Why Izabella Scorupco is “against those feminists” who criticise James Bond
There have been countless debates over the years on the relevance and future of the James Bond franchise, with many interpreting No Time to Die as a closing chapter to a somewhat obsolete series that no longer resembles the modern world. The character has always been a reflection of old-fashioned values and failings within the film industry, with a lack of diversity and predominantly white actors. These one-dimensional female characters exist as damsels in distress and sex objects and limited ideas about what defines masculinity.
The Bond girl has become a famous archetype within the franchise, with models and younger actors being cast as the love interest in each film. Many of the former bombshells have spoken about their complicated experiences playing this role. However, one Bond girl in particular has maintained a very questionable stance on this subject matter, defending many of the justified criticisms that are lauded against the franchise.
GoldenEye, directed by Martin Campbell in 1995, was the first in the franchise to star Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. After a former friend betrays the Secret Service and becomes an enemy, the MI6 agent tries to stop him from using a powerful satellite system that could destroy the world. While the script sometimes lacks a straightforward narrative trajectory, Brosnan is a natural in the role and brings an effortless charm to the character that shines throughout the series.
Izabella Scorupco played the Bond girl in GoldenEye, known for her modelling work that eventually led her to Hollywood. While Jane Seymour has spoken about the problematic character she played in the franchise and the negative impact it had on her career, Scorupco has expressed a strong disagreement with the criticisms towards this role.
Explaining, “I think the previous ones [Bond girls] have been so much prettier and so much more as Bond Girls should be. And I think they shouldn’t actually change it more than they have done in this film because I think if they change it too much and the girls become too strong and too independent, Bond wouldn’t be Bond any more. I think he should be. I’m against those feminists who are screaming that he’s a chauvinist and everything – I think it’s ridiculous. It’s a fantasy world. It should always be on that level; otherwise, it’s not James Bond any more. It’s ridiculous. These people are probably not self-confident.”
It’s a strong opinion that, unfortunately, doesn’t feel like a reasonable reason for these characters to be so heavily sexualised and infantilised. Scorupco implies that male strength and power are diminished by the presence of equally strong women and that neither can exist in tandem with the other. The idea that women should have to dumb themselves down so as not to emasculate or threaten the power of other men is an absurd and dated idea that prevents the franchise from moving with the times and becoming a story that can remain as timeless as other stories.
The idea that the series is a fantasy world is interesting, and if so, who is this fantasy coming from? No woman dreams of being an objectified secondary character with no agency or power, and so it seems as though Scorupco places the male fantasy of women over our own humanity, as though we should be happy with this depiction as long as it upholds this dated male fantasy.
I, for one, am glad that producers are rethinking the franchise’s future. Perhaps it can be reworked as a story that everyone can enjoy instead of appealing to a one-sided audience that finds enjoyment in putting the male characters above everyone else.
