Women Onscreen
Granted, casting a woman as Bond is a deeply bold move, with the character having been conceived in literature as male, and having been depicted onscreen as a man for 50 years. It’s not just about the lead character, though. The role played by women in the James Bond franchise has always been deeply problematic – precisely because the series is still mired in the values of the 1960s.
There are, essentially three types of role available to women in a Bond film. They are his ally, a femme fatale, or they exist solely for the purpose of being sacrificed. Each of them is sexually available to Bond in one way or another – with the exception of Judi Dench’s M, who was ultimately killed off anyway. The women of the Bond films – collectively known as Bond Girls to further drive home the title character’s sense of entitlement when it comes to the female of the species – share a number of characteristics. They are, generally speaking, depicted as stylish and glamorous, with the stereotypical ‘supermodel’ body type, and often ridiculous names that also function as puns or double entendres.
These character names lend further weight to the sexism of this franchise. Monikers like Pussy Galore, Honey Ryder, Plenty O’ Toole, Holly Goodhead, Xenia Onatopp and Vesper Lynd contribute to the reduction of these women to something less than human – mere plot devices or sexual objects – while James Bond is all-powerful. In addition, Bond Girls are almost exclusively about a decade younger than Bond – a convention so deeply embedded in the films that the casting of then 50 year old Monica Bellucci in 2015’s Spectre was hailed as a feminist victory. Her character is still a romantic interest for the spy, however.
It is the way in which each female character basically falls under the sexual spell of Bond that most strongly reinforces the male wish fulfilment element of these movies – and is one of the main things that needs to change for this franchise to survive in future. Historically, most Bond Girls have been depicted as having a traumatic past – they have been hurt, abused, or suffered some kind of devastating loss. These personal issues cause them to initially resist the advances of Bond, until they acquiesce and become sexual conquests.
They all work hard at being ‘tough’ and ‘strong’ and ‘independent’, but simply cannot help themselves when Bond is around. This is the ultimate in male wish fulfilment – the ability to turn even the most disinterested, stubborn, damaged, headstrong woman to your will, while riding in like a knight on horseback, to save her from herself. It is the very essence of patriarchy – these women think they have it all figured out, until Bond comes along and teaches them that, actually, he knows best.
Not wanting to burst the fragile bubble of millions of male Bond fans, but that’s a ridiculous fantasy. While that kind of storytelling was almost to be expected in 1962, this aspect of Bond films has never changed. Sure, the character names are arguably less suggestive in the franchise instalments of the past ten years, and the women have continued to be capable and accomplished in their own fields of expertise. But this notion of them all finding Bond irresistible in spite of themselves also continues, and is among the most off-putting aspects of the series for an audience that is only getting further and further removed from the cultural standards of 50 years ago.
