It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Whiteness isn't anything but superficial characterization in most cases, and Rowling herself attacked the critics of the stage casting of a black actress as Hermione as "a bunch of racists."
And so far not a single James Bond has looked like Hoagy Carmichael, unless one thinks all whites look alike. Had Fleming been charge of selecting the screen Bond, he probably wouldn't have chosen Connery, who didn't quite fit his "template." Nor have the James Bond films been tremendously faithful to Fleming's vision in other respects. It's no surprise that 66 years ago a white author writing in a predominantly white country envisioned a white hero. The country has changed, along with the world, and the films have always kept up with the times.
The Bond films have never strictly followed Fleming's template, and if were Fleming writing today his work would be different. Today race is not an important part of that template--it's no more important than whether a Bond actor has a comma of hair or a facial scar. It doesn't affect his character and the genuinely important attributes given to him by Fleming: his patriotism, bravery, occasional melancholy, enjoyment of luxury but need for a challenge, his determination to live life to the full, etc. But being British will always be a core part of his identity, and unless you think it's impossible to nonwhite and proudly British, then the race of the actor who plays a modern James Bond is inconsequential. Back in 1953, this wouldn't have been the case. But Bond films are made for the audiences of today. Saying it would go against Fleming's original vision means ignoring all the innumerable times the films have been untrue to it.
Your bad faith characterization of those who disagree with you adds even less.
Explain to me how Shaft is defined by his race and Bond isn’t?....... “White face in Harlem! Good thinking Bond!” Whether Fleming originally describes Bond as English is irrelevant, because one fact is for certain....he was described as a white man! Like it or not the ‘steriotypical and archetypal description of an ‘Englishman’ to the rest of the world and in media (especially to the Americans) is a well spoken ‘Lord of the Manor’ entitled white man. Bond is an Etonian and a Commander in the navy....i.e a typical Piblic School boy type. If a white man is born in Japan, the Japanese still refer to them as a Gaijin and not Japanese. Patel and Golding May be British, but they are Asian British. Given that Bond is white British they are immediately excluded from consideration.
Exactly! +1
There is no such thing as "Whiteness". And if you're referring to ethnicity, it is not a superficial characterisation. I could dance circles around this and argue that those two comments you made - the use of said word, and the superficial aspect of it - are actually rather racist, but I won't, I left the debate team a long time ago and I come here to have fun ;) And I know you're not a racist :)
Furthermore, Rowling's comments are always the one that suit her better given the prevalent circumstance of any matter. She's rather the cunning author and is willing to contradict herself and change narratives if that suits the political prevalent agenda. That's why she's the money woman ;)
No it doesn't. He didn't show bad faith. He was metaanalysing the debate. It's a thing. It's called far point paralaxe of the discussion. And he's right, because the debate has lead us nowhere. Hence his comment, which is actually used when a debate runs itself in circles, with no given solution, and usually with the soul purpose of being shocking or contra.
I am not a racist if I understand that race is important as a factual characterisation, not a positive or negative characterisation, but a factual one. Diversity is not about not seeing colours. It's about seeing them and respecting them all, knowing that all of them have their own cultural, aesthetic, historical, ..., characteristics. This "see no colour" thing is fallacious and lends itself eventually to the same regimes that thrive on the collective and the destruction of differentiation. You'll see, all these agendas and PC overuse will feed the same monster they're all trying to fight. There has to be balance and lucidity. I have friends of all ethnicities and creeds and sexual identifications, and I'm against any bigotry. That's why I don't want a black James Bond. I also don't want total uniformity. Equality of rights, yes! But not the destitution of ethnic characterisation. That would be blind madness. And very, very dangerous at the long run.
I doubt they even spend their hard earned money to go watch an Idris Elba film.
I would fully support a non white Bond but only if he was by far the best candidate for the role. I would not support a non white actor if he was deliberately cast just to be PC.
As Jodie Whittaker was.
Great post.
This is like a bad penny,it always appears every 2-3 weeks briefly.
Indeed, and while we will accept that some of Fleming's white characters can change colour (Felix and Penny) we can't accept that Bond can? The problem there is that we are arguing that Bond was created as a white character, and has maintained that identity for 60 odd years, and therefore should not change. But, we will accept that more minor characters of equally long standing can change colour?
That's a good point. I, for one, don't accept the argument that minor character can change ethnicity. All characters are a product elaborated by the mind of the author. Changing their characterisation is no better than usurpation, theft, and ultimately, a blatant disrespect for the author. I speak as a writer, a novelist. When I see a character I've created with such care misread and miscast I can't help but think that the person who did it thinks he knows better, and that he or she suffers from an Annie Wilkes syndrome :) and would rather break my legs so I can write their vision of the character.
