katha

I think it is also a problem of genre and that the show wants to pretend that it's 1987 or something. The term "bodice ripper" wasn't coined for nothing. There has always been at least a subset of romance novels that actually have presented very questionable/non-existent consent as a feature. Romance novels, particularly historicals, have been criticized for glamorizing rape and assault since forever. This is of course way too broad and fueled by all kinds of misogyny as well, but this is a stylistic and content choice used often enough to have become notorious/infamous. Of course the more egregious examples are older books, discourse and awareness has progressed since the 80ies or so when this sort of romance was really booming. What can be dismissed as harmless fantasy when it is written down, hits differently when presented on screen IMO. It isn't some harmless fairytale anymore, it's acted out by real people. And that's why discussion and controversy in the media has started up (I'm actually pleasantly surprised that the media is taking the romance genre seriously enough to talk about this tbh). It probably goes beyond "Bridgerton" and Julia Quinn. The romance novel community might need to start some soul-searching when it comes to presentation of consent. Unfortunately, it's often shown itself to be resistant to criticism and anyone trying to question the status quo (the RWA disaster this year comes to mind...).

I just think they want to have it in all ways and consequently created a situation where Penelope has acquired way more "baggage" than she ever had in the books. It's not insurmountable, but I don't trust them to know how to handle it in a satisfying fashion. They're good at the froth and fun and vaguely naughty, pretty terrible at the more serious stuff. That only works in individual moments, never in a coherent storytelling way. They wanted to have Lady W wreck way more havoc in society so as to create maximum drama, but don't really want to connect it to Pen and how her actions as Lady W reflect on her and call a lot that she does as "herself" into question.

For all that I found the treatment of the topic in the series very problematic, IMO it's encouraging that it has spurred some productive discourse regarding the presentation of consent in the media: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/bridgerton-sexual-assault-scene-how-does-it-happen-in-the-book https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/the-questions-of-male-consent-that-puncture-both-fantasy-worlds-of-bridgerton-and-wonder-woman-1984-.php https://www.vox.com/22194033/bridgerton-netflix-rape-scene-novel https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/bridgertons-rape-scene-exposes-problem-historical-romantic-fiction/ Usually with something seen as "frothy" like the romance genre, things like that just aren't taken seriously. OTOH, it's unfortunate that a bigger audience is first exposed to a romance series where the handling of the topic is as oblivious as IMO Quinn and the series (in a different way) are. Issues regarding consent are of course present in the romance genre as a whole, particularly in older works. But the genre in my view also often does very good work in very sensitively and intelligently depicting the complexities involved. That said, if they wanted to adapt something like the Wallflower series by Kleypas, for example, I would also want them to deal with "The Devil in Winter" in a manner that either acknowledges that St. Vincent abducted and threatened rape in a previous book or drop that plot point altogether. None of that "He didn't really mean it, it was just a joke, he has a heart of gold LOL" nonsense the novel tries to pull. One of the best historicals dealing with this and one of the best books of the genre IMO is "Indiscreet" by Balogh, really taking into account the brutal reality for women and the societal consequences. With an anti-hero slowly coming to understand and genuinely repent that him ruining the reputation of the heroine and consequently having to marry her re-victimized her after her family had shunned her already years before for refusing to marry her rapist. It didn't even seem anachronistic that he gained this awareness and took responsibility for his own actions because Balogh gives it all so much nuance. But I guess this is also a case where you wouldn't have silly fun, adapted to the screen it would translate into a serious historical drama.

Yeah, for all my issues with the adaptation, I am kinda gleeful that they are stomping all over most of Quinn's regressive views. She can't really say anything, because they are giving her money, but LOL. I hope they continue with that aspect. And how backwards she is can't really be explained with genre or her age or anything. Someone like Balogh, who is way older, has tried to adapt her writing. With failures, of course, but when called out for "Someone to Love", for example, she was gracious and able to take criticism. Kleypas has included working-class and non-white heroes in her historicals. It's not some grand progressive stance, but other established figures of the genre have been somewhat able to evolve beyond their comfort zones.

