When “Bridgerton” premiered in late 2020, it broke the interval drama mould by presenting an thrilling, reimagined model of Regency England with a racially built-in aristocracy.
The brand new season of “Bridgerton,” which premiered Friday, builds on the present’s profitable system by introducing a South Asian household to the ton, the Sharmas.
“‘Bridgerton’ wouldn’t be ‘Bridgerton’ with out the colourful, multiethnic and multihued world we established in Season 1,” stated creator Chris Van Dusen.
The household consists of mom Woman Mary Sheffield Sharma (Shelley Conn), who was raised in an aristocratic English household however married a lowly clerk and has spent the previous few many years in India elevating her daughter, Edwina (Charithra Chandran), and stepdaughter, Kate (Simone Ashley). Now widowed and estranged from her rich mother and father, Mary has returned to London to assist Edwina discover a appropriate husband. Issues come up when Edwina turns into engaged to Viscount Anthony Bridgerton (Jonathan Bailey), who’s in flip growing emotions for the feisty Kate.
Season 2 relies on “The Viscount Who Beloved Me,” the second e book in creator Julia Quinn’s sequence of romance novels concerning the Bridgerton siblings. Van Dusen stated he all the time knew that, ought to he get an opportunity to do a second season of “Bridgerton,” he wished to develop the present’s multicultural perspective by making the Sheffields of “The Viscount Who Beloved Me” into the Sharmas.
Advertisement
Working together with his writing employees and historians together with Priya Atwal, creator of “Royals and Rebels: The Rise and Fall of the Sikh Empire,” Van Dusen got down to give the Sharmas “as a lot of an genuine specificity as we may.”
Particulars reflecting the household’s South Asian heritage are woven all through the season: Kate speaks just a few phrases of Hindi after we first meet her; Edwina takes half in a haldi ceremony earlier than her marriage ceremony; and in a stunning, tender second, Kate washes Edwina’s hair with oil.
“‘Bridgerton’ is a present that celebrates issues that aren’t sometimes seen or heard on this style,” Van Dusen stated. “The world was rather a lot much less homogenous throughout this time interval than some would really like us to imagine. Our objective with this present is for anybody who’s watching to have the ability to see themselves mirrored on display screen and in our world.”
The second season is ready in 1814, by which era there have been deep financial and political ties between Britain and the Indian subcontinent. We spoke to some historians concerning the relationship between the European and Indian ruling courses and the real-life Sharmas of Regency London.
Ties between Britain and India had been well-established by the Regency period
Season 2 of “Bridgerton” is ready in 1814, greater than 200 years after the founding of the East India Firm, which “marked the start of a protracted, difficult and sometimes violent and exploitative relationship between Britain and components of India,” stated Hannah Greig, a professor of historical past on the College of York and a advisor on “Bridgerton.”
Throughout this time, “India was not a single entity however a subcontinent of provinces and states,” she stated.
A few of these areas had been violently annexed by the East India Firm and its mighty mercenary military, however others, such because the Sikh Empire within the north, remained autonomous.
Advertisement
“The advanced financial and political ties between the nations introduced these elite and courtly societies into contact,” stated Greig, “and in addition battle.”
“There was numerous journey between Britain and India, significantly given the significance of the East India Firm to British economics, politics and the state, and the massive demand for luxurious items from India,” Greig stated.
The journey from Mumbai to England took roughly six months and could be timed to keep away from monsoon season. Although in “Bridgerton” Kate plans to make the journey again to India earlier than she and Anthony lastly get collectively, Greig stated it might have been uncommon for an single elite lady to journey unaccompanied.
There have been some South Asians in London right now, however few whose lives have been recorded by historical past
Commerce introduced folks from everywhere in the world to Regency London, a multicultural capital metropolis.
Few of those folks would have been included “within the unique ranks of the ton” because the Sharmas are, Greig stated, however there have been many individuals of coloration in London extra broadly, working as shopkeepers, retailers, craftsmen and home servants and sailors. “Usually their histories, the histories of the non-elite, are extra hidden, and their lives, names and tales stay unwritten.”
