\n\n\n\n
The recent release of the second season of the popular Netflix show, Bridgerton<\/em>, has broken my brain. Based on the paperback romance novels by Julia Quinn, the show has audiences and entertainment news outlets hailing its modern tone embedded within the Regency era, and subsequently its \u201csimilarities\u201d to Jane Austen works. One Twitter news headline<\/a> from Telegraph TV & Radio reads, \u201cBridgerton<\/em> replaces bodice-ripping raunch with toned-down Austen-esque sexual longing,\u201d and continues in a separate tweet with, \u201cAs a Regency drama filled with sex scenes, Bridgerton<\/em> made its name as a racy alternative to Jane Austen.\u201d Now I am not here to play the part of the prudish, English-major librarian, who is opposed to sex or desire; my issue with Bridgerton<\/em> and these headlines is not the idea of sex in the pristine Jane Austen world (indeed, there are a number of plotlines in her novels that deal with the messiness and recklessness of sexual desire). My issue is that these entertainment outlets and the Netflix audiences of the world are identifying contrived, and often incorrect, similarities in the first place. A romance occurring in the Regency era is the only thing that could possibly connect Jane Austen to Bridgerton<\/em>, but for some reason people somehow see them as comparable in a way where one can easily replace the other. Why is that?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pride and Prejudice <\/em>(2005) represents everything I love in the possibilities of a romantic film: a hard on the outside, sweet on the inside leading man; a strong and captivating leading woman; an enemies to lovers framework; gorgeous cinematography; a delightful soundtrack; and Kiera Knightley. But it is not Jane Austen\u2019s Pride and Prejudice<\/em>. Not really. The bones of her work are there\u2014the original story, its plot points and characters hold up the many artistic liberties taken by director Joe Wright. Pride and Prejudice <\/em>(2005) (hereafter referred to as \u201cP&P<\/em> 2005\u201d) is the uncanny valley of Jane Austen\u2019s work, representing something similar but not quite whole, absent of the specifically human critiques that Austen had on social structures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The scene I always go back to when I am being a P&P <\/em>(2005) killjoy, is the rain-soaked, heavy breathing, initial proposal scene. Mr. Darcy, played by Matthew Macfadyen, is a man tortured by his absolute love for Elizabeth, and begs for her hand in marriage. Of course, he throws in the important \u201cew you’re poor, but I still love you despite you being really poor, ew\u201d line, but his delivery is very quick. Thus, the line is easy to miss, especially when his cadence lands succinctly on the final line, \u201cI love you.” The silence that follows allows the audience to truly savor that declaration. <\/em>Finally! He admits it! They fight, yelling at each other, getting closer and closer, their faces inches away, and there is a ridiculous pause between them where it seems as though they might actually kiss. This moment tells the audience that, despite Darcy\u2019s wrongdoings and insults toward the Bennet family, and despite Elizabeth being resolved to dislike him for these transgressions, there still lies an innate desire between these two that is being thwarted by inconsequential family drama. This scene demonstrates what is fundamentally wrong with P&P<\/em> 2005, and unfortunately, it is responsible for the way millions of people misunderstand Jane Austen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Elizabeth and Darcy are inches from each other’s faces, soaked by the rain, and clearly seeing something desirable in each other, I see the amalgamation of generations missing the point. Darcy\u2019s proposal to Elizabeth is an insult. He degrades Elizabeth and her family, calling them embarrassing and looking down on them for where they are in the social hierarchy. He remarks on how weird it would be if they did get married because of it and he has detached his own friend from Elizabeth\u2019s sister for these same reasons. Elizabeth, in this moment of the novel, is not looking at Darcy as a romantic prospect! Where Joe Wright created a longing between these two characters, Jane Austen drew a line. Darcy may have been tortured by his love for Elizabeth, but his love is undercut by his pride; Elizabeth\u2019s low social standing is embarrassing to someone of his status. Likewise, Elizabeth\u2019s prejudice against Darcy causes her to believe a terrible story about Darcy and his family with zero confirmation of its validity other than the word of a man she barely knows, ultimately resulting in her looking quite foolish as well. This is not inconsequential family drama! Both Elizabeth and Darcy fall victim to their faults, and it takes 200 more pages for them to make up for it.<\/p>\n\n\n The newest season of Bridgerton<\/em> employs the enemies to lovers framework, which is the basis for many Pride and Prejudice<\/em>-inspired romcom media. The two leads, Kate and Anthony, begin in a friendly state with one another, having met by chance. However, this quickly turns sour when they meet again at a ball, and Kate overhears Anthony likening women to, as Kate puts it, \u201cchattels and breeding stock.