Brosnan: #MeToo shouldn't affect Bond

x

Khan, I hope you can indulge me on this. Disregarding skin color and other surface level appearances, what is it exactly that's inherent in the genes of a man of African descent that would make him unsuitable to play Bond?

Race, all races, not just Caucasian and Negroid, dictate, in a general sense, certain behavioral characteristics. These characteristics, which, of course, do not inhere in every single individual of a particular race, but are nevertheless broadly and noticeably distributed throughout that race, are what many people commonly and derisorily refer to as "stereotypes." James Bond, as conceived by Ian Fleming, and more or less faithfully recapitulated by the filmmakers from 1962 to the present, is the stereotypical white man of the modern, if not postmodern era. He is, to a large degree, chivalrous and gentlemanly in his comportment with women. He is culturally and aesthetically refined within a distinctly western although not scrupulously British context. Although not entirely of ancient western noble blood, he certainly reflects western noble sensibilities. He is a distinctly British patriot. In the films, if not the books, he refrains from the use of unnecessarily crude language, preferring instead a certain stolid decorum and manner. While he values his material possessions and insists on owning the finest things his civil servant salary will allow him to possess, he does not flaunt them. Again, there is a certain reserve here that is spartan if not quite puritanical.

These characteristics, which I've just come up with at the spur of the moment, hardly exhaust James Bond's identity, but they serve to make my point, which is that Bond, by virtue of his ensemble of traits, is the ultimate white man of the modern era (alas, a white man that now seems lamentably dead). In making James Bond black--or what's pretty much to the same point, non-white--you utterly destroy his identity. Bond's whiteness is not merely haphazard or serendipitous, it is utterly and profoundly essential. And if you want to know the truth, Bond's archetypal whiteness is precisely why the Left targets him for racial subversion and destruction. It is of a piece of that great Leftist project, dismantling "whiteness" and so-called "white privilege." And because the Left utterly controls the culture, they will ultimately succeed in demolishing James Bond. It's simply a matter of time.

x

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Race, all races, not just Caucasian and Negroid, dictate, in a general sense, certain behavioral characteristics. These characteristics, which, of course, do not inhere in every single individual of a particular race, but are nevertheless broadly and noticeably distributed throughout that race, are what many people commonly and derisorily refer to as "stereotypes." James Bond, as conceived by Ian Fleming, and more or less faithfully recapitulated by the filmmakers from 1962 to the present, is the stereotypical white man of the modern, if not postmodern era. He is, to a large degree, chivalrous and gentlemanly in his comportment with women. He is culturally and aesthetically refined within a distinctly western although not scrupulously British context. Although not entirely of ancient western noble blood, he certainly reflects western noble sensibilities. He is a distinctly British patriot. In the films, if not the books, he refrains from the use of unnecessarily crude language, preferring instead a certain stolid decorum and manner. While he values his material possessions and insists on owning the finest things his civil servant salary will allow him to possess, he does not flaunt them. Again, there is a certain reserve here that is spartan if not quite puritanical.

These characteristics, which I've just come up with at the spur of the moment, hardly exhaust James Bond's identity, but they serve to make my point, which is that Bond, by virtue of his ensemble of traits, is the ultimate white man of the modern era (alas, a white man that now seems lamentably dead). In making James Bond black--or what's pretty much to the same point, non-white--you utterly destroy his identity. Bond's whiteness is not merely haphazard or serendipitous, it is utterly and profoundly essential. And if you want to know the truth, Bond's archetypal whiteness is precisely why the Left targets him for racial subversion and destruction. It is of a piece of that great Leftist project, dismantling "whiteness" and so-called "white privilege." And because the Left utterly controls the culture, they will ultimately succeed in demolishing James Bond. It's simply a matter of time.

I’d say those are protestant not racial traits.

Many of the first wave of immigrants to Britain from the Commonwealth in the 1950s - the West Indies, in particular - shared those characteristics. However, those from the Muslim countries did not and the difference has been telling.

Also while I agree that James Bond has some good characteristics it’s pushing it to suggest he’s Every(white)man. However, I agree with your assertion that the Left is keen to undermine him because he represents what they consider ‘male white privilege’ and ‘exceptionalism’.  That said, I'd say the battle to be fought here is not one of colour but of gender.

Bond represents great masculine qualities - honour, strength, camaraderie, courage, innovation, creativity, entrepreneurship and leadership; the things that separate man from the animals. That so many educated women in the West now regard such absolute virtues as oppressive and toxic makes no sense at all.

