Despite the fact that bookmakers in the UK are so convinced that Tom Hiddleston is going to be donning the mantle of Bond that they have stopped taking bets on the matter, X-Files star Gillian Anderson has decided to throw her hat into the ring and become the first female Bond.
And why shouldn’t we have a lady Bond? This is the 21st century, with films like Spy, Salt, and Hunger Games and television shows such as Blacklist, Homeland, Game of Thrones and many more showing us that the world is ready for tough, strong, female characters and what surely a lesbian Bond (if we insisted on keeping Bond girls instead of switching to Bond guys) wouldn’t raise that much of an eyebrow… would it?
And obviously whilst I would prefer it to be Jennifer Laurence (whocandonowrongever) Anderson has been acting in a number of genres and styles over the years often to critical and fan acclaim. So, I thought I would make some bullet points about what I feel are the main questions that may be asked before we decide whether or not to let her take the role.
She’s a Woman-So what? I don’t care if the person playing Bond is a man, woman, chicken or rock as long as they are the best person for the role and neither should you
She’s not English- And? Whilst she was born in Chicago, she’s lived in London for years. And let’s not forget that in the books, Bond is half Scottish and half Swiss. Not to mention that fact that he’s been played by an Irishman, a Scotsman and an Australian. Anderson can also do flawless accents when required.
Sex and Style Appeal- No complaints here.
Is Anderson too well known? Now, this one might have a point. Whilst the other Bonds had all been working fairly solidly before landing Bond, they weren’t tied in public consciousness to one particular role. Therefore, they were cheaper, and were able to mould the character (who doesn’t really have that many character traits to begin with) into something of their own making- in a similar method to The Doctor. Anderson might not have that freedom, or, she would have to work extra hard to distance herself from Dana Scully.
Action Scenes- To the best of my knowledge Anderson doesn’t really have that much of a history with fight scenes and to be honest, fight scenes where she takes on several goons at once might be slightly unbelievable. I don’t believe for a second that she won’t put in the effort or training to make it look as believable as she can- look at Colin Firth in Kingsman I do worry that this could prove to be a weakness.
Box Office- Female lead action films are very rare in the film world and are something we desperately need. However, they don’t tend to do terribly well at the box office and, if Bond girls are to remain part of the franchise, this would hurt sales in some parts of the world. Anderson makes good films, however none of them have exactly set the box office on fire and she has never been considered a large enough draw to have her name be the main appeal of a film in say the way that Angelina Jolie or Jennifer Laurence is.
My Opinion As long as the person playing the role is the best for the role then I neither mind nor care. If the producers feel that Anderson is the best fit then I will support that, ditto Hiddleston or Elba or Lewis. But, does Anderson even need to play the role at all? Surely it would be better to create a new spy for the 21st century, rather than give get such a talented actress to play a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur- a relic of the cold war”?