting a black character and just carrying on like racism wasn't a thing back then feels more like a flushing noise as a character comes into shot buttoning up their britches than it does just not showing the chamber pots?
posted by Dysk at 2:06 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
If a show wants me to take it seriously, it has to take history seriously. For me, the history is make-or-break. I'll watch a mediocre historic drama, but I won't watch a mediocre ahistoric drama. That's because the best dramas put their characters in situations where the situation influences decisions and actions, while poor dramas contrived situations that suit the bullet point script.
I stopped watching recent show about Emperor Peter of Russia because, while I liked the story, somewhat, it just didn't seem to have much to do with history, and that made the whole setting, and all the work put into it, seem pointless and unfulfilling.
ALL THAT SAID, I also am not very interested in watching a show that is all white. If a period-accurate show about the queen would put POC only in the role of slaves, then maybe I'll go find some fantasy to watch instead.
posted by rebent at 2:06 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
I stopped watching recent show about Emperor Peter of Russia because, while I liked the story, somewhat, it just didn't seem to have much to do with history, and that made the whole setting, and all the work put into it, seem pointless and unfulfilling.
ALL THAT SAID, I also am not very interested in watching a show that is all white. If a period-accurate show about the queen would put POC only in the role of slaves, then maybe I'll go find some fantasy to watch instead.
posted by rebent at 2:06 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
I am completely shocked by there being no mention of Hamilton
Hamilton's also not colorblind casting. It's making a specific point about claiming the Founders' stories, and thus America itself, for non-white Americans. (How successfully, probably too much ink has already been spilled in discussing, but that's the idea.)
As always, it depends on what you're trying to do. Historical romance is already a complete confection of nonsense, I see no reason not to cast hot people of color in the romantic roles. (I'm assuming this person had no issue with Rege Jean-Page's other courtly role, in the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie, where he might as well have been in a romance for how many, ah, awakenings his character probably kicked off in the younger audience.) So with much historical fiction.
But then there are other stories where it doesn't work so well. There's some kind of weird racial imbroglio going on in the latest Guy Ritchie where the Nazis are the Nazis but two separate Nazi officers don't mind a black man squiring a beautiful young white woman around, and also it almost looks like--in not just the scripting but also in costuming and makeup--we're supposed to think both Henry Golding and his character are white? (I'm not completely sure about that last bit, but even if it's just his character, it's a little weird in this context.) There is a point where visuals can start to conflict with narratives. Just ask all the older heavier lady opera singers.
posted by praemunire at 2:09 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Hamilton's also not colorblind casting. It's making a specific point about claiming the Founders' stories, and thus America itself, for non-white Americans. (How successfully, probably too much ink has already been spilled in discussing, but that's the idea.)
As always, it depends on what you're trying to do. Historical romance is already a complete confection of nonsense, I see no reason not to cast hot people of color in the romantic roles. (I'm assuming this person had no issue with Rege Jean-Page's other courtly role, in the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie, where he might as well have been in a romance for how many, ah, awakenings his character probably kicked off in the younger audience.) So with much historical fiction.
But then there are other stories where it doesn't work so well. There's some kind of weird racial imbroglio going on in the latest Guy Ritchie where the Nazis are the Nazis but two separate Nazi officers don't mind a black man squiring a beautiful young white woman around, and also it almost looks like--in not just the scripting but also in costuming and makeup--we're supposed to think both Henry Golding and his character are white? (I'm not completely sure about that last bit, but even if it's just his character, it's a little weird in this context.) There is a point where visuals can start to conflict with narratives. Just ask all the older heavier lady opera singers.
posted by praemunire at 2:09 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
I do worry big time if we have a black queen because it satisfies some bureaucratic consensus
"Big time?"
Really?
posted by praemunire at 2:12 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
"Big time?"
Really?
posted by praemunire at 2:12 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
Is anyone saying that these shows need to be subtitled, so the actors can be forced to use entirely period-appropriate argot? Are casting directors calibrating average height / weight to reflect historically-accurate trajectories of malnutrition? Surely we'll make sure that the condition of their teeth reflects contemporary standards of dental care?
Or is it somehow just racial diversity that comes in for special standards of scrutiny when we bend historical accuracy to make art more appealing / accessible to modern tastes?
posted by rishabguha at 2:14 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
Or is it somehow just racial diversity that comes in for special standards of scrutiny when we bend historical accuracy to make art more appealing / accessible to modern tastes?
posted by rishabguha at 2:14 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
Hamilton's also not colorblind casting.
Right, but neither are many of the examples the author uses—in fact the point seems to be that the casting of people or color is intentional, but in the wrong way or for wrong reasons (to make white people feel better). Analyzing what the right vs wrong reasons are would seem to necessitate some discussion of why one might intentionally cast a character “ahistorically.” But there didn’t really seem to be much acknowledgement of that as a sociopolitical or creative act and or how that plays into the thesis.
posted by brook horse at 2:20 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Right, but neither are many of the examples the author uses—in fact the point seems to be that the casting of people or color is intentional, but in the wrong way or for wrong reasons (to make white people feel better). Analyzing what the right vs wrong reasons are would seem to necessitate some discussion of why one might intentionally cast a character “ahistorically.” But there didn’t really seem to be much acknowledgement of that as a sociopolitical or creative act and or how that plays into the thesis.
posted by brook horse at 2:20 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Or is it somehow just racial diversity that comes in for special standards of scrutiny when we bend historical accuracy to make art more appealing / accessible to modern tastes?
No, it's not just race. As a queer person, I'd bristle at a gay character in a lot of historical settings if the mores around their gayness were just modern feelgood ones, like homophobia was never a thing. It would feel like a lie intended to erase the parts of the setting that might make straight people uncomfortable. Like if you had a 1980s drama with a gay character and everyone was just cool with it without comment and AIDS wasn't a thing, that would be Not Cool.
posted by Dysk at 2:22 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
No, it's not just race. As a queer person, I'd bristle at a gay character in a lot of historical settings if the mores around their gayness were just modern feelgood ones, like homophobia was never a thing. It would feel like a lie intended to erase the parts of the setting that might make straight people uncomfortable. Like if you had a 1980s drama with a gay character and everyone was just cool with it without comment and AIDS wasn't a thing, that would be Not Cool.
posted by Dysk at 2:22 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
I stopped watching recent show about Emperor Peter of Russia
...Are you referring to The Great, with Elle Fanning as Catherine The Great? I don't want to draw any inferences from the fact that you say you watched it, but you just skated right past who the lead character actually is.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:25 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
...Are you referring to The Great, with Elle Fanning as Catherine The Great? I don't want to draw any inferences from the fact that you say you watched it, but you just skated right past who the lead character actually is.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 2:25 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
I am firmly in favour of more diverse casting, but maybe some kind of acknowledgement or demonstrated awareness of the disconnect between the setting and the portrayal could be a thing? I dunno.
Yeah. Similar train of thought that's why I said it felt misleading. I feel like a heavy-handed intro with just text on the screen saying "y'all history was racist AF and this isn't real but anywho..." then carrying on with the show would tick that box. But would do a hilariously poor job of it.
On the one hand, I don't like whitewashing history. On the other hand, all-white casts w/ PoC only seen as servants also seems kind of shitty. Especially to working actors/actresses. I don't really have a good answer to squaring those two points. But it does seem the more I think about it the more it seems weird to think about it. Do the multi-racial casting for fiction unless you go all-in on historical accuracy. Including the grimy parts.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 2:34 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Yeah. Similar train of thought that's why I said it felt misleading. I feel like a heavy-handed intro with just text on the screen saying "y'all history was racist AF and this isn't real but anywho..." then carrying on with the show would tick that box. But would do a hilariously poor job of it.
On the one hand, I don't like whitewashing history. On the other hand, all-white casts w/ PoC only seen as servants also seems kind of shitty. Especially to working actors/actresses. I don't really have a good answer to squaring those two points. But it does seem the more I think about it the more it seems weird to think about it. Do the multi-racial casting for fiction unless you go all-in on historical accuracy. Including the grimy parts.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 2:34 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Found this interview with a theater professor on colorblind casting specifically regarding Bridgerton and felt like it touched on a lot of relevant points (many of which have been raised here)
posted by brook horse at 2:40 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 2:40 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
The anachronisms in Bridgerton are deliberate, by the way; fashion, hair, architecture, but also if you listen closely the orchestras are often playing modern pop songs. It's bubblegum.
I had assumed that race was being ignored in precisely the same way. And while I do get exercised about inaccurate period hair or dress when it's just lazy, I am ok with deliberately saying "nah, let's have fun."
posted by emjaybee at 2:51 PM on April 30 [25 favorites]
I had assumed that race was being ignored in precisely the same way. And while I do get exercised about inaccurate period hair or dress when it's just lazy, I am ok with deliberately saying "nah, let's have fun."
posted by emjaybee at 2:51 PM on April 30 [25 favorites]
In modern terms Blazing Saddles has an extraordinarily white-dominated cast, probably intolerably so. The only reason it’s still watchable in the contemporary era is that the viewpoint about the West is shifted drastically, right into the fourth wall, into a sound stage fistfight, and beyond.
