SPEAKING EASY - "Black James Bond," and the Dangers of Pseudo-Woke Imperialism
(By Melody Werner)
Much fuss has been made by the usual suspects about growing diversity in casting choices for Hollywood films. Whether we're talking about the controversial decision to cast a woman actress as a woman character like Carol Danvers, or choosing an all-woman cast for a team like Ghostbusters, you're sure to find a subset of chuds and grifters bemoaning that choice. But we're not talking about that today. I'm actually going to be talking about when I don't think that should be done, though I'm going to be coming at it from an actually sensible trajectory, so I hope you don't jump out of this right away before I hit on my points.
See, my problem with films such as 2019's Captain Marvel or the forthcoming 007 film, No Time to Die, is not that they're "too left wing" in their casting choices (as though Hollywood progresses a left wing narrative while they are run by like two multinational corporations run by fuckers who don't pay their taxes); it's that they're too far in the other direction. Captain Marvel is a film that is being used to propagandize and encourage people to sign up for the military. James Bond, as a series, is an argument for imperialism. Just changing the character to be a woman of color is not going to rectify that. This is an infected Band-Aid over the swollen, gangrenous wound that is this fucked up franchise, and is a profoundly awful idea.
Ian Fleming was not a good man. Nor was he subtle about the intention of the abominable character he is guilty of unleashing into the world. The British novelist was born into wealth, joining the Naval Intelligence organization in 1939. He would write the first Bond novel in just over a month in 1952. Over time, Fleming's novels would reflect his beliefs on imperialism, sexuality, and inequality. And you'll be shocked to hear that these beliefs were pretty fucked up. But why am I crucifying a long dead author, when I'm talking about his creation? 1) Because he was a piece of shit and I don't care if I dance all over his grave. 2) Because his beliefs are the foundational elements of James Bond. James Bond was a cypher for Fleming's idea of a power fantasy, who worshiped spies during the war, and consequently, serves as a vehicle for imperialist, bigoted views (Bond villains would often be queer and/or of mixed race). There's a reason why Bond frequently objectifies women, and why "the Bond girls" are so famously subjected to cruel fates; James Bond is a man who will invade other countries, steal their intelligence, and conquer their women. It's a sick, barbaric way of seeing human beings, and is worse than just treating other people as pieces of meat you can just do to as you please (as if that was excusable). Otherwise, one could conceivably "fix" the problematic elements of James Bond by changing the character. But you cannot. James Bond is a character whose very identity is rotten to the core. And while I understand an urge to craft a new character to fill his shoes that does not share his toxic roots, to solve the problems of this franchise, one would have to fundamentally change the character.
Today's imperialists no longer have the same primitive views of "otherness" that the Ian Fleming's of the world did. And yet, today's imperialists are still to blame for the murder and starvation of hundreds of thousands--if we're low-balling--in countries such as Venezuela, Yemen, Brazil, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and others. Today's imperialists wear a pretty, fake inclusive mask to get away with war crimes and illegal occupation of sovereign nations. They aren't going to segregate women or POC within their ranks--but they will slaughter POC for the crimes of being born in the wrong country, worshiping the wrong god, having the wrong color of skin, being the wrong height, being in the wrong place at the wrong time doing nothing wrong or that is deserving of death. At the end of the day, they are still racist, they are still xenophobic--they believe that they can kill anyone they please so long as they do it with a smile on their face and wave a pride flag. This perversion of egalitarian ideals, unsurprisingly, carries on into media which progresses a pseudo-woke yet still imperialist message. They just don't show the consequences on-screen. We don't see Carol Danvers bombing Iraqi mothers and children--we won't see 007 Nomi raping a lesbian woman like 007 James Bond did in an actual authorized film (Goldfinger). But the virtual imperialism that is projected onto silver screens will help lead to a culture which continues to be sympathetic to the military, to spies. And very real human beings will be bombed and will be raped the more we allow such media air to breathe.
Much fuss has been made by the usual suspects about growing diversity in casting choices for Hollywood films. Whether we're talking about the controversial decision to cast a woman actress as a woman character like Carol Danvers, or choosing an all-woman cast for a team like Ghostbusters, you're sure to find a subset of chuds and grifters bemoaning that choice. But we're not talking about that today. I'm actually going to be talking about when I don't think that should be done, though I'm going to be coming at it from an actually sensible trajectory, so I hope you don't jump out of this right away before I hit on my points.
See, my problem with films such as 2019's Captain Marvel or the forthcoming 007 film, No Time to Die, is not that they're "too left wing" in their casting choices (as though Hollywood progresses a left wing narrative while they are run by like two multinational corporations run by fuckers who don't pay their taxes); it's that they're too far in the other direction. Captain Marvel is a film that is being used to propagandize and encourage people to sign up for the military. James Bond, as a series, is an argument for imperialism. Just changing the character to be a woman of color is not going to rectify that. This is an infected Band-Aid over the swollen, gangrenous wound that is this fucked up franchise, and is a profoundly awful idea.
Ian Fleming was not a good man. Nor was he subtle about the intention of the abominable character he is guilty of unleashing into the world. The British novelist was born into wealth, joining the Naval Intelligence organization in 1939. He would write the first Bond novel in just over a month in 1952. Over time, Fleming's novels would reflect his beliefs on imperialism, sexuality, and inequality. And you'll be shocked to hear that these beliefs were pretty fucked up. But why am I crucifying a long dead author, when I'm talking about his creation? 1) Because he was a piece of shit and I don't care if I dance all over his grave. 2) Because his beliefs are the foundational elements of James Bond. James Bond was a cypher for Fleming's idea of a power fantasy, who worshiped spies during the war, and consequently, serves as a vehicle for imperialist, bigoted views (Bond villains would often be queer and/or of mixed race). There's a reason why Bond frequently objectifies women, and why "the Bond girls" are so famously subjected to cruel fates; James Bond is a man who will invade other countries, steal their intelligence, and conquer their women. It's a sick, barbaric way of seeing human beings, and is worse than just treating other people as pieces of meat you can just do to as you please (as if that was excusable). Otherwise, one could conceivably "fix" the problematic elements of James Bond by changing the character. But you cannot. James Bond is a character whose very identity is rotten to the core. And while I understand an urge to craft a new character to fill his shoes that does not share his toxic roots, to solve the problems of this franchise, one would have to fundamentally change the character.
Today's imperialists no longer have the same primitive views of "otherness" that the Ian Fleming's of the world did. And yet, today's imperialists are still to blame for the murder and starvation of hundreds of thousands--if we're low-balling--in countries such as Venezuela, Yemen, Brazil, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and others. Today's imperialists wear a pretty, fake inclusive mask to get away with war crimes and illegal occupation of sovereign nations. They aren't going to segregate women or POC within their ranks--but they will slaughter POC for the crimes of being born in the wrong country, worshiping the wrong god, having the wrong color of skin, being the wrong height, being in the wrong place at the wrong time doing nothing wrong or that is deserving of death. At the end of the day, they are still racist, they are still xenophobic--they believe that they can kill anyone they please so long as they do it with a smile on their face and wave a pride flag. This perversion of egalitarian ideals, unsurprisingly, carries on into media which progresses a pseudo-woke yet still imperialist message. They just don't show the consequences on-screen. We don't see Carol Danvers bombing Iraqi mothers and children--we won't see 007 Nomi raping a lesbian woman like 007 James Bond did in an actual authorized film (Goldfinger). But the virtual imperialism that is projected onto silver screens will help lead to a culture which continues to be sympathetic to the military, to spies. And very real human beings will be bombed and will be raped the more we allow such media air to breathe.
Comments
Post a Comment