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 predilections.  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...