Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:46 AM
Ladies, gentlemen,
I've repeatedly read now member's assertions about them not being racist, but...
In my view this is entirely beside the point and in fact not at all called for. Seeing Bond as a white Caucasian male is simply one of several individual characteristics defining the person of 'James Bond'. Nobody has to apologise for taking these characteristics into account; neither for neglecting them. A blind person for instance will probably not at all understand what kind of discussion this is, or what the specific arguments are trying to point out.
Some of these defining characteristics have been subject to change, others haven't, which implies a certain hierarchy. Race and gender obviously are very high up within this ranking, yet it seems other characteristics are also a matter. Right from the start the cinematic depiction of Bond wasn't congruent with the literary depiction (which in itself wasn't consistent about its subject; Bond's background changed significantly with the books). Over the decades we've seen a certain bandwidth of interpretations, perhaps not all in line with the personal image of Bond we've come to shape in our minds.
Now we've arrived at a point where some people can imagine a black Bond while others refuse the very notion. Looking closer at the argument it's apparent that a change of skin colour for some means it's not Bond any more, not the same person. I don't think the refusal is primarily because white males then would not be able to identify with Bond - with their Bond - any more. That's far too simplistic and in fact an argument like a racist or white supremacist would use to incite people. And I like to nurse the notion neither feel at home within CBn. I think those fans against a black Bond in their majority are used to a certain idea of their hero that simply isn't subject to change beyond what's absolutely necessary for keeping the character up-to-date. So Bond still has the Naval background and the rank of Commander, regardless if such would actually affect the character or the storyline. The person of Bond stays intact within his universe, isn't suddenly changed to being American or working for the Foreign Office or having been to Cambridge. Wait...
On the other hand those not averse to the idea of Idris Elba as 007 (nobody in their right minds seems to realistically expect Elba to take over from Craig, at least not around here) are certainly not guided by notions of political correctness, a term I deeply despise as it's most often used by those having their own agenda. To me it simply speaks of different priorities where the characterisation of 007 is concerned. A page or two ago I read 'no black actor can ever be better in their characterisation of Bond than a white actor' or something like it. Really? If I had to choose between Andy Serkis and Idris Elba I'd probably go with Elba. But OK, Serkis is a little older than Elba, so the comparison isn't all that fair, is it? Let's see, how about Justin Bieber and Idris Elba? And don't tell me Bieber isn't an actor, male or a human, I don't care about that a lot either way. I'd choose Elba.
You are of course far too clever to not realise what I'm doing here, aren't you? I'm pointing out where we would arrive if the tone of skin was the main factor in defining Bond. We'd arrive at Homer Simpson as 007, provided we are prepared to ignore his yellow complexion because at any rate he's meant to be a white male Caucasian. Apparently better than any black actor could ever be at playing Bond. Hm...
To round this in the end rather pointless argument up - pointless because it's a publicity stunt nobody should waste much time mulling over - nothing indicates we will in our lifetimes be confronted with a need to adapt our idea of Bond more than we already did. That's not to say we won't ever be surprised by Bond on the big screen again. But the series won't cross borders society itself isn't able to.