In the moment when traumatic and distressing things are happening, people can also freeze up and become overwhelmed by the situation. The actor portrays Simon as in shock, so much so that he regresses to the stutter from his abusive childhood. So it is clearly portrayed as an extremely disturbing event for him. And he's left reeling by the end. His body language around Daphne also changes after that, as if he is constantly wating for her to do something again and walking on eggshells around her. So some of the writing and the acting doesn't treat it as a joke. But then the script doesn't want to properly acknowledge it either. It's just an endless trainwreck. Another factor is that Regé-Jean Page just gives a superior performance to Phoebe Dynevor IMO, often transcending the writing. So while Daphne sort of stays this cartoon character who does something bad without giving her layers (that the script also denies her, of course), Simon has a more three-dimensional reaction to what is happening around him and to him, probably exceeding what the script wants to give him.

Pen is a bit delusional in the books when it comes to possible consequences for writing as Lady W. But it's mostly handled as denial and when she's exposed, there is blowback. But it's also believable that it's not too bad, since she has the Bridgertons defending her, the column was super popular in society and Lady W wasn't really malicious and out to ruin lives for the most part. It's fun gossip in the books. In the series it has taken on a much darker edge and she's deliberately hurting people she is also supposedly friends with or even loves. Marina is bad, but at least it has some form of context, however misguided. Going so hard after Daphne for no reason in a way that she knows could ruin her, for example? I don't understand the motivation there and I'm afraid the writers don't, either. The series is just not very well thought-out when it is supposed to provide characterization. Bright shiny objects are more important than building good relationships or creating consistent characters.

Yeah, they're off with Anthony, like they are with most of the characters, I'd argue (Simon is perhaps the only one who fares better than in the book, but that is also the personal charisma of the actor, more than the writing, probably). But at least he has some sort of recognizable personality? And IMO he did improve throughout the series, his interactions with the family were nice. But don't know how well they will translate the second book. They kept all the wrong parts of the first one IMO, so no idea how it will play out in the second season.

Yes, what makes me so ragey about this is that they don't seem to understand at all what they are presenting there on screen. They think it is "hot" and "sexy" and "edgy." Just nope. These are deeply disturbing relationship dynamics, abusive relationship dynamics presented as "true love."

Yes, but as it ends in the series, I don't want these people together. They are terrible together. They don't know how to communicate, they don't trust each other. Simon lied to Daphne, Daphne assaulted Simon in revenge. Their relationship is from hell. Yet it is presented as some sort of romantic ideal. It's pretty sickening. I'm not prepared to do the writers' work for them and give them the benefit of the doubt when they can't be bothered to produce something that isn't deeply problematic and wrong. And I dread to think what they will teach their children, with how dysfunctional their relationship is. Totally lacking in trust and respect. Blah. ETA: And this really soured the series for me, which was ridiculous fun otherwise. None of this was necessary. A rewrite of Quinn's mess would have been so easy. Yet they produced this total failure. Here is another article where the writer outlines far more eloquently what I find so scary and wrong about this episode: https://www.pajiba.com/film_reviews/the-questions-of-male-consent-that-puncture-both-fantasy-worlds-of-bridgerton-and-wonder-woman-1984-.php

Yes, the problem is that the show wants to critically reflect on some of those past attitudes. They are presented as deeply problematic and wrong. Yet they create this toxic relationship at its center. And IMO the toxicity never gets in any way resolved. You can't claim a modern, progressive view in some instances, when it suits you. And totally abandon it, when it doesn't. The writing for Simon and Daphne was just very bad here. And the discussion here and around the net clearly shows that at the very least the writing really, really failed, in my view.

Yes, I don't think this is a productive discussion going forward. We just disagree. 🙂 Everyone has obviously personal experiences tied to the topic and is getting understandably distressed. I don't want anyone getting further hurt by continuing to dwell on it. Which makes me even angrier at the show and what a mess it made of things.

