205 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

I know you hate this sort of answer, spy, but it's just a fact that people have been used to Bond being white for 50+ years. If people hadn't known about Bond for this long, it could work fine. As a side note, Jackie Brown is a great example of this; Jackie was white in the novel, but made black in Tarantino's film. Not a lot of people cared, because not a lot of people knew that when they saw the film. Again, it could be done today with Bond, but it'd be pretty freakin' awkward to most people. And therein lies the problem. It probably wouldn't work because audiences wouldn't accept it that easily.

I don't hate that sort of answer at all, Double-Oh-Zero - I agree with it, and have done several times in this thread. I'm a little bored of it, perhaps, because I'm not trying to argue that it would work with audiences. I'm trying to argue whether it could work as art.

[spynovelfan]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='23 June 2005 - 23:11']Having fun with this, so I'll keep going
[/quote]

Yeah, please do. I think we've gone quite a bit beyond just 'Could Bond be black?' now anyway. Lots of interesting topics: continuity, what constitutes Bond's character, etc.

[quote]First, of course he starts acting "black"; he's a black man. Our ethnic or cultural identity infuses too many of the varied elements that make us "who we are" to begin to count, including our values, motivations, hobbies, who we are attracted to. I'm not saying that this makes us all caricatures or stereotypes. What I am saying is that Bond comes from a very specific background, white upperclass privilege, and this goes a long way to making him who he is. It is also a background that shares a very specific relationship with the background of a black male, no matter what time period we are discussing. [/quote]

Interesting. Yes, Colin Salmon's Bond would have experienced racism at some point in his life - probably at Eton, for example. (Totally incidentally, there's a very interesting book by the Nigerian writer Dillibe Onyeama called AT ETON that was published in 1972. I recommend it.) And yes, whoever played the part would presumably have to have some 'roots' in Africa or the Caribbean, albeit third generation roots - his mother and father are Swiss and Scottish, respectively. So say his grandparents had been from Ghana, and their son had moved to Scotland, etc. If that happened in real life, you would still expect the grandson - ie Bond - to have some cultural links to Ghana.

But that's in real life. You don't think about Bond's past when you watch a Bond film, unless you're asked to. We don't exactly know a lot about it anyway, but it's mostly not relevant. How many people watching the films know Bond's parents both died when he was young? Very few, I'd have thought. You could argue that the early loss of his parents made him more independent, steeled him against the world and shut him off, prepared him even (foreshadowed!) the death of his wife, and so on. That he carries himself as a man who has lost both parents and a wife. That this is an integral part of his character. But then, how is it manifested, really? He's dead hard and cold? So are all fictional secret agents, basically. They all have that air of having seen too many people close to them die. This stuff is all given in a Bond film, and doesn't need to be explored. As I'll explain in a sec.

[quote]I think you are trying to suggest that a black actor would be able to step into the Bond universe of today, where (suspend disbelief!) he hasn't changed or aged in any fundamental way in forty years, where the events of Moonraker or LTK or GF happened just a couple of years ago, and the people he works with will accept that he has been black that entire time. [/quote]

They won't notice he's black. They'd suspend disbelief over that, just as they 'accept' that 40 years is rather a long career as a field agent.

[quote]I'm sorry, but the time on the Kentucky ranch would have been much different if Bond were black. As would his time in Mexico, or North Korea. Never mind Jamaica or India. [/quote]

Sure, and that's one reason it wouldn't work - because you couldn't have a mission in which he was tortured (say) without the audience wondering why the guy hadn't commented on him being black. If you had a film in which a black Double 0 agent was tortured, you could have the villain saying something like:

"How does it feel now, Mister Ross? If you don't mind my saying, you don't look quite so at ease without your Savile Row suit and your Swiss watch. Has it sunk in yet? Your masters have left you here to die. You thought you were one of them, didn't you? It takes more than an Oxford degree and membership of the Royal and Ancient to join their club, though, doesn't it? You will never be one of them, for as long as you live. And that won't be long, Mister Ross, believe me..."

Or whatever. I see your point. So in that way, yes, he would be playing 'white'. Or rather, he wouldn't be playing any colour. I'd be asking the audience to suspend disbelief and see Bond as Bond. Colourless.

[quote]If this was a one-off movie, then maybe, but we are talking about a franchise and character that has spanned

[pieffra]

mamma mia............

[spynovelfan]

Too many long words for you?

[Skudor]

I guess I'm butting in on a discussion here... but couldn't resist. Sorry.

[edit - I really should also learn to scroll down before posting ... sorry] Since I just wasted 20 mins of company time on this, I might as well just leave it here...

[quote name='Stephenson' date='24 June 2005 - 00:11']Having fun with this, so I'll keep going

First, of course he starts acting "black"; he's a black man. Our ethnic or cultural identity infuses too many of the varied elements that make us "who we are" to begin to count, including our values, motivations, hobbies, who we are attracted to. I'm not saying that this makes us all caricatures or stereotypes. What I am saying is that Bond comes from a very specific background, white upperclass privilege, and this goes a long way to making him who he is.[/quote]

This is the point isn't it. There is an assumption that there still is some purely 'black behaviour' vs 'white behaviour', or way of being. To put it in two extremes: Black guys like Rap and white guys like Rock. We all know that the world is more complex than this. The whole argument about whether or not Bond could (important word alert) be played by a black man rests on the fact that these days you can easily find people of any race in the UK that are, and behave, distinctly upper or middle class (the accent, way of dressing etc.).

In my personal experience in fact, I have lived in the UK for almost a decade, I have yet to meet any white male of my generation, or older by a decade or so, who fits into this category. The 'upper/middle class' whites I have met are distinctly un-posh. I have, on the other hand, met an incredible amount of asians and black guys who talk and act as if they had just come back from their governorship of Jamaica - in fact the seem to revel in being BRITISH. Turn on Channel 4 any night of the week and you'll see the painfully irritating and 'posh' Derek (a man with a serious Thatcher complex), who is distinctly black, along side an almost too sterotypical black dude called Science.

You would have no problems finding black officers in the army, navy or airfoce having been educated at Sandhurst that would display the same attributes as James Bond - apart fromthe colour of their skin.

[quote] It is also a background that shares a very specific relationship with the background of a black male, no matter what time period we are discussing. I think you are trying to suggest that a black actor would be able to step into the Bond universe of today, where (suspend disbelief!) he hasn't changed or aged in any fundamental way in forty years, where the events of Moonraker or LTK or GF happened just a couple of years ago, and the people he works with will accept that he has been black that entire time. I'm sorry, but the time on the Kentucky ranch would have been much different if Bond were black. As would his time in Mexico, or North Korea. Never mind Jamaica or India. If this was a one-off movie, then maybe, but we are talking about a franchise and character that has spanned

[Skudor]

And yes, whoever played the part would presumably have to have some 'roots' in Africa or the Caribbean, albeit third generation roots - his mother and father are Swiss and Scottish, respectively. So say his grandparents had been from Ghana, and their son had moved to Scotland, etc. If that happened in real life, you would still expect the grandson - ie Bond - to have some cultural links to Ghana.

Incidentally, one of Ghana's president's was half Scottish...

Sorry for the double post.

[spynovelfan]

Incidentally, one of Ghana's president's was half Scottish...

Idi Amin was the rightful King of Scotland, apparently.

[Stephenson]

Welcome to the conversation Sudor

I realize that no one is advocating for a black Bond, spynovel fan has made that very clear. This is a discussion about a "Theoritical" action.