\u201d This event is also quite similar to a certain Pride and Prejudice<\/em> moment, where Elizabeth overhears Mr. Darcy discussing women, and herself, in a similar, albeit less crass, manner, resulting in their own conflict. While I have not read the Bridgerton <\/em>novels, it is safe to say that the writers of the show were inspired by Pride and Prejudice<\/em>, and thought it would be fun to perhaps pay homage. However, I see something a bit manipulative in it, where the show seems to be playing with this similarity and making audiences feel as though the works are comparable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Bridgerton<\/em>, the tone of the back and forth between Kate and Anthony resembles that of P&P<\/em> (2005). While Kate and Anthony are at first put at odds due to a slight, they are often drawn to one another, sharing playful jabs. For example, their muddy croquet scene is full of these witty remarks to one another. They tease one another, daring each other to enter the mud and ruin their fine clothes. They are showing the audience that under different circumstances, these two attractive people could definitely get along and fall in love, if only they set their petty differences aside. Their pettiness to one another has no real substance other than being a fun and light scene that shows the leads becoming more acquainted with each other. This is the essence of romantic comedies, of which P&P<\/em> 2005 emulates well. Joe Wright\u2019s Pride and Prejudice <\/em>is a romantic comedy at heart. The film utilizes the drama that Austen so successfully developed, but emphasizes the romance aspect in a way that fits into our modern sensibilities. Thus, the new era of \u201cenemies to lovers\u201d media was born. Wright\u2019s interpretation of the tit-for-tat moments in the novel between Darcy and Elizabeth is more akin to a flirtatious back and forth, where both characters are slowly becoming more intrigued by each other\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n\n\n One scene in P&P<\/em> 2005 demonstrates a more flirtatious version of Austen\u2019s Elizabeth and Darcy. Darcy, after previously rebuffing Elizabeth as a dancing partner, asks her to dance. While they dance they have their contentious discussion about Wickham and Darcy\u2019s characters. As their conversation reflects an anger on both sides, they find themselves drawing closer and closer to one another until they stop in the midst of the dancing and begin arguing inches away from each other\u2019s faces (this sounds familiar). The scene then loses the background characters and just has Elizabeth and Darcy dancing in an empty ballroom, emphasizing this pull that they have to one another, so much that they feel they are the only two people in the room. Wright reduces the disgust that Elizabeth feels about Darcy\u2019s actions against Wickham into a kind of petty disagreement. Sure, in the novel Elizabeth is in fact mistaken about the incident, but she genuinely sees Darcy as someone who has wronged a good man. This argument becomes inconsequential to the scene in the movie, showing us that, yes, these two are at odds, but under different circumstances they could be something more. If only the annoying, pesky misunderstandings would just resolve! Their romantic pull, while necessary for a Hollywood romantic drama, makes Elizabeth\u2019s character less resolute. Austen\u2019s Elizabeth quite firmly dislikes Darcy for much of the novel, and Wright\u2019s shift in tone and emphasis on a dramatic longing between the two makes his Elizabeth distinctly different from who she was intended to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kate and Anthony\u2019s relationship progresses as something not so much enemies to lovers, but two people who bicker occasionally, and who very clearly \u201clove\u201d each other. Anthony is originally set on Edwina, Kate\u2019s sister, and attempts to pursue her as a wife. Kate, on the other hand, is determined that her sister not follow into her spinster foot steps, and wants Edwina to find a decent husband that is not<\/em> Anthony, because of the aforementioned breeding stock scene. Although actively courting Edwina, Anthony begins showing more interest in Kate, and Kate, while determined to dislike him, replicates that interest. They are drawn to one another through sheer sexual tension and one liners; however Kate becomes uncomfortable with the possibility of her stealing away her sister\u2019s happiness. The show certainly presents the central conflict of ruining Edwina\u2019s happiness as the driving wedge between Kate and Anthony, but it is hard not to see two adults being separated by an absolutely arbitrary situation. Sure, it is difficult to admit to your sister that you have been flirting with her fiance behind her back, but at the end of the day, whose fault is that? It seems that for all of Kate and Anthony\u2019s supposed intellect and reason they can\u2019t conceptualize a way to simply break off a courtship or engagement amicably. Truly mind numbing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kate and Anthony\u2019s desire for one another is both complicated and heightened by the family issues that keep them apart, compounded with a Regency-era social sphere that requires appropriate behavior between men and women. So while they cannot be together (even though they definitely can), Kate and Anthony long for one another. Somehow they constantly find themselves alone in a room together, inches from each other\u2019s faces, daring each other to make the first move. There is a moment where both Kate and Anthony\u2019s hands touch momentarily as he is helping her out of a boat, which is distinctly similar to a scene in P&P<\/em> 2005, where Darcy helps Elizabeth into her carriage. The hands brushing, followed by both couples’s embarrassed, yet titillated reactions, demonstrates Bridgerton<\/em>\u2019s specific references to P&P<\/em> 2005. The tension in these scenes is something that many viewers today identify as an Austenian trait. A man and a woman, desiring each other so fiercely, but unable to express it due to the constraints of their situation or the time period. I love longing. I love how you can see characters wanting each other so badly it hurts them. However, stifled desire and longing are not definitively Austen, nor are they central to her characters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Still](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/closereadblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/image.jpeg?resize=498%2C332&ssl=1\")
![\"Elizabeth](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/closereadblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Screen-Shot-2022-08-02-at-12.38.02-PM.png?resize=498%2C329&ssl=1\")
![\"From](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/closereadblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Screen-Shot-2022-08-02-at-1.07.20-PM.png?resize=1024%2C432&ssl=1\")
![\"From](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/closereadblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Screen-Shot-2022-08-02-at-12.42.43-PM-2.png?resize=1024%2C439&ssl=1\")