Advertisement
Relationships between British males and Indian ladies had been widespread — in India
Relationships between European males and native ladies in India had been extraordinarily widespread throughout all ranges of society all through colonial rule, in accordance with Durba Ghosh, a professor at Cornell College and creator of “Intercourse and the Household in Colonial Historical past.”
“There have been numerous Indian ladies coming out and in of the navy camps, to do house responsibilities, in addition to intercourse work and provisioning,” stated Ghosh. Many youngsters had been born to Indian ladies because of relationships with British males — so many, in actual fact, that the East India Firm arrange orphanages the place these mixed-race youngsters might be educated.
Intermarriage was not unprecedented, but it surely was extra widespread for males to return to England and calm down, abandoning their youngsters and the Indian ladies who’d given delivery to them.
Advertisement
“It’s an open and public secret for many of those instances, that you’ve this relationship within the colony, but it surely’s acceptable so that you can return to Britain and marry anyone who’s extra racially and socially acceptable,” Ghosh stated.
Relationships between English ladies and Indian males had been, in fact, way more uncommon due to the restricted contact between these teams. Nonetheless, Ghosh stated, some Indian sailors who traveled to London aboard East India Firm ships stayed in London and will have had relationships with native ladies. “But it surely’s a really small inhabitants.”
There have been just a few actual ladies just like the Sharma sisters, however they had been uncommon
Ghosh has researched quite a few South Asian ladies who, just like the Sharma sisters, circulated amongst London society through the Regency Period, and had been considered as aristocratic. These ladies had been used to being round Europeans and “had been elite and educated in India, which allowed them to regulate to the expectations of social life in Georgian and Regency England,” Ghosh writes in an article for Historical past Additional.
Advertisement
They included Kitty Kirkpatrick, the daughter of a strong East India Firm administrator and a younger Muslim lady from a courtly family in Hyderabad. Kitty arrived in London on the age of 4 whereas her mom remained in India. It was extraordinarily uncommon for Indian ladies who had relationships with European males to relocate to England, Ghosh stated.
However there have been just a few who did: Halima Begum, later often called Helene Bennett, was a Muslim noblewoman who had two youngsters with a French mercenary soldier in India, then settled with him in a trendy space of London. They by no means wed. She was buried in a Christian cemetery, however with a grave going through Mecca, in accordance with Ghosh.
Elizabeth Ducarel, born Sharaf-un-nissa, had six youngsters (her first at age 13) with Gerard Gustavus Ducarel, a district supervisor for the East India Firm, and moved with him to totally different posts round India. They returned to England collectively in 1784 and later married. She was energetic in London society.
The ladies Ghosh was capable of uncover in her analysis all adopted European names. (“It’s extraordinarily unlikely the Sharmas would have had an Indian final title,” she stated.)
Kate’s romance with Anthony would have raised eyebrows
“A damaged engagement was nearly all the time a scandal, because it risked a girl’s status and meant a person is perhaps sued for breach of promise,” Greig stated. Kate’s unsure parentage would have been an issue, even with a titled stepmother and a strong advocate within the type of Woman Danbury. “So it’s unlikely she would have been considered something like an acceptable match for a viscount.”
Advertisement
Nonetheless, she stated, historical past offers just a few examples of marriages that bucked these norms, “just like the matches made by sisters Misses Elizabeth and Maria Gunning to the very eligible Duke of Hamilton and Earl of Coventry within the 1750s, the place they introduced solely magnificence and no title or wealth to the London season, or the wedding of the Duke of Derby to the actress Elizabeth Farren within the 1790s,” after his first spouse died.
1 of 5 | Robbie Williams appears behind the scenes of his biopic “Better Man,” in theaters Dec. 25. Photo courtesy of Paramount
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 21 (UPI) — Robbie Williams is the latest subject of a musician biopic. Better Man, in theaters Dec. 25, takes such a wild approach that it easily stands apart from films like Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody.
Williams got the performing bug at age 9 in a school performance of The Pirates of Penzance. As a teenager, he auditioned to be in a boy band and landed a spot in Take That.
