›

The "Bond girl" actresses get too much blame

M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
edited February 2022 in Bond Movies Posts: 536
Oftentimes people will talk about which "Bond girls" are good or bad. However, much of this is based on decisions the directors, writers and producers (basically, older upper-class men) make rather than their own acting had.

Vesper and Tracy had freedom to be complex nuanced characters. The majority of "Bond girls" get limited screentime, or are limited to scenes that are either sexual or them being helpless awaiting rescue.

When fans say "this Bond girl ruined the movie"; keep in mind, in most cases, those actresses were just doing everything their bosses told them to.

Many of the "Bond girl" actresses are younger, still up and coming and hungry. They'll take a role that's demeaning or creatively limiting because starring in a big film will help their career. Actresses at the peak of their career typically aren't picked for the role, because then they'd be demanding more creative freedom.

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,223
    True, enough. Like most of us, I alternately howled and squirmed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist but, well, Denise didn't write the part or cast herself, so...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 16,833
    Venutius wrote: »
    True, enough. Like most of us, I alternately howled and squirmed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist but, well, Denise didn't write the part or cast herself, so...

    She did take the money, though. No, seriously, I really like her in the role. :)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,440
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    True, enough. Like most of us, I alternately howled and squirmed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist but, well, Denise didn't write the part or cast herself, so...
    She did take the money :)
    I'd take it too haha :D
    I don't know about anyone else but her name always bothered me than her being a nuclear physicist.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 572
    Typically the girls are the least of the films' problems. The only two I dislike are Jinx and Madeline.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 1,376
    I don’t really dislike any of the Bond girls, nor the actresses who play them. Are there some wooden Bond girls? Absolutely, but they don’t do enough to take me out of whatever film they’re in. Having said that, not a big Jinx fan.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 2,223
    Bond girls good! I don't dislike any of them either - I might not be able to suspend disbelief long enough to accept Denise as a nuclear scientist, but Denise herself? What's to dislike, man?!
  • AKillToAViewAKillToAView
    edited February 2022 Posts: 435
    I always thought the accusations she was too stupid to act, and not that she was simply given no good material, were a little unfair.

    Especially given that the same year she did a fine (and funny) job as the villain of the film Drop Dead Gorgeous.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,811
    I think the classic example is Britt Ekland, who does a really good and funny job playing the character she was given, but making her be stupid for comic effect is probably the worst writing for a Bond girl in the whole series.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,278
    I never really had an issue with Denise Richards because ultimately her character was completely superfluous and no good actress could have made it work. She was clearly inserted into the film to do two things: Spout exposition dumps regarding nuclear bombs and assure fans that Bond will have a woman in bed at the very end after Elektra gets killed.
  • AKillToAViewAKillToAView
    edited February 2022 Posts: 435
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I never really had an issue with Denise Richards because ultimately her character was completely superfluous and no good actress could have made it work. She was clearly inserted into the film to do two things: Spout exposition dumps regarding nuclear bombs and assure fans that Bond will have a woman in bed at the very end after Elektra gets killed.

    That's what makes that whole movie so fascinating to me.

    You can see the Daniel Craig era trying to be born prematurely but it's stuck inside the structure of the Brosnan era's fear of going too much outside the typical Bond formula.

    This is not a criticism, it's just such an interesting dynamic to see play out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 12,811
    Yes, when Purvis & Wade came onboard they were trying to shake it up and add new things but it’s like turning an oil tanker in the sea I guess. Being a fan at the time, the ideas of Bond being injured, MI6 blown up, the Bond girl being the villain and M kidnapped did feel like quite a departure; it’s easy to forget that looking back from now, where the films are much less formulaic.
Sign In or Register to comment.