Just watched the final episode of the Night Manager and I gotta say I just cant see Hiddleston as Bond even while playing a spy doing spy stuff in a casino. There's moments where I went "ok, hes sort of Bondish there" but as a whole he lacks the presence and is currently too frail and not masculine enough.
But the character James Bond is a womanizing male. That is his character. Why change that when you can just invent a new character instead?
Because that seems to take too much imagination for some people.
I do find it interesting that James Bond seems to be the one character that people call for to change sex, colour and sexuality. I don't believe that there has been a massive outcry to make other male heroes change.
When the rumoured Indiana Jones reboot was being mooted a few years ago, the candidates were Chris Pratt and Bradley Cooper. Pretty much carbon copies of Harrison Ford. I don't recall acres of press concerned with recasting Indiana as a black actor, or a woman, or making him gay.
Same with Superman. Same with Batman.
And ironically none of those characters colour, sex, or sexuality define them or matter in the long run. But with Bond it is his very English whiteness, his very misogynistic sexuality, and indeed his maleness are what define him as a character, and if you change any of those things then he is no longer James Bond as he has existed for the last 60 odd years, but a whole new character. Yes some things have changed (like his smoking), but the very basic tenets of his character have not changed so why should they now?
I wonder what it is about Bond that makes people think they should completely change his character, when now he is as popular as he was back in the 60's.
Well, both Batman and Superman were played by a British actor when he is an American by birth or adoption. Some lesser white superheroes have now been played by people of color.
The resistance to making Bond female or a person of color, though, has as much to do with the essence of the character as with tradition. For the past 500 years, the western world has dominated most of the globe. European monarchy and colonization have come to represent wealth, class, and power. For Bond to be British and to defend the realm is an extension of that thinking. Given the patriarchy, it makes sense that he is male, too. In this -- being male, white, and western -- he represents the highest privilege, which is reflected in both his breeding and trappings (cars, clothes, education, etc.) and his ability to transgress social mores with impunity (gambling, misogyny, violence, casual sex, etc.). Until relatively recently, such would not be believable for a woman or person of color in western culture unless such were tempered to fit some stereotypical model.
For instance, the African American detective John Shaft is essentially James Bond in personality and behavior, but placed into an urban environment and lacking the economic and political ability to have the same influence.
That said, the western world is entering a period of decline, like all great empires -- Chinese, Persian, Egyptian, Roman, and so forth. Indeed, most of the economic developments in this century will occur in Asia and the Middle East, which shouldn't be surprising since not only is most of the human population housed there, but throughout world history, both have played far more significant roles globally than Europe -- except for the past 500 years. In addition, immigration patterns and birth rates (which are on the decline for whites) are also changing national demographics in many countries.
In the U.S., for instance, Asian American households are now the wealthiest on average, even though Asian Americans are a tiny percentage of the population. Nigerian Americans are the most educated group. For a long time, it was entirely possible for western films to ignore or downplay women and minorities, but such is no longer the case, even if the entertainment industry still so often tries. Indeed, the Chinese film market has eclipsed Hollywood in terms of box office, and American films increasingly are being made with an eye toward export (and, ironically, may pay more attention to global diversity than domestic.)
So all the talk about a Bond who is female or a person of color has more possibility today than ever before. At the same time, the image of the white western male as the model for success is becoming passe. This isn't to say that wealth and prosperity aren't still the province of whites -- the richest people in the world are still overwhelmingly represented by people of European descent, and most American CEOs and millionaires are such. But it is now becoming more plausible that other variations can and do occur. The "norm" is broadening to include others.
In this, it makes perfect sense for Bond to be a focus. No other character quite represents so powerfully the essence of the privileged white male. He gets to be both the hero and the bad boy. He has all the fancy toys, comes and goes as he pleases, and operates from, as the western world defines it, a position of honor and morality, even when he is destructive, insubordinate, or racist or misogynistic. His indiscretions are forgiven because in the grand scheme, he is on the side of right -- a rationalization not unlike those who colonized the world but believed they did so for a higher moral purpose. He has no reason to be self-deprecating like Indiana Jones or morally ambiguous like Batman, positioning him with even greater authority though he lacks either their education or their money. If there is a symbol of an age coming to a close, it is James Bond. To me, that is a big part of the reason so many people would like to see the character change to what they believe is more current and relevant to the age we live in.
