'Joanna Lumley is right:Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond' – The Guardian
Silhouette Man
The last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
Our member Revelator shared this article over on MI6 Community, so thought I'd share it here too! Don't agree with anything the author says, but thought you'd all like the chance to read it anyway!
The Guardian, Wednesday 10 May 2017 06.00 BST
Joanna Lumley is right: Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond – in fact, no one should
by Caspar Salmon
An emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition should be shelved, and all speculation over who should play him needs to end.
In an interview with the Radio Times this week, actor, documentarian, campaigner and city planner Joanna Lumley opined that Idris Elba, long rumoured to be the next James Bond, should not play the role as he does not fit Ian Fleming’s original description of the character.
In this Joanna Lumley is correct, although perhaps unintentionally so. What would Bond look like, if he had actually existed and been allowed to age? Bond scholars have it that the character would have been born in 1920 or 1921, educated at Eton and Fettes College, later doing a stint in the navy, famously racist, sexist and homophobic, and given to emitting embarrassing quips at the most inopportune moments. Which means that Bond, if he were alive today, would be 96 and look exactly like Prince Philip. The similarities between the two men are astonishing when you pause to look at them: same year of birth, public schooling and international education, military background, and a lifetime spent in unquestioning service to the queen. The two men’s best one-liners are routinely anthologised by tabloids and lads’ mags. The only significant difference between the two men is that Prince Philip has had the decency finally to retire.
As for a physical description of his hero, Fleming calls his protagonist handsome while noting, somewhat contradictorily, that he resembles the singer Hoagy Carmichael. There we have it: Bond, such as he was described in a series of books written by a white man in the 60s, does not resemble Elba, a black man born in the 70s. Lumley, who was born to another pre-war, patriotic, military James (Major James Rutherford Lumley), in India, in the last year of British colonial rule, called it right.
Lumley presumably holds this view because she cherishes the character, and the old-school British values of heroism and masculinity it connotes, and wants the actor playing him to be authentic. On the other hand, you could argue that if Elba cannot play a character, because he is too modern, too black, not upper-class enough, then the character should be shelved, much like his Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We don’t need any more Bond films. We now know, in fact – not least because Bond is hero-worshipped by Piers Morgan – that the character is toxic.
Bond belongs to a grotesque tradition, born of British Empire, of separating boys from their parents at a very young age to send them to be bullied and sometimes raped in public schools, in order to toughen them up. This results in Bond’s terrifying, emotionless nihilism, or the give-a-sh1t rudeness of Prince Philip. Philip Larkin surely had this tradition in mind when he wrote that “man hands on misery to man”. Elba does not belong to this world and cannot convincingly portray it. The character has been modernised over the years, particularly since Jason Bourne came along to make Pierce Brosnan’s bouffant look (more) preposterous; but in essence, the character stands for an idea of empire, of British heroism, that is rooted in very specific socio-historical circumstances.
Can Elba play a handsome, exciting, sexy British spy? Damn right. But this would be to unclaw the character and sanitise his hideous, harmful trappings. Therefore, if Elba does not have the right profile to play a dinosaur, it seems obvious that we shouldn’t update the dinosaur, but consign it to history: let us shelve Bond as the museum artifact that he is, write Elba any number of other roles, and talk of 007 no more.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/may/09/idris-elba-james-bond-joanna-lumley
The Guardian, Wednesday 10 May 2017 06.00 BST
Joanna Lumley is right: Idris Elba shouldn’t play Bond – in fact, no one should
by Caspar Salmon
An emotionless character that belongs to a grotesque tradition should be shelved, and all speculation over who should play him needs to end.
In an interview with the Radio Times this week, actor, documentarian, campaigner and city planner Joanna Lumley opined that Idris Elba, long rumoured to be the next James Bond, should not play the role as he does not fit Ian Fleming’s original description of the character.
In this Joanna Lumley is correct, although perhaps unintentionally so. What would Bond look like, if he had actually existed and been allowed to age? Bond scholars have it that the character would have been born in 1920 or 1921, educated at Eton and Fettes College, later doing a stint in the navy, famously racist, sexist and homophobic, and given to emitting embarrassing quips at the most inopportune moments. Which means that Bond, if he were alive today, would be 96 and look exactly like Prince Philip. The similarities between the two men are astonishing when you pause to look at them: same year of birth, public schooling and international education, military background, and a lifetime spent in unquestioning service to the queen. The two men’s best one-liners are routinely anthologised by tabloids and lads’ mags. The only significant difference between the two men is that Prince Philip has had the decency finally to retire.
As for a physical description of his hero, Fleming calls his protagonist handsome while noting, somewhat contradictorily, that he resembles the singer Hoagy Carmichael. There we have it: Bond, such as he was described in a series of books written by a white man in the 60s, does not resemble Elba, a black man born in the 70s. Lumley, who was born to another pre-war, patriotic, military James (Major James Rutherford Lumley), in India, in the last year of British colonial rule, called it right.
Lumley presumably holds this view because she cherishes the character, and the old-school British values of heroism and masculinity it connotes, and wants the actor playing him to be authentic. On the other hand, you could argue that if Elba cannot play a character, because he is too modern, too black, not upper-class enough, then the character should be shelved, much like his Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We don’t need any more Bond films. We now know, in fact – not least because Bond is hero-worshipped by Piers Morgan – that the character is toxic.