One of its underappreciated small jokes, that I think goes over the heads of people who aren’t aware of the context, is Mel Brooks casting himself as the Yiddish-speaking Native American chief, a reference to decades of directors of Westerns casting Jewish actors as ‘Indians’ for their skin colour and otherness. It’s a sublime silly moment.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 2:53 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
One of its underappreciated small jokes, that I think goes over the heads of people who aren’t aware of the context, is Mel Brooks casting himself as the Yiddish-speaking Native American chief, a reference to decades of directors of Westerns casting Jewish actors as ‘Indians’ for their skin colour and otherness. It’s a sublime silly moment.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 2:53 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
I vaguely recall an article from years ago in which someone at the BBC stated flatly that minor historical "inaccuracies" presented by color blind casting are less destructive to society than perpetuating racial inequity by making everyone white, leaving POC on the outside.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:07 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:07 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
Related: I found, and find, The Death Of Stalin entirely unwatchable. The period details and costumes are right, the casting nails the characters, it’s historically erudite, it has a deep sense of self-parody, and there’s Iannucci and the cast defiantly having fun being English-accented Soviet monsters. The problem is that it’s in such poor taste: it gestures at, but barely scratches the level of monstrosities those men actually were. If it were full pantomime (in the tone of Horrible Histories etc.) it might be funny, but it’s a half-half history-comedy. At some point playing Lavrentiy Beria for laughs, but not shifting the viewpoint enough that he’s not a central character, risks obscuring the kind of loathsome creep he and his kind were.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 3:11 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 3:11 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
I vaguely recall an article from years ago in which someone at the BBC stated flatly that minor historical "inaccuracies" presented by color blind casting are less destructive to society than perpetuating racial inequity by making everyone white, leaving POC on the outside.
This reminds me that one reason the BBC have given in the past as to why posher British actors get more roles than working class British actors is partially because they make so many period dramas, as if there were no working class people in the past.
I only see Bridgerton when my SO is watching it and I'm doing something but I get the impression that working class people are largely absent/whitewashed from the drama. Is that the case?
posted by biffa at 3:28 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
This reminds me that one reason the BBC have given in the past as to why posher British actors get more roles than working class British actors is partially because they make so many period dramas, as if there were no working class people in the past.
I only see Bridgerton when my SO is watching it and I'm doing something but I get the impression that working class people are largely absent/whitewashed from the drama. Is that the case?
posted by biffa at 3:28 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
I will know we’re ready to have a societal conversation about the nuances of this issue once white racists stop being howlingly outraged about it.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:32 PM on April 30 [10 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:32 PM on April 30 [10 favorites]
This reminds me of a discussion I read once on a forum for tabletop roleplaying games about navigating oppressive dynamics in historical or fantastical but based on historical settings. As with this discussion, there was talk about how there's tension between escapist enjoyment/entertainment and accurate education about the histories of oppressive systems. And the main conclusion seemed to be if you're playing something like Dungeons and Dragons and want to be a character who represents you and you're a woman or a queer person or a person of color, well, it's not very fun to have to navigate the actual historical limitations you'd likely face in medieval times when you're aiming to be a badass hero having a fun adventure, battling manticores and finding magic treasures.
I think there's something very similar going on with a lot of newer movies. Like, if what you're wanting is a fun escapist adventure, you want to see people like you in that world (including in the lead roles) without being reminded of the heavy, difficult aspects of reality that you're needing a break from. Personally, I think we need a wide range of movies and stories and that there's room for both grounded, accurate period pieces and escapist adventures.
posted by overglow at 3:34 PM on April 30 [17 favorites]
I think there's something very similar going on with a lot of newer movies. Like, if what you're wanting is a fun escapist adventure, you want to see people like you in that world (including in the lead roles) without being reminded of the heavy, difficult aspects of reality that you're needing a break from. Personally, I think we need a wide range of movies and stories and that there's room for both grounded, accurate period pieces and escapist adventures.
posted by overglow at 3:34 PM on April 30 [17 favorites]
And the main conclusion seemed to be if you're playing something like Dungeons and Dragons and want to be a character who represents you and you're a woman or a queer person or a person of color, well, it's not very fun to have to navigate the actual historical limitations you'd likely face in medieval times
I think the difference for me is that D&D is a fantasy, not historical setting. It is not set in medieval times. It is not set on any actual history. It is a fantastical setting, without real-world historical locations, events, or characters. This entirely fictional world has some kinda of technology equivalent roughly to medieval times in europe, but also has technology we do not possess even now, like magic and shapeshifting. There is no historical reality for how gay people or racialised people were treated by elves, dwarves, or dragonborne, or by humans living alongside them. Escapist fantasies are great! But period historical dramas are kind of inherently not that, because there is a historical reality that actually existed to contend with.
posted by Dysk at 3:53 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
I think the difference for me is that D&D is a fantasy, not historical setting. It is not set in medieval times. It is not set on any actual history. It is a fantastical setting, without real-world historical locations, events, or characters. This entirely fictional world has some kinda of technology equivalent roughly to medieval times in europe, but also has technology we do not possess even now, like magic and shapeshifting. There is no historical reality for how gay people or racialised people were treated by elves, dwarves, or dragonborne, or by humans living alongside them. Escapist fantasies are great! But period historical dramas are kind of inherently not that, because there is a historical reality that actually existed to contend with.
posted by Dysk at 3:53 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
That’s a big part of the idea behind the Society for Creative Anachronism - “history without the bad parts.” People want to nerd out on dress design, not find ways to black out some of their teeth to represent the terrible dental hygiene of the 12th century or what have you.
posted by PussKillian at 3:54 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
posted by PussKillian at 3:54 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
When I encounter this position in the wild, it is usually a white person complaining about historical accuracy. I like to hit them with the blonde Jesus argument: If you are a white person in Iowa in 1950, there's a good chance your Jesus was the Sallman Head of Christ, who had blonde highlights, even if he wasn't exactly blonde, and in any case was not a historically accurate Jesus. Instead, the painting reflected the culture that produced it.
Similarly, if you go back to older depictions of Jesus, they tend to reflect the time and place they were made. Jesus on his cross, sure, but the supporting characters in the paintings all look like 16th century Italians, 17th century French people, or Dutch, or whatever. This is true of historical paintings as well. And you see it in plays too. Shakespeare's historical plays are full of then-modern references and then-modern language.
Colorblind casting exists in the light of that tradition, and while it may have downsides, it's probably fine. I mean, it's hopeful to live in a time where our entertainment is starting to say "hey! anyone can do any role!" right? And it's not like people have stopped doing "historically accurate" casting. There's still plenty of it out there, if that's your specific jam.
posted by surlyben at 4:02 PM on April 30 [9 favorites]
Similarly, if you go back to older depictions of Jesus, they tend to reflect the time and place they were made. Jesus on his cross, sure, but the supporting characters in the paintings all look like 16th century Italians, 17th century French people, or Dutch, or whatever. This is true of historical paintings as well. And you see it in plays too. Shakespeare's historical plays are full of then-modern references and then-modern language.
Colorblind casting exists in the light of that tradition, and while it may have downsides, it's probably fine. I mean, it's hopeful to live in a time where our entertainment is starting to say "hey! anyone can do any role!" right? And it's not like people have stopped doing "historically accurate" casting. There's still plenty of it out there, if that's your specific jam.
posted by surlyben at 4:02 PM on April 30 [9 favorites]
It can also be lazy and sloppy to assume that there couldn't be POC in whatever time period. Vanity Fair is set in roughly the same period as Bridgerton and there is a minor character who is the wealthiest student at the boarding school of the girls and finally ends up marrying a lord. Poor "Miss Swartz" is half-black, half-Jewish. Now, VF is obviously a parody, not a rigorous sociological study (and Thackeray is very racist about her), but clearly a character like her is within Thackeray's imaginative reach.
Generally people were not as rigorously cordoned off in the past as some would have you imagine. There's always trade and usually war to keep populations churning. Look at all the children of Empire who turn up in the Sherlock Holmes stories!
posted by praemunire at 4:05 PM on April 30 [16 favorites]
Generally people were not as rigorously cordoned off in the past as some would have you imagine. There's always trade and usually war to keep populations churning. Look at all the children of Empire who turn up in the Sherlock Holmes stories!
posted by praemunire at 4:05 PM on April 30 [16 favorites]
We Paid a Freelancer to Say a Thing You Like Is Dogshit Because the Google/Facebook Duopoly Ate the Whole Digital Ad Market and Now Harvesting Hate Clicks is the Only Viable Business Model for Online Media
Yeah, don't take this guy's clickbait article too seriously. His last piece from earlier this year talks about how Demolition Man predicted effete Millennials who are incapable and oversensitive: "Some days I feel like I’ve woken up from cryosleep, and am looking around to discover that I’m the only one who misses our previous era of casual cynicism and dubious morality and brilliant jerks."