I think before I can continue I need to clarify exactly what point(s) you are trying to make spynovelfan:

1. If Bond was a real man and his universe was real, he could be a black man and still be the same James Bond he has always been.

2. From a purely entertainment perspective, within the context of the movie Bond could be played by a black actor and it would make no difference to the content of the movie, regardless of audience reaction.

3. Bond's history is irrelevant because his "missions" (movies) are judged on a one by one basis.

4. The only part of Bond's character that matters is what we see on the screen and this can fluctuate between films and should therefore not be seen as consistent.

[spynovelfan]

1. If Bond was a real man and his universe was real, he could be a black man and still be the same James Bond he has always been.

No. This one not at all. I can't even fathom what it means, really. If Bond was a real man and his universe was real... he'd be somewhere in his early eighties (depending if you fancy moving John Pearson's date by a year or not). If Bond was a real man and his universe was real, he couldn't change colour. But then he couldn't do a lot of stuff he's done.

2. From a purely entertainment perspective, within the context of the movie Bond could be played by a black actor and it would make no difference to the content of the movie, regardless of audience reaction.

Yes, with a few reservations. You'd have to avoid Africa, for instance, and make no reference whatsoever to his colour. Bond would be colourless - just as Robinson is now. He'd be British, upper class, arrogant, and debonair, and that would be that. If the right actor were cast - and I think Colin Salmon is the ideal way to imagine this - I think it could be a great Bond film. Put it this way: if they made three versions of CASINO ROYALE using the same script and other actors, and one starred Colin Farrell as Bond, one had Dougray Scott as Bond and one had Colin Salmon as Bond, I'd prefer to see the one with Salmon by a long way. Lots of others wouldn't, though, and it will never happen - but I think he'd make a better Bond.

3. Bond's history is irrelevant because his "missions" (movies) are judged on a one by one basis.

Not quite that far, but same sort of thing. His history is fairly fluid, and there are some fairly major inconsistencies in it. I think they pick and use bits of it in most of the films, but they don't refer to it so much that it's a major problem that would get in the way. It would be perfectly possible to have a Bond film that had no direct references to any events in previous films, I think. How may times does Bond refer to a previous girlfriend, or villain, or plot to rule the world he's stopped? Not that often! And many references would still work with a black actor in the part. If Salmon had been Bond in TWINE or TND, the veiled references to his history with women - his falling for Elektra reminding us of Tracy, Paris Carver asking if she had gotten too close - would both have worked fine. In fact, Paris works as a piece of history even though we've never been introduced to her before that film. It works because we know that Bond has a habit of forming short intense relationships with beautiful women. So it's not irrelevant: the character's history is used sparingly, and sometimes contradicts itself. Fans discuss this kind of thing on places like this. But the general audience will accept a lot, as long as the guy still seems like Bond. They wouldn't accept him being black - but I don't see why not, really. It seems less important than his arch-enemy not recognising him, for instance, or him looking straight at the camera and telling us this never happened to the actor who played his fictional role in the previous film.

4. The only part of Bond's character that matters is what we see on the screen and this can fluctuate between films and should therefore not be seen as consistent.

Not sure what you mean by 'what we see on the screen'. As opposed to the books, you mean? Or what we think of when we leave the cinema? Where are you getting the stuff about his character from, if not from the screen? But yes to the fact that his character fluctuates and is not entirely consistent. There's a core of several elements that must remain reasonably consistent: he's British, charming, dry, a womaniser, athletic, hedonistic, etc. But his colour doesn't seem to me to be one of the key elements of his character. Not anywhere near. As important as it would be if Bill Tanner, M or Moneypenny were black to me - or Robinson white. No need to make any or all of them black, of course. And it won't happen. But I don't see why it would be quite so bad if it did.

But there is the Africa defence, too.

[Jim]

If they ever went this route, my chances of becoming James Bond would suddenly improve thousands-fold.

So I say do it.

[spynovelfan]

If they ever went this route, my chances of becoming James Bond would suddenly improve thousands-fold.

So I say do it.

It's a powerful argument in favour of the idea. If only for the chance to read PBX007's reviews of the films here.

[Jim]

If they ever went this route, my chances of becoming James Bond would suddenly improve thousands-fold.

So I say do it.

It's a powerful argument in favour of the idea. If only for the chance to read PBX007's reviews of the films here.

Arf!

It may also be the deciding factor for many to express against the idea. Because I'm that bloody important.

It'll come down to me or Moomoo, y'know.

[spynovelfan]

The dryness of wit, the touch of arrogance, charm, excellent taste, a decent education... apart from your lack of those elements, Jim, I think you've got quite a lot in common with James Bond.

Did you see that one coming from very far away?

[Jim]

The dryness of wit, the touch of arrogance, charm, excellent taste, a decent education... apart from your lack of those elements, Jim, I think you've got quite a lot in common with James Bond.

Did you see that one coming from very far away?

Dundee.

[Stephenson]

1. If Bond was a real man and his universe was real, he could be a black man and still be the same James Bond he has always been.

No. This one not at all. I can't even fathom what it means, really. If Bond was a real man and his universe was real... he'd be somewhere in his early eighties (depending if you fancy moving John Pearson's date by a year or not). If Bond was a real man and his universe was real, he couldn't change colour. But then he couldn't do a lot of stuff he's done.

2. From a purely entertainment perspective, within the context of the movie Bond could be played by a black actor and it would make no difference to the content of the movie, regardless of audience reaction.

Yes, with a few reservations. You'd have to avoid Africa, for instance, and make no reference whatsoever to his colour. Bond would be colourless - just as Robinson is now. He'd be British, upper class, arrogant, and debonair, and that would be that. If the right actor were cast - and I think Colin Salmon is the ideal way to imagine this - I think it could be a great Bond film. Put it this way: if they made three versions of CASINO ROYALE using the same script and other actors, and one starred Colin Farrell as Bond, one had Dougray Scott as Bond and one had Colin Salmon as Bond, I'd prefer to see the one with Salmon by a long way. Lots of others wouldn't, though, and it will never happen - but I think he'd make a better Bond.

3. Bond's history is irrelevant because his "missions" (movies) are judged on a one by one basis.

Not quite that far, but same sort of thing. His history is fairly fluid, and there are some fairly major inconsistencies in it. I think they pick and use bits of it in most of the films, but they don't refer to it so much that it's a major problem that would get in the way. It would be perfectly possible to have a Bond film that had no direct references to any events in previous films, I think. How may times does Bond refer to a previous girlfriend, or villain, or plot to rule the world he's stopped? Not that often! And many references would still work with a black actor in the part. If Salmon had been Bond in TWINE or TND, the veiled references to his history with women - his falling for Elektra reminding us of Tracy, Paris Carver asking if she had gotten too close - would both have worked fine. In fact, Paris works as a piece of history even though we've never been introduced to her before that film. It works because we know that Bond has a habit of forming short intense relationships with beautiful women. So it's not irrelevant: the character's history is used sparingly, and sometimes contradicts itself. Fans discuss this kind of thing on places like this. But the general audience will accept a lot, as long as the guy still seems like Bond. They wouldn't accept him being black - but I don't see why not, really. It seems less important than his arch-enemy not recognising him, for instance, or him looking straight at the camera and telling us this never happened to the actor who played his fictional role in the previous film.

4. The only part of Bond's character that matters is what we see on the screen and this can fluctuate between films and should therefore not be seen as consistent.