Bond belongs to a grotesque tradition, born of British Empire, of separating boys from their parents at a very young age to send them to be bullied and sometimes raped in public schools, in order to toughen them up. This results in Bond’s terrifying, emotionless nihilism, or the give-a-sh1t rudeness of Prince Philip. Philip Larkin surely had this tradition in mind when he wrote that “man hands on misery to man”. Elba does not belong to this world and cannot convincingly portray it. The character has been modernised over the years, particularly since Jason Bourne came along to make Pierce Brosnan’s bouffant look (more) preposterous; but in essence, the character stands for an idea of empire, of British heroism, that is rooted in very specific socio-historical circumstances.
Can Elba play a handsome, exciting, sexy British spy? Damn right. But this would be to unclaw the character and sanitise his hideous, harmful trappings. Therefore, if Elba does not have the right profile to play a dinosaur, it seems obvious that we shouldn’t update the dinosaur, but consign it to history: let us shelve Bond as the museum artifact that he is, write Elba any number of other roles, and talk of 007 no more.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/may/09/idris-elba-james-bond-joanna-lumley
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
Fleming wrote most of his books in the 1950s, not the 1960s.
Describing Hoagy Carmichael as a "singer" doesn't describe the man accurately. Sure, he did sing, but that was secondary to his talents as a pianist and composer (ever hear of a song called "Georgia On My Mind"? Or "Stardust", perhaps? To name but two). He also acted in films- though admittedly usually as a pianist ("To Have And Have Not", "Young Man With A Horn". etc). Calling Carmichael a singer is a bit like calling Paul McCartney a guitarist- sure, he can play guitar but that doesn't begin to cover his talents.
Bond is toxic? Really? The mainstay of the longest running film franchise, which has never produced a film that loses money is "toxic"? The box office returns of the most recent two films have been astronomic, and Bond's influence on action films doesn't need explanation.
Bond is emotionless? Has Caspar Salmon read any of the books?
Bond was born in 1920 or 1921? Not according to Fleming (read MR or YOLT).
That's just on a first reading (I could find more). I don't think that a writer who can't get his basic facts straight should have much emphasis put on his conclusions.
And finally, the elephant in the room: the colour issue. Ian Fleming based the character of James Bond on several individuals, both real and fictional (and there are many articles or blogs covering that) but most of all, and I think few would argue, on himself- and again there are many articles etc to back that up- ie, a white man from Great Britain with a privileged though not aristocratic background. The parallels between Bond and Fleming are many and deep, including (but not limited to) his tastes in clothing, cars, food, drink and women and his background. Bond's physical appearance is also based on Fleming himself (height, hair & eye colour, etc). No-one would or should expect an actor to conform exactly to Fleming's description (and none have, although some are closer than others) but if there's a hypothetical list of ten points then they should score more than, say, seven :007) .
Article credibility stone dead straight away.
Shall we move on?
Oh, crumbs. Sorry, Sir Miles!
No problem.
In Fleming's time, there was hardly anyone from Great Britain who wasn't white. Britain has slowly become more diverse, but it is still rare that someone today who isn't white could fit all of the details that Fleming provided for Bond.
I think it is Americans mostly pushing for a black Bond. Americans think in black and white. If Bond wasn't white, I would think the first choice should be the second-largest population in Britain: British Asian (South Asian). Why aren't people up in arms about there not being an Asian Bond? I think that makes more sense than a black Bond.
There’s the current artistic movement to challenge expectations on established stories and it varies from the IMO relatively innocuous race replacement of Bond characters formerly played by white actors (Leiter, Moneypenny), to the radical, such as Hamilton, for the sake of helping modern diverse audiences relate to the history of white people. Then, secondly, there’s the socio-political movements of righting past social wrongs, a dynamic that takes place in these same stories but a different level. I think the way they’ve done it with Bond was okay, that secondary characters could be portrayed either way, but I would draw the line at doing it with Bond, whether it’s his race, gender or even his sexual orientation, which would be of the second variety of trying to make a revisionist statement that would render Bond as a social expression stunt. Usually, it seems the stronger proponents of these are those wanting to exact social justice, while those who strongly support the proponents are those who don’t want to be socially cast on the wrong side of racial justice.
I'm not sure any of the actors since Connery would score 7/10 on a scale of conforming to Fleming. Connery only gets a pass because we know Fleming finally approved after seeing the first film, but he did have misgivings when Connery was first cast. As soon as Fleming died, even Connery became a wisecracking indestructible superhero. Goldfinger roughly follows the plot of the book, but ignores any insights into Bonds character from the book.
I find it significant that Bond was chucked out of England's most famous public school and had to finish his schooling at a less posh and more rigorous Scottish institution, though I doubt Mr. Salmon would understand.
As Barbel noted, Book Bond is not at all emotionless. Movie Bond has also been baring his heart on his sleeve recently, and if he was less emotional in earlier decades, that correlates with the Bond films having been more comedic and light-hearted. And Bond of course is not a nihilist--he is a patriot who deeply loves Britain. Mr. Salmon wishes to have his cake and eat it too by attacking Bond as a rabid Imperialist and a nihilist. But for a certain type of Guardian writer, Bond, regardless of his actual merits and demerits, will always symbolize everything they hate.
He's back!!!!!!
I am expecting the worst!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I never left.
And you'd be right too B-)
You did an amazing job - as usual - and my absence was hardly noticed...which is a good thing -{
AJB definitely ran better and smoother
I shouldn't because Higgybum wrote most of that !
Just sorting out some crap I had to deal with...
Pretty much
Oh, well I hope you're on the other side of that all now then. Good to have you back keeping things in order here although of course Barbel has been doing a good job. -{
Tee hee! Thanks!
I can certainly relate to that! Glad you're back Sir!
Thanks, although my troubles cannot compare with yours...so I'm really happy to see you back here -{
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
http://apbateman.com
Yeah, Jamie Bell may have a chance if BB likes younger guys.