To state the obvious, the author is a cis man. The kind of man who loves movies about manly man cops and Willy Wonka as long as the main PoC characters are slaves and/or criminals, apparently.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:12 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
Yeah, don't take this guy's clickbait article too seriously. His last piece from earlier this year talks about how Demolition Man predicted effete Millennials who are incapable and oversensitive: "Some days I feel like I’ve woken up from cryosleep, and am looking around to discover that I’m the only one who misses our previous era of casual cynicism and dubious morality and brilliant jerks."
To state the obvious, the author is a cis man. The kind of man who loves movies about manly man cops and Willy Wonka as long as the main PoC characters are slaves and/or criminals, apparently.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:12 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
Mod note: One comment and reply deleted. Let's please do our best to keep this thread derail-free, thanks!
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 4:23 PM on April 30
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 4:23 PM on April 30
It's just another "has political correctness gone too far?" piece from the same media platforms that kept talking about Richard Spencer's dapper suits.
Progressives will continue to drag neoliberals and corporate media, kicking and screaming, into better values and in the end they'll pretend they always held those values.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:27 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Progressives will continue to drag neoliberals and corporate media, kicking and screaming, into better values and in the end they'll pretend they always held those values.
posted by AlSweigart at 4:27 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
The author is a POC if that matters.
posted by caviar2d2 at 4:31 PM on April 30 [5 favorites]
posted by caviar2d2 at 4:31 PM on April 30 [5 favorites]
Escapist fantasies are great! But period historical dramas are kind of inherently not that, because there is a historical reality that actually existed to contend with.
I think there's a good deal of entertainment being made that blurs this line and that something like Bridgerton is closer (in intention, execution, and reception) to Dungeons and Dragons than Sense and Sensibility.
posted by overglow at 4:36 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
I think there's a good deal of entertainment being made that blurs this line and that something like Bridgerton is closer (in intention, execution, and reception) to Dungeons and Dragons than Sense and Sensibility.
posted by overglow at 4:36 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
period historical dramas
Which Bridgerton and Willy Wonka decidedly are not. Historical romance as a genre has had “some period details dressing up modern sensibilities” as the whole point since the beginning, because an actually historically accurate novel would not be romantic in the way readers of the genre are looking for. Escapist fantasy is kind of the whole thing.
posted by brook horse at 4:44 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
Which Bridgerton and Willy Wonka decidedly are not. Historical romance as a genre has had “some period details dressing up modern sensibilities” as the whole point since the beginning, because an actually historically accurate novel would not be romantic in the way readers of the genre are looking for. Escapist fantasy is kind of the whole thing.
posted by brook horse at 4:44 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
It's not necessarily about education so much as realism; one of the better though not perfect educational shows I mentioned before (Horrible Histories) is written by people with a very careful sense of history and research, silliness turned up to 11, and absolutely no sense of realism in casting at all.
You can put a sideways hat on any actor you please, whatever their skin colour or gender or age, tell them to stick their chin out and put a fist inside their coat, and they'll be Napoleon. And there isn't necessarily a relationship between physical characteristics and realism: Joaquin Phoenix looks nothing like the actual historical Napoleon in a purportedly realist biopic, while Volodymyr Zelenskyy, by contrast, resembles the historical figure quite closely, in a totally stupid farce.
But I think Dysk has the key to it above, to mention the 1980s and homophobia and the AIDS epidemic. I can quite easily imagine an escapist fantastical queer show set in the Eighties, with all the excellent music and fashion and culture writers would be able to call upon; but to remove the nasties completely from that era would put it in bad taste. And it's questions of bad and good taste that are really at issue.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:46 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
You can put a sideways hat on any actor you please, whatever their skin colour or gender or age, tell them to stick their chin out and put a fist inside their coat, and they'll be Napoleon. And there isn't necessarily a relationship between physical characteristics and realism: Joaquin Phoenix looks nothing like the actual historical Napoleon in a purportedly realist biopic, while Volodymyr Zelenskyy, by contrast, resembles the historical figure quite closely, in a totally stupid farce.
But I think Dysk has the key to it above, to mention the 1980s and homophobia and the AIDS epidemic. I can quite easily imagine an escapist fantastical queer show set in the Eighties, with all the excellent music and fashion and culture writers would be able to call upon; but to remove the nasties completely from that era would put it in bad taste. And it's questions of bad and good taste that are really at issue.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:46 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
I realize my phrasing implies Willy Wonka is a historical romance and I am within the edit window but I’m leaving it for posterity and hilarity.
posted by brook horse at 4:47 PM on April 30 [17 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 4:47 PM on April 30 [17 favorites]
His last piece from earlier this year talks about how Demolition Man predicted effete Millennials who are incapable and oversensitive
Man, that is a blast from the past. Takes me right back. Only 90s kids remember, amiright? Can't wait for him to find out about the Tiger King craze.
posted by stet at 4:47 PM on April 30
Man, that is a blast from the past. Takes me right back. Only 90s kids remember, amiright? Can't wait for him to find out about the Tiger King craze.
posted by stet at 4:47 PM on April 30
I agree it's a real miss not to try and address Hamilton in this piece (that I mostly disagree with)
I will say that Hamilton really did something profound with its casting. I realized it when I was wikipediaing around and came across Hercules Mulligan and had a moment of "that picture can't be right, he's black!" Taking such a foundational story and putting it on with POC did reclaim something and shifted my internal representation of the founding fathers.
posted by macrael at 4:57 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
I will say that Hamilton really did something profound with its casting. I realized it when I was wikipediaing around and came across Hercules Mulligan and had a moment of "that picture can't be right, he's black!" Taking such a foundational story and putting it on with POC did reclaim something and shifted my internal representation of the founding fathers.
posted by macrael at 4:57 PM on April 30 [6 favorites]
Which Bridgerton and Willy Wonka decidedly are not. Historical romance as a genre has had “some period details dressing up modern sensibilities” as the whole point since the beginning, because an actually historically accurate novel would not be romantic in the way readers of the genre are looking for. Escapist fantasy is kind of the whole thing.
The genre is bit trying to be a documentary, aye, but Bridgerton is explicitly set in a real place and time, not fictional ones. Playing fast and loose with realism is one thing when it concerns relatively harmless details, another when it's whitewashing the attitudes and realities of the era with respect to inequalities and bigotries that society struggles with to this day.
It's historically inaccurate for e.g. The Sound of Music to you know, be a musical, and pretty much everything else about it. But it can't and doesn't ignore Nazis in its setting nevertheless, because that is not a harmless detail.
posted by Dysk at 5:12 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
The genre is bit trying to be a documentary, aye, but Bridgerton is explicitly set in a real place and time, not fictional ones. Playing fast and loose with realism is one thing when it concerns relatively harmless details, another when it's whitewashing the attitudes and realities of the era with respect to inequalities and bigotries that society struggles with to this day.
It's historically inaccurate for e.g. The Sound of Music to you know, be a musical, and pretty much everything else about it. But it can't and doesn't ignore Nazis in its setting nevertheless, because that is not a harmless detail.
posted by Dysk at 5:12 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
Personally I like the mixed-up casting. If nothing else, it gives roles to amazing actors who otherwise get stuck playing Terrorist #3 or The Maid. I bounced off of Bridgerton for other reasons, but loved the casting.
However, this: They don't have bad teeth,
I can never stop noticing this. Every so often there is a show or movie that puts in the effort to dress people up with yellow/irregular teeth, but 99 times out of a hundred it is all gleaming, orthodontia-fixed smiles from wall to wall. It's a really small thing, but for whatever reason it bugs me every time.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:14 PM on April 30 [9 favorites]
However, this: They don't have bad teeth,
I can never stop noticing this. Every so often there is a show or movie that puts in the effort to dress people up with yellow/irregular teeth, but 99 times out of a hundred it is all gleaming, orthodontia-fixed smiles from wall to wall. It's a really small thing, but for whatever reason it bugs me every time.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:14 PM on April 30 [9 favorites]
I think it can be difficult to ignore big logic problems about race in historical dramas and fiction precisely because race looms so large in modern history (whereas you can ignore logic problems about argot or toilets or whatever because they don't). How does it work that slavery exists and there's a Black queen and a Black aristocracy? That itches at me, frankly, because slavery was a monstrous evil and not something we can just agree not to mention in the interests of pretty dresses. So much of the fantasy that exists around Regency drama in particular is propped up on literal Caribbean sugar plantation slavery of the most horrifying and deadly kind; it's hard for me to imagine a wealthy Regency aristocracy that doesn't get their money from working people to death growing sugar cane. I'd much rather some lampshaded stuff about how slavery didn't exist and yet for Reasons modern fashions and and states did come into being, just so that it wouldn't unsettle me, and indeed whenever I seek out or daydream up stuff like this I always find/create some kind of "this may not be a true utopia but slavery and Native genocide didn't happen because of Alternate History" backstory.