"She didn't allow him to pull out" is where it turns into rape. That victims of rape rarely get justice, that messed up gender stereotypes trivialize the rape of men to a point that it is turned into a joke regularly in popular media is another matter entirely. That marital rape, that rape between "loving partners" gets trivialized is another matter. That the show doesn't understand what it is depicting turns it into a part of the problem regarding this hugely toxic attitude that still prevails regarding rape and sexual assault in all forms.

No, he consented to the initial sexual act, but then withdrew consent as it progressed, this is exactly what you are describing. She didn't stop. But I think this will just be an agree to disagree topic, I don't want to make the thread contentious.

Yes, continuing a sexual act while your partner withdraws consent and wants to stop is rape. ETA: This is why their relationship is so toxic. They never learn to communicate and Daphne sees that assaulting her partner will solve all her problems. Simon lied and betrayed her. The solution is to confront him about it and bring down the wrath of the family on him or something, if she feels that is necessary. Not assault him in "revenge."

I think going forward, they have written themselves into a corner with Lady W. Because what she has done has been deliberately malicious in the series and really hurt a lot of people, the blowback of Penelope being discovered would consequently be very severe. As in, ostracized by society severe, losing friendships and relationships severe. But I'm not sure they have the stomach to go there. Once again, they wanted the juicy "scandal" of it, I'm not sure they want to do the hard work of presenting consequences and actual development for the characters.

It was just a failure on all fronts tbh and the relationship depicted consequently is so toxic and unhealthy, while they try to sell it as "twu wuv." And I don't get how they didn't just avoid that whole mess. Everything regarding that conflict is terribly written by Quinn, so the obvious solution is a complete rewrite. Have them disagree about children, but address it with actual communication. I know, it's not as "edgy", but also not as deeply disturbing. And I guess that is a whole other discussion about gender stereotypes, toxic masculinity and the wrongheaded notion that men can never be victimized straight out of the 1950ies... Now we have this totally creepy scenario in 2020 where not wanting children is presented as morally repugnant, trauma can just be bullied away by your wife "for your own good." And fundamental differences regarding plans for life can just be solved by "twu wuv" instead of actual discussions and compromises. And since she's gotten away with it once, will Daphne just violate and assault Simon whenever she disagrees with him on anything? This is sort of implied by this toxic "happy ending." I don't know what they attempted to do with that whole mess. Vanity Fair published a pretty decent article on this: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/bridgerton-sexual-assault-scene-how-does-it-happen-in-the-book

I think what also hurt the Lucy character was that she was constantly around Carter. And Carter was in many ways the same model, but executed much better: He started off as a bumbling, overeager med student, making a lot of rookie mistakes in the first seasons. And even Carter at his worst, which he was in his treatment of Lucy, was just a much more interesting and layered character. So you had the constant unconscious comparison between the two presented and I think many viewers sensed that she was somehow not properly drawn as a character.

Yeah, I thought it was nice, but with all the build-up surrounding the mystery it felt like a cop-out: It's clear that it has to be Penelope, but the book is cheating to create "suspense." Colin and Penelope have nice enough rapport, but it seemed all rather pedestrian. Quinn has various issues as a writer that go beyond just the usual quirks of the romance genre, but "Romancing"...just isn't that interesting IMO. I actually think Anthony's book is the strongest. He's not the easiest character, but at least the tension between the main couple is real and the conflict actually stems from both their personalities/goals and it's interesting how they try to work it out. There are various instances where they are just cruel to each other, but at least it's acknowledged as terrible behaviour and not swept aside like with Daphne and Simon.

I'd love the Bedwyns by Balogh because I think Wulfric is one of the best romance heroes created in the last decades. Of course that always leaves a lot of potential for really screwing him up in the adaptation, but I'd take the chance. 😉 The Bedwyns aren't the nicest lot around, so it would create dynamic plots and a chance for character evolution. The Hathaways have really interesting ingredients as well. And Cam Rohan is another really unusual and super awesome romance hero, really breaking with the traditional aristocratic lot. If they want two seasons, they can also segue the Wallflower series into a Hathaway series. Though I find the Wallflower series a bit static, I like the first one, "Secrets of a Summer Night", the best. The Pennyroyal Series by Julie Anne Long is also nice, though very convoluted at this point. And I confess, I mainly want it for "What I Did for A Duke" (IMO one of the best romance novels ever) LOL.

