Should there be a female James Bond?
How do people justify changing the gender of iconic male characters when a deluge of high-quality, female-led films suffer from a complete lack of support?
Charlize Theron in 'Atomic Blonde' (Focus Features) |
by Jack Linsdell
Recently, long-time Bond producer Barbara Broccoli gave an interview in which she stated that "Bond is a male...he was written as a male and he'll probably stay a male" when asked on the possibility of a female 'James' Bond. She went on to declare that "we don't have to turn male characters into women. Let's just create more female characters and make the story fit around" them. Within hours, she'd come under intense media scrutiny with people declaring her sexist and such other bizarre things. Now, let's be reasonable and fair when judging this situation.
Firstly, regular readers will know I am a massive 007 fan and am incredibly open to new ways of expanding or continuing the franchise on in our modern era. Although I belong to the half of the world's population that is male, I'm very interested in seeing female representation on our movie screens, not only expand, but also to become more realistic. By this I mean that not every woman is either an emotional damsel-in-distress or a kick-ass action hero - Hollywood needs to increase its depiction of those "middle-ground", so to speak, normal females. Inequality is completely unfair, and as long as the story has appeal it doesn't bother me the gender of the main character. However, I don't think that just because one long-standing franchise, in Doctor Who, has changed the gender of its main character that every other one should. Indeed, the timelord can easily be male or female, as there is no 'real' characteristics that define it to one gender over the other. However, Bond is explicitly a male character. His womanising, misogyny, traditional patriotic values restrict his character to being a man and how can you have a female version of this that still keeps the character that has become so globally iconic?
It has nothing to do with females not being able to be action heroes. Woman are equally, if not more so, capable of being the hero and saving the world from peril, as their passionate drive for justice and caring personalities lend well to the traits we associate with our heroes in culture. If we look at a deluge of recent female action hero-led flicks, it more than provides sufficient evidence that these films can be high-quality and critically successful. Think Patty Jenkin's 'Wonder Woman', Alicia Vikander as a rebooted 'Tomb Raider', or 'Atomic Blonde' starring Charlize Theron. Heck, even Chloe Grace Moretz's 'The 5th Wave' provided audiences with both an emotionally and physically strong heroine. Now, these films are some of my favourite of the past year and I honestly thought they were all well-made and well-acted flicks. The problem was I was in the minority. Audiences seemingly rejected all these characters (apart from 'Wonder Woman'), causing each to be box office flops. Studios were trying to create a new Tomb Raider franchise with the ending to the reboot explicitly setting up a sequel, with the same things evident with 'Atomic Blonde' and 'The 5th Wave', however complete audience rejection has led to these all being cancelled, something I'm most disappointed about. If people can't support a range of female action heroines, what makes people think a female James Bond is going to work?
The only way the film industry will change is if you as the audience actually pay your local cinema faire and go and view all-female led films (especially the action heroines or ones which are acting as franchise starters). Or else we are left with a situation where 'Tomb Raider' struggles to top the Angelina Jolie originals worldwide gross with 'only' $273 million on a $94 budget. 'Atomic Blonde' barely makes $100 million globally, way under 'John Wick: Chapter 2's' $174 million gross. There is so much evidence to suggest that if people actually supported a deluge of female-led, high quality action flicks (or female centric movies in general) then we would all benefit from getting a range of 'new' franchises based around/created by females. Surely, turning a iconic character into a female for the sake of it is doing women (and us all) an injustice when these female characters can have their own franchises that could rival the success of the male-led ones?
So, to quote Bond's boss M from 'Skyfall', "before you declare us irrelevant" for stating that a female James Bond isn't a viable option, consider supporting and creating new heroes that happen to be about/made by females. It isn't enough to support Gal Gadot's god-like superhero and think your changing the industry. You have to do it all round. Yes, a female doctor who is a fantastic milestone for the film world, but just because it works for one character doesn't mean it'll work for another. A female Indiana Jones could work because that role, although has been defined as a male one, is perfectly viable for a female to play. However, for Bond, it doesn't work. By all means, create new female spy's light Lorraine Broughton in 'Atomic Blonde' and make a rival James Bond series but you can't just change 007's gender and expect it to be successful. For the franchise itself, fans will have to just accept the most female centric 007 will become is having stronger female characters in the films - not just sexual objects or disposable damsels - and perhaps a female villain?
Comments
Post a Comment