Friday, 18 August 2017

A FEMALE BOND? THE LUNATICS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE ASYLUM...



Remember back in July when I mentioned the fact that some people were seriously proposing that JAMES BOND should be played by a woman?  I got the distinct impression that a few readers didn't believe me and thought I was making it up.  No, as you can see from the above clip, there really are thick, vacuous, politically correct people out there, who, in their quest to demolish the natural distinctions between genders, are saying that it's a great idea and should happen.  Remember, they're not talking about a female spy named JANE Bond, but 007 changing genders in order to appease a minority of obsessive nut-jobs who are determined to reshape society according to their tastes and predilictions.  And I'm entirely serious in what I say next - anyone who seriously suggests that James Bond could and should be played by a woman is not quite right in the head and should receive therapy immediately.  (Or at least a good hard kick up the @rse.)

James Bond is a man;  a white, British man.  So that rules out IDRIS ELBA, because, in one of these three prerequisites for the role, he fulfills only two of them.  He's a fine actor, a thoroughly decent human being as far as I know, and if film producers wanted to give him a film series as a spy named HARRY BRAND (or whatever), I'd be very happy for him.  Shades of racism?  Not in the slightest, because if it were ever suggested that JOHN SHAFT be recast as a white guy (or woman), I'd be equally against it.  Respect for the intentions of a character's creator is what I'm calling for here.

IAN FLEMING created Bond as a white, British (half-Scottish actually, though that was a later development) heterosexual man, which automatically rules out any other ethnicity, gender, or sexual persuasion.  Whenever I hear some minor, mystery celebrity (like LORRAINE KELLY - the mystery being why she's a celebrity) witter on about Idris Elba being an ideal James Bond, it tells me that they just don't understand what Bond is about.  I also suspect they're more interested in raising their profiles by portraying themselves as 'liberal, fair-minded, tolerant, non-bigoted, impartial, warm, wonderful human beings', with the implication being that anyone who doesn't see things as they do is the exact opposite.

However, there are shades of racism and misandry in the ridiculous assertions of those people calling for such changes.  When someone says that a role established as a particular gender (man) and of a particular ethnicity (white) should be changed, they're essentially saying that there are too many white men in movies.  That strikes me as springing from a standpoint of reverse racism and misandry, and there'd be a hell of a stushie if the role of NELSON MANDELLA had been given to JASON STRATHAM.  What's that?  Not the same at all, because Nelson Mandella is a real, historical figure?  Okay then, if the roles of T'CHALLA, The BLACK PANTHER, or LUKE CAGE, POWER MAN were given to white actors.  The principle is the same in either case.

In one sense though, I can see their point.  Wouldn't it be nice if we were all colour blind and didn't define a person according to the hue of their skin?  Yeah, but not to the extent of pretending that those differences don't exist.  And remember, it cuts both ways:  if you hear someone lamenting the fact that there are too many white actors on TV and in film (or at the OSCARS), think about how offensive it would sound if someone in the audience of PORGY and BESS were to say there were too many black actors on stage.  That would be considered racist, and the exact same standard should be applied in reverse.  (After all, that's true equality.)  By all means let's have more roles for ethnic actors and women (if that's what the market requires), but not at the expense of changing established characters into a different gender or colour.  Personally speaking, I'm sick of actors bleating on about how there should be more parts for (fill in as applicable), as if the profession automatically owes them a living just because they've decided on it as a career.  

The 'diversity' principle likely sprang from well-intentioned motives, but it's been hijacked by zealots with a skewed perception of reality who want to impose their views on the rest of us.  Similarly, 'positive discrimination' was implemented in order to address a perceived imbalance, but missed an important point in the process, which is this:  If you're positively discriminating in favour of one gender or ethnicity, you're negatively discriminating against another (or others).  In just what way is replacing one perceived wrong with another of the same type a good thing?  Or does the end justify the means?

Anyway, that's how I see things, what about you?  Feel free to express yourself in the comments section.  But first, watch this trailer...

14 comments:

pete doree said...

Everybody go on youtube and type in 'white luke cage'. The resulting skit kind of says it all.

Kid said...

