Bridgerton: A Case Study into Distasteful Genre Mixing and Colorblind Casting
Yerin Ha’s recent casting as Bridgertons Sophie Beckett has refueled the discourse surrounding the representation of people of color in media, and specifically colorblind casting. Not that this discourse ever gets quieter (nor should it), but the addition to the increasingly popular approach of colorblind casting has finally allowed me to articulate some of the issues I have with the show, and colorblind casting as a process. The absolute fan pressure to cast someone of East Asian descent as a love interest suggests that colorblind casting in Bridgerton is a farce, and is actually quite intentional.
Yerin Ha to play opposite Luke Thompson as Benedict Bridgerton
To put it simply, colorblind casting is the attempt to cast actors based on meritocracy. On talent alone. The appearance of a character no longer matters, nor has any bearing on the story if the actor that takes on the role is the best suited for it. It’s an approach that anyone campaigning for more diversity in media should ideally respect. Except, its execution serves to reinforce institutional forms of racism and gatekeeping in far more sinister ways than explicit prejudice.
Colorblind casting feels the same to me as diversity quotas - a mere facade at diversity rather than a real attempt to foster more inclusivity. Its very existence as an approach undermines its mission because if casting directors were truly able to suspend bias, there would be no need for a separate approach.
Unconscious bias is exactly that - unconscious, therefore, people of color will always be prone to some sort of disadvantage when writers, producers, and casting directors are not making any conscious decisions regarding their inclusion in stories.
My issue with Bridgerton specifically has to do with genre. A regency inspired fantasy that flaunts all elements of historical accuracy. This is not to say that all film and television that exists must aim to be historically accurate, but there is a difference between a fantasy that bares resemblance to a point in time in history, and a fantasy that clearly aligns itself with a recognisable, named time period, yet makes no attempt to acknowledge the real histories that come with it. Queen Charlotte is especially frustrating, using the same names as the monarchs that existed, mimicking the same issues King George faced regarding his mental health, yet spinning their marriage into an alliance that “fixed” racism in some sort of utopian copout to explain the diverse cast of the Bridgerton universe.
The show attempts to create a raceless society, one unburdened by racial prejudice (yet insists on traditional gender roles). My gripe with this is that it doesn’t work when racial discourse is continually inserted within the narrative, whilst issues like slavery and colonialism are willfully ignored because they don’t apply to this fantasy world. Take the conversation between Lady Danbury and the Duke where they are asked to be grateful for Queen Charlotte for eliminating racism, or the continual reminder that Kate (Kathani Sharma) is Indian and brought shame upon her family for being the daughter of an Indian merchant.
It is extremely revealing that most couples in this show, ones that are (now) already canon and others that are being set up are interracial. This is an incredibly intentional and strategic choice that removes all credibility from the claim that the show is cast with only the best actors for the role in mind. The ending of season three, revealing a gender-bent Michael (now Michaela) played by a Black woman, frustrates me. Not only does the show not care for the mindful representation of people of color, but now shows laziness in the inclusion of queer narratives as well.
We should be campaigning for narratives that are more mindful. Narratives that are conscious of race and gender and sexuality. Not because everything must make a political point, but because these are all intrinsic experiences of oneself that inform worldview. There is a difference in acknowledging that, yes, people of color exist and have always existed through mindful narratives that consciously include these experiences and histories, and the insertion of people of color in pre-existing narratives that cause inaccuracies. It is not just lazy, it’s dangerous. Dangerous because it allows the film and television industry to remain non inclusive while pretending to be on-screen. Real inclusivity comes from allowing minorities into spaces that decide on what’s being produced, rather than just being actors in the machine with no real agency over their own representation.
We are constantly looking for skilled writers and are open to publishing original pieces on our blogs. Follow the link below to submit!