Nah, don't be put off. It's an explanation (among many) and not an attempt to denounce the character -- a deconstruction, offered with a critical eye. I love the character, but a postcolonial scholar would likely say much the same. I don't think Bond will go away any time soon, but I do suspect that in time, he will morph into someone less traditional.
Excellent analysis, Gassy Man! The white male power figure has become increasingly disliked over the past decade in America. After that it's anyone who displays wealth and lives a life of luxury who is disliked. I can't speak for attitudes in the rest of the world. While in the past most people would aspire to Bond's lifestyle, now his lifestyle is seen more as simply out of touch by many people. If Bond was no longer the white male power figure, would he or she be more relevant? Could people more readily accept Bond's lavish lifestyle if he wasn't a white male? Or does Bond have to become more like the average person to be more relevant? Bond was never the average person, but I've gathered that people today prefer characters who are like them rather than characters who they can aspire to be like.
{[] The white male is still seen as a powerful figure, especially in Asia, which is somewhat ironic given that just shy of two-thirds of the human race is Asian. One would think it would be the other way around, with exports of Asian heroes flooding the west. But this is both a testament to the business model that keeps most such out and to the power of the western image of success.
I think that Bond has so many elements of the classic hero archetype that most of his qualities can remain, but people are looking for greater diversity in general in films today. As long as those archetypes remain, many people will be comfortable with the character regardless of his (or her) gender or race.
It's interesting, too, that the Bond films present a paradox to me. In the 1960s, while his adventures were arguably more escapist than they are today, he personally seemed more grounded in reality. Bond was a character who while pushing life to the extremes still exhibited a broad range of human experiences and emotions. He could be playful, stubborn, frightened, enraged, impatient, suspicious, mischievous, and so forth. He had a full life, socially and professionally (and even a steady girlfriend in the first two movies), though without the conventional trappings of a family. I could relate pretty easily to him personally even if my life's adventures paled in comparison.
Today, though the films have become arguably more "realistic," Bond as a character has become less dimensional, and his life has narrowed to the job, to the degree that his personal and professional lives have criss-crossed in ways that seem rather absurd. I'm not sure who this guy is in that respect because I see so little of him off the job. He exhibits fewer emotions, but the ones he does are generally more powerful than that of a typical person. In this sense, he isn't average at all but was actually closer to being such in the 1960s films. I honestly wouldn't want to be Craig's Bond, as his life seems far more empty and tragic.
Just watched the final episode of the Night Manager and I gotta say I just cant see Hiddleston as Bond even while playing a spy doing spy stuff in a casino. There's moments where I went "ok, hes sort of Bondish there" but as a whole he lacks the presence and is currently too frail and not masculine enough.
Yea, but Hiddleston isn't playing Bond in The Night Manager - so why would you expect him to be 'Bondish' in it ? ?:)
I find Connery's Bond to exhibit most of the traits I admire in my fellow man. On balance, he's more of a role model than, say, Batman, Forrest Gump, or Martin Chuzzlewit.
I find Connery's Bond to exhibit most of the traits I admire in my fellow man. On balance, he's more of a role model than, say, Batman, Forrest Gump, or Martin Chuzzlewit.
I agree, connerys bond was a more accessible and identifiable character, more grounded and even after all these years I can still relate to him.
Yea, but Hiddleston isn't playing Bond in The Night Manager - so why would you expect him to be 'Bondish' in it ? ?:)
Roger Moore wasn't playing Bond in The Saint, Pierce Brosnan wasn't playing Bond in Remington Steele, and Daniel Craig wasn't playing Bond in Layer Cake. Yet they proved they could be Bondian before Bond.
Just watched the final episode of the Night Manager and I gotta say I just cant see Hiddleston as Bond even while playing a spy doing spy stuff in a casino. There's moments where I went "ok, hes sort of Bondish there" but as a whole he lacks the presence and is currently too frail and not masculine enough.
