The Gender-Neutral Spy Who Loved Me: Sexual Politics of 007
By Christopher Motola
Class of 2017
Politics Major
James Bond is a quintessential cinematic icon. Starting off as a literary character in the 1950s, then making the leap to a film franchise which would become the longest running and amongst the most profitable all time. The upcoming release of the 24th official Bond film, Spectre, has been accompanied by a great amount of press, and a growing tide of voices of those who want to change Bond. A quick Google search will yield plenty of headlines and editorials like “Isn’t it time we had a female James Bond?”, “A Female James Bond?” , “Zachary Quinto on Gay Action Stars: Why Can’t We Have a Gay James Bond?”, or my personal favorite, “Spectre is the tale of a violent misogynist- so why does my six year old son love James Bond so much?”
These countless and incessant petitions for a gay or female Bond serve as a microcosm of the politically correct Social Justice Warrior movement that has reared its ugly head in recent years. In their minds, if James Bond is a sexist, then changing him into a woman or gay man will rectify this unspeakable sin. These people, more than anyone else, are extremely sensitive to identity politics. They can never just leave things alone for the sake of escapist fun, or appreciate something that doesn’t specifically accommodate them or their agenda.
The backlash against Bond is not exactly a surprise. Even as a fan, it is impossible to ignore that he is a sexist and flawed character. The thing is though, that’s okay. Sure, moments from older movies are cringeworthy to watch, such as when Bond spanks a woman and tells her to leave so that the agents can have their “man talk” in Goldfinger. That is an ugly moment, for sure. It’s important to remember that James Bond is the creation of Ian Fleming, a drinking, smoking, former British Naval Officer who was born in 1908. That’s over 100 years ago. Obviously, the man’s creation is not going to have much in common with our views today. As a society, we have progressed from many of Fleming’s archaic and sexist views on women, gender, and sexuality. That doesn’t mean Bond’s entire identity needs to change.
Sexist or not, Fleming harnessed a winning formula with his stories that resonate with audiences around the world. James Bond, to the world, means excitement and adventure. Action and suspense. Danger. This has remained constant, even as the films have updated and adapted to more modern sensibilities. In 1962, Bond’s first introduction on screen sees him lighting a cigarette. In 1997, Bond declares smoking a “filthy habit.” These changes are important to James Bond’s relevance. Of course, he cannot remain entirely static for 60 years. However, these minor adaptations happen on smaller scale, and merely show us an updated version of the archetype Fleming created who would be plausible in modern times. Does James Bond need to be gay or female in order to remain relevant? Please. James Bond, the masculine ladies man, has been a cinematic legend for over 50 years without any signs of slowing down in the future. People who complain about Bond are not fans, and they know nothing about the movies or the character. They simply want to take an already beloved cultural icon and insert their own political agenda into his mythology.
The biggest problem with whitewashing James Bond’s identity into something new entirely is not that it would be a betrayal of who he is, but that it would be boring. Bond movies are supposed to be dangerous and exciting, not a Lifetime Channel after school special about diversity. What constraints will be placed on Bond next? No killing allowed? Bond has to lecture us on the evils of British colonialism? Villains can no longer have any facial scars or physical disabilities? No more villains with metal hands, since that would be offense to amputees. Regardless of your politics, no one likes preaching in their movies.
Instead of sanitizing the character into banality, why not use the character in a new way in order to say something interesting? The films have been doing this for a while now. 1995’s stone cold classic, Goldeneye, did this perfectly. The first post-Cold War Bond film, Goldeneye challenged the character in a way few other films have. Bond was given a female boss for the first time, who famously criticized him as a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur.” He is even taunted by a coworker for his borderline sexually harassing behavior. In many other films, Bond is partnered with and pitted against many strong female characters, who compete with Bond, and even save his life. As early as the 1970s, the films have turning the tables entirely on Bond, showing us female characters who exploit Bond’s sexuality as a means of accomplishing their own ends. Bond’s most popular trait has been turned against him and exploited. Now that’s interesting. When Bond is placed in a new social context, or the tables are turned on him, it makes for a story with much more substance, where he is forced to change and adapt. Simply erasing the character’s DNA entirely in order to satisfy a political agenda is a disservice to the viewers. Making James Bond gay or female does not automatically make him interesting. Well written movies make the character interesting. James Bond is flawed and archaic. But that is what makes him captivating. Characters are allowed to have flaws. We certainly enjoy Bond’s adventures, and we envy his fashion, wit, and charm, but that does not mean we have to look to him as a role model. I will close with the words of a former James Bond, Roger Moore: “I have heard people talk about how there should be a lady Bond or a gay Bond, but they wouldn’t be Bond for the simple reason that wasn’t what Ian Fleming wrote.”
