#bridgerton analysis

Because that is Penelope’s first instinct — to go to Colin, her husband — with any problem. She’s like ‘not getting off? Obvs, your man will fix it, hon. Mine always does.’

It’s such a neat little summary of what their relationship is based on, and how different their marriage is from everyone else in the ton. They’re best friends, truly. The kind that turn to each other first for everything. And it’s so unheard of for a marriage to be like that that Benedict is genuinely puzzled as to how Colin knows about his search for The Lady in Silver and Colin’s like ‘duh, dude, you went to my wife for help. There’s no difference between that and telling me directly.’

But also, besides all that, isn’t it so fucking cute that Pen’s answer intimates that she and Colin openly talk about what they like/don’t like in bed? I think we all knew that, but like now we know, y’know? The sweet little freaks probably have feedback sessions, kink negotiations, nights to try out something new Penelope no doubt heard about through Whistledown but didn’t fully understand…

And it all ties into Colin’s disinterest in mistresses because, when the men started talking about that, apart from the fact that he’s clearly terminally obsessed with his wife, he was probably thinking about the openness and intimacy he shares with her, and how sex itself is hardly worth it without those things especially now that he has something to compare it to.

The power struggle between her and Danbury is so smart. If I’m your subject, then I’m not your friend.

The first time Anthony meets her, she’s riding astride. The first time they talk, she outright argues with him. He recognises it, Anthony himself says, “the rules are meaningless [to her]”. She calls him out when he assumes she won’t be able to manage a gun. She plays pall mall just like he does, with equal intensity, just as competitive. And that’s who he falls in love with.

Throughout the course of the story, she never has to change herself, dull her sharp wit, or chip away anything of her personality, for him to notice her and be attracted to her, for him to fall in love with her.

There’s no grand makeover, for him to finally notice her, because he’s always seen her for who she is, from the very first time they met and he began falling for her from that very moment. Her personality is not portrayed as a flaw that he loves her in inspite of, but rather the very core of the reason he is in love with her.

And in season 3, we see that marriage doesn’t change that either. She still banters with him, and he’s still going around telling everyone who will listen that his marriage is perfect.

But I am fairly certain based on the exteriors and the interiors of “the cottage” that it’s a Tudor era red brick manor. As opposed to Aubry Hall which if I recall correctly is a Georgian era stone classical revival mansion.

Which implies that “the cottage” is actually the older Bridgerton home and therefore likely the original Bridgerton ‘seat of power’ if you like, while Aubry Hall is a newer build, or at least a newer renovation.

Which implies that the Bridgerton Family has been a noble family since at least the Tudor period. Mostly likely in the form of there being some predecessor family that died out in the male line and then the Tudor red brick manor went to a daughter who married someone named Bridgerton and therefore the line became the Bridgertons. (I say most likely because this is what happens over and over with these kind of houses).

Which implies that part of the reason the Bridgerton Family has so much influence in the Ton, despite being relatively minor nobility, is because unlike all of the recently ennobled families of colour, the Bridgertons have been Noble for centuries.

Which implies to me at least (and I already had this theory but the houses are more evidence) that part of the reason everyone (especially the noble families of colour) want to marry Bridgerton’s is to lend the their own families stability and staying power. After all it was the whim of the Dowager Princess that ennobled all these families, only a few decades earlier. The whim of the government might undo it. But if they embed themselves with the Bridgertons who have been nobles since (probably) Queen Elizabeth, it legitimises their own nobility.

Everyone is understandably losing their minds over the Bridgerton brothers being adorable in that Netflix video.

And honestly, same.

But what really caught my attention was something Luke Thompson said.

“A show like Bridgerton is so confident in what it wants to be.”

“All you can do is sort of just trust it and relax into it.”

That feels like such a Luke Thompson way of thinking about acting.

Not, “How can I stand out in this scene?”

Not, “How can I make this character look impressive?”

But rather:

What does this world already know about itself?

What kind of rhythm does this scene need?

How can I enter that structure without disturbing it?

To me, that explains so much about Benedict Bridgerton.

Benedict is not usually the person forcing the story forward. He often enters a scene from the side, observes, adjusts himself to the atmosphere, and gently helps the room keep moving.

He does not always announce himself as important.