Not sure what you mean by 'what we see on the screen'. As opposed to the books, you mean? Or what we think of when we leave the cinema? Where are you getting the stuff about his character from, if not from the screen? But yes to the fact that his character fluctuates and is not entirely consistent. There's a core of several elements that must remain reasonably consistent: he's British, charming, dry, a womaniser, athletic, hedonistic, etc. But his colour doesn't seem to me to be one of the key elements of his character. Not anywhere near. As important as it would be if Bill Tanner, M or Moneypenny were black to me - or Robinson white. No need to make any or all of them black, of course. And it won't happen. But I don't see why it would be quite so bad if it did.

But there is the Africa defence, too.

What I meant by the first one is this: Let's say you lived inside the Bond universe, with all its inconsistancies and bizarre timelines (just play along ), Bond could have always been black within the context of that universe. In otherwords, none of the other characters would even think twice about a black man having had the adventures that a white James Bond has had.

But since you don't seem to be trying to make this point ....

As for number four, I mean that everything the viewer knows about Bond (his personality, his habits, his likes and dislikes) comes only from what they are seeing on the screen at that moment for that movie. His prior history, as I said above, is irrelevant. What we know about him from other media (advertising, books, discussions with friends, magazine articles) is irrelevant. The only way we can judge him or identify him is from what we are seeing on the screen at that time.

So, as I understand it, what you are saying is: Yes, James Bond could be black:

if everyone else in the movie (playing their characters) pretended that he had always been black,

if his mission history is edited so that the ones that would have involved racism didn't happen or happened differently,

if those missions that are eliminated cannot be seen as being relevant to or inherently part of the character that we are watching during this particular movie,

if we, the viewer, walk in with no preconceived notions about who Bond is aside from his more superficial attributes (he's British, charming, dry, a womaniser, athletic, hedonistic, etc."),

if the script never mentions that he is black or sends him to an area of the world where he might encounter racism, and makes no mention of why he shouldn't be sent there,

if the actor himself decides that his skin color is not essential or meaningful to the way he wants to play the part.

EDIT:
Two more things I wanted to add:

if we are willing to accept that skin colour is not an important physical attribute when we are discussing Bond, can we also then assume that his other physical attributes are unimportant: hair colour and height in particular?

Or his sexual preference (why can't he sleep with other men, as long as he shows a "Bond-like" interest in sex?)?

Edited by Stephenson, 25 June 2005 - 01:09 AM.

[spynovelfan]

[quote name='Stephenson' date='25 June 2005 - 00:27']What I meant by the first one is this: Let's say you lived inside the Bond universe, with all its inconsistancies and bizarre timelines (just play along ), Bond could have always been black within the context of that universe. In otherwords, none of the other characters would even think twice about a black man having had the adventures that a white James Bond has had.

But since you don't seem to be trying to make this point ....
[/quote]

No, I'm not making that point - I disagree with it, in fact.

[quote]As for number four, I mean that everything the viewer knows about Bond (his personality, his habits, his likes and dislikes) comes only from what they are seeing on the screen at that moment for that movie. His prior history, as I said above, is irrelevant. What we know about him from other media (advertising, books, discussions with friends, magazine articles) is irrelevant.

[Stephenson]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='25 June 2005 - 05:53'][quote name='Stephenson' date='25 June 2005 - 00:27']What I meant by the first one is this: Let's say you lived inside the Bond universe, with all its inconsistancies and bizarre timelines (just play along ), Bond could have always been black within the context of that universe. In otherwords, none of the other characters would even think twice about a black man having had the adventures that a white James Bond has had.

But since you don't seem to be trying to make this point ....
[/quote]

No, I'm not making that point - I disagree with it, in fact.

[quote]As for number four, I mean that everything the viewer knows about Bond (his personality, his habits, his likes and dislikes) comes only from what they are seeing on the screen at that moment for that movie. His prior history, as I said above, is irrelevant. What we know about him from other media (advertising, books, discussions with friends, magazine articles) is irrelevant.

Edited by Stephenson, 25 June 2005 - 07:59 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Well, if you disagree with the first point you've just agreed that the character can't be black. If the change would matter within the context of his own storyline, then it is a fundamental change: M, Moneypenny, and Q, recurring characters whose interaction with Bond help define him as "Bond" would not believe it, so he wouldn't be Bond.

No. That's a mile from what I'm saying. If you went back and placed a black actor in some of the other films, it wouldn't work. But those other films are long gone. M, Moneypenny and Q would not have believed a black Bond in 1965. In 2005, they would. It's now plausible that an MI6 agent would be black and that it wouldn't be a talking point.

As for the second point: "So", you have many fans disgreeing with you saying that it would matter. I'm not talking about Fleming's Bond (we both agree that has been changed)

So has the film Bond. The Bond of DAD is the same character as in DR NO - with several alterations. He's been updated. He doesn't smoke much, is not nearly as sexist, and doesn't give Indians his gambling winnings and tell them that'll keep them in curry for a few weeks. Nor could he.

I'm talking about the image that people have about who Bond is that they bring to the theatre, where ever that may come from. This is why he is such a powerful marketing tool, and why Eon can advertise a film as a "James Bond" film, without too much concern about the title. The films don't stand alone, even if the storylines sometimes do. Brosnan's box office would prove this, as his "Bond" movies do well, whereas his non-Bond movies tend to do less than spectacular box office. People go to see the character we all know as James Bond because we like what he has done in the past. This is why getting "just the right actor" to play him is so important to some people. As I said before, fandom's love of Bond is much more emotional than it is logical.

And your point is...? I've already conceded, oh, about 93 times in this thread, that the audience wouldn't accept it. I'm trying to argue the logic of this, so saying that people see it as an emotional issue doesn't refute that.

This also explains the need to edit his previous missions. We know him from his previous missions. His colour hasn't been adressed before because he has always been white. That hasn't changed in the past. You've already admitted that his scenes in Harlem would be different, and so would his scenes in Kentucky, Jamaica, and Mexico. We both agree that it is a tragedy that racism is still alive in this world, but it is an unfortuante reality. Sure, Eon could choose to ignore it. The point is that in the past they haven't had to.

But they have had to change the character. His racism, sexism and so on. Bond has been updated, hasn't he?

You seem to like to pick and choose your movies ("edit" as it were)to make your point. How about refereneces to his previous missions in LTK? FYEO? TB? OHMSS?

I'm picking and choosing because so does EON. Yes, if you made a film with a black actor playing Bond in which you made references to his parents being Scottish and Swiss you'd encounter problems, because it raises too many questions and skews it all off base. And in some of the films, there are some references to previous missions. I'm trying to answer the question "Would it be *possible* to do a film with a black Bond?" And my answer is yes, with reservations. One of them being avoid African locations. Another being avoid *some* references to previous missions if they would prove tricky. To back that up as a viable option, I named several films in which previous missions are not mentioned. That proves it is not *necessary* to refer to previous missions to make a valid James Bond film. They have done it, but they often don't. So I don't see how that's editing my choice. I'm saying you'd have to make films that don't mention some previous missions - as they have done that on numerous occasions, it passes the test. All cows have four legs and all that.

You only want to talk about the last four? Why? Because his skin colour would have been an issue in others, as you've already stated (LALD for example and you conceded DAD, I'm assuming because he was playing a South African diamond smuggler at one point). I'll give you one more: YOLT. A black Japanese peasant fisherman?