Do I like that Felix is black now? No, he's described as a Texan Blonde, I think. Do I like that Bond himself is a blonde now? No, of course not. Some liberties can be taken if the author didn't elaborate. But Fleming was great at profiling. So why not follow that with precision, except for the parts that don't fit with todays morals, of course - and that only if you insist on putting Bond in present times.
This has nothing to do with race or sexuality or any of that. It has to do with characterisation and authorship. If the author wrote a character one way, that's the way the character should be depicted. Period. Ask any writer - except those remoras who want to partake on some PC shark bus as a means to self publicity - they'll fight for their characters and narratives. It doesn't matter the colour, the gender, ...., it matters the way they were written concerning those elements, because they are ART, and no one goes around photoshopping a Van Gogh just because the colours can be others. No one desaturates a Monet just because they like B&W photography better. Art is art. If it was painted that way, it is what it is, and always should be.
Bond is literature. It was adapted for cinema, but it is and always will be a literary product. It's adaptation to the 7th art form was so successful that some may argue that's its own art form now. Ok then, I'll buy it. But if it is, then we should also be respectful of that adaptation, that has lived for many decades now. This deconstruction of everything is nothing other than the prelude of destruction of art itself, in all its forms. It's also the prelude of the death of values, morals, ..., soon we'll have nothing because nothing matters, it's all the same, it's a big "who cares?" just for the sake of people who want a fight they never had with their non present daddies and mommies and now cling to social relevant matter as if they were a life cord.
Racism must end. Bigotry must end. Misogyny must end. But not at the expense of killing traits and specifications that differentiate us. Not at the expense of difference and specifics. That is just being dumb. But I guess 7.8 billion people destroying the world they live in speaks lots and lots for their quality and evolution of conscience and lucidity.
It's all going to smithereens folks, and "not caring" and "over caring" are driving the bus. Lucidity is long gone, a road kill if you will.
Again, I agree with Univex....”Fleming himself already set the Caucasian template over 60 years ago - which, I might add, has been followed explicitly since 1953. That’s already 66 successive and successful years of the character being officially established as a Caucasian male, leaving absolutely no doubt whatsoever his skin colour, race, or gender.” NAIL ON HEAD!
When you start to read the Fleming Bond novels (I’ve read all of them many times), you can quickly ascertain that he was never intended to be portrayed as anything other than a much-improved version of Ian Fleming himself.
The first Bond book was published in 1952, with Indian independence in the rear view mirror and the Suez Crisis looming in the distance. Colonialism was on the wane, and the British Empire was being dismantled. This is the political backdrop for Ian Fleming’s Bond books, and it brings with it a frightening connotation: if British power drains out of a country, who/what will fill the void?
In this light, one can see that Bond villains are comic-book caricatures of Hitler: they have delirious plans for world domination or destruction, they have their own armies (private armies, it must be said, and not very large) and they are planning surprise attacks against democracies (much in the same way that Hitler launched a surprise attack against Poland): think of the two nuclear warheads aimed at major cities in the UK and the US. Bond is being sent all over the globe to dispatch these evil overlords before they threaten Britain.
It is impossible to imagine that England would have recruited a “spy of color” to go to Crab Key and kill Dr. No, and it is also laughable that a black spy would be given a license to kill so he could exterminate the villain of Live and Let Die, Dr. Kananga, a black Jamaican.
What’s more, when Fleming created a character who was of a different race, he made no bones about describing that person’s ethnicity. We know that Dr. No is of Asian heritage; Kananga is black; Oddjob is Korean (not Japanese, as portrayed in the movie Goldfinger). When Bond attacks a villain who is non-white, it is made clear that Bond only does so because that person is a member of SPECTRE or a criminal, and not because of his race. This is made clear in the novel Live and Let Die. However, in the novel Goldfinger, Fleming (via Bond) takes the opportunity to denigrate Oddjob and Goldfinger’s other Korean servants by describing their language (among other things) with contempt. Perhaps Koreans had non-existent influence as minority activists in Britain when he wrote it, so he could engage in some very open “parlor bigotry” to get people talking about his book.
I think that people who demand a more diverse casting of James Bond simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/james-bond-should-not-be-black-says-first-black-bond-villain-yaphet-kotto-10164749.html.