And that may be exactly why, once you start noticing him, you cannot stop looking for him.

On my first watch of Bridgerton, I honestly did not pay much attention to Benedict. He was just… there. The artistic second son. The charming one. The one who floated in and out of rooms with a glass in his hand and a slightly amused expression.

But after Season 4 made me look at him properly, I went back to Season 1 and Season 2 — and suddenly it became a “Where’s Benedict?” game.

And then I realized:

He had been doing this all along.

There is a scene in Season 2, episode 6, after Anthony’s wedding collapses.

Benedict does not know everything that has happened. Daphne understands Anthony much more clearly at that point. Benedict had even been sent away by Anthony just before the ceremony, when Anthony said he needed to speak to Daphne alone.

So Benedict is not the person with the full emotional explanation.

But he notices that something is wrong.

He reads the room.

For a moment, he goes along with the family conversation and lets the scene breathe. Then, almost as if he is closing the emotional bracket, he says something like:

Maybe Anthony should rest for now.

That is so Benedict.

He may not have all the information, but he understands the structure of the moment.

The room is unstable.

Anthony is not okay.

The family is trying to make sense of something too quickly.

Someone needs to let the scene stop.

And Benedict does.

This is why I think Luke Thompson’s acting often feels less like “self-expression” and more like “environmental response.”

He is not simply showing us Benedict’s feelings as an isolated individual.

He is constantly responding to the temperature of the room, the rhythm of the scene, the emotional pressure around him, and the larger structure of the world he is inside.

That may also be why Benedict can be so easy to miss at first.

Luke does not always perform importance in a loud way.

He trusts the world of Bridgerton enough to dissolve into it.

And because he dissolves into it so well, Benedict feels completely natural.

Almost too natural.

You do not always notice the acting because it does not ask you to notice it.

But then, once you realize what he is doing, the whole thing becomes fascinating.

There is another moment in that Netflix interview where the conversation turns to film work.

Someone mentions Dunkirk, and Luke says he was only there for one day.

Then he describes how terrifying it was: a huge sequence, hundreds of supporting artists, a situation where it was very important not to mess up — and yet, at the same time, nobody really cared about him.

What struck me was that he did not frame the experience as, “I was in a major film.”

He framed it through the structure of the scene.

The scale.

The pressure.

The role placement.

The strange feeling of being tiny inside something enormous, while still having to function correctly.

And then Jonathan Bailey responds by saying that must have been one of the most stressful things imaginable for Luke.

That reaction also feels meaningful.

Because Jonathan seems to understand that, for Luke, the stress is not necessarily about being seen.

It is about being correctly placed inside a structure.

That is the thread I keep seeing.

Luke Thompson seems to approach performance by asking:

What is this world?

What does this scene need?

What is the relationship between my presence and the whole?

And Benedict, as a character, often works the same way.

He notices what is happening around him before he fully knows what he himself wants.

He senses pressure.

He reads imbalance.

He steps in lightly.

He shifts the air.

That is why I do not think Benedict’s quietness means emptiness.

It is not absence.

It is attention.

And maybe that is the magic of Luke Thompson’s Benedict.

He does not always make you look at him.

He makes the scene feel right.

Then, once you realize he is doing that, you start looking at him anyway.

So now I am watching Benedict Bridgerton, but at the same time, I feel like I am watching Luke Thompson’s way of entering a structure.

And that is a problem.

people complaining that eloise's feminism is very restrictive and she doesn't do anything are absolutely correct— but they were trying to show that she does want to try, for a very brief moment in the show when she met theo. she was interested in learning about class struggles, and her focus shifted from lady whistledown and never wavered back to it. while i'm not 100% sold on the route of eloise only being able to expand her view of feminism and class struggle with the help of a romantic love interest, and not being able to do any of that by herself, it is still a route that makes sense for her. for eloise to have character development and a happy ending, she would need to a way to go back to learning more about these issues and becoming more radical and actually doing something about it, and the show makers can either choose to make her find her own way through these, or introduce a character who will.