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying they could have cast a black actor in YOLT. I'm saying that the time has *now* come (as in the title of the thread) where it could happen. So the fact that it hasn't been an issue in four of the recent films is very relevant - that shows that it would now be possible. You keep summarising my points, but I feel that essentially your argument hasn't moved on beyond 'Bond is white, and he just is, because'. You haven't explained how his race would matter, except for the Africa defence (which I've conceded). Have a crack, I dare you, at pointing me to a spot in TWINE in which the script would have had to have been changed if Colin Salmon had played the part. If you can't, does that not suggest that it would now be possible to have Colin Salmon star as James Bond?

Now you say that the "only opt-out" needed would be the one limiting his mission locations, but you state that something would have to be written into a contract that would define how the actor would play the role? Why? I don't think they did this for Brosnan, Dalton or Moore. Any reason they would have to do it for a black actor?

I didn't state anything of the sort. You stated that there would have to be an opt-out, and I disagreed. It's a non-existent argument. You're raising an objection to a black man playing Bond... because he might want to not play Bond. Would it be possible to have an actor with Marxist beliefs play Bond? Of course it would, I say. You then jump in and say 'Ah, but only if he agrees not to let those beliefs show in his performance.' To which I say 'Why the hell would he do that? He's signed up to play James Bond!' See where the argument falls down? Anyone signed to play James Bond agrees to play the character of James Bond. I'm not arguing for an opt-out clause where the actor agrees not to let his colour influence his performance - you are. It wouldn't be needed - he's playing Bond. Would it be needed for an actor whose parents were still alive? They'd have to sign to say they'd make sure their Bond came across as an orphan? No. They're playing Bond. It's a given. Really weak argument, that one.

Okay, last two points: where can you show me that his sexual preference is integral to the character? Paris is a classic Greek man's name.

Huh? Look, there have been *references* to Bond's colour in previous movies, but they have come up incidentally. The fact that he is a promiscuous, predatory sexual heterosexual male, however, is something the series is founded on, and has featured in every single film. His race has been an extremely peripheral concern in a handful of films, most of which were made decades ago and haven't been referred to in the last few films. Colour takes two forms: first it's physical, which I think we could agree is fairly irrelevant in this case. Different actors have played the role, and if you can accept that Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton are the same person, you can accept that Colin Salmon is, too. Okay, it might take you a fraction of a second quicker with Salmon, but the principle is still there: they're different people, and nobody in real life could confuse them. The second point is what we're arguing about - how does colour affect character? And I agree with you that it still does. Even in 2005, a black Brit will have a different outlook on life from a white Brit, even if they had both gone to Eton and joined MI6, and so on. But look back to 1965 and compare it to then. A huge difference. Bond's arrogance stemmed in part from his being part of the British Empire. Where does it stem from in DAD? Still partly a heritage of that, but greatly weakened by the fact that the British Empire is even deader than it was in the Sixties. In 1965 (just because it's four decades), black MI6 agents would have been much rarer, if they existed at all, and they would have had to have worked far harder to gain acceptance. They wouldn't have the arrogance of being part of the British Empire. But as this has faded over the decades, we're left with the arrogance, but not the original reason for it. And it would now be much less jarring to have a black MI6 agent who was as arrogant as his white counterparts. Of course, it would also be possible to have a black MI6 agent who raged against British colonialism in the Sixties - but it wouldn't be necessary, and it wouldn't be James Bond. But Bond's arrogance (and the rest of his character) could finally be believable - in my view! - now. As I say, what could Salmon not have pulled off in any of Brosnan's films barring DAD?

It's Bond interest in sex that helps define him, not who he sleeps with.

That's a very interesting point, and it took me a while to figure out how to answer it, I'll admit. I think it has to be that his sexuality has been so much more important than his race in the series. I can see what you're saying: it would actually be more likely that someone would change their sexuality than their colour. But his race really hasn't ever been important, in my view, whereas his sexuality has been crucial to the character. His *nationality* has been crucial, and I would argue against the idea of making Bond an American agent. I think there are a few key elements that define the character. His race has been an element of it, but it's not key - it's small enough that it can be changed. They've changed much bigger elements, like his sexism and racism, which I hope you would concede has played a much greater role in both Fleming and in the earlier films. So why do you feel they could excise those characteristics, but not his colour, which has featured peripherally and briefly in a few of the films, also from that period. I think they've kept enough of the core elements to keep him believable as the same character: he's always been British, arrogant, elegant and rampantly heterosexual. You couldn't make Bond American, shy, a slob or gay, because then he wouldn't be Bond. But we have had a Bond who is not racist or sexist, who doesn't smoke, and so on. I'd put his race in the same category as the racism and sexism and smoking - ie can be changed without damaging the core character. And I think his colour was always far less important to his character than his sexism and racism were.

Which Bond girl had to be a girl? But then again who he's slept with in the past doesn't matter, since his previous mission don't completely define him as you've said: only what we see on the screen at this moment, right? Or does that only matter for some things

It's a nice crack - but try aiming it at Eon. Explain Bond and Blofeld's meeting to me in OHMSS, if his previous missions define him? Eon have been inconsistent whenever it's suited them - Bond is what we see on the screen at that time, and yes, that only matters for some things. That's the way Eon have made the series - it's not something I've adopted for the sake of this discussion.

And why is his height an issue? Is there a particular scene where Bond couldn't reach something because he was too short? I believe 5'4" is the cut-off height for the military.

He's in MI6, though. He's a field agent, and I believe the height restriction is higher. Would you argue that Bond has to have a scar, too, then? Why does that not matter, but the colour of his skin does? They've changed Bond physically - what's important about him physically, and what's not? If you really feel the colour of his skin is integral to his character, answer the Salmon in TWINE question for me. What wouldn't have worked in that film if he'd played Bond?

[hcmv007]

Look, there are good points for a black Bond. I just think it's ridiculous. But, and this may start a new thread, how about a film based on Robinson? I have seen Colin Salmon act in other things and think he is a wonderful actor. This could give those desiring a black Bond the chance to see black British spy acting just like Bond. I've read a lot of posts here, and it seems Salmon has a lot of fans amongst all of you(me included). That could do a lot for the franchise, and we would get to see another side of an interesting character.

[Stephenson]

Well, I think we've arrived at the crux of the problem for me.

The way I see it, you want to pick and choose around all these issues so you can create a perfect model into which a black actor would fit. But how much do you eliminate before the character is no longer Bond? And some of your points seem to drift in and out when it suits you. For example, you said earlier, when talking about the other characters in the movies:

"They won't notice he's black. They'd suspend disbelief over that, just as they 'accept' that 40 years is rather a long career as a field agent."

Now you're saying:
"M, Moneypenny and Q would not have believed a black Bond in 1965. In 2005, they would."

So, sometimes they'll accept him today as black with his 40 year history, but sometimes they won't? That's convinient ....

As you said, you have conceded numerous times that the audience wouldn't accept him, so it won't work in the context of the movie theatre. But then you also say that it wouldn't work for some of the missions and relationships this character has had within his own universe, and state that it is the same character from Dr. NO to DAD. So where exactly does this work? For one film made today if it eliminates some of his other missions and we change his history? For one film made today if we change the way all races are portrayed in a Bond movie? If we just ignore the fact that he is black all of a sudden and accept that he always was?