Williams went solo after friction with the band but still struggled to write original lyrics. By Better Man‘s accounts, Williams had a similar cinematic trajectory as Johnny Cash or Freddie Mercury.
However, Better Man represents Williams as a talking monkey. Director Michael Gracey explains in a pre-film video that he took Williams literally when the singer called himself a performing monkey.
Advertisement
So this is a Planet of the Apes visual effect. It’s Williams’ voice but Jonno Davies performing the reference footage, along with a few other performers for elaborate dance scenes.
The film never gets used to having a monkey as the lead character, a real-life figure who is still alive at that. It never ceases to be off-putting, especially when Williams sings and dances elaborate choreography, and that is part of the film’s power.
Now, when Williams goes through the stereotypical spiral into drugs and alcohol, watching a monkey recreate those scenes is avant-garde art. The visual effect captures Williams’ charm and emotional turmoil, so it’s not a joke.
It only becomes more shocking the more famous Williams gets. Once he starts sporting revealing dance outfits, even more fur is on display.
Advertisement
It’s not even a movie star embodying Williams. There’s neither the real Williams nor an actor’s persona to attach to the film, removing yet another layer of artifice but replacing it with an even more jarring one.
As if one monkey isn’t daring enough, Williams’ inner demons are also visualized as monkeys. So many scenes boast monkey Williams staring at disapproving monkeys too.
Other biopic traditions include a scene where Williams sings a rough demo of his future hit “Something Beautiful” and confronting his absent father (Steve Pemberton) over abandoning him. The biopic tradition of showing photos of the real Williams during the credits actually breaks the spell when audiences can see he was not an actual monkey.
The monkey is the boldest leap Better Man takes but it is not the only one. A disco ball effect lights vast outdoor locations, and the film includes a climactic action scene.
Musical numbers are dynamic, including a romp through the streets of London in an unbroken take. A duet between Williams and lover Nicole Appleton (Raechelle Banno) evokes Astaire and Rogers.
Advertisement
The film embodies Williams’ irreverent spirit, as if a drama starring a monkey could ever be reverent. In his narration, Williams is self-deprecating, and some of the dance numbers blatantly injure pedestrians in their choreography.
The new arrangements of Williams’ songs add dimensions to his hits.
Better Man is bold cinema. The audacity alone is worth celebrating, but the fact that it works is a miracle.
Fred Topel, who attended film school at Ithaca College, is a UPI entertainment writer based in Los Angeles. He has been a professional film critic since 1999, a Rotten Tomatoes critic since 2001, and a member of the Television Critics Association since 2012 and the Critics Choice Association since 2023. Read more of his work in Entertainment.
The thing about the “Sonic the Hedgehog” movies is that they continue to surprise — with how humorous, self-referential and even insightful they can be. Since the first movie defied expectations in 2020 (the creative team redesigned the character after online backlash to a first look), a third film now cruises into theaters and the series shows no signs of stopping.
Helmed at a breakneck pace by Jeff Fowler, “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” is loud, chaotic and often corny, with a visual style that can only be described as “retina-searing,” but the script by Pat Casey, Josh Miller and John Whittington is funny, punny and doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s a clever genre exercise sanded down for kids (a “Mission: Impossible” riff this time) that gleefully breaks the fourth wall to bring us all in on the jokes.
There are also references to “The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift” and “John Wick,” particularly with the vocal casting of Keanu Reeves as Shadow the Hedgehog, a sort of “dark Sonic” character, who here is a wounded warrior bent on vengeance. Ben Schwartz returns as the voice of Sonic, the sunny blue alien who’s “gotta go fast.”
But the real reason to give the “Sonic” films a chance is a bravura performance of pure clownery from Jim Carrey as Sonic foe Dr. Robotnik (forgive me, I did chuckle when Sonic cheekily refers to him as “Dr. Robuttstink,” it’s been a long year). And in the third installment, it’s double the Robotnik, double the fun and twice the chance for Carrey to demonstrate the brand of outsized physical humor that made him famous. Carrey co-stars as his character’s own grandfather, Gerald Robotnik, who experimented on Shadow in a secretive military lab 50 years ago.