I’m down with everything that @Univex has wonderfully expressed. Personally, I gave Jeffrey Wright a pass as Felix because he was the second best actor to portray him since Jack Lord, and also the character hadn’t really been that well defined in the subsequent movies. TB being the only other worthy exception and mention. I guess Hedison was okay in LALD, too. On the other hand, Naomie Harris as Moneypenny I’m far less enthusiastic about, due in no small part to her very stiff and uninspired acting. I’d have much preferred it had Keeley Hawes played the part. Though she’s probably too tall for the diminutive Craig. If Naomie is an example of casting a non-Caucasian because it’s believed she is über-talented, then I’d say it didn’t pay off. Not for me, at least.
Well said Bondsum. I pretty much agree with every word of that.
It is explicitly stated in the second book, Live and Let Die. Felix Leiter and Bond go to Harlem together, and they stick out because they are white, e.g. “He blinked as he saw the two white men…” “Two white men coming in five minutes, give them the Z table…”
Furthermore, in the film version; "It's like following a cue ball!" "Put your hands up Honkey!" ......
He’s Scottish
In You Only Live Twice, an obituary of Bond is included, in which we learn that his father was Scottish and his mother Swiss. Not countries with a large minority population in the 1950s (or rather, the 1910s, as this is when Bond would have been born).
He went to Eton
Bond went to the elite public (which means private) school of Eton, probably in the late 1920s or early 1930s. While I am no expert in Etonian diversity regulations in those years, I highly doubt there were very many, if any, minority students there.
He was a naval officer
After finishing Ixford, Bond was recruited into the British Navy, during the Second World War, rose to rank of Commander. Again, not many minority naval officers in the British Navy back then.
He’s a gaijin
In You Only Live Twice, Bond is referred to as “gaijin”,
Japanese for “outside person” or “foreigner”, but one that is typically used mainly for Caucasians.
Basically, he's a white man.
Of 7,000 officers in the Royal Navy, 20 are of ethnic origin, as are 75 out of 8,000 in the RAF. Bond is a public School Boy who is a Commander in the Navy.....mmmmm.
And cheers @Univex for your continued support.
Daniel Craig looks like Hoagy Carmichael.
Thank you Denbigh. My feelings exactly. I hope (and think) your reaction is more indicative of popular opinion than the strained pseudo-logic espoused elsewhere on this thread.
Passive aggression doesn't really make you more believable, chap.
+1
We can't all be as insufferably patronizing as yourself, old boy.
There’s nothing wrong with thinking that Bond need not be Caucasian, but there’s also nothing wrong, or “ racist “ with thinking that he should be; it’s not closed minded, it’s a preference.
C'mon man, calling people pseudo-intellectuals and insufferably patronising is no way to carry a discussion. C'mon, we're discussing it, so keep making your point, use other arguments, research like some have. It's all good sports in a (mostly) friendly forum. I've appreciated your posts, even though I don't agree with them. Don't stop now. If we all agreed, all these topics would have a single page. Heck, the B25 one would be quite empty :) Don't throw a tantrum and get aggressive, please. We've got more than enough of that in the other mentioned topic.
BTW, sorry for the double post guys. I still don't know how to delete a post (I know how to edit, but not how to delete it if it's already written). If someone knows, PM me, please.
I would just hope that if this decision was made, that people would hold their stronger arguments until the film's release. I say this because of what happened with Craig. So many people spoke out very cruelly regarding James Bond's hair so you can just imagine the headlines if a black actor was to be cast, and people now regard him as one of the best Bond's we've ever had. I know hair colour is a very different matter, but you get my point. Again, I fully respect both sides of this argument, but I would hope at the end of the day that if the choice was made, that we'd stick by this franchise and try not to add more fuel to the fire so speak, when the other types of people (actual racists) get involved.
Like I said a difficult argument, but it's not one that can't be treated fairly, because times they are a changing, and if the actors good for the role, then they'll pick him. I doubt Barbara and Michael or anyone to do with the future of the franchise would perform stunt-casting on a role this important and successful.
I didn't mean for this to be so long. I apologise haha :D
Oh, if I may, on the subject of race or gender, I'd have no problem with an ethnic variation of the character, as long as they didn't say: "...as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007". "Based on the character created by Ian Fleming" would be more fitting. And then, even if I'd appreciate it for what it was, I'd miss Ian Fleming's James Bond until he came back to the cinema. Because I really like the character as was depicted in the novels. And yes, I'm one of the guys who would love faithful adaptations of all novels. I'd love that, actually.