Why, exactly, do you get to base your whole position on the films you want, whereas the ones I use don't seem to matter or can be ignored? And please don't say, "because that's what Eon does." Talk about a weak argument. Yes, Eon fails to mention that Bond had a wife in every movie, but never have they said he didn't have a wife. They fail to mention that his parents are Scottish and Swiss in every movie, but the never say they weren't. And yes, Bond no longer smokes very often, but Eon has never said he didn't smoke (the "filthy habit" line may be seen to imply this, but I know lots of ex-smokers who respond the same way). Bond is still sexist, his boss called him that. And Bond is still racist, he made a crack about Swiss bankers in TWINE. So Eon has updated the character by toning down some of his more un-PC habits but they haven't completely eliminated them, and they have never denied that he once did the things he did in the other missions (with the exception of meeting Bloefeld, and we all know how we feel about that ).

You also seem to want to place arbitrary limits on the charcters history, specifically you seem to be saying that the way Brosnan played Bond, or the Brosnan movies, could have been played by a black actor with no difference. You are focusing in on TWINE, and I will happily concede that in that one movie I can find no example of a mention of his race, although the title is his family motto and you've already said that his family background could cause some serious problems. But that's not even his most recent film; have a crack, I dare you, at finding a way of proving that Jinx's character wasn't treated as a "black" character. Or that Asian stereotypes weren't used to help define Koreans (martial arts, "Art of War", honor to the father, fear of the decadent West). Eon recognizes ethnic differences, sometimes brutally so ("Yo Mama"), and not just in movies that are "long gone".

As for the actor, I said:

"if the actor himself decides that his skin color is not essential or meaningful to the way he wants to play the part."

You said:
"Yes. But that would be a condition of signing for the part, of course."

Your the one who agreed with this "weak argument" in the first place. I said it was the actor's choice, you said that it would be a condition for the movie. When exactly did I jump in an say, "Ahhh"? "I'm not arguing for an opt-out clause where he agrees not to let his colour influence his performance - you are." Uh, no: you added that.

"The fact that he is a promiscuous, predatory sexual heterosexual male, however, is something the series is founded on, and has featured in every single film." And it hasn't been featured in every movie that he's white? That hasn't been obvious, although unstated? We can't believe that Bond sleeps with men, but we can accept that he is now black? Come on. Bond is about sex, not heterosexuality. How does a gay man act? He can't act Bond-like? Is there any valid argument you can come up with to show that he couldn't have been sleeping with men in every one of his movies? Where would his behavior had to have changed? More importantly, our sexuality isn't something that is obvious to other people, and can be kept private, so it may not affect how we are treated by others. Skin colour? Bond's sexuality is a core part of his character because of his behaviors in past movies, even though it is never openly stated that he is heterosexual, we know he is, just like we know his race. And please don't tell me I'm falling back on the whole "Bond has to be white because he's always been white" argument when you've just used the same to show why he has to be straight.

"He's in MI6, though. He's a field agent, and I believe the height restriction is higher." What, five six? The point still stands. Using your logic Bond could be short and it shouldn't matter.

Well, you said a lot of things I agree with about the possibility of a black MI:6 agent who would act just like Bond today. But you still want to throw this challenge out to me: why couldn't that character be named James Bond. So IMO, with apologies for repeating:
1. The audience wouldn't accept it (last time this gets mentioned, promise!)
2. He has always been played by a white actor and the character is described as white in the original source material. (this one too! )
3. It wouldn't work within his own timeline, since certain missions would not only not be mentioned, they would have to have never happened or happened differently, thereby changing the character's history if Eon ever wanted to bring it up. Eon did this once with Bloefeld, agreed, but we are talking about at least three of the earlier movies, especially LALD, and DAD, as well as (very likely) his family lineage.
4. I simply don't believe that race does the same or less to define who someone is as smoking, being racist, sexist or whether or not someone has a scar. These habits or characteristics may be getting a hard time these days, but do you honestly think whether or not someone smokes says as much about them as their ethnicity? Lumping Bond's race in with changing (not eliminating!) his smoking, racism or sexism is a little far-fetched for me. Personal, I know, but still valid I feel.
5. Eon makes broad generalizations about ethnicities and cultures in nearly all the Bond movies, even today (excepting TWINE, although he did impersonate a "white" German nuclear arms specıalıst, so there's one thing we would have to change). Therefore, Bond's skin colour would be a factor in determining his behaviors if the character of Jinx is anything to go by, and these behaviors would very likely be different than they way we've come to expect Bond to act if left in the hands of Eon.
So, I completely agree that Colin could play an excellent suave and sophisitcated MI:6 secret agent and it would be great fun to watch. But, IMO, he could not be called James Bond.

Edited by Stephenson, 25 June 2005 - 11:14 PM.

[YOLT]

Hey, everyone forgets something. Bond has been Asian in YOLT. So why not African in future films?

[hcmv007]

Earlier I brought up how if we had a black Bond, I countered we should have a white man playing Shaft. I for one am not saying that if they cast a black man as Bond, that I would not go to see it, I would for the same reason I like looking at car crashes. But lets look at this from a histotrical context: Fleming created Bond and made him white. That is a historical fact. I forget who created Shaft, but he made him a black man, and that is a historical fact. I am a history buff and I do not like it when some people want us to forget our history, for as a famous philosopher once said, those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it. Yes, there was a time when blacks were held down by whites, particularly here in this country and region. But is it really important to the black race if James Bond were played by a black actor? I think not. I don't think it's important to white people that James Bond be played by a white guy. What I dislike is feeling we should have a black Bond or a white Shaft talk in the first place. Is it possible a black man in Britain could have had the same scholing and education, military and intelligence service record as James Bond did, of course. I bet there are some black men in the world really named James Bond. I guess there are a lot of white people named James Bond also. Now there have been long posts listed here on this topic and yes, there are some great points. I know someone will say that I am an idiot for suggesting or even comparing a black man playing Bond to eliminating some event in history, but hey, I welcome it. But just ponder this: could a white man play Dr. Martin Luther King in a biopic? Or Malcolm X? Or Frederick Douglass? Now I understand Bond is a fictional character, and those men are all of course real, but the point you are all making for a black Bond is the same point I am making for white actors to play those roles. In 300 hundred years people will watch these films and see the Bonds we know and then ntice him change from white to black and wonder why? I feel that both blacks and whites are losing their cultural identity, mainly due to political correctness. We stereotype blacks acting a certain way, someone earlier generalized that since Bond acts like a black man he should be played by a black man. I found that comment to be ignorant. Hell, some may find me ignorant, fine. That's your opinion. But I do not want to see a black Bond only out of "white guilt" which does exist here in the US, I can't speak for all over the world. I don't know what the world will look like in 300 years, no one does for sure. All we have to show for our time is what we have now. In 300 years I'm sure there will be Bond fans, just as I'm sure the sun is yellow. I don't think anyone is ignoring the possibility of a black actor playing Bond, I just think from a historical basis it's wrong. Will it happen one day, maybe. But I also accept the fact that one day in the US we will have a woman, hipanic and black President in my lifetime. No one is denying the possibility of a black Bond. I have said what I have to say on this. I know not everyone agrees with me when I say it should not happen. I know some partially agree and some just will rant and rave on the same thing over and over again. It has been said that Bond is timeless and should change to reflect the times, this includes race. If that's true, then Superman should be black as well. All I am saying is Bond should not change his race, and we should not change the race of other icons in literature, black or white, out of guilt or the need for racial balance which I fear is some people's reasoning for a black Bond. History should stay the way it is because that is the way it is,if you do not like that that's tough. I hate it that people I care about die, I hate what happened here on Sept 11, 2001, I hate what the Nazi's did to the Jews, I hate what whites did to the blacks in the South. Those are things that happened and we cannot change that, no matter how much we want to. We cannot ignore that those events occurred. But as I go back to the beginning, both Bond and Shaft were created to be who they are, to change them would be a dishonor to their creators. As to their fans, that is for them to decide, both for the present and for the future.