Yeah, it plays out like Simon transitioning from an abusive childhood into marrying another abuser. And that at the end he's just been coerced and gaslighted into seeing her abuse as "good for him." That whole line of "you gave me no choice but to abuse you" Daphne trots out afterwards is classical abuser language. It's a super disturbing message to send. It's disturbing as hell in the book, they tried to water it down in the series. I'm not sure they succeeded.

"Muppet Christmas Carol" is a timeless masterpiece, the best adaptation of that story and Michael Caine is the best Scrooge. My inner eight-year-old doesn't tolerate differing opinions. 😉 I love watching "The Last Unicorn" during the holidays. It's so poetic and really suits that time of the season.

Yeah, I thought Dern's work didn't warrant an Oscar, but that's not on her, that's on the script. It's just not very interesting at the end of the day IMO. It has that speech, but shoving a speech at a character is often an easy substitute for doing more subtle groundwork. In fact, kinda half-baking female characters might perhaps be a Baumbach problem when he is not collaborating with Gerwig, now that I think about it. Driver is stunning. But the writing for him is stunning as well. A whole inner life shown through subtle actions, little moments and the song is just a culmination of two hours of build-up. Notably no monologue. Nicole, I feel, gets the beginning of the movie and the affecting speech there and then the movie loses interest in her interiority and personal development to some degree. Yeah, the movie plays with shifting perspectives, but at a certain point it stays with Charlie and follows through with that right until the last shot. And even when Nicole is in scenes without Charlie, she becomes an audience/supporting act/prop for Nora more often than not. And on rewatch it kinda reaffirmed my feeling that Charlie, no matter how much he is still much more in the process of rebuilding, is in an emotionally healthier place. Because the film is interested in his emotional development. While my instinct is that a good sequel would be "Nicole goes to therapy," where she really works on her communication issues and her tendency to get overwhelmed by the people in her life (Charlie, her mother, Nora, even Henry to some degree). And I don't think that was intended by the movie, the external markers of success are supposed to show that everything is fine now. But somewhere along the way the script lost sight of her development and things get muddled.

I haven't seen this particular adaptation, but it kinda harkens back to a certain type of writing for female characters that wants to be read as "empowering" but ultimately makes them flat and two-dimensional, robbing them of their humanity. Men are allowed to be all sorts of things in all sorts of media: weak-willed, strong-willed, good, bad, evil, kind, cruel, a mix of all these things, They're allowed complexity. A certain subset of writing for women insists that only "strong" characters count: Meaning without flaws, not making mistakes, not being allowed dimensionality. Not being allowed to be vulnerable and human, in short. And misreadings of texts like "Rebecca" go in that vein, I think. One brilliant novel that usually also gets killed by inserting a "strong heroine (tm)" where she doesn't belong is Austen's "Mansfield Park", for example. Fanny Price has been bullied, neglected and emotionally abused all her life. Her fearful, reticent manner is a direct manifestation of that trauma. And makes it all the more impressive when she does stand up for herself even when facing dire consequences. Yet all of that is swiped away, because shyness and meekness is not perceived as "cool". It wrecks the whole point of the novel. Yet they do it again and again, thinking they are "improving" things.

Yeah, I've also heard that Ben Affleck is involved in a project that deals with the making of "Chinatown" or something. Hollywood is really just mostly interested in looking endlessly at itself and celebrating its own importance.

See, I thought the parents' situation was ugly and messy but kinda interesting. He had obviously stopped putting in the effort to work on his marriage and left her emotionally alone in certain ways. Instead of communicating that, she lashes out and has an affair. Certainly ugly and destructive behavior, but also something they might have worked on with a therapist. Instead, he goes on a destructive revenge spree as well and the movie then pretends that giving a melodramatic speech at their kid's school event (WTH???) makes everything magically fine again. I think the Gosling/Stone storyline is nice and the Carrell/Moore plot has potential and is well acted, but the movie is certainly strange in its resolution.