Ambler, you are, of course, entirely correct in noting the sexual assault of James Bond. It is a very real and dangerous threat to the character's existence. However, your point does not negate but rather compliments mine. Hence, the attack on Bond is broad-based and includes both sexual and racial elements. It is my opinion, however, that the latter threat is more immediate. Apparently the present danger is casting a black man rather than a woman as James Bond, although perhaps the Left will score the coup de gras and have Oprah cast as 007. At this point, nothing would surprise me, and I mean that sincerely.

PS--Given the large number of Indians and Pakis in Great Britain, and that formerly great nation's deep involvement in south Asia--the Raj, of course, being the signal example--isn't it odd that the clamor is for a black rather than an Indian or Pakistani Bond? This tells me that the vast majority of proponents of Elba and his ilk are not merely seeking the best actor, or that they're Elba fan-boys in rapture, but rather, that the motive is ideological.

PPS--Here in the States the overwhelming majority of blacks are Protestant, although Islam seems to be growing among them. Alas, I rarely see Bondian traits manifested among black Protestants. Jews, and white Catholics and Orthodox seem much more likely to reflect the Bondian elan.

I like Elba because he is the best candidate among those often touted. None of the others are very Bondian to me. I wouldn't view it as some great ideological victory, more a victory of casting the best available candidate at the time. But since he is in all likelihood now too old for the role, it doesn't really matter.

I do wonder, Khanners, how you would feel about a separate series with another 00 agent who is not James Bond being played by a black man?

I also don't think I entirely agree with your Bond-as-a-perfect-gentleman-like portrayal. Part of his appeal is a certain caddishness.

x

Salomé wrote:

I like Elba because he is the best candidate among those often touted. None of the others are very Bondian to me. I wouldn't view it as some great ideological victory, more a victory of casting the best available candidate at the time. But since he is in all likelihood now too old for the role, it doesn't really matter.

I do wonder, Khanners, how you would feel about a separate series with another 00 agent who is not James Bond being played by a black man?

I also don't think I entirely agree with your Bond-as-a-perfect-gentleman-like portrayal. Part of his appeal is a certain caddishness.

Note, Sabs, I said "most" not all people pushing Elba are doing so for ideological reasons. Ambler, who seems somewhat sympathetic, certainly isn't doing so for ideological reasons.

Another 00 series starring Elba or any other minority or female actor would be fine with me. In a saner entertainment milieu, this would be a distinct possibility. Alas, creating a terrific character for such an actor is not the objective, knocking off the Great White Bond is.

Yes, there's an element of caddishness to Bond. The prime example is Bond stacking the deck against poor Solitaire, who, nevertheless, comes out of it all none the worse for wear, and Bond isn't forced to go off into the Caribbean wilderness half cocked. But in point of fact, I think Bond shows gentlemanly restraint more often than not. See his tender care for a drunk and clearly available Stacy Sutton in AVTAK, and, dare I say, similar behavior with Swann in SP. If you really think about it, Bond is pursued by women more often than he pursues them, and almost resigns himself to sex in a weltschmerz fashion. It is one of the unique things about the character.

x

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Alas, creating a terrific character for such an actor is not the objective, knocking off the Great White Bond is.

One of the most frequent comments I get from non-Bond fans is: I'll start watching Bond if he is played by Idris. Curiously, they're all very much on the left and are the only ones who bring up the discussion, as if it's a clause in The Communist Manifesto.

I say it's time to bring back Connery. The last acceptable bigotry is ageism so it would actually be even more progressive than any of the silly tabloid ideas. So what if he's 87? Have a scene where Q outfits a rocket-powered recliner with machine gun attachments for when he doesn't feel up to running and he could probably kick even Daniel Craig's rear.

And if EON disagrees then they are ageist bigots who should be boycotted and shamed off the internet.

Well interestingly, Jonathan Pryce has put himself forward to play the part. So if Connery is unavailable...

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/entertainment/2018/08/09/news/former-bond-villain-jonathan-pryce-jokes-he-wants-to-be-the-next-007-1404112/

Back on topic, Rosamund Pike feels Babs was ahead of her time with #MeToo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6065115/Rosamund-Pike-reveals-REFUSED-strip-audition-James-Bonds-Die-Day.html

She says she was asked to strip down to her underwear in the audition, which she refused, but Babs made her feel comfortable on set. I guess Bond is safe considering it's produced by a feminist. Well, safe is the operative word.

You know...perhaps they should make interesting new characters instead of trying to tear down legendary ones?

If you continue down this stupid argument, why for example is Iron Man not portrayed by a performer of another ancestry etc.