Interesting. I've only seen the first episode, and had exactly the opposite reaction. As for frailty, as someone pointed out, he's currently got a swimmer's physique. I've no doubt he's consulting with Craig's personal trainer as we speak {:)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yea, but Hiddleston isn't playing Bond in The Night Manager - so why would you expect him to be 'Bondish' in it ? ?:)
Roger Moore wasn't playing Bond in The Saint, Pierce Brosnan wasn't playing Bond in Remington Steele, and Daniel Craig wasn't playing Bond in Layer Cake. Yet they proved they could be Bondian before Bond.
The question is: can Tom Hiddelston be groomed into being a convincing James Bond (which would be a combination of acting, physical traits, and intangibles like screen presence and charisma)? When I watch Night Manager I find myself thinking, if Hiddelston was playing James Bond in this situation how differently would he act or react, how would he carry himself, what would he say, how would he conduct himself in a fight, etc. I wouldn't be upset if he ended up being Bond; I think he has enough potential to make that tranformation and be convincing. That all being said, Craig returning would be my preference, my second choice is Michael Fassbender (yea, yea, I know that's not gonna happen) but out of the current rest of the usual suspects, I would not object if it was Hiddelston.
Here, Indiewire dismisses Tom as a possibility because of his 'soft features' ) Certainly the opposite of what Craig got when he was a prospective Bond.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Here, Indiewire dismisses Tom as a possibility because of his 'soft features' ) Certainly the opposite of what Craig got when he was a prospective Bond.
Personally I think we are "blessed" with so many great actors at the moment who could play Bond.
Can't recall having such a variety of possible Bonds in 2004.
Here, Indiewire dismisses Tom as a possibility because of his 'soft features' ) Certainly the opposite of what Craig got when he was a prospective Bond.
To hell with the nay sayers!
Indeed {[] It's just fascinating that Eon's last two choices have gone from "too rough and thuggish" to "too soft" -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
BondJasonBond006 wrote : "Personally I think we are "blessed" with so many great actors at the moment who could play Bond.
Can't recall having such a variety of possible Bonds in 2004."
We are indeed in a golden age for acting talent. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
*****NIGHT MANAGER SPOILER ALERT**************[******** It is quite odd, but that being said DC was really quite foppish in some of his earlier roles, in fact TH in warhorse reminded me of DC in sword of honour.
And latterly in the night manager while TH's character is lying in bed all beaten up the look in his eye and demeanor remind me of DC's in CR when Mathis gets tasered.
Comments
Bond isn't English. Try "British".
(Aside for long-time members: Yes. Every time.)
The resistance to making Bond female or a person of color, though, has as much to do with the essence of the character as with tradition. For the past 500 years, the western world has dominated most of the globe. European monarchy and colonization have come to represent wealth, class, and power. For Bond to be British and to defend the realm is an extension of that thinking. Given the patriarchy, it makes sense that he is male, too. In this -- being male, white, and western -- he represents the highest privilege, which is reflected in both his breeding and trappings (cars, clothes, education, etc.) and his ability to transgress social mores with impunity (gambling, misogyny, violence, casual sex, etc.). Until relatively recently, such would not be believable for a woman or person of color in western culture unless such were tempered to fit some stereotypical model.
For instance, the African American detective John Shaft is essentially James Bond in personality and behavior, but placed into an urban environment and lacking the economic and political ability to have the same influence.
That said, the western world is entering a period of decline, like all great empires -- Chinese, Persian, Egyptian, Roman, and so forth. Indeed, most of the economic developments in this century will occur in Asia and the Middle East, which shouldn't be surprising since not only is most of the human population housed there, but throughout world history, both have played far more significant roles globally than Europe -- except for the past 500 years. In addition, immigration patterns and birth rates (which are on the decline for whites) are also changing national demographics in many countries.
In the U.S., for instance, Asian American households are now the wealthiest on average, even though Asian Americans are a tiny percentage of the population. Nigerian Americans are the most educated group. For a long time, it was entirely possible for western films to ignore or downplay women and minorities, but such is no longer the case, even if the entertainment industry still so often tries. Indeed, the Chinese film market has eclipsed Hollywood in terms of box office, and American films increasingly are being made with an eye toward export (and, ironically, may pay more attention to global diversity than domestic.)