[trumanlodge89]

i just wanted to add my two cents really quickly.


if james bond is static while the times move around him, as some have mentioned, then it is impossible for him to change his skin color. now, some may argue that he changes his habits, his hair, etc..... but those are things that MUST be changed as the times change. he must look like he belongs, and a bond that smokes 3 packs a day just wouldnt fly in todays culture. so he evolves. just like any normal things, be it human being, fashion trend, technology.

but skin color is a different beast. i wear my hair differently than i did 4 years ago (its longer and its gotten a bit wavy), i wear different clothes, behave differently. and that is expected. but if i were to change my skin color suddenly, people would be very confused.

now, i know bond is just a character in a movie, but how many people would be up in arms is obi-wan kenobi were played by sam jackson in the star wars prequals? i know bond isnt great when it comes to continuity, but this just doesnt work for me. the other things have been pretty small, (the east asian languages thing, etc) but changing the person? i'm sorry, but the character is as much physical appearence as it is mind set.


and as ive said before, would i watch a movie centered on a superspy played by colin salmon? no doubt about it. i would be there opening night, and probably there every day for the next week. (assuming it was a good movie) but dont call him james bond.

[spynovelfan]

[[quote name='Stephenson' date='25 June 2005 - 22:57']
The way I see it, you want to pick and choose around all these issues so you can create a perfect model into which a black actor would fit. But how much do you eliminate before the character is no longer Bond? And some of your points seem to drift in and out when it suits you. For example, you said earlier, when talking about the other characters in the movies:

"They won't notice he's black. They'd suspend disbelief over that, just as they 'accept' that 40 years is rather a long career as a field agent."

Now you're saying:
"M, Moneypenny and Q would not have believed a black Bond in 1965. In 2005, they would."

So, sometimes they'll accept him today as black with his 40 year history, but sometimes they won't? That's convinient ....

[/quote]

But those two quotes of mine don't contradict each other. If Colin Salmon had played James Bond in TWINE, or GOLDENEYE or TND, M and Q and Moneypenny would not have noticed he was black. It would not have been mentioned or commented on. They could have used the precise same scripts as they did, but just had Salmon delivering the lines. The other characters would have no need to notice his colour has changed, just as they did not and never do notice that his and their ages have not changed, and other anomalies arising from having a 40-year series. Just as M didn't seem to notice that one day when he asked Moneypenny to send 007 in, a blonder guy with a mole walked in, instead of the Scottish-accented fellow he'd known for so many years. 'Sorry, who are you? I wanted to see 007.' Didn't happen. So in TWINE, GE and TND, I don't think his colour would have been something we'd expect the supporting cast to have noticed. In DR NO and other earlier films, we would have. You say: "So sometimes they accept him today as black with his 40 year history, but sometimes they won't." No: they would accept him *today*, always, if this were done. There's nothing inconsistent or convenient about it. This stuff all seems to be taking a lot of explanation to it, but anyone who has argued that Colin Salmon or any other black actor play Bond (inclouding Pierce Brosnan, incidentally) understands all these issues instinctively. You're raising objections that just aren't nearly as crucial to the films as you think they are.

[quote]
As you said, you have conceded numerous times that the audience wouldn't accept him, so it won't work in the context of the movie theatre. But then you also say that it wouldn't work for some of the missions and relationships this character has had within his own universe, and state that it is the same character from Dr. NO to DAD. So where exactly does this work? For one film made today if it eliminates some of his other missions and we change his history? For one film made today if we change the way all races are portrayed in a Bond movie? If we just ignore the fact that he is black all of a sudden and accept that he always was?
[/quote]

But, as I keep saying, you don't go back and look at the other films when you watch the current one. If you did, you might wonder how come the guy was fighting Communists in the Cold War and is still around. The series doesn't work like that.

[quote]
Why, exactly, do you get to base your whole position on the films you want, whereas the ones I use don't seem to matter or can be ignored? And please don't say, "because that's what Eon does." Talk about a weak argument. Yes, Eon fails to mention that Bond had a wife in every movie, but never have they said he didn't have a wife. They fail to mention that his parents are Scottish and Swiss in every movie, but the never say they weren't. And yes, Bond no longer smokes very often, but Eon has never said he didn't smoke (the "filthy habit" line may be seen to imply this, but I know lots of ex-smokers who respond the same way). Bond is still sexist, his boss called him that. And Bond is still racist, he made a crack about Swiss bankers in TWINE. So Eon has updated the character by toning down some of his more un-PC habits but they haven't completely eliminated them, and they have never denied that he once did the things he did in the other missions (with the exception of meeting Bloefeld, and we all know how we feel about that ).
[/quote]

They wouldn't state he was never white, either. It would just not be mentioned. It rarely has anyway, and it's just not an important enough issue. Like his not smoking, his racism and his sexism, it's something that does not need to feature for him to be Bond.

[quote]
You also seem to want to place arbitrary limits on the charcters history, specifically you seem to be saying that the way Brosnan played Bond, or the Brosnan movies, could have been played by a black actor with no difference.
[/quote]

Why is that arbitrary? I'm arguing Bond could be played by a black actor now. Brosnan's the most recent Bond.

[quote] You are focusing in on TWINE, and I will happily concede that in that one movie I can find no example of a mention of his race, although the title is his family motto and you've already said that his family background could cause some serious problems. [/quote]

I don't see why that would be a problem. That's too many removes for one to think about. Might sound arbitrary, that, but I think you *could* have references to his family - it would just be inadvisable. I suppose it just comes down to how much you can accept the character changing. For me, Colin Salmon playing Bond in that film would not have jarred at all. The family motto wouldn't have jarred any more than it jarred that that was last brought up up 30 years previously, and yet Bond is only in his mid 40s.

[quote]
Eon recognizes ethnic differences, sometimes brutally so ("Yo Mama"), and not just in movies that are "long gone".
[/quote]

I never said they don't recognise racial differences. No reason they'd need to for Bond, though. See TWINE, starring Colin Salmon.


[quote]As for the actor, I said:

"if the actor himself decides that his skin color is not essential or meaningful to the way he wants to play the part."

You said:
"Yes. But that would be a condition of signing for the part, of course."

Your the one who agreed with this "weak argument" in the first place. I said it was the actor's choice, you said that it would be a condition for the movie. When exactly did I jump in an say, "Ahhh"? "I'm not arguing for an opt-out clause where he agrees not to let his colour influence his performance - you are." Uh, no: you added that.
[quote]

Grr. It's a condition for everyone signing, whatever their colour. You came up with the objection that the actor might decide his skin colour is essential to playing the role. So you would then have to have a clause in the contract specifying they don't. I'm saying that's a flat-out absurd argument, because it's like saying that Pierce Brosnan couldn't have played the part, because he has beliefs in environmental issues, so there would have to be something in his contract saying he agreed not to let those beliefs impinge on his portrayal. Why did they not have that clause in Brosnan's contract? Because he was signing to play James Bond. It's a non-issue. Frustrating that you can't see it - because I can't explain it any clearer than that. You have invented an objection that simply would not arise.