Wonka, on the other hand, is just pretty much pure light-hearted good-triumphs-alongside-fun storytelling and there's no real reason not to have imaginary utopia if you can make it at all internally consistent.
posted by Frowner at 5:28 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
Wonka, on the other hand, is just pretty much pure light-hearted good-triumphs-alongside-fun storytelling and there's no real reason not to have imaginary utopia if you can make it at all internally consistent.
posted by Frowner at 5:28 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
Playing fast and loose with realism is one thing when it concerns relatively harmless details, another when it's whitewashing the attitudes and realities of the era with respect to inequalities and bigotries that society struggles with to this day.
If this is your position then you just fundamentally disagree with the genre as a whole—which is fine, but in which case Bridgerton is no different from any other historical romance. The entire genre is predicated on some level on painting over the realities of the era regarding the role and treatment of women. A historical fiction novel which portrays the romantic relationship between a man and a woman is not the same as a historical romance novel which does the same. Even though the roles and rights of women may often be acknowledged as part of the broader setting, in order to stay within the conventions of the genre the reader/viewer must suspend that acknowledgement when it comes to the relationship between the main characters. Otherwise the fundamental “narrative beats” expected of a romance novel do not work.
The elision may be more literally visible when people of color are involved, but it is a fundamental part of the genre to treat history in the way you’re describing. And if you think that’s in bad taste you’re totally allowed to! But again, there’s nothing unique about Bridgerton in that sense—this is how the historical romance genre functions and the settings are very much considered to be as fictional as Hobbiton despite sharing names and details with real places.
This may be more apparent to people who consume historical romance regularly; those outside of it don’t see much difference between historical fiction with a romance versus historical romance. But they are very distinct genres and in fact a historical romance has a lot more in common with Willy Wonka than it does a period drama.
posted by brook horse at 5:34 PM on April 30 [13 favorites]
If this is your position then you just fundamentally disagree with the genre as a whole—which is fine, but in which case Bridgerton is no different from any other historical romance. The entire genre is predicated on some level on painting over the realities of the era regarding the role and treatment of women. A historical fiction novel which portrays the romantic relationship between a man and a woman is not the same as a historical romance novel which does the same. Even though the roles and rights of women may often be acknowledged as part of the broader setting, in order to stay within the conventions of the genre the reader/viewer must suspend that acknowledgement when it comes to the relationship between the main characters. Otherwise the fundamental “narrative beats” expected of a romance novel do not work.
The elision may be more literally visible when people of color are involved, but it is a fundamental part of the genre to treat history in the way you’re describing. And if you think that’s in bad taste you’re totally allowed to! But again, there’s nothing unique about Bridgerton in that sense—this is how the historical romance genre functions and the settings are very much considered to be as fictional as Hobbiton despite sharing names and details with real places.
This may be more apparent to people who consume historical romance regularly; those outside of it don’t see much difference between historical fiction with a romance versus historical romance. But they are very distinct genres and in fact a historical romance has a lot more in common with Willy Wonka than it does a period drama.
posted by brook horse at 5:34 PM on April 30 [13 favorites]
Also sometimes contemporaneity catches up with fiction. When it was first in theatres Gone With The Wind was praised both as realistic historical fiction, and a compelling historical romance. Nowadays we recognise it properly as a very well-produced set of grotesque lies about American history. Most of all, it comes across to a modern viewer as being in bad taste.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:42 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:42 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
Yes, this is clarifying for me: we're talking about questions of genre and judgments about good and bad taste in art.
Personally, I love surrealism and magic realism and fabulism (as well as more clearly non-realistic genres such as fantasy and science fiction). I would honestly love an escapist queer fantasy set in the 1980s that didn't focus on AIDS. I say this as a queer person who has friends and ex-lovers who are HIV positive, by the way. I think there's many interesting artistic and political statements that queer creators might be expressing through such a piece and that it's narrow-minded and boring to insist that the only valid way to respond to histories of oppression is fervent devotion to accuracy.
posted by overglow at 6:11 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
Personally, I love surrealism and magic realism and fabulism (as well as more clearly non-realistic genres such as fantasy and science fiction). I would honestly love an escapist queer fantasy set in the 1980s that didn't focus on AIDS. I say this as a queer person who has friends and ex-lovers who are HIV positive, by the way. I think there's many interesting artistic and political statements that queer creators might be expressing through such a piece and that it's narrow-minded and boring to insist that the only valid way to respond to histories of oppression is fervent devotion to accuracy.
posted by overglow at 6:11 PM on April 30 [8 favorites]
I can quite easily imagine an escapist fantastical queer show set in the Eighties, with all the excellent music and fashion and culture writers would be able to call upon; but to remove the nasties completely from that era would put it in bad taste.
Taylor Mac's Bark of Millions is this ramped up to 1000 and it has a multi ethnic cast.
posted by creatrixtiara at 6:23 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
Taylor Mac's Bark of Millions is this ramped up to 1000 and it has a multi ethnic cast.
posted by creatrixtiara at 6:23 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: Trashy and salacious. Why is this hard?
posted by otherchaz at 6:23 PM on April 30 [5 favorites]
posted by otherchaz at 6:23 PM on April 30 [5 favorites]
Regency drama in particular is propped up on literal Caribbean sugar plantation slavery of the most horrifying and deadly kind; it's hard for me to imagine a wealthy Regency aristocracy that doesn't get their money from working people to death growing sugar cane
I genuinely hate to say this, but it's not at all hard for me to imagine a wealthy Regency aristocracy with black members that gets its money from working people to death growing sugar cane. Nothing specific to English black people there, though. There is always some finer "distinction" people can invent when it comes to explaining why they're superior to that class of people over there.
posted by praemunire at 6:25 PM on April 30 [15 favorites]
I genuinely hate to say this, but it's not at all hard for me to imagine a wealthy Regency aristocracy with black members that gets its money from working people to death growing sugar cane. Nothing specific to English black people there, though. There is always some finer "distinction" people can invent when it comes to explaining why they're superior to that class of people over there.
posted by praemunire at 6:25 PM on April 30 [15 favorites]
How does it work that slavery exists and there's a Black queen and a Black aristocracy?
I came up with a whole involuntary retcon in which Empire and slavery reinforced existing class distinctions in each country instead. East India Company’s generals a bit worse, the princely states a bit better, handle the Barbary Coast differently… it seems impossible now but there really are memoirs and novels from 1750-1810ish? in which parts of England thought that was how it would go.
Wouldn’t necessarily be nicer.
posted by clew at 6:28 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
I came up with a whole involuntary retcon in which Empire and slavery reinforced existing class distinctions in each country instead. East India Company’s generals a bit worse, the princely states a bit better, handle the Barbary Coast differently… it seems impossible now but there really are memoirs and novels from 1750-1810ish? in which parts of England thought that was how it would go.
Wouldn’t necessarily be nicer.
posted by clew at 6:28 PM on April 30 [1 favorite]
I've seen the similar discussion around queer and trans fiction (and fanfiction) a fair amount. For some people, stories (especially historical ones) in an escapist mode that don't address the problems feel like whitewashing and a kind of a betrayal. For these people, fiction which engages with the realities can be cathartic, or informative, or the "responsible" option, etc.
For other people, that escapist mode of writing is aspirational and offers a respite from dealing with those issues in their real lives. Realistic fiction can re-enforce the traumas of their lives instead of offering catharsis.
Both viewpoints are valid, and the only real problem is when someone tries to insistent that all fiction should be on one side or the other. But to be honest, I think that usually is coming from the side that doesn't like the escapist stories.
It's a really good thing that both kinds of stories exist! Because different people need different things at different times in their lives, and have different relationships with fiction. That's okay! You're allowed to not like a mode of storytelling that other people are into. It doesn't mean the people who do like that mode of storytelling are wrong for liking it.
The relationship between that and people of the dominant group, who don't share the oppression in question, is a complicated one, and that's the angle that the linked article is coming at it from. And of course, the issue of casting versus just talking about written fiction adds another layer of complexity. But regardless of how you feel about *that*, I think it's still wrong to say "and therefore this type of storytelling is bad".
posted by vibratory manner of working at 6:33 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
For other people, that escapist mode of writing is aspirational and offers a respite from dealing with those issues in their real lives. Realistic fiction can re-enforce the traumas of their lives instead of offering catharsis.
Both viewpoints are valid, and the only real problem is when someone tries to insistent that all fiction should be on one side or the other. But to be honest, I think that usually is coming from the side that doesn't like the escapist stories.
It's a really good thing that both kinds of stories exist! Because different people need different things at different times in their lives, and have different relationships with fiction. That's okay! You're allowed to not like a mode of storytelling that other people are into. It doesn't mean the people who do like that mode of storytelling are wrong for liking it.