So all the talk about a Bond who is female or a person of color has more possibility today than ever before. At the same time, the image of the white western male as the model for success is becoming passe. This isn't to say that wealth and prosperity aren't still the province of whites -- the richest people in the world are still overwhelmingly represented by people of European descent, and most American CEOs and millionaires are such. But it is now becoming more plausible that other variations can and do occur. The "norm" is broadening to include others.
In this, it makes perfect sense for Bond to be a focus. No other character quite represents so powerfully the essence of the privileged white male. He gets to be both the hero and the bad boy. He has all the fancy toys, comes and goes as he pleases, and operates from, as the western world defines it, a position of honor and morality, even when he is destructive, insubordinate, or racist or misogynistic. His indiscretions are forgiven because in the grand scheme, he is on the side of right -- a rationalization not unlike those who colonized the world but believed they did so for a higher moral purpose. He has no reason to be self-deprecating like Indiana Jones or morally ambiguous like Batman, positioning him with even greater authority though he lacks either their education or their money. If there is a symbol of an age coming to a close, it is James Bond. To me, that is a big part of the reason so many people would like to see the character change to what they believe is more current and relevant to the age we live in.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think that Bond has so many elements of the classic hero archetype that most of his qualities can remain, but people are looking for greater diversity in general in films today. As long as those archetypes remain, many people will be comfortable with the character regardless of his (or her) gender or race.
It's interesting, too, that the Bond films present a paradox to me. In the 1960s, while his adventures were arguably more escapist than they are today, he personally seemed more grounded in reality. Bond was a character who while pushing life to the extremes still exhibited a broad range of human experiences and emotions. He could be playful, stubborn, frightened, enraged, impatient, suspicious, mischievous, and so forth. He had a full life, socially and professionally (and even a steady girlfriend in the first two movies), though without the conventional trappings of a family. I could relate pretty easily to him personally even if my life's adventures paled in comparison.
Today, though the films have become arguably more "realistic," Bond as a character has become less dimensional, and his life has narrowed to the job, to the degree that his personal and professional lives have criss-crossed in ways that seem rather absurd. I'm not sure who this guy is in that respect because I see so little of him off the job. He exhibits fewer emotions, but the ones he does are generally more powerful than that of a typical person. In this sense, he isn't average at all but was actually closer to being such in the 1960s films. I honestly wouldn't want to be Craig's Bond, as his life seems far more empty and tragic.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yea, but Hiddleston isn't playing Bond in The Night Manager - so why would you expect him to be 'Bondish' in it ? ?:)
Roger Moore wasn't playing Bond in The Saint, Pierce Brosnan wasn't playing Bond in Remington Steele, and Daniel Craig wasn't playing Bond in Layer Cake. Yet they proved they could be Bondian before Bond.
Interesting. I've only seen the first episode, and had exactly the opposite reaction. As for frailty, as someone pointed out, he's currently got a swimmer's physique. I've no doubt he's consulting with Craig's personal trainer as we speak {:)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The question is: can Tom Hiddelston be groomed into being a convincing James Bond (which would be a combination of acting, physical traits, and intangibles like screen presence and charisma)? When I watch Night Manager I find myself thinking, if Hiddelston was playing James Bond in this situation how differently would he act or react, how would he carry himself, what would he say, how would he conduct himself in a fight, etc. I wouldn't be upset if he ended up being Bond; I think he has enough potential to make that tranformation and be convincing. That all being said, Craig returning would be my preference, my second choice is Michael Fassbender (yea, yea, I know that's not gonna happen) but out of the current rest of the usual suspects, I would not object if it was Hiddelston.
If it's Barbel, surely it should be 'band' and not' banned'?
Here, Indiewire dismisses Tom as a possibility because of his 'soft features'
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Can't recall having such a variety of possible Bonds in 2004.
Indeed {[] It's just fascinating that Eon's last two choices have gone from "too rough and thuggish" to "too soft" -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"Personally I think we are "blessed" with so many great actors at the moment who could play Bond.
Can't recall having such a variety of possible Bonds in 2004."
We are indeed in a golden age for acting talent. -{
And latterly in the night manager while TH's character is lying in bed all beaten up the look in his eye and demeanor remind me of DC's in CR when Mathis gets tasered.