A link to an article about "A Female James Bond" was recently posted in the r/movies subreddit of Reddit. This is, obviously, not a particularly critical issue in the world today. It is however, something I've actually thought about before. I'm not a rabid James Bond fan, but obviously a lot of people are so it's good grist for discussions about gender, culture, and story-telling.
First, some responses to The Case Against a Woman as James Bond (as I'm seeing it in the article and the Reddit response). The primary argument on that side seems to be an implicit or explicit claim that male-ness or masculinity is an essential aspect of Bond's character. I understand the spirit of this claim, but I think the essential aspects of any given character is a deep question. And I agree that characters do have essential aspects (for instance, I happen to believe that James Bond is essentially a spy, and essentially British). Bond being a man has been an important aspect of the character, certainly. As a man, the character demonstrates a particular perspective on, and treatment of, women, and there are various roles he, as a man, can or cannot take on as a spy. But it doesn't go without saying that an important aspect is necessarily an essential aspect.
One thing to remember is that James Bond is a fictional character. As an aside, the essential male-ness argument becomes somewhat stronger for historical figures - I think that you would lose something essential if you tried to make a movie about Ernest Hemmingway with a woman playing "Ernestine Hemmingway" in the same time period. But you could still make that movie, and I'd HELLA WATCH THAT SHIT. Books and movies should be allowed to play around with that sort of thing, and such experimentation is one of the most wonderful things that story-telling can offer us. It would be hard to pull off, but I could even imagine a Jewish Hitler or a Black Julius Caesar. That shit would be super interesting.
But James Bond isn't historical. There is a historical aspect to the original James Bond, but the franchise has naturally expanded itself into versions which take place in the 21st century. Was this fictional character "written as a man"? Sure. But we have some excellent examples of gender flipping/swapping that show that heteronormatively-male characters can be reimagined. One amazing example of this is Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica. Unlike the example of, say, Doctor Who, Starbuck "as originally written" has importantly masculine traits. Kara Thrace's rebooted portrayal of the character retains those exact traits, AND also plays a character who is a fully-realized woman (i.e., not a woman simply playing a man). Another decent example is the "Parallel Universe" episode of Red Dwarf. Lister is an extremely slobby, heterosexual, cis-gendered character, but his female opposite is absolutely recognizable as a "Lister". Hell, even "He-Man", a fictional character with the words "He" and "Man" in his literal name, has She-ra, a recognizable gender-flipped alternate.
The other big argument I'm seeing is that "we should create original women protagonists instead of rebooting existing characters". This carries some weight in my mind, but it's far from persuasive. First of all, it's not at all obvious that creating new franchises and rebooting old ones are mutually exclusive, or even that the latter affects the likelihood of the former. Secondly, there's a real case to be made for the importance of "de-throning" classic male protagonists. We don't live in a post-sexist world, and there is still something to be gained from challenging assumptions about men's monopoly on certain traits (strength/toughness, power, heroism, risk-taking, competitiveness, political savvy, ruthlessness, sexual confidence, etc).
I absolutely agree that there is a danger of sending a message that the zenith of women's empowerment is defined by stepping into male roles. I also think that people in the movie industry are probably more likely to invest in a gender-flipped reboot of a popular male character than in an entirely original female character who fits the same archetype/template. There is a reflection of sexism in this reluctance, and in the choices of consumers that such reluctance is a pragmatic response to.
I think that these more nuanced issues need to be discussed, but a woman playing James Bond would simply be an opportunity to discuss them. We could ask ourselves whether the end result was empowering or exploitative. In fact, this discussion should happen even with the archetype/template scenario. Personally, I think Atomic Blonde was a lot less empowering than movies like Salt or Haywire (Haywire is fucking awesome, go watch it).
A less frequent argument that I'm seeing is "What about <classically female character> being rebooted as a man? That would be terrible!". But many of the examples cited are examples of characters that are basically archetype/template MtF reboots to begin with (like Lara Croft or The Bride in Kill Bill). And a lot of the other classic women characters in fiction are inherently feminine in a way that is already a response to sexual hierarchy to begin with. In fact, there's the obvious trope of such characters frequently being defined by their romantic relationship with a man (or multiple men, or men as a societal force). This is a result of women's self-identity being more tied up with gender than men's self-identity is. Fictional versions of women are going to reflect that, and so you're going to see gender being closer to the core of such characters.
But the main problem with this argument is that men do not have the same kind of work to do. I truly believe that men do face issues when it comes to societies expectations of masculinity, but the issues are different. I actually think it would be interesting to see a male version of Belle from Beauty and the Beast, or a male version of Mary Poppins, and such experiments could potentially help explore questions about what we expect from men. In fact, I think that gay men have been conducting these kinds of experiments for decades in an attempt to reimagine or subvert assumptions about what it means to "be a man".
To put it in overly simplistic terms, the work women in the western world need to do is to up-end assumptions about never being truly powerful or in charge, and men in the western world need to up-end assumptions about always having to be powerful or in charge. The very concept of a heroic figure itself is at least a little gendered - it's still too natural to think about "abstract" archetypes of leaders, rock-stars, or people who change the world, and to fill in the blank with a man-shaped silhouette. When we talk about James Bond, we're not just talking about any old franchise, we're talking about a massively popular franchise. It's not a coincidence that the majority of massively-popular franchises feature a male protagonist. There is a spot-light here, and the faces lit up by that spot-light are predominantly male.