The relationship between that and people of the dominant group, who don't share the oppression in question, is a complicated one, and that's the angle that the linked article is coming at it from. And of course, the issue of casting versus just talking about written fiction adds another layer of complexity. But regardless of how you feel about *that*, I think it's still wrong to say "and therefore this type of storytelling is bad".
posted by vibratory manner of working at 6:33 PM on April 30 [12 favorites]
Sooooooo... what's the theory of change here? Where are we trying to get to and what are the steps on the way there?
One goal I see in this thread: clear-eyed recognition of historical inequities, not shying away from the Ugly Stuff in portrayals that purport to be historical. Okay. Legit.
Another: A more equitable shake for performers of color, queer performers, etc. Okay. Legit.
A third: Broader representation in the performance arts, along several axes, for the reason just stated above and also so more people can see themselves in mainstream (and non-mainstream) culture AND ALSO in hopes of getting people to maybe check their assumptions, about history and about "realism." (I saw the local opera-company production of Candide last weekend. The performer in the title role is a POC. And he was absolutely fucking phenomenal and he is now the definitive Candide in my head, sorry Jerry Hadley you've been dethroned... and gosh, wow, yeah, I am thinking some thoughts about both Voltaire and Bernstein that I might not have if I hadn't seen that show with him in it.) Okay. Legit.
I don't know how to build a theory of change -- a stepwise model of how to get to any of these goals from where we presently are -- without some intermediate steps that look kinda like Hamilton and Bridgerton. Maybe you do? I'd love to hear, if so. But progress looks really cringey sometimes. I don't love that, and I certainly don't want us to ignore or rationalize away the cringe! (Which, to MeFi's credit, I don't think this thread is doing.)
I do want to not force the perfect to be the enemy of the, um, better-than-what-went-before-it. If that makes any sense at all.
posted by humbug at 7:10 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
One goal I see in this thread: clear-eyed recognition of historical inequities, not shying away from the Ugly Stuff in portrayals that purport to be historical. Okay. Legit.
Another: A more equitable shake for performers of color, queer performers, etc. Okay. Legit.
A third: Broader representation in the performance arts, along several axes, for the reason just stated above and also so more people can see themselves in mainstream (and non-mainstream) culture AND ALSO in hopes of getting people to maybe check their assumptions, about history and about "realism." (I saw the local opera-company production of Candide last weekend. The performer in the title role is a POC. And he was absolutely fucking phenomenal and he is now the definitive Candide in my head, sorry Jerry Hadley you've been dethroned... and gosh, wow, yeah, I am thinking some thoughts about both Voltaire and Bernstein that I might not have if I hadn't seen that show with him in it.) Okay. Legit.
I don't know how to build a theory of change -- a stepwise model of how to get to any of these goals from where we presently are -- without some intermediate steps that look kinda like Hamilton and Bridgerton. Maybe you do? I'd love to hear, if so. But progress looks really cringey sometimes. I don't love that, and I certainly don't want us to ignore or rationalize away the cringe! (Which, to MeFi's credit, I don't think this thread is doing.)
I do want to not force the perfect to be the enemy of the, um, better-than-what-went-before-it. If that makes any sense at all.
posted by humbug at 7:10 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]
I think the answer is more shows and films with different angles on issues (race, specifically, for Bridgerton, but someone mentioned the 80s and queer rep, which is analogous, and also for me, personally, sexism/gender discrimination) so folks who want their fantasy representation without some or all of the horrors of actual history get some of what they want and the folks who want the more realistic representation get what they want.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:22 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:22 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
The author doesn't say they want all-white casting, they say they want a bigger canon that includes stories about more people, especially stories about non-white people. I don't see many comments here actively engaging with that, but I do see a lot of fighting against stands the author doesn't seem to be taking.
I think the primary point is that if your are primarily making shows about white Europeans then you're not representing POC stories in your historical fiction, even if you let non-white actors play white people.
The bit about being present but erased is the key problem I think, and no amount of talk about how we collectively don't seem to mind non-historical hair and costumes changes that.
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:43 PM on April 30 [20 favorites]
I think the primary point is that if your are primarily making shows about white Europeans then you're not representing POC stories in your historical fiction, even if you let non-white actors play white people.
The bit about being present but erased is the key problem I think, and no amount of talk about how we collectively don't seem to mind non-historical hair and costumes changes that.
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:43 PM on April 30 [20 favorites]
Uff da. Yeah. An extreme example being Patricia Wrede's Thirteenth Child (which, if you haven't read it, I don't recommend it and triply don't recommend buying it -- get it secondhand or from the library if you're morbidly curious), a young-adult-oriented fantasy that posits as part of its worldbuilding that, um, what we presently call First Nations in the Americas simply never actually existed.
Even in fantasy that one was WAY over my personal line for the level of erasure (and handwaving erasure) I will tolerate, which is why I put it down without finishing it (it was my sister's copy) and don't recommend it.
posted by humbug at 8:32 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
Even in fantasy that one was WAY over my personal line for the level of erasure (and handwaving erasure) I will tolerate, which is why I put it down without finishing it (it was my sister's copy) and don't recommend it.
posted by humbug at 8:32 PM on April 30 [2 favorites]
I guess the truth is that the proportion of people who want historical fiction to engage pretty substantively with actual history is maybe not very large. But I'm certainly one of those people, and I've had similar thoughts to this author about the kind of entertainment he describes: It erases the actual, complicated, often harsh reality of history, and replaces it with something superficially virtuous that's a feelgood illusion.
I'm not saying that I think no shows or movies with huge anachronisms in casting should exist at all. I just personally don't find it very interesting to watch a "historical" piece that's really just depicting an (idealized) present with different set dressing.
I'd usually rather experience something that feels more like an encounter with the actual past, with all its strangeness, problems, and rough edges. And yes, I know every movie and show set in historical times inevitably will contain some anachronisms.
But it's good to be reminded that people in other eras thought about things differently, and had different morals and norms and blind spots. One of the lessons we can learn from this is: We've come a long way. But another is: We should maybe question our own morals and norms and blind spots.
Does more historically accurate filmed content contribute to the project of fixing racism? Well, it may not contribute to providing a full range of desirable employment opportunities for certain actors. But it might teach people things about racism and its history that need to be taught.
It would be one thing if most people were acquiring much of a solid grasp of actual history by other means, I guess. But I doubt they are. We now have politicians banning textbooks and courses that teach facts about historical racism that might make white students uncomfortable.
And that gets at what I think the unspoken reason is that historical racism isn't being depicted more fully in a lot of historical entertainment: It would show white people being monstrous. And you know who that would upset? White people.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:40 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
I'm not saying that I think no shows or movies with huge anachronisms in casting should exist at all. I just personally don't find it very interesting to watch a "historical" piece that's really just depicting an (idealized) present with different set dressing.
I'd usually rather experience something that feels more like an encounter with the actual past, with all its strangeness, problems, and rough edges. And yes, I know every movie and show set in historical times inevitably will contain some anachronisms.
But it's good to be reminded that people in other eras thought about things differently, and had different morals and norms and blind spots. One of the lessons we can learn from this is: We've come a long way. But another is: We should maybe question our own morals and norms and blind spots.
Does more historically accurate filmed content contribute to the project of fixing racism? Well, it may not contribute to providing a full range of desirable employment opportunities for certain actors. But it might teach people things about racism and its history that need to be taught.
It would be one thing if most people were acquiring much of a solid grasp of actual history by other means, I guess. But I doubt they are. We now have politicians banning textbooks and courses that teach facts about historical racism that might make white students uncomfortable.
And that gets at what I think the unspoken reason is that historical racism isn't being depicted more fully in a lot of historical entertainment: It would show white people being monstrous. And you know who that would upset? White people.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:40 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
10 years ago there was this incident that I think is most pertinent here.
It was right after the crackdown on Occupy, and demonstrators, almost all black, entered the audience at an opera performance in St. Louis at intermission, lined up in the front of the balcony, and sang "Who's Side Are You On?"
There's video of that moment. Down below, in the front row, formal-dressed octogenarian opera fans looking up at the demonstrators. For that moment, they had just been abducted and taken into 19th century Italy, that time when opera was the venue for this kind of political confrontation, and there was no mistaking their reaction. History didn't repeat, it just rhymed, and they were thrilled by it.
posted by ocschwar at 8:58 PM on April 30 [5 favorites]
It was right after the crackdown on Occupy, and demonstrators, almost all black, entered the audience at an opera performance in St. Louis at intermission, lined up in the front of the balcony, and sang "Who's Side Are You On?"
There's video of that moment. Down below, in the front row, formal-dressed octogenarian opera fans looking up at the demonstrators. For that moment, they had just been abducted and taken into 19th century Italy, that time when opera was the venue for this kind of political confrontation, and there was no mistaking their reaction. History didn't repeat, it just rhymed, and they were thrilled by it.
posted by ocschwar at 8:58 PM on April 30 [5 favorites]
I haven't read through all of it, but I recall The Public Medievalist had a good anti-racist corrective to some of this a few years back.