I've saved them the bother, PD, by adding it to the post. Very funny stuff - thanks for the heads up.

Warren JB said...

What, people didn't believe the call for a female James Bond? Where've they been living?

"Whenever I hear some minor, mystery celebrity (like LORRAINE KELLY - the mystery being why she's a celebrity) witter on about Idris Elba being an ideal James Bond, it tells me that they just doesn't understand what Bond is about."

This is it for me. Not that Bond films are especially deep or anything, but comments like Kelly's make me think the commenters sat for a couple of hours and tuned out to everything except the stunts and explosions, then said something like 'That was nice. Now let me stamp my agenda all over it.' (Or 'let me stamp someone else's trendy agenda all over it.') For them, James Bond is less a character or even a story, and more a billboard for a polemic.

I see that Atomic Blonde (described by Wikipedia as 'an American action spy thriller') starring Charlize Theron (a g-g-g-GIRL!) is proving quite popular in cinemas. More power to it. Maybe it could become a female-led franchise in it's own right and spawn a slew of sequels.
Do you think that'd satisfy folk who think there should be a female Bond? Rhetorical question...

Now, I'm off to watch White Luke Cage.

Kid said...

Can you imagine the uproar if Charlize Theron's Atomic Blonde DID become a film franchise, WJB, and then, after 50 years, the producers decided to recast the character as a man? The feminists would go mental, droning on about the injustice of it all. That White Luke Cage trailer is very funny, as well as being an ironic comment on changing the ethnicity of a character.

Oscar Dowson said...

Female Bond?

Two words. Modesty Blaise.

As for the rest, I agree.

Kid said...

Yeah, except that Modesty's first name is Modesty, not James, and her surname is Blaise, not Bond. (But I know what you mean - she's a female equivalent of Bond, which nobody minds in the slightest.) So I agree with your agreement, which I find agreeable.

Colin Jones said...

There won't be a female James Bond. I have no problem with a female Dr. Who because the Doctor is an alien who regularly changes appearance but a female James Bond would be like Abraham Lincoln played by a female or black actor. It won't happen.

Kid said...

I don't think there'll be a female James Bond either, CJ, but the fact that there are people seriously suggesting that such a thing SHOULD happen is what gets on my t*ts. These people are seriously deluded. As for Doctor Who, changing appearance is different from changing gender. Remember, the regeneration process was just that - it regenerated an aged or injured body into a more invigorated version. The possibility of a sex swap was never part of the original concept, but a later development for the purpose of generating controversy, and subsequently by those with 'issues'.

Warren JB said...

A comment about falling viewer figures for Doctor Who, in an earlier post, reminded me of the comics industry, trying out similar publicity stunts to plug the leak and - I guess - appeal to a wider audience. Or a narrower but different audience...
So when you say that a female Bond won't happen, I can agree as long as the box office take remains high. But these days, a flop or two might make 'them' desperate enough to generate a little controversy*. The thought that maybe they just need to make better movies (or sci-fi shows, or comics) will probably be pushed aside in favour of scoring brownie points with people who were never really interested in consuming their media in the first place, back when it was good. I can't see that swapping chromosomes but telling sucky stories will benefit any audience, no matter their attitude towards feminism.

* Has Doctor Who regenerated a little controversy...? I'll get me coat.

Kid said...

I don't THINK there'll be a female James Bond, WJB (at least not in the foreseeable future), but that's based more on the HOPE that there won't be than any assured certainty. 'REgenerated'? Groan! Here's your hat and scarf as well.

Lionel Hancock said...

James Bond becoming a woman That's absurd...Dealing with Dr What is enough but James Bond. Nope..No way!!!!

Kid said...

The fact that anyone would even consider it for a moment is truly astonishing, LH. Why would the idea even occur to someone? Ridiculous.

Phil S said...

I'm all for more minority representation in movies and comics. And you do that by making new characters you can call your own. Not by recasting existing characters. The Fast and Furious movies are a multi racial cast and has been wildly successful. ( ok I've never seen one. I never said they had to be good. )

Kid said...

I saw the very first one when it first came out, PS. It was okay - it did what it said on the tin.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...