Helen Mirren has said that there is no earthly point in getting a woman to play James Bond because the world’s most famous fictional spy was “born out of profound sexism”.The first thing to say is that of course she is right. Of course Bond was born of reactionary attitudes and only a bore would point out what the DBE stands for in Mirren’s title. If you doubt the truth of what she says, watch the cringeworthy moment in Goldfinger when Sean Connery’s Bond dismisses his poolside masseuse Dink (played by Margaret Nolan) because he needs to discuss important stuff with Felix Leiter, and as Dink obediently leaves he slaps her behind and says: “Man talk …” Obnoxious.Perhaps a further and even more uncomfortable point is that the Andrew Tate/JD Vance contingent would broadly agree with Dame Helen: yes, the wokery of casting a woman as 007 is unthinkable for precisely the reasons she says but on which they have different views – and, incidentally, the female-casting topic is a clickbait talking-point never seriously considered by anyone in any relevant position of authority at any time. Jeff Bezos (himself a stereotypical Bond villain) may countenance all sorts of product variations, perhaps even continuing to have a female agent with the notional “007” rating. ButJames Bondwill be a separate bloke.View image in fullscreenCringeworthy … Margaret Nolan as Dink with Sean Connery’s Bond in Goldfinger.Photograph: Danjaq/Eon/Ua/Kobal/REX/ShutterstockHelen Mirren’s denunciation of Bond is part of a long-standing exasperation which began with Paul Johnson who in 1958 famously denounced the Ian Fleming books in which 007 displayed “the sadism of a schoolboy bully, the mechanical, two-dimensional sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude snob cravings of a suburban adult”. As the movie franchise has developed, it is of course the second of these three qualities which has taken over; the movie Bond has not been sadist or a snob for many decades – but his sex-obsession and his status as an object of sex-obsession, has grown and metastasised. Everything around him is sexy: cars, luxury watches, weapons, explosions, women. And as Nigel Tufnel says in This Is Spinal Tap: what’s wrong with being sexy?But there is something else to be noticed in what Dame Helen says: she uses the antique term “sexism” and not “misogyny” which has long since supplanted “sexism” in the discourse. Maybe it is a generational thing. But in fact Helen Mirren is using her words correctly: “sexism” and “misogyny” are not interchangeable: however antediluvian most have been in their attitudes, the Bond films do not encourage hatred of women, at least partly because of the comedy and absurdity, and thecase has been madefor a sex-positive reassessment.View image in fullscreenVin Diesel and Helen Mirren in Fast 8.Photograph: Universal Pictures/AllstarAnd of course now the Bond franchise has evolved away (a little) from the quaint ladmag archetypes. For a while, M was a woman, in the form of Dame Judi Dench. In No Time to Die, Lashana Lynch played the separate “007” agent — tough, capable and derisive of the ageing Bond, in a film co-written by Phoebe Waller-Bridge.But what the Bond films need is the most progressive innovation of all: not a female Bond but a female Bond villain. We have had figures such as Elektra King played by Sophie Marceau in The World Is Not Enough – but they have never really had the clear status of alpha-villain. For the next Bond film we need a lethally powerful and charismatic woman with a prestigious acting pedigree to play the antagonist, someone who has, say, played the MI6 assassin Vicky Winslow in the macho action comedy Red, and the criminal matriarch Queenie Shaw in the (equally macho) Fast and Furious franchise spinoff Hobbs & Shaw. The next 007 film will be a hit if they can persuade Mirren to be the villain. And the new Bond would certainly have to raise his game.
Yes, Helen Mirren, James Bond is profoundly sexist. But more than a telling off, he needs a face-off
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Helen Mirren Critiques James Bond's Sexism and Advocates for a Female Villain"
The Guardian
6.2
TruthLens AI Summary
Helen Mirren has expressed her views on the character of James Bond, stating that casting a woman in the iconic role is pointless because Bond is fundamentally rooted in "profound sexism." Her commentary highlights the outdated and often problematic attitudes that have historically surrounded the character, particularly in light of past portrayals, such as Sean Connery's Bond in 'Goldfinger,' who notoriously dismissed a female character with a slap on the behind while asserting that it was 'man talk.' This depiction exemplifies the sexist undertones present in the franchise from its inception, a sentiment that has been echoed by critics since the late 1950s, including Paul Johnson, who described Bond's character traits in a derogatory manner. While the film franchise has attempted to evolve, particularly with the inclusion of strong female characters, the essence of Bond remains tied to his sexual exploits and the objectification of women around him.