The plot is some gobbledygook about a key and a space laser that Robotnik the elder and Shadow would like to use to blow up the Earth because they’re angry at the loss of a dear grandchild and friend, Maria (Alyla Browne). Robotnik the younger joins the mission in the interest of family bonding, while Team Sonic, which includes grumpy Knuckles (Idris Elba) and perky Tails (Colleen O’Shaughnessey), as well as their human caretakers, Tom and Maddie (James Marsden and Tika Sumpter), band together to try and stop the Robotniks, and learn some important lessons about teamwork and cooperation along the way.
Advertisement
And then, among all the chaos, dance breaks and befuddling body swaps (Krysten Ritter briefly shows up in a role that feels like it was largely cut from the film), “Sonic the Hedgehog 3” suddenly stops for a moment, for a shockingly trenchant discussion about grief and loss. That this conversation happens between two animated hedgehogs sitting on the moon only enhances the surreal nature of this surprisingly moving moment, but Reeves’ vocal performance manages to sell this meditation on learning to live with the pain of loss. Shadow and Sonic come to the realization together that isolation and bitterness is no way to honor a lost loved one’s memory.
The series shows no signs of stopping (there are not one but two post-credits teasers) and with each iteration, there are diminishing returns on the character and formula. But as long as they keep up the silly, fourth-wall breaking humor and earnest messages of unity, the Sonic franchise just might have some legs.
Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.
‘Sonic the Hedgehog 3’
Rated: PG, for action, some violence, rude humor, thematic elements and mild language
Ben Smallbone’s “Homestead” takes place in a world where foreigners detonate a nuclear bomb off the coast of Los Angeles, the protagonists are saved because they own a Tesla, Bitcoin is the only valuable currency, and the truth can only be told on Right Wing radio. For some people that’s a selling point. For many others, it’s a list of red flags.
It’s easy to think of films like “Homestead” as if they live on the fringe of mainstream media, but though this particular film isn’t a major studio release, they’re hardly uncommon. Hit movies like “Black Hawk Down” and “300” have shamelessly vilified non-white antagonists, portraying them as fodder for heroic, mostly white hunks to mow down with impunity, sometimes in dramatic slow-motion. “Forrest Gump” is the story of a man who does everything he’s told to do, like joining the Army and embracing capitalism and participating in anti-communist propaganda, and he becomes a great American success story. Meanwhile, the love of his life suffers decades of indignity by throwing in with anti-war protesters and Black Panthers, and for all her trouble she dies of AIDS.
The point is, this is not an unusual starting point for a film. “Homestead” is up front about it. It’s clear from the start who this movie is for and what this movie respects. What is surprising is that this production, based on the first of a series of novels by Jeff Kirkham and Jason Ross, also has real conversations about moral conflicts and ethical crossroads. By the end, it even declares that Christian charity is more important — and also more productive — than selfish nationalism. For a minute, right before the credits roll, even people who aren’t in the film’s target demographic might be forced to admit that “Homestead” is, for what it is, one of the better films of its ilk.
And then the movie whizzes all that good will down its leg at the last possible second, contradicting its own morals in a shameless attempt to bilk the audience.
We’ll get back to that. “Homestead” stars Neal McDonough (“Tulsa King”) and Dawn Olivieri (“Lioness”) as Ian and Jenna Ross, a fabulously wealthy couple whose gigantic estate, vast hoard of doomsday supplies and seemingly unlimited arsenal make them uniquely prepared to survive the country’s collapse. At least one major city has been nuked, the power has gone out across the nation and everyone who didn’t prepare for doomsday scenarios is looking pretty silly right now. They’re also looking directly at the Ross estate, Homestead, as their possible salvation.
