The secret sauce of James Bond movie incarnations is that they were both timeless–Bond as St. George–and timebound. Can one get more 1960s than Lazenby in OHMSS? Getting the balance correct is the hard part, and going too far in one direction or the other throws the film off-kilter.
The question is: will Amazon be able to find/persuade an actor to portray Bond as a womanizer? The cohort of actors willing to embrace a toxic stereotype is probably not large.
“Seducing women” and “behaving as a womanizer” are not synonymous.
Any kind of toxic behaviour cannot be tolerated, absolutely agreed.
But I wanted to point out that seducing women (or men) by itself can hardly be politically incorrect. Seduction is what we all want when meeting a potential partner, isn‘t it?
And the definition of a „womanizer“ in my mind is a man who changes partners very often and who can do that because women are quickly attracted to him.
That’s what Bond always was, IMO.
Of course, him being a spy, having to use anybody to achieve his goals, might be considered toxic. Then again, the cop signaling friendship and understanding just in order to get a confession also might be.
When it comes to Bond’s womanising, I’d handle it on two fronts. 1. Consent.
Bond enjoys short-term relationships, and so do his partners. Everyone knows what they’re getting into, everyone consents, and everyone is happy in the moment. It doesn’t need to be framed as sleazy if the dynamic is clear, mutual, and fun for both sides.
2. Consequences.
There are times when Bond will seduce someone as part of the mission. He’ll do it to gain access, gather intelligence, or manipulate a situation. But that shouldn’t be treated as a throwaway move. It should come with emotional weight. Show the woman’s reaction afterwards: anger, hurt, or even a refusal to forgive him. Show Bond acknowledging that he’s crossed a line, even if he felt it was necessary for the mission.
That way, Bond’s sexuality is still part of the character, but it’s presented with a modern awareness: mutual pleasure when it’s consensual, consequences when it’s exploitative.
This gives space for drama, conflict, and growth while keeping Bond’s character intact.
If Elordi does get the part, this will (by far) be the largest age gap between successive Bond actors – with Craig being a whopping 29 years older than Elordi. That’s not just a younger Bond, that’s a seismic generational shift which might open up a lot of new opportunities for the next era. I don’t know much about Elordi (haven’t really seen any of his roles), but color me intrigued.
It depends on the context in which the seduction takes place. Seductions do not occur in a vacuum or the abstract.
“Womanizer” has a negative connotation–hence the term “notorious womanizer.” I have never heard or seen it used as an encomium. It is less about a man’s attractiveness to women, but more his instrumentalization of them for his own use/pleasure.
Well described. I would agree that the word “womanizer” reflects and enforces a toxic worldview. True, fewer people considered the word as toxic years ago. More people consider it toxic today. I think we call this progress. Or at least, we used to. To be fair to the Bond films themselves, they have generally handled seduction in a somewhat more nuanced way (though clearly there remain some very problematic scenes), and I think it’s more the external commentary about Bond films that resorts to using the word ‘womanizer’.
In the few cases where it’s still used with a positive connotation, it tends to be by traditionalists or people with socially less progressive views. Rightwing tabloid journalists spring to mind.
I completely agree that there should not be toxic behaviour depicted to get a laugh or applause.
But Bond also should not become a nice guy because he isn’t. John McClane was a bad husband - should he become an adorable family guy? Sherlock Holmes is a drug addict following very selfishly his goals - should he now become a nice, uncomplicated sleuth?
The most resonant characters in stories are not perfect and often troubled because they - as we all - rarely learn from mistakes.
As for Bond: he is on a mission whenever we see him. He can’t be the friend who understands and respects boundaries.
Bond is an inherently good guy even if he’s not always nice. He genuinely loved a woman but embraced the cold hearted bastard persona once he was burned. That’s a very human reaction. Tracy is proof that Bond is open to a relationship years after the loss of Vesper, but women are essentially assets to further the mission rather than soulmates.
As said in Thunderball, “when one has little time one sort of has to be obvious.” The way he treats Miss Taro comes after she was involved in a plot to kill him, for example. Being a woman doesn’t mean they’re off limits - villains are villains. A cruel moment is ordering a meal with everything and then speeding away to abandon Solange. But alas, take away the edges and the character is nowhere near as interesting.
I’d argue that showing the consequences of a character’s actions is a basic part of storytelling.
The Bond films have already dealt with the toll of killing. The hotel room scene after the Obanno fight in Casino Royale is a perfect example, showing the impact on both Bond and Vesper. But the two things aren’t the same. Everyone Bond kills is a “bad guy,” someone who either tried to kill him or would have if given the opportunity. By contrast, Bond’s womanising often drags otherwise innocent people deeper into the plot, putting them in harm’s way where they may never have been.
And traditionally, the only “consequence” we’ve seen is their death: Jill Masterson, Corinne Dufour, Strawberry Fields, Sévérine, and others. That doesn’t need to be the default. Instead of repeating that cycle, a modern Bond film could show the fallout in other ways by letting the woman survive, but angry, distrustful, or even turning the tables on Bond.
What I’m suggesting is giving the women more agency. Let them acknowledge they’ve been used, let them call him out, let them push back. Because the reality is some of the women who get caught up with Bond are treated pretty badly, and a 2020s Bond film could explore that in a way that makes the character richer, not flatter.
I find it amusing that Elordi’s name has come up again. It reminds me of that meme:
“We want an unknown British actor.”
“Best I can do is a popular Australian.”
Joking aside, I do think that Elordi is one of the more interesting names to come up. He’s not British, but has proved he can do a convincing accent in Saltburn. He’s not the “fresh face” they wanted, but he’s a rising star who doesn’t have the baggage of a career-defining role. I would actually say that, after delivering acclaimed performances in films like Saltburn, he’s in the perfect position to take a franchise as the lead. He’s 28 now, nicely within the specified age range. This could very much be a case of the right actor at the right time.
At the very least, he’s worth a screen test.
So we get the whole ‘blunt killing machine’ criticism about the casting of Craig. I wonder if Elordi might be too much in the other direction? I admit I’m speaking largely from ignorance here, in that I’ve only seen him in Saltburn and a handful of interviews.
One thing I did like about Craig is that, despite his tough physical presence, he handled the dry humour and irony exceptionally well. It made him come across as down to earth and - to a fellow Englishman, at least - very relatable. Even those little self-deprecating asides made him seem more confident, not less. It will be interesting to see how the next actor handles this.
Interesting the different things people see. When I look at Elordi I think ‘there’s nothing going on there’. Cole has more of a Craig but 20 years younger look. Also when I saw him in the Ipcress File I was sold. Could absolutely be a younger Bond.