Mirren's use of the term "sexism" rather than the more contemporary "misogyny" also invites discussion about the differences between these concepts. She argues that while the Bond films exhibit sexist attitudes, they do not necessarily promote hatred towards women, which allows for a potential re-evaluation of the series. The article suggests that rather than merely casting a woman as Bond, a more progressive approach would be to create a formidable female villain, thus reversing traditional gender roles within the narrative. This idea could bring a fresh perspective to the franchise, particularly if a powerful actress, such as Mirren herself, were to take on the role of the antagonist, challenging Bond to adapt and raise his game in the face of a strong female adversary.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article delves into Helen Mirren's critique of the James Bond character, emphasizing the inherently sexist foundations of the franchise. It highlights how Bond's portrayal and the culture surrounding him reflect outdated and problematic attitudes, while also noting the tension between traditionalist views and modern perspectives on gender representation in media.
Purpose Behind the Publication
The intent behind this article seems to be to spark a conversation around the relevance and appropriateness of the James Bond character in contemporary society. By featuring Helen Mirren's statements, the piece aims to underscore the outdated nature of Bond's sexism, urging a re-evaluation of how such characters are represented and whether they should evolve or be replaced. The discussion is not just about casting but also about cultural norms and expectations.
Public Perception Influence
The article is likely designed to resonate with audiences who are critical of traditional gender roles and those advocating for more progressive representation in media. By invoking Mirren's authority and celebrity status, it seeks to validate the concerns of those who find the current portrayal of Bond problematic. This can create a broader discourse about sexism in media, encouraging readers to reflect on their own views and the implications of such portrayals.
Potential Concealments
While the article is straightforward in its critique, it may downplay the complexities involved in the evolution of iconic characters like James Bond. The discussion around gender representation can overshadow other important aspects, such as the narrative development and cultural significance of such characters. There could be a tendency to simplify the conversation to a binary debate between traditionalism and progressivism without addressing the nuances involved.
Manipulative Elements
The article could be seen as somewhat manipulative in how it frames the discussion. By emphasizing Mirren's condemnation of Bond's sexism, it may provoke outrage or affirmation from readers without providing a balanced view of the franchise's evolution over time. The choice of language and specific examples, such as the reference to Connery's Bond, serves to elicit strong emotional reactions which could skew the reader's perception.
Truthfulness of the Article
The statements made in the article are rooted in historical context and are largely accurate regarding the portrayal of Bond in earlier films. However, the overall narrative could be seen as more opinion-based, reflecting a particular viewpoint rather than presenting a comprehensive analysis of the character's evolution.
Societal Implications
This discussion could influence societal views on gender representation in media, potentially leading to calls for more inclusive storytelling. It may also affect the film industry, prompting studios to reconsider how they approach character development and casting for iconic roles. The debate surrounding Bond may encourage filmmakers to explore new narratives that reflect contemporary values and norms.
Support from Specific Communities
The article is likely to resonate with feminist groups and those advocating for gender equality in media. It aligns with communities seeking to challenge traditional depictions of masculinity and promote more diverse representations in popular culture.
Market Impact
While the article itself may not have a direct impact on stock markets, the broader discourse it represents could influence media and entertainment companies. Changes in audience expectations could affect production strategies, potentially impacting the financial performance of films and related merchandise, particularly those associated with the Bond franchise.
Global Power Dynamics
In the broader context, this discussion reflects ongoing global conversations about gender, power, and representation. As societies grapple with these issues, how media portrays iconic figures can have ripple effects on cultural and political dynamics.
AI Involvement in Article Creation
It is possible that AI tools may have assisted in structuring the narrative or analyzing past critiques of the James Bond character. However, the article's voice and tone suggest a human touch, emphasizing emotional and cultural resonance that AI may not fully capture.
Conclusion on Reliability
Considering the historical context and the cultural critique presented, the article is relatively reliable in terms of the issues it raises. However, it may lean towards a specific viewpoint, which could limit its objectivity. The focus on Mirren's statements, while valid, may overshadow a more nuanced discussion about the character's evolution throughout the years.