Should the Next James Bond Be a Woman?

Image Credit: https://www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/celebrity-news/six-james-bonds-one-room-6643038

In all debates – political, ideological, personal, you name it – many ideas are presented. There are those that stick and prompt the general public to action, and there are those that are flatly dismissed, for they cannot be universalized.

Such was the case recently when Barbara Broccoli – the head of Eon Productions and the ex officio executive producer of the James Bond franchise – firmly stated in October 2018 that the renowned Agent 007 would remain male. As Daniel Craig approaches his final Bond film, the currently-untitled 25^th installment in the saga, fans are wondering who, exactly, will become the next 007. British actor Idris Elba is poised to become the first man of color to play the world’s most famous secret agent, but he has admitted he possesses no real intention of committing to the role long-term.

I am writing about James Bond tonight because I feel that this dilemma represents a broader social debate – or, more appropriately as it pertains this blog, a civic issue – between tradition and change. These two values are essentially the cornerstones of all politics. The question of whether to repeat the past or to stray from it have always dominated popular conversation and rhetoric emanating from political leaders.

From a personal standpoint, after being born and spending the first five years of my life in France, I moved to Maryland, a largely-liberal state in which, I found, political generalizations and wide, encompassing statements are aplenty. While I do not criticize the existence, the legitimacy, or the cause for social concern related to these viewpoints, I believe that politics must be evaluated on the basis of the individual – that is, on a case-by-case basis, and that outright change through sweeping generalizations simply lacks pragmatism. In other words, such attempts at social reform cannot be omni-applicable if, in their very nature, they are general and thus fail to cater to individual (citizen) interests.

Now, let’s narrow in on the specific. Indeed, an individual with a license to kill.

Image Credit: http://www.awardscircuit.com/2018/06/29/top-10-best-movie-replacements-and-spinoffs/all-james-bond-actors1/

In the case of James Bond, I am keen to echo a statement that Bond’s MI6 ally, Eve Moneypenny (played by Naomie Harris) – the second iteration of the Miss Moneypenny character in the Bond franchise since the original Sean Connery era – utters in Bond’s last outing, Spectre, released in November 2015. “Sometimes the old ways are the best,” she says.

James Bond has remained an iconic figure since 1962 primarily thanks to his suave style, grit, and unphased spy personality (across six different actors, no less!) The term “Bond girl,” as well, has been so colloquialized that today, 007 is among the most famous and recognizable characters and franchises worldwide. Whereas some may claim that the charming, womanizing cinematic character of James Bond represents several social stigmas and inequalities, I think quite to the contrary. A strong female companion or match for 007 is as powerful as a female Bond herself! As former Bond girl Eva Green indicated, there is no reason for such a consistent, renowned saga to enact such a drastic alteration to itself.

In terms of the possibility for change, I also don’t know that it is necessary for Bond. Rendering Bond female would break with tradition and would eliminate various clichés that have become ingrained in the popular lingo. For example, as aforementioned, the iconic and timeless status of both Bond and Bond girls, from Ursula Address (Dr. No) to Jane Seymour (Live and Let Die), Barbara Bach (The Spy Who Loved Me), and Halle Berry (Die Another Day) would lose its luster as a thing of the past.

Dismissal of one’s roots and past for the sake of change and/or increased political acceptance – or, dare I venture, correctness – is not a worthwhile endeavor. Ultimately, I believe that the Bond franchise is correct in its choice to maintain its titular character’s male gender as author Ian Fleming created the character, and a radical change would be in complete opposition to the past works of many.

I recently came upon a speech by Captain Marvel star Brie Larson in which the Oscar-winning actress condemned the white-male majority of film critics for top-grossing films, citing a USC study. As a white male, I recognize the abundance of people who resemble me in popular media. However, I do not believe that, in the case of 007, underscoring one’s talent with racial/racist overtones and/or the need for social change is useful. The past – that is, tradition – possesses innate value from which we must learn and which we must not seek to wipe out (especially in the realm of fictional storytelling, in which no real lives are harmed).

With various movements such as #MeToo emerging, James Bond is supposed to quote “adapt to modern times.” That being said, therein lies the beauty of 007: his ability to adapt to his own times, his own stories, and his own conflicts. This is why the Bond movies work so well: because they are legitimately intriguing. In uniting past and present, they remind us of the value of entertainment for its own sake as an escape from the real world and a reminder of all that is good.