The Newberry also had a series about people of color being well-integrated into the fabric of europe for the better part of a millennium.
None of this should be surprising, of course; Africans have been in England since the Romans.
I think this is maybe the obverse of The Tiffany Problem –– the name Tiffany actually dates back to the 12th century, but if a writer used it in a show about medieval times, it would break the audience's suspension of belief despite being true.
The solution of course is anti-racism and proper historical education.
posted by reclusive_thousandaire at 9:00 PM on April 30 [11 favorites]
The Newberry also had a series about people of color being well-integrated into the fabric of europe for the better part of a millennium.
None of this should be surprising, of course; Africans have been in England since the Romans.
I think this is maybe the obverse of The Tiffany Problem –– the name Tiffany actually dates back to the 12th century, but if a writer used it in a show about medieval times, it would break the audience's suspension of belief despite being true.
The solution of course is anti-racism and proper historical education.
posted by reclusive_thousandaire at 9:00 PM on April 30 [11 favorites]
This may be more apparent to people who consume historical romance regularly; those outside of it don’t see much difference between historical fiction with a romance versus historical romance. But they are very distinct genres and in fact a historical romance has a lot more in common with Willy Wonka than it does a period drama.
This may be me splitting hairs, but I'd call that a romance, not a historical romance. The "historical" bit to me would entail not ignoring all of that stuff. If you subsume and erase all of the 'historical' in favour of the 'romance' genre conventions, it's just a romance. There's nothing historical about it, it's just a fantastical setting with some aesthetics of historical.
posted by Dysk at 10:10 PM on April 30
This may be me splitting hairs, but I'd call that a romance, not a historical romance. The "historical" bit to me would entail not ignoring all of that stuff. If you subsume and erase all of the 'historical' in favour of the 'romance' genre conventions, it's just a romance. There's nothing historical about it, it's just a fantastical setting with some aesthetics of historical.
posted by Dysk at 10:10 PM on April 30
I would honestly love an escapist queer fantasy set in the 1980s that didn't focus on AIDS.
Sure, but there's a difference between not focusing on it, and just erasing it entirely, pretending it wasn't a thing at all.
posted by Dysk at 10:13 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
Sure, but there's a difference between not focusing on it, and just erasing it entirely, pretending it wasn't a thing at all.
posted by Dysk at 10:13 PM on April 30 [3 favorites]
Dysk, this is probably about words being used just as words, and also as labels with specific meanings to a group of people.
There's a difference (in fiction) between romance and Romance, right? Small r romance is a broad term for love relationships in a story. Big R Romance is a genre with specific tropes and conventions (eg there must be certain narrative beats like The Misunderstanding Between The Couple a happy ending). In the same way, Historical Romance (the genre) isn't just romance set in the past. It's a very specific set of genre conventions and reader expectations.
To what extent is this conversation the difference between stories being ["how things should be" or "how things actually were"] vs stories can also be ["let's see what happens if we set up this situation"] ?
posted by Zumbador at 10:37 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
There's a difference (in fiction) between romance and Romance, right? Small r romance is a broad term for love relationships in a story. Big R Romance is a genre with specific tropes and conventions (eg there must be certain narrative beats like The Misunderstanding Between The Couple a happy ending). In the same way, Historical Romance (the genre) isn't just romance set in the past. It's a very specific set of genre conventions and reader expectations.
To what extent is this conversation the difference between stories being ["how things should be" or "how things actually were"] vs stories can also be ["let's see what happens if we set up this situation"] ?
posted by Zumbador at 10:37 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
Bridgerton is intended to be a historical AU.
Please don't interpret me bringing this up as me arguing for or against it; it's just information that seemed to be missing in this discussion.
But what I am arguing for, while I'm here, is reading Black and British by David Olusoga if the subject interests you and you haven't already.
posted by verbminx at 10:43 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
Please don't interpret me bringing this up as me arguing for or against it; it's just information that seemed to be missing in this discussion.
But what I am arguing for, while I'm here, is reading Black and British by David Olusoga if the subject interests you and you haven't already.
posted by verbminx at 10:43 PM on April 30 [7 favorites]
If the fact that the wealth of the English gentry since the early modern period was derived from chattel slavery and colonial enterprise is something that needs to be reckoned with in all media glorifying the English gentry, then it’s something that should be reckoned with in all productions whether the cast is entirely white or not. If there is a responsibility of artists working in the period genre to address the issue, I don’t see that it falls more on Shonda Rhimes than whoever is doing the next all-white Bronte adaptation.
posted by chiquitita at 2:37 AM on May 1 [11 favorites]
posted by chiquitita at 2:37 AM on May 1 [11 favorites]
Bridgerton is explicitly set in a real place and time, not fictional ones.
No, it's not. Bridgerton is set in an alternate history where things happened differently.
Creators are allowed to do this. They are also allowed to do it and not be explicit about it, and let the reader/viewer have to figure it out for themselves. Indeed, some of the very best speculative fiction is never explicit about the events that led up to the world existing as it does in the story. You have to figure it out from clues in the background, or from the odd throwaway remark, whilst the story itself is about something completely different.
In Bridgerton's case, the story is a trashy romance, and a stupendously good one, with levels of smouldering not seen on TV since the BBC's Pride and Prejudice.
Some of the alternate-historical backstory is shown more explicitly in the spinoff prequel show about Queen Charlotte, but that too leaves a lot of questions open.
Which is absolutely fine. It is not necessary for a piece of media to explain and justify every detail about itself.
posted by automatronic at 5:14 AM on May 1 [9 favorites]
No, it's not. Bridgerton is set in an alternate history where things happened differently.
Creators are allowed to do this. They are also allowed to do it and not be explicit about it, and let the reader/viewer have to figure it out for themselves. Indeed, some of the very best speculative fiction is never explicit about the events that led up to the world existing as it does in the story. You have to figure it out from clues in the background, or from the odd throwaway remark, whilst the story itself is about something completely different.
In Bridgerton's case, the story is a trashy romance, and a stupendously good one, with levels of smouldering not seen on TV since the BBC's Pride and Prejudice.
Some of the alternate-historical backstory is shown more explicitly in the spinoff prequel show about Queen Charlotte, but that too leaves a lot of questions open.
Which is absolutely fine. It is not necessary for a piece of media to explain and justify every detail about itself.
posted by automatronic at 5:14 AM on May 1 [9 favorites]
Some of this is just how much you are willing to engage with escapist fluff. Because if you are willing to engage, then I'm guessing you won't object to Black creators also enjoying engaging in it too (or at least exercising the opportunity to take my money and boost their careers.)
I approach race relations in Bridgerton is a lot like time travel in Star Trek: It signals the genre, I will go along with it, I'm willing to talk about if you want, I may agree there are some levels it doesn't make sense. But if anything it improves the show: It signals the genre, and in the case of Bridgerton immediately establishes we're in an alt history and also tells me to shut off the part of my brain that might get upset by unrealistic gender roles or many other anachronisms.
I don't dislike the article. It's fine to have a different view of what you want from art, and even to assert that view in prescriptive formats. I can find the view interesting and also not buy into it.
Even if I disagree with the strong claim, there's a line. Any mention of Irish land in an English upper class milieu gets the side eye from me. And I'd be really offended if you tried Bridgerton, but used the motifs of the antebellum South instead of Regency era England. But I also like genre fiction and light comedy, and I'm not going to automatically nope out because a modern romantic comedy doesn't engage in the questions of wealth inequality.
posted by mark k at 7:31 AM on May 1 [4 favorites]
And yet something is off, something that makes these stories impossible to get lost in. You can never fully envision the Magical Multiracial Past without having to mentally take apart the entire scaffolding of world history.The counterpoint is I can indeed get lost in this type of fluff, and I don't have to mentally take apart the scaffolding.
I approach race relations in Bridgerton is a lot like time travel in Star Trek: It signals the genre, I will go along with it, I'm willing to talk about if you want, I may agree there are some levels it doesn't make sense. But if anything it improves the show: It signals the genre, and in the case of Bridgerton immediately establishes we're in an alt history and also tells me to shut off the part of my brain that might get upset by unrealistic gender roles or many other anachronisms.
I don't dislike the article. It's fine to have a different view of what you want from art, and even to assert that view in prescriptive formats. I can find the view interesting and also not buy into it.
Even if I disagree with the strong claim, there's a line. Any mention of Irish land in an English upper class milieu gets the side eye from me. And I'd be really offended if you tried Bridgerton, but used the motifs of the antebellum South instead of Regency era England. But I also like genre fiction and light comedy, and I'm not going to automatically nope out because a modern romantic comedy doesn't engage in the questions of wealth inequality.
posted by mark k at 7:31 AM on May 1 [4 favorites]
One of my dear friends is a champion level cosplayer and a huge nerd for Bridgerton and is Black. She flew to Paris last year for a ball themed after the show held at the Palace of Versailles. Were she not a private person, I'd share the stunning purple dress she made by hand and wore to the event, because you would die.