One last argument against is basically some form of "I'm sick of all this politically-correct maneuvering". But this assumes that politically-correct maneuvering isn't a valid response to societal imbalances. That might be your opinion, but (in this case, at least) stating it is isn't an argument, it's just preaching to the choir. Furthermore, books and movies (and plays and video-games and advertisements and music videos) are clearly in the business of crafting narratives about gender. It's not the case that rebooting male characters brings gender issues into a world that was gender neutral. To use a term I've learned from depictions of court cases in Law & Order, story-tellers from time immemorial have already "opened the door" to questions about gender. Any story-teller who experiments with gender isn't foisting an entirely new or unnecessary set of issues into the mix, they're playing around with the pre-existing issues introduced by generations upon generations of gendered narratives.
And yes, there have been ham-fisted attempts to reboot male characters as women. Some of these attempts have been driven by politically-correct zealotry or attempts to cash in on politically-correct zealotry. At worst, these are cautionary tales, not reasons to completely avoid such reboots. And honestly, if we have to break a few eggs to make the omelet, so be it. Again, someone may disagree that there are societal imbalances that need to be addressed, but they should be able to recognize that if such an omelet was real, then breaking a few eggs (badly re-imagined characters in fictional franchises) would absolutely be an acceptable price to pay.
The Case in Favor:
I think dismantling the arguments against is the bulk of the work here, since such arguments mostly try to pre-emptively invalidate the idea of woman as Bond. But I sincerely think there is a positive argument to be made in favor. There is an imagined version that needs to be considered seriously, and The Case Against would need to explain why this version is obviously too unwieldy to ever get off the runway.
Like I said before, my personal take is that JB is essentially a spy, and essentially British. The character is also essentially a sociopath. This is what differentiates him from the typical action-hero template, and it's what makes him interesting, compelling, dangerous, and believable. A psychologically healthy person couldn't do what James Bond does: changing identities, manipulating people, enduring severe pain/fear/discomfort, repressing emotional reactions in emotionally intense situations, and mastering an incredibly diverse set of skills and domains of knowledge (languages, politics, geography, culture, technology, weapons, hand-to-hand combat, demolitions, reconnaissance/surveillance, wilderness survival, etc, etc, et-fucking-cetera).
I'm pretty sure that it's comparatively rare (in the real world) for women to be sociopaths, but it's not impossible or unheard of. I can see a female James Bond exploring this idea in super interesting ways. I even think that James Bond's sexual escapades are, in an important sense, a reflection of his sociopathy, and I can see a woman using/treating men in similar ways. I can also see a woman demonstrating almost superhuman capabilities due to a combination of an existing psychological disposition which is then amplified by an insane amount of training. I think Atomic Blonde is a decent example of all of this, actually, but it's not like this particular well is dry, and it would be fun to see how it would work out in the James Bond world.
A second essential aspect of JB is his poise and style. Some of this is tied to his British-ness, but it's also just a general matter of Western perceptions of wealth, class, and taste. Women in this domain are often relegated to being demure, coquettish, bubbly, prim, or extravagant, but there are plenty of examples of strong, smart women who use poise and style in a sharper and more assertive way. I'm thinking about Mary Crawley (Downton Abbey), Inara Serra (Firefly), and Cersei Lannister (GoT). Actually, fuck, Cersei is an incredible example of a woman who is a sociopath, too. Honestly, just give Lena Heady a slim, black gun and a martini and start the cameras rolling.
A third essential aspect of JB is his unshakable (but morally dubious) patriotism. In fact, it might be more of a loyalty to his agency (or to certain people) than a loyalty to his country or certain principles. But one thing he isn't is a mercenary, or an assassin, or a rogue. Has the unshakable patriotism narrative been explored elsewhere? Absolutely. There are many different varieties of patriot-spies, patriot-journalists, and patriot-lawyers. And some of these characters have been women. But again, it would be fun to see how it would work out in the James Bond world. You could attempt to create a new world, like Atomic Blonde does, and that's cool, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll become a franchise in its own right. But you'd have to be pretty culturally ignorant not to understand the appeal of an established franchise. As just one example (of many possible examples), I'm sure "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" could have been written as a non-Harry-Potter story, but the Harry Potter world is rich and compelling; it's fun to revisit it, and audiences are often drawn to such revistitations.
(I guess this ventures back into "The Case Against" territory: basically, why even make multiple James Bond movies in the first place? Why not only create new spy movies with male characters? These are silly questions for anyone who understands the appeal of franchises, which is almost anyone who is going to have an opinion about James Bond.)
Anyway, I think it might be a challenge to pull it off, but a woman as James Bond isn't obviously impossible, or obviously unwise, or obviously unnecessary. If it was executed properly, you'd have an amazing character: A woman who is a fighter, a spy, a patriot, a dare-devil, a player, a sophisticate, a negotiator, a military operative, a strategist, and a detective. It could be a great movie, and it could be a great opportunity to have interesting discussions. And fans being uncomfortable with a new take on a character, or fans not being able to personally imagine a radical re-invention of a character, is not something that should keep story-tellers from attempting to bring to life an idea that fans can't or won't attempt to even consider.
No comments:
Post a Comment