Total Pageviews

Tuesday, 24 May 2016


Every few years, we enter that "who will be the next James Bond?" season and out of the woodwork comes varying degrees of claptrap about some politically correct factor in choosing the next actor.

Should James Bond be black, female, gay, short, fat, ugly, bald and on and on and on?

My answer is a resounding NO!

Ian Fleming created the Bond character as a particular type - here's a link to a rather good website that explains the origins of the character -

In the 1960s, we had The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and then The Girl From U.N.C.L.E.  not the girl cancelling out the man.

We had Batman and then Batgirl, again, not the girl cancelling out the man.

So we can have James Bond as written and we can also have other Bonds to satisfy the PC brigade who want every box ticked to ensure we don't upset anyone. It is possible to create new characters based on whatever you think would make everyone happy - Idris Bond, Jane Bond, Shorty Bond, Tubby Bond, Brynner Bond, whatever takes your fancy.

But in the end, does it really matter? Bond films are not exactly taxing in the acting skills department, except in delivering witty one liners, looking anxious at end-of-the-world moments and cool in the duvet scenes. The plots aren't even that important. It's the entertainment value and the action that counts. Bond could be played by a robot and we'd still enjoy the hokum.

As cinemagoers, we get over things quite quickly. We got over the change of actors from Connery to Craig and we'll get used to whoever takes on the role next.

For some reason Doctor Who has crossed my mind. Now that is a character that changes in weird, wobbly screen moments every so often and is ripe for an actor/actress who is black, female, gay, short, fat, ugly, bald............

But hands off Bond as written

No comments:

Post a comment