if it done through the second route, the character may or may not be a love interest. in case it is a love interest, of course a man part of the ton, yet who chooses not to take part in it, and has knowledge about such things, can fit what eloise's character needs. however, it makes much more sense for it to be a character outside the ton, like theo, to be this person for eloise because it would be extremely disgusting to remove a working class man, theo, and then bring a rich, nobleman to teach eloise about class struggle. Secondly, it would bring conflict for both the story (forbidden love) and eloise's character (having to give up something (her rank) to get something (her values and love).

the other two scenarios don't require any love interests and eloise can simply die a spinster. but since this is a romance, we could let eloise navigate her way by herself, or with help from a non-romantic connection, and have a love interest who plays some other role in her life. in which case, she would need to attain character development first, so either her season will be delayed or her season's focus would be her development, instead of romance. the man would also need to be someone still as informed about these same things as in the previous case, and be someone who somehow is away from the ton, for eloise to fall for him. but since the man isn't exactly taking any part, and is just there as her love interest, for a character like eloise who doesn't wish to be married and have children, it seems unnecessary to introduce a love interest at all. and even if you do, the point still stands that a working class man (not necessarily theo) is a much more appropriate and compelling narrative choice

While I am not a Bridgerton fan in the least, I’ve had some fun giggly nights watching it with friends and enjoyed that very much.

Bridgerton plays out like a fantasy show, with outrageous costumes and extravagant sets- it’s apparent, rather quickly, that while this show is considered somewhat of a ‘period piece’, its historical accuracy is not the top priority; and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a show and it’s entertaining. One aspect of Bridgerton that I truly love is the colourblind casting- as a POC it’s rare to see yourself represented in a period piece, especially wearing beautiful gowns‼️

But at its core, Bridgerton is a projection of a fantasy- much like a soap opera or an erotic novella: women are all perfectly shaved, hair and makeup perfect, nails and eyelashes done UP 💅, the men are tall dark, handsome and rich. Some of the characters have great depth and interesting arcs, but I’d argue that steamy scenes can often take precedence- which makes sense as that’s what the show is known for!

Bridgerton is in no way rooted in reality, it’s intended to be watched with a gasp, swoon and giggle; shock value on TOP.

Comparatively, TOBS is much more grounded. Though its historical accuracy has been challenged on some points (fair!) I think it’s safe to say that the world within the show is a much more realistic depiction of that era. Still with colourblind casting though (EPIC!)

The show is centred around growth, self expression and acceptance, with romance existing within as somewhat of a secondary plot point. TOBS highlights the awkwardness of its protagonist, it shows a young woman learning to accept who she is despite not being considered graceful nor glamorous by the majority. Mary Bennet doesn’t suddenly become fashionable, she stays true to her nature and finds people who love her for it.

Desire is present in both shows however, in each it serves a different purpose. In Bridgerton I find it is expected and used not only to force characters together but also to get audiences hyped and perhaps a little hot under the collar. The show blatantly sexualises the characters and is intended to convey magnetic connections within scandalous situations (IMO). There is genuine romance and feeling between the pairs in Bridgerton, much of this hinging on the pull of insatiable desire.

TOBS is much more reserved in its use of desire, I find. We see it used as a stepping stone in Mary’s coming of age story: a young sheltered woman experiencing physical attraction for probably the first time, about some forearms no less. This too, is blatant and meaningful, but manages not to sexualise any of the characters involved- instead highlighting Mary’s journey of self discovery as she tries to enter a new era of her life. Here I found that this depiction of desire is less about the man, (Tom❤️) and more about Mary and what this development means for her story.

So though these shows have similarities, it is evident that they are vastly different- in theme and content. Bridgerton is a high budget drama (verging on soap opera) and TOBS is a quieter coming of age story and to me, this makes it difficult to hold them up against each other in a critical way. It’s like comparing a javelin thrower and a long jumper at their performance in a bobsledding event. The shows each set out to do different things, with a different budget on different streaming platforms, and the audiences vary somewhat.

One thing I see frequently are comments on hair and makeup between both shows. While I definitely appreciate how the TOBS crew gave us a Mary with a messy fringe, minimal makeup and pit hair, I also appreciate the costume and makeup designs in Bridgerton; this coincides with the aesthetic of the show; deliberate choices are made with audience in mind.

Anyways. Wow this got long. There’s more to chat about but that’s my two cents worth for now. What do you think?

(I don’t know if I was clear that I don’t think one show is better than the other, they are just different!)