I am confident that even given the inclusiveness of the show and its fandom that she experiences enough racism.
Like, no additional racism needed. She can dress up in period attire and she's still all set. Promise.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:35 AM on May 1 [12 favorites]
I am confident that even given the inclusiveness of the show and its fandom that she experiences enough racism.
Like, no additional racism needed. She can dress up in period attire and she's still all set. Promise.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:35 AM on May 1 [12 favorites]
I don't have a NY Times account so can't read the article. Does the author talk about Sanditon at all? It's sort of unique in that it has Black characters but the series doesn't approach it ahistorically at all, it is in fact central to the later seasons. I think the first season was considered "Bridgerton but PBS" but the later seasons worked in the "Black heiress living in a world with slavery" story.
Recaps in case people are curious. Probably spoilers there.
posted by fiercekitten at 8:07 AM on May 1 [2 favorites]
Recaps in case people are curious. Probably spoilers there.
posted by fiercekitten at 8:07 AM on May 1 [2 favorites]
This may be me splitting hairs, but I'd call that a romance, not a historical romance. The "historical" bit to me would entail not ignoring all of that stuff. If you subsume and erase all of the 'historical' in favour of the 'romance' genre conventions, it's just a romance. There's nothing historical about it, it's just a fantastical setting with some aesthetics of historical.
I too would like to define and control many genre terms differently but alas that is not a power given to me. The description you’re giving is what a historical romance is and had been since the beginning of the usage of the term—see the Wikipedia page on historical romance that I linked above. This is similar in construct to the genre terms fantasy romance or supernatural romance, by the way—which are different from a fantasy novel with romance or supernatural fiction with romance.
What you are looking for might be described as a romantic historical fiction, or historical fiction with romance, but I admit I haven’t seen either of those terms used in the wild. But I’m also not really involved in the historical fiction genre much so I don’t know their conventions for describing subgenres within the historical fiction genre.
posted by brook horse at 8:11 AM on May 1 [5 favorites]
I too would like to define and control many genre terms differently but alas that is not a power given to me. The description you’re giving is what a historical romance is and had been since the beginning of the usage of the term—see the Wikipedia page on historical romance that I linked above. This is similar in construct to the genre terms fantasy romance or supernatural romance, by the way—which are different from a fantasy novel with romance or supernatural fiction with romance.
What you are looking for might be described as a romantic historical fiction, or historical fiction with romance, but I admit I haven’t seen either of those terms used in the wild. But I’m also not really involved in the historical fiction genre much so I don’t know their conventions for describing subgenres within the historical fiction genre.
posted by brook horse at 8:11 AM on May 1 [5 favorites]
Even if I disagree with the strong claim, there's a line. Any mention of Irish land in an English upper class milieu gets the side eye from me. And I'd be really offended if you tried Bridgerton, but used the motifs of the antebellum South instead of Regency era England.
I think this is basically it. As someone living in Britain, the regency era England stuff doesn't feel more distant or less relevant to now to me than the antebellum South of a continent I've never visited, so I do bristle a fair bit at it being treated as more of a fantasy setting, maybe doubly so because it happens quite a lot of the time due to the dominance of the US in the cultural landscape as well.
(And much like I am suspicious of WWII era cosplayers, I am suspicious by default of the politics of Brits into this kind of thing as well. Not saying it's inherently bad or wrong, just that it often provides cover for a lot of people to engage in a fantasy of living in a time when [insert bigotry of choice here] because I have personally met that again and again and again.)
(Also thank you to the people clarifying how the genre terms aren't just compounds of the adjectives. 'Historical romance != historical + romance' is just not a place my mind naturally goes.)
posted by Dysk at 8:14 AM on May 1 [6 favorites]
I think this is basically it. As someone living in Britain, the regency era England stuff doesn't feel more distant or less relevant to now to me than the antebellum South of a continent I've never visited, so I do bristle a fair bit at it being treated as more of a fantasy setting, maybe doubly so because it happens quite a lot of the time due to the dominance of the US in the cultural landscape as well.
(And much like I am suspicious of WWII era cosplayers, I am suspicious by default of the politics of Brits into this kind of thing as well. Not saying it's inherently bad or wrong, just that it often provides cover for a lot of people to engage in a fantasy of living in a time when [insert bigotry of choice here] because I have personally met that again and again and again.)
(Also thank you to the people clarifying how the genre terms aren't just compounds of the adjectives. 'Historical romance != historical + romance' is just not a place my mind naturally goes.)
posted by Dysk at 8:14 AM on May 1 [6 favorites]
If you want to lightly ruin the chill queer vibes of Our Flag Means Death think about historical Stede Bonnet bring a slave owner prior to his piratical career.
History, a minefield.
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on May 1 [1 favorite]
History, a minefield.
posted by Artw at 8:19 AM on May 1 [1 favorite]
Oh, this reminds me that the term “romantasy” is gaining popularity, which I hugely appreciate because I had the same problem as you Dysk but with “fantasy romance” and even though I’ve known the difference for years I still sometimes glaze over or miss it in book descriptions and then am highly disappointed because I was looking for a fantasy with a romance, not a romance with fantasy trappings. The “romantasy” term stands out a lot better to steer me away from that genre when I’m not looking for it!
posted by brook horse at 8:23 AM on May 1 [3 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 8:23 AM on May 1 [3 favorites]
The anachronisms in Bridgerton are deliberate, by the way; fashion, hair, architecture, but also if you listen closely the orchestras are often playing modern pop songs. It's bubblegum.
And when the violins broke out into Alanis Morisette's "You Oughta Know" to accompany Kate's crying, I realized it was bubblegum aimed at people who are exactly my age.
I have huge issues with Bridgerton, but they have nothing to do with the casting - it's all about how they changed the characters and stories from the books. Daphne as a diamond? She's supposed to be cheery and cute, but kind of ignored by men. The bee sting never happens? What's with this? Also, the second season dragged so badly, I just stopped watching.
I'll come back again when it gets back to the most important character: Penelope. (It's also the only one of the books that I enjoyed on a recent attempt to re-read. Eloise's is just ... enh, which is such a shame because she is also a great character).
posted by jb at 3:21 PM on May 1
And when the violins broke out into Alanis Morisette's "You Oughta Know" to accompany Kate's crying, I realized it was bubblegum aimed at people who are exactly my age.
I have huge issues with Bridgerton, but they have nothing to do with the casting - it's all about how they changed the characters and stories from the books. Daphne as a diamond? She's supposed to be cheery and cute, but kind of ignored by men. The bee sting never happens? What's with this? Also, the second season dragged so badly, I just stopped watching.
I'll come back again when it gets back to the most important character: Penelope. (It's also the only one of the books that I enjoyed on a recent attempt to re-read. Eloise's is just ... enh, which is such a shame because she is also a great character).
posted by jb at 3:21 PM on May 1
Back to the point of the thread: I am happy for colourblind casting, but I would be even happier to see historical stories being told about people of colour.
posted by jb at 3:23 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]
posted by jb at 3:23 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]
Here's are examples of fluffy historical romance with characters of colour, a not so fluffy one, also historical fantasy (/alternative history?) - and many more that I haven't yet read.
posted by jb at 3:30 PM on May 1
posted by jb at 3:30 PM on May 1
I found, and find, The Death Of Stalin entirely unwatchable. The period details and costumes are right, the casting nails the characters, ...it’s a half-half history-comedy. At some point playing Lavrentiy Beria for laughs, but not shifting the viewpoint enough that he’s not a central character, risks obscuring the kind of loathsome creep he and his kind were.
I know a political scientist who specializes in that era and he agrees with you completely.
But at the same time, as someone who didn't study any history after 1950 (and little after 1820), The Death of Stalin was the first time that I began to understand the fear of living under Stalin and Beria. I had heard about the secret police, the fear of being denounced - but I needed to see it played out. The comedy (itself very black and not at all justifying anything) made the film watchable, a little bit of sugar to help the bitter reality of that time go down.
As a teaching tool for people like me - who knew Stalin as a mean guy, but didn't understand the terror he perpetuated, what made him worse than Khrushchev or Brezhnev (not that they were good, just not, you know, Stalin) - it was very educational.
posted by jb at 3:39 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]
I know a political scientist who specializes in that era and he agrees with you completely.
But at the same time, as someone who didn't study any history after 1950 (and little after 1820), The Death of Stalin was the first time that I began to understand the fear of living under Stalin and Beria. I had heard about the secret police, the fear of being denounced - but I needed to see it played out. The comedy (itself very black and not at all justifying anything) made the film watchable, a little bit of sugar to help the bitter reality of that time go down.