[quote]"The fact that he is a promiscuous, predatory sexual heterosexual male, however, is something the series is founded on, and has featured in every single film." And it hasn't been featured in every movie that he's white? That hasn't been obvious, although unstated? [/quote]

It has been obvious, but unstated and, largely, irrelevant. Just as his hair colour has been. It's been more relevant, than that, but not much. In 2005, it's now close to being totally irrelevant, with one proviso - the Africa defence. It's about as important otherwise as having a ginger-haired actor playing Bond.

[quote]We can't believe that Bond sleeps with men, but we can accept that he is now black? Come on. Bond is about sex, not heterosexuality. How does a gay man act? He can't act Bond-like? Is there any valid argument you can come up with to show that he couldn't have been sleeping with men in every one of his movies? Where would his behavior had to have changed? More importantly, our sexuality isn't something that is obvious to other people, and can be kept private, so it may not affect how we are treated by others. Skin colour? Bond's sexuality is a core part of his character because of his behaviors in past movies, even though it is never openly stated that he is heterosexual, we know he is, just like we know his race. And please don't tell me I'm falling back on the whole "Bond has to be white because he's always been white" argument when you've just used the same to show why he has to be straight. [/quote]

I haven't, though. As you yourself said, he was white but it was *unstated*. His sexuality has been stated, and stated very up-front. It's a crucial part of his character, whereas his skin colour isn't. Sure, he couldn't have slept with men in most of the the earlier films - he would have been fired if he'd been found in the bubble with XXX, and XXX was a man, for instance. But that's your argument with his race, and I'm not going back to the earlier films. Could he have been gay in DAD, for instance, ie if Jinx had been a male CIA agent? Sure, he could have been - but it wouldn't have worked, because his history of relationships with women has been crucial to the series. His colour hasn't been. He has had a sexual relationship with at least one woman in every single film in the series. His colour has been an issue in four or five films, and even then it was a peripheral issue. He's never infiltrated white supremacists, for example. It hasn't been a key part of the series. It's comparable to his smoking habit, I'd say. You can keep it or lose it. His sexuality is highly relevant, and you're being disingenuous if you claim it's anywhere near as important to his character as his race.

[quote]
"He's in MI6, though. He's a field agent, and I believe the height restriction is higher." What, five six? The point still stands. Using your logic Bond could be short and it shouldn't matter.[/quote]

For field agents? If it's plausible that a crack MI6 field agent could be five six, sure Bond could be five six.

[quote]Well, you said a lot of things I agree with about the possibility of a black MI:6 agent who would act just like Bond today. But you still want to throw this challenge out to me: why couldn't that character be named James Bond. So IMO, with apologies for repeating:
1. The audience wouldn't accept it (last time this gets mentioned, promise!)
[/quote]

Why did you? I accept that! Not the argument.

[quote]2. He has always been played by a white actor and the character is described as white in the original source material. (this one too! )
[/quote]

Times have changed. He also had a facial scar, smoked like a chimney, took benzedrine, and was openly sexist and racist. All of those attributes were more important in Fleming's books than his race, and they've all been abandoned. Ergo: his race could be, too.

[quote]3. It wouldn't work within his own timeline, since certain missions would not only not be mentioned, they would have to have never happened or happened differently, thereby changing the character's history if Eon ever wanted to bring it up. Eon did this once with Bloefeld, agreed, but we are talking about at least three of the earlier movies, especially LALD, and DAD, as well as (very likely) his family lineage. [/quote]

I agree. The Africa defence, if you like. Avoid African locations, and references to past missions or characters where his race would have changed things. Not a huge stretch, though - most Bond films don't reference previous missions at all, so I think you're massively overstating the importance of this.

[quote]4. I simply don't believe that race does the same or less to define who someone is as smoking, being racist, sexist or whether or not someone has a scar. These habits or characteristics may be getting a hard time these days, but do you honestly think whether or not someone smokes says as much about them as their ethnicity? Lumping Bond's race in with changing (not eliminating!) his smoking, racism or sexism is a little far-fetched for me. Personal, I know, but still valid I feel.[/quote]

I can see what you're saying. But I think my point is that Bond isn't really a white or black character. He's British. So I think the race issue doesn't come up in quite that way. Imagine TWINE with Salmon in it, and I think you get closer to what I'm saying. He'd just be playing Bond. You wouldn't need to think about how his race defined him, just as you don't when you see him playing Robinson. I think you grossly exaggerate how deep Bond movies are, frankly! There's not so much difference between James Bond and Robinson's characters. As Fleming himself said, Bond is fairly one-dimensional, a 'cardboard booby'. Without much effort, and with a lot more lines and stunts, Robinson could be Bond.

[quote]5. Eon makes broad generalizations about ethnicities and cultures in nearly all the Bond movies, even today (excepting TWINE, although he did impersonate a "white" German nuclear arms specıalıst, so there's one thing we would have to change). Therefore, Bond's skin colour would be a factor in determining his behaviors if the character of Jinx is anything to go by, and these behaviors would very likely be different than they way we've come to expect Bond to act if left in the hands of Eon.[/quote]

Is the same argument as your point 3. But sure: some of it would be impossible to do. Just as MI6 can't have homegrown undercover operatives infiltrated into Asian societies very easily, for obvious reasons, making it much harder to gather intelligence on China and Korea, for example, there would be times in which a black agent would not be able to convince. Russia might be hard. I accept this. I'm not advocating casting a black Bond. I suppose I'm really just objecting to the counter-argument that's always trotted out in response to the idea of a black Bond, which is that Bond is intrinsically white. I'm not sure that needs to be the case in 2005.

[quote]So, I completely agree that Colin could play an excellent suave and sophisitcated MI:6 secret agent and it would be great fun to watch. But, IMO, he could not be called James Bond.
[/quote]

I really don't see at what points in TWINE you'd have said that, though. I think I would have bought him as Bond in that film, and others. Perhaps that's simply because I feel differently about the issue, so would watch it that way. You'd be thinking about previous missions and Fleming. I'd accept it. Perhaps it is always subjective, and it's impossible to look at it in a bubble.

[Stephenson]

Agreed! I think this is the point where we just have to agree to disagree. As I said at the start of this discussion, fandom's love of Bond is much more emotional than it is logical, and this comes from our knowledge of the character and a certain trust we have that he is going to take us on an excellent ride. And part of knowing him comes from physical recognition. Of course, Eon has changed actors, but those actors all had to fit a certain physical mold, especially in regards to height, appearance of age, level of attractiveness and "manliness". I believe this also includes the actors' race. The argument "because he has always been white" isn't really the issue for me; the issue is why we would like him to be white again. It is one of the fundamental ways that he is recognized by the audience. Just looking at posts regarding a new actor, we can see how many deal with how the actor looks, while relatively few deal with actual acting ability. How often have we read, "Well he could certainly do a good job, but he just doesn't look like Bond."?

Also, we disagree on the importance of his past movies. It is not simply a case of some matter and some don't. For me, Bond isn't what I see on the screen only for this one movie and his history doesn't begin and end with Brosnan's films. He is a character that has been established over 40 years and those other movies do play a part in each of his adventures, whether they are mentioned or not. The whole tone of the character comes from being a white man in the 1960's. The way I am understanding your position is that past films don't matter, mainly because it was too long ago. "We've updated Bond, he can be changed." Yes, he can, but not so radically that whole movies need to be eliminated. Again (with one exception), Eon has never denied that Bond's previous missions never happened, even if they don't mention them. With a black Bond, Eon would have to change that if they wanted to bring up his past.
And that includes TWINE. IMO, the subplot of his lost wife is important to the character in that movie, and adds something to an understanding of his behaviors. But he lost his wife in a mission 35 years ago, when a black MI:6 agent would have been highly unlikely. Our knowledge of his past is what makes him an interesting character. Without it he really only is a cardboard booby, XXX in a tux. The fact is we do carry those previous movies around with us when we are watching the current one.

