Review of “Bridgerton”
Is season two hiding British colonialism?
The second season “Bridgerton” does not only get praise.
©Netflix/Liam Daniel
The second season of “Bridgerton” also enjoys great popularity. But there are also numerous critical voices.
The first season “Bridgerton” has quickly become one of the biggest hits on Netflix. And season two, which premiered on the streaming service at the end of March, is also very popular. However, there are now also increasing numbers of critical voices that have something to say about the plot of the new episodes. The decisive point for the resentment is the storyline of the Indian family Sharma, who move from Bombay to London in the 1820s to find a husband for the young Edwina (Charithra Chandran, 25).
According to a report by journalist Dhvani Solani in “Vice India”.that the sensitive issue of British colonial policy was “completely ignored” and thus presented in a highly romanticized way. “For a country devastated by colonial rule, it seems almost a joke that our colonial past should be so glossed over.” The lack of representation “of our trauma and history is a little painful,” Solani continued.
Unnecessary mistakes
She is aware that “Bridgerton” is intended as an escapism and deliberately does not attach great importance to historical accuracy. However, the makers could have put more effort into it. The surname Sharma alone is consistently mispronounced, as many Twitter users have already complained about and gave other examples. The series also completely mixes up the different customs, names and vocabulary from North, South, West and East India.