Advertisement
As such, Ian enlists a team of ex-Navy SEALs to guard Homestead. They’re led by Jeff Eriksson (Bailey Chase, “Longmire”), who uses the opportunity to keep his own family safe. His teenage son, Abe (Tyler Lofton), is the same age as Ian’s daughter Claire (Olivia Sanabia), and nobody else is a teenager, so that romantic subplot is a foregone conclusion. Jeff also has a daughter named Georgie (Georgiana White) who has psychic visions of the future. You might think that would be important later, but leave the fortune-telling to Georgie because she knows (as far as this movie is concerned) that it won’t.
Tensions flare between Ian, who only wants to hold the fort until the American government gets its act together, and Jeff, who assumes civilization will quickly collapse like soufflé at a Gwar concert. Meanwhile, the hungry refugees, some of whom are Ian’s friends and associates, camp outside their gates, desperate to get to safety. Jenna wants to give them food and shelter, but Ian is doing the math and says their supplies won’t last: “What you give to them, you’re taking from us. It’s that simple.”
Gloom and doom fantasies like “Homestead” take place in the very contrived situations where everything you’ve always feared, and for which everyone mocked you for believing in, finally come to pass. ‘Oh no, the government is here to help,’ in the form of a sniveling bureaucrat who wants to inventory Homestead’s supplies and redistribute them to people in need — that monster. Thank God we bought the Tesla with the “Bioweapon Defense Mode,” that wasn’t paranoid at all.
Then again, in the midst of all this anti-refugee rhetoric and pro-billionaire propaganda, cracks in “Homestead’s” façade start to form. Ian’s pragmatism isn’t preventing Homestead from running out of supplies. Jeff’s paranoia seems to be costing more lives than it saves. There’s even a scene where the same woman whose life was saved by a Tesla bemoans how dangerous the vehicle was when her family got attacked by looters, and screams, “Why?! Why did we buy a Tesla?!”
By the end, “Homestead” has explored at least some nuanced perspectives on the real moral issues it raises. With a mostly game cast and efficient, professional direction by Smallbone (“Stoned Cold Country”), it’s not a badly made movie from a technical perspective. And the film’s final message, espousing the positive Christian value of charity, and both the importance and practicality of being generous to the needy, is hard to dispute.
Advertisement
Until, again, the movie’s actual ending. This part won’t require a “spoiler warning” because, A.) It doesn’t spoil the plot; and B.) It’s more like a warning label. This part of the film should have been clearly labeled on the package — like “Smoking causes cancer” or “This paint contains lead.”
It’s a bit of an annoyance to discover that “Homestead” is actually the pilot episode of an ongoing series, which you are expected to commit to now that you’ve bought into it with cold, hard cash. Not that there’s anything horribly wrong with that storytelling approach, but you probably went into this theater expecting a standalone movie and it’s hard not to feel a bit scammed, like you just bought a brand-new AAA game and found out most of its content is still locked behind an additional paywall. The TV series version of “Homestead” isn’t even mentioned on the film’s Wikipedia page, at least not by the time this review was written.
But more than that, “Homestead” ends with a cast member breaking character, speaking directly to the audience, and saying that with Christmas right around the corner, you should be thinking about charity. But they don’t suggest donating to the needy, like the actual film preaches. Instead, they tell you to give more money to the filmmakers. You are encouraged, with the help of an on-screen QR code that stays on-camera throughout the whole credits, to buy a stranger a ticket to “Homestead,” which they may or may not even use, thus artificially inflating the film’s box office numbers and the industry’s perception of its success. It would be one thing if they were straightforward about this: “Please give us money to make more stuff like this.” That’s not the worst thing in the world. But to couch this in terms of charity? It’s very difficult not to take issue with that.
Is this a bad business model? That depends on your values. If you value business, sure, that’s a way to make money. You show people a film designed to convince them that they should be charitable and then tell them to be charitable by giving you more money. Is it ethical? Is it a little hypocritical? Is it not just a little hypocritical, but in outright defiance of everything you just said you believed in?
I suppose your mileage may vary. I couldn’t help but feel like I was being scammed. Just when I was finally enjoying the film, I was given every reason not to. Any movie that espouses the Christian value of generosity and then tells its audience the best way to be charitable is to make the filmmakers richer is hard to recommend in good conscience, even if it is otherwise pretty well made.