As a teaching tool for people like me - who knew Stalin as a mean guy, but didn't understand the terror he perpetuated, what made him worse than Khrushchev or Brezhnev (not that they were good, just not, you know, Stalin) - it was very educational.
posted by jb at 3:39 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]
In Bridgerton's case, the story is a trashy romance, and a stupendously good one, with levels of smouldering not seen on TV since the BBC's Pride and Prejudice
Don't be ridiculous - the BBC Pride and Prejudice had no smouldering (just like the book) and that's why we liked it! Keep the romance out of Austen, she was no Heyer.
posted by jb at 4:12 PM on May 1
Don't be ridiculous - the BBC Pride and Prejudice had no smouldering (just like the book) and that's why we liked it! Keep the romance out of Austen, she was no Heyer.
posted by jb at 4:12 PM on May 1
So, in general, I'm like historical dramas should reflect the culture they're set in. As someone pointed out way upthread, you could totally do stories about the Dumas family or any number of other non-white people in Ye Olden Tymes, but just randomly making some of the actors black kind of bugs me, but not enough to really make a fuss about it, especially because I don't watch a lot of TV anyway.
But the thing is, I have a mild case of prosopagnosia: I have a really hard time remembering faces and putting names to them. I was on a baseball team for a whole year before I could reliably tell two of the guys apart. In a rare space where TV sounded like a good idea, I watched the first five or six episodes of Band of Brothers and was suddenly like holy shit I *totally* like diverse casting. Because it was authentic to the time, and pretty much everyone was white, and I was absolutely damned if I could tell which soldier was which. The guy from Friends was easy, and the lieutenant who was kind of the protagonist I started to recognize, but beyond that, it was all these white dudes and I was so dang lost.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:49 PM on May 1 [3 favorites]
But the thing is, I have a mild case of prosopagnosia: I have a really hard time remembering faces and putting names to them. I was on a baseball team for a whole year before I could reliably tell two of the guys apart. In a rare space where TV sounded like a good idea, I watched the first five or six episodes of Band of Brothers and was suddenly like holy shit I *totally* like diverse casting. Because it was authentic to the time, and pretty much everyone was white, and I was absolutely damned if I could tell which soldier was which. The guy from Friends was easy, and the lieutenant who was kind of the protagonist I started to recognize, but beyond that, it was all these white dudes and I was so dang lost.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:49 PM on May 1 [3 favorites]
I watched the first five or six episodes of Band of Brothers and was suddenly like holy shit I *totally* like diverse casting. Because it was authentic to the time, and pretty much everyone was white, and I was absolutely damned if I could tell which soldier was which.
I'm a white guy, who theoretically should be good at telling white guys apart, and I completely couldn't tell apart the actors in that show. It was unusually bad on that front.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:54 PM on May 1 [3 favorites]
I'm a white guy, who theoretically should be good at telling white guys apart, and I completely couldn't tell apart the actors in that show. It was unusually bad on that front.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:54 PM on May 1 [3 favorites]
This is interesting and encourages deeper thought on the matter. I’d assumed the casting in Bridgerton was a way of showing that - being Hanoverian - the status of the Royalty at the time was understood to always be very slightly tenuous. Visually that is, in a way that’d be otherwise harder to convey on TV if they’d just cast a bunch of Dutch people, who (as I recently saw Milo Edwards point out) “are the whitest people in Europe, except for maybe a few weeks close to Christmas.”
posted by MarchHare at 1:08 AM on May 2
posted by MarchHare at 1:08 AM on May 2
if they’d just cast a bunch of Dutch people,
? Hanoverians are German.
posted by praemunire at 7:43 AM on May 2
? Hanoverians are German.
posted by praemunire at 7:43 AM on May 2
Oh hey a thing I know stuff about!
Bridgerton (the books) are not ‘historical romance’. They are part of a specific subset of historical romance called ‘Regencies’ (sexy enough that they would be categorized as Regency Historical rather than Regency Traditional). Regencies as a genre emerged in imitation of Georgette Heyer, who was in a class of her own. She published a huge slew of books, many of them set in Regency England, and they mostly have a specific type of plot and banter that is instantly recognizable as a ‘type’ the way modern MCU banter/plotting might be pegged. Hilarious stuff. Her books were so popular that she spawned a slew of imitators and eventually an entire subgenre. She was also antisemitic and racist as fuck-all. Like, to an extent. If you read books from the first past of the 20th century this bullshit is inevitable but with some authors, you can look at their work and sigh and say ‘ok, this person failed, but they were trying to engage with the issue in a positive way’. Heyer, not so much.
Which is why the multiracial casting in Bridgerton is so fascinating. It’s not just ‘about’ historical romance and historical fiction, it’s also a commentary on this specific subgenre and author whose legacy is deeply problematic.
I also want to give a nod to Boy George for, as far as I know, originating the Magical Multiracial past in the video for Karma Chamelon in 1983.
a wealthy Regency aristocracy with black members that gets its money from working people to death growing sugar cane.
This existed, see Mary Robinette Kowals fantasy romance ‘Of Noble Family’, set in Antigua, and historical notes.
posted by bq at 1:37 PM on May 6 [4 favorites]
Bridgerton (the books) are not ‘historical romance’. They are part of a specific subset of historical romance called ‘Regencies’ (sexy enough that they would be categorized as Regency Historical rather than Regency Traditional). Regencies as a genre emerged in imitation of Georgette Heyer, who was in a class of her own. She published a huge slew of books, many of them set in Regency England, and they mostly have a specific type of plot and banter that is instantly recognizable as a ‘type’ the way modern MCU banter/plotting might be pegged. Hilarious stuff. Her books were so popular that she spawned a slew of imitators and eventually an entire subgenre. She was also antisemitic and racist as fuck-all. Like, to an extent. If you read books from the first past of the 20th century this bullshit is inevitable but with some authors, you can look at their work and sigh and say ‘ok, this person failed, but they were trying to engage with the issue in a positive way’. Heyer, not so much.
Which is why the multiracial casting in Bridgerton is so fascinating. It’s not just ‘about’ historical romance and historical fiction, it’s also a commentary on this specific subgenre and author whose legacy is deeply problematic.
I also want to give a nod to Boy George for, as far as I know, originating the Magical Multiracial past in the video for Karma Chamelon in 1983.
a wealthy Regency aristocracy with black members that gets its money from working people to death growing sugar cane.
This existed, see Mary Robinette Kowals fantasy romance ‘Of Noble Family’, set in Antigua, and historical notes.
posted by bq at 1:37 PM on May 6 [4 favorites]
I also want to give a nod to Boy George for, as far as I know, originating the Magical Multiracial past in the video for Karma Chamelon in 1983.
I've spent 41 years thinking that song was about a "comma chameleon," and always slightly wondered what that was.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:49 PM on May 6 [3 favorites]
I've spent 41 years thinking that song was about a "comma chameleon," and always slightly wondered what that was.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:49 PM on May 6 [3 favorites]
If you read books from the first past of the 20th century this bullshit is inevitable but with some authors
But that's the thing about Heyer: most of her famous stuff was written in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It was the thing that shocked me when I tried reading one of her novels and bailed out when I hit an antisemitic trope that seemed right out of Victorian pulp. She wasn't a "woman of her time" , she was really bad even for her time.
posted by tavella at 2:31 PM on May 6 [2 favorites]
But that's the thing about Heyer: most of her famous stuff was written in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It was the thing that shocked me when I tried reading one of her novels and bailed out when I hit an antisemitic trope that seemed right out of Victorian pulp. She wasn't a "woman of her time" , she was really bad even for her time.
posted by tavella at 2:31 PM on May 6 [2 favorites]
The Bond books were published in the 50s mostly, and they’re so bad they’re being rewritten to take some of the racism out. The first Encyclopedia Brown book was published in 1963 and I had to veto it for my kids after a re-read. This stuff stretches much farther into the 20th century than we’d like to think. Not all of it feels malicious; Heyers does.
(If your point was ‘not just the first part’, I agree)
posted by bq at 2:47 PM on May 6 [3 favorites]
(If your point was ‘not just the first part’, I agree)
posted by bq at 2:47 PM on May 6 [3 favorites]
I liked Denzel Washington as Macbeth. I thought a black Macbeth might snip the strings that suspend my disbelief, but the strings were stronger than that. I was distracted for only about as long as it took me to think, "Hey, this is probably the first black Macbeth I've seen," and then we were off to the races in a black and white film.
posted by pracowity at 9:46 AM on May 15
posted by pracowity at 9:46 AM on May 15
To add further to Witch detail… that image at the 3min mark? Fucking genius. Love that shit.
posted by Artw at 10:57 AM on May 15
posted by Artw at 10:57 AM on May 15
« Older Robbi Mecus, Who Fostered L.G.B.T.Q. Climbing... | Roofman Newer »
posted by SaltySalticid at 12:30 PM on April 30 [4 favorites]