The fact that we are willing to suspend disbelief so that the character never really has to age is a testament to how much we liked his other movies. And it is much easier to buy into the idea of a character not aging than it is to believe that he changed his skin colour. It is true that each actor has added or taken away something from the character or choosen to interpret him in a slightly different way, but they have all agreed that it is based on the same character. He is Bond from start to present. I think it would be relatively easy to imagine Brosnan's Bond in DN, OHMSS, OP or LTK, or Connery's Bond in LALD, FYEO or GE, regardless of when the film was made, and they wouldn't have to change their interpretations dramatically (maybe a few less slaps on the ). I can't see how this would work with a black actor.

You still haven't convinced me how changing Bond's sexuality would be any different than changing his race, or how if he was attracted to a man or a woman would change his attitude towards sex would make him behave differently . Bond has never come out and said, "I'm heterosexual", just as he has never come out and said, "I'm white". Being able to seduce with ease is one of his characteristics, we just know it's women he seduces from his behavior in past movies. That's how the character is established, and why we don't need a lengthy exposition in each film about why he is "cold and cut-off". A couple of sentences do it. You said:

"As you yourself said, he was white but it was *unstated*. His sexuality has been stated, and stated very up-front. It's a crucial part of his character, whereas his skin colour isn't. Sure, he couldn't have slept with men in most of the the earlier films - he would have been fired if he'd been found in the bubble with XXX, and XXX was a man, for instance. But that's your argument with his race, and I'm not going back to the earlier films. Could he have been gay in DAD, for instance, ie if Jinx had been a male CIA agent? Sure, he could have been - but it wouldn't have worked, because his history of relationships with women has been crucial to the series. His colour hasn't been. He has had a sexual relationship with at least one woman in every single film in the series. His colour has been an issue in four or five films, and even then it was a peripheral issue."

This is what I mean about a contradiction: Where is it stated "very up-front" that Bond is straight? It is stated that he sleeps around, but not with whom. And you use the very argument that he "hasn't done it in past films so he wouldn't do it today" to defend your position on it not working with Jinx, even though you just said you don't need to do that. I don't believe Bond being white has been a peripheral issue in 4 or 5 films (20% of the character's life!), it has been a factor in almost all his films, albeit an often unstated one, just as his sexuality has been. More so, since it is just not believeable that a black man would have been treated the same way as a white man in the places Bond went and the times he went there, whereas a gay white man could have hidden his orientation to avoid discrimination. Very sad, but true. But okay, we are talking about Bond today. I still don't think that someone's sexuality is more important than their ethnicity. Both are important aspects about who we are, but we have no choice about displaying our ethnicity to others which can affect how they deal with us. Besides, if we are only going by what we see on the screen then why is his past sexual history so important? We shouldn't care about it and so he could be gay and it would work within the context of the Bond character.


Lastly, I think we disagree on the importance of race to the portrayal of the character in today's day and age, both on screen and off. As I said before, it is more important to me than his smoking, sexism or racism (which has been toned down but not eliminated). And he has acted "white" in other movies, just as certain characters have acted "black", or "asian", or "american". Stereotyping? Certainly, but established modus operandi for Eon. Again this becomes another stretch: all the other characters act out their cultural stereotypes except Bond. Personally, I see nothing wrong in recognizing our differences. People all over the world fight to hold onto those important aspects of their culture, race or religion that help define them. Problems arise when we begin to think of "differences" as inequalities, and use them as a means of discriminating against someone. Could a black actor "act" exactly the same way as "white" Brosnan? Sure he could. Brosnan is Irish and plays a British secret agent; I wonder if he has questions about that somewhere. But racism is a much more powerful and visible negative force in our world. I do think it would be an issue, in the media at least, if a black actor was asked to play a traditionally white character and was prevented from allowing any of his ethnicity to show, whether or not the actor agreed with it whole-heartedly. It would definitely raise some important questions about the nature of race, as it has here.

So that's it for me. I agree that a black actor could play a character just like James Bond, and as others have said, if it looked like a good movie I'd go and see it. But, IMO, we could not call him James Bond because too many factors about the character's long history would have to be changed or eliminated. The history of the character is important to me and matters almost as much as what I am currently watching on the screen becuase it helps me enjoy what I am watching; knowing this is "James Bond" is part of the experience. I do think our race, religion, or culture gives us an understanding of who we are and is therefore important, even with only superficial characters. So, for me, changing Bond's race would alter my perception of him. I would expect him to have acted differently in many situations that are a part of his past. It wouldn't make him better or worse, just different in a way that changing "white" actors does not. Ultimately, I do believe that while individual plots may be able to stand alone, the character does not. IMO if TWINE or TND were made just as films, not "Bond" films, so the only thing that was changed was that the main character was named John Doe, they would not have done nearly as well at the box office. Even though neither of them contain any sustantial references to past movies, they are made about that character, and therefore who that character "is" and how he has acted before is important; it's what makes them "Bond" films and successful.

Really fun discussion from my POV. Thanks

Edited by Stephenson, 26 June 2005 - 09:45 PM.

[bryonalston]

Jesus Christ! These are some really long posts, so I'll just keep it short and simple. No, there shouldn't be a Black James Bond now or in the near future. The series is already shaky as is, and who knows what will happen if any major changes are made. Making 'M' a woman was acceptable, because M is a supporting character, but changing James Bond's racial identity will definitely off-put a lot of viewers, and will DEFINITELY have it's repercussions. I would prefer to see a spin-off serious for Charles Robinson, instead of throwing the character of James Bond out the window and starting all over again with an entirely new persona.

[Bon-san]

With you all the way, spy. Cheers for your endeavor.

It is definitely an emotional issue, as mentioned. But I'd say the masse resistence to the notion of a black James Bond emanates from a rather sub-conscious level in the human psyche. I certainly wouldn't hold that one is by definition a racist if he or she resists the idea of a black Bond. But I do think this debate speaks to the phenomenal power the concept of race wields within the minds and hearts of a vast segment of society.

[Stephenson]

Agreed Bon-san, our perception of a person is based on a variety of different factors, and race, or ethnicity, or religion, or style of dress, or language are just some of them. It's the nature of our perceptions and how we use them that matter to me. If our perceptions of a person are negative and based on only one or two physical attributes than of course this is wrong and is racist (or sexist, or whatever), especially if we use that as a reason to discriminate. However, accepting the reality that we are all different, that people cling to and defend their cultural and ethnic identities and want them celebrated because the are a fundamental part of who they are, is a better move IMO than attempting to homogenize the world. What a sad and uninteresting place that would be. Of course one shouldn't judge someone as "better" or "worse" if their skin colour is different, or their language or their sexual orientation. What a tragic thing it is that we do that. But neither should we assume that they are "automatically" the same as us. Only equal.

[the master]

I am sorry if this is racist or officive but that whould compleatly throw bond series off and whould be to different from the other bonds who are pretty alike in apperance

[k13oharts]

What if: Bond was green?

Edited by k13oharts, 14 July 2005 - 05:51 AM.