I’m Waiting for New Bond, Sure, But Let’s Cut the False Gentlemanliness

Idris Elba? Tom Hiddleston? Tom Hardy? Or maybe someone completely new and unknown? We have been speculating for a few months about who will impersonate the greatest British agent and take over after Daniel Craig. The producers are holding back from announcing the future direction of the series, although the choice has likely already been made. All that remains is to speculate because, knowing the rules of Hollywood, we’re talking about a secret of state importance (or even greater). Let's face it – Bond films have their share of challenges. But we still watch them anyway, and when they’re good, we feel happy and crave for more.

That's why today, we are reflecting on what typically worked in the series about the most popular British agent, and what caused some of us to not even take these films seriously.

Different problems

Dr. No, 1962, Terence Young, United Artists

The Bond series has actually been quite diverse. At the very beginning, one thing is for certain – most of the Bond songs were great pieces of music, including such great contributors as a-ha, Duran Duran, and recently Adele and Billie Eilish. This doesn't change the fact that, in terms of quality over the years, Agent 007 has had the ups and downs. It started well – Sean Connery was a very charismatic actor, and apart from the first title, the bizarre Dr. No (1962), the films From Russia with Love (1963) or Goldfinger (1964) still seem quite fun.

However, movies with Connery fell into reheating chops and kitsch romances, rather than full-fledged Cold War spy thrillers. No wonder the actor decided, contrary to the expectations of viewers and producers, to abandon the role. And even if Connery was tired of being famous for a single role, he was right about the context of the movies: after Goldfinger, Bond no longer looked like... Bond. The kitsch and Hollywood exaggeration were more visible in Dr. No than in the first film about Agent 007, which didn't age very well (and today is criticized for kitsch, trivializing the female characters, and representing the “good,” old toxic masculinity).

Within just a few years, the Bond films (after three movies) turned into B-class pictures, where the atmosphere and action were not important, and there was just kitsch, intended to appeal to all kinds of popcorn eaters. On the other hand, that was the charm of those times. However, the decline in interest was quite noticeable, as the box office results from that time indicate. Later, George Lazenby appeared in one film (I highly recommend Becoming Bond from 2017, which explains Lazenby's decision), then Sean Connery returned to ultimately pass the baton again – this time to Roger Moore. These films had the spirit of the 1970s, but they didn't age well, too.

Then we get Timothy Dalton (the least memorable Bond, although some consider him the precursor to Craig's 007), and then Pierce Brosnan, who once again redefined the character likely for the worse, as Bond transformed from a gentleman into a playboy. Bond movies have amused viewers worldwide for several decades, but they have also portrayed an unrealistic and exaggerated depiction of our world. Portraying the British spy and his partners involved numerous mistakes made by the creators at that time. For instance: it's true to say that you cannot buy elegance, but Aston Martins and Tom Ford suits are top-shelf goods, practically unattainable for the majority of society. Therefore, the toxic portrait of James Bond includes not only his appearance, but also classism spelled out by the new 007’s expensive “insignia”.

Spectre, 2016, Sam Mendes, Sony Pictures Releasing

The Bond suits were tailored to be slim, enhancing the image of a restrained, yet self-assured "British gentleman." Moreover, over the years, Agent 007 became incredibly talented. He fought, skied, dove, and so on. And even though he was a well-trained agent, this fact was completely overlooked, as he was usually portrayed by a handsome and athletic actor. We saw Bond in him, yes, but he still was, for instance, Pierce Brosnan. Bond movies have had a revolutionary impact on the image of men in popular culture. The female audience became fascinated by this false gentlemanly behavior (which, by the way, was quite misogynistic), and few people noticed that this depiction was fictional.

In normal life, the Bonds would be labeled as alcoholics, groomers, louts, and emotionally numb men who hardly ever discuss their emotions. But let's not forget about the Bond women – we remember Casino Royale for the scene in which Craig emerges from the sea without a shirt, and several decades ago, in Dr. No we could see Ursula Andress in a bikini. This female character contributed absolutely nothing to this not-entirely-great script – she only had to look and be, to quote the language of the times, sexy. It appears that despite the changing conventions, certain patterns remain. Throughout all these years, sometimes women and sometimes men got objectified. Only the most recent Bond has managed to escape the clutches of thoughtless moves, which were usually harmful – and rarely noble.

New Bond: new expectations vs future disappointments

No Time to Die, 2021, Cary Joji Fukunaga, Universal Pictures

We live in an era where we can afford to depart from outdated patterns and traditional rules that the cinema of the previous century has accustomed us to. The most recent Bond film, No Time to Die (2021), demonstrated that the Bond partner has the potential to be more than just a one-dimensional character who exists solely to cater to the male perspective (meaning: to be pleasing, mesmerizing, thrilling, and even arousing). Bond's woman became a strong (almost) wife, a loving and empathetic mother, and accomplished the nearly impossible. Léa Seydoux as Madeleine Swann made Bond cease to think only about himself.

He began to care for his loved ones, even if it meant defending his homeland (and the entire world). Sometimes it had a hint of sentiment, but at least we got something that wasn't present in the series before. This only proves that the creators are capable of implementing controversial changes in a sensible manner. Anyway, take a look at the above stills – they’re over fifty years apart and you can see that they represent two completely different approaches to portraying relationships.

Many factors determine whether the latest Bond film will be a failure or a success. Paradoxically, the selection of the actor is the least significant factor here – we’re all well aware that future producers and creators will opt for a popular, well-liked, talented name. The color of the skin doesn't matter, and the origin probably doesn't matter either. What matters most is the execution and the script – we will adjust to the appearance of the new Bond (and their general presence) within the first thirty minutes.

After all, it will be a name that we have already seen on the silver screen so many times. In fact, it could still be a woman, because there’s nothing more interesting than redefining established ideas.

However, if the new Bond (or its main plot, or antagonist) is based on clichés and stereotypes, even the most spectacular action scenes won't compensate the audience for the stupidities that would lurk at every turn. Then even a stirred Martini won't calm the nerves – a whole bottle just might.

Jan Tracz

Jan Tracz

Graduated Film Studies (BA and MA) at King's College London, UK. Currently, he writes for Collider, WhyNow, The Upcoming, Ayo News, Interia Film, Przegląd, Film.org.pl, and Gamepressure.com. He has had publications in FIPRESCI, Eye For Film, British Thoughts Magazine, KINO, Magazyn PANI, WP Film, NOIZZ, Papaya Rocks, Tygodnik Solidarnosc, and Filmawka. He has also collaborated with Rock Radio and Movies Room. Conducted interviews with Alejandro González Ińárritu, Lasse Hallström, Michel Franco, Matthew Lewis, and David Thomson. His published works include an essay in the anthology "Nikt Nikomu Nie Tlumaczy: Swiat wedlug Kiepskich w kulturze" (Brak Przypisu Publishing, 2023). Laureate of the Leopold Unger Scholarship in 2023. Member of the Young FIPRESCI Jury during WFF 2023.