Bond
There are, broadly speaking, two schools of thought on the character of Bond. On the one hand, there is the argument that Bond should be exactly who he is set out to be by Ian Fleming in his novels – a white, womanizing secret service agent and former Naval Commander, from a privileged background, of Scottish and Swiss parentage. For this argument, Sean Connery’s depiction is arguably the most accurate adaptation of Bond, and represents the ‘gold standard.’ It is this point that has given rise to the repeated casting of privileged white men in the role.
On the other hand, there is the argument that, because Bond has now been in existence for 50 years – through 24 films, and with six different actors playing the role – ‘Bond’ should, in fact, be the designation of the position within the British Secret Service, just as ‘007’ is.
In terms of British characters with this kind of consistent longevity onscreen, the closest comparison is Dr. Who – which deals with the periodic title-role turnover by having the lead be an alien that can regenerate. Clearly, that’s not the kind of plot twist that would fit with Bond, but having him killed and replaced by another agent with the same designation certainly would.
This change of direction is in-keeping with the formula of the franchise, and allows for greater variety of casting and characterization. Bond filmmakers would no longer be restricted to the Tom Hiddlestons or Henry Cavills of the acting world, and could instead consider performers that would bring something fresh and original to the James Bond role.
This is why there remains such a clamouring for Idris Elba to take the Bond mantle. In addition to being a highly distinguished and talented actor, he brings with him a perspective and experience that is different to those that have gone before. Similarly, by having the previous Bond replaced by another agent of the same designation, producers could consider casting a woman, such as Gillian Anderson, for example. Again, this puts an entirely different spin on the Bond film formula, without actually having to change it all that much.
The point of opening up the casting of Bond to include actors other than privileged white men is that, for Bond to not only survive, but to flourish and achieve its potential, the character needs to be someone we can all wish to be. We all need the chance to believe we could fill those shoes, because then we can all be drawn into the narrative and feel eager to book our theatre tickets. As it stands, the character of Bond is always predictable, and represents a small minority of the potential audience. The rest of us are passive spectators, and that’s only getting more tedious.
