“It ain’t going to work”: James Cameron criticises James Bond’s failed masculinity
There have been many criticisms of the James Bond franchise over the years, with the titular character representing a bygone age of old-school masculinity that revels in dated stereotypes and limiting male fantasies.
Whether it be the problematic female characters who are defined by their sexual identity, with one character even possessing supernatural powers that are lost after having sex for the first time or the relentless violence that bears no consequences, Bond has always appealed to this subconscious and primal male desire to live an action-packed life in which woman fall at your feet and to be revered for being emotionally unavailable and exerting your physical capabilities. However, after tenuous discussions between the Broccoli family and Amazon, the franchise’s future is hanging by a thread, and one director has advocated against continuing this story.
There was a definitive turn in the franchise after Daniel Craig reprised the role, with the actor accepting on the basis that he wanted to add moral conflict and depth to this character, exposing the effect of this lifestyle and the way it corrupts your ego and sense of self. However, the ending of the franchise in 2021 showed Bond letting go of invulnerability and embracing a more well-rounded and human identity, with the final shot showing him relinquishing this unfeeling and invincible facade to save the people he loves. The final shot shows him standing on a burning island, clutching the stuffed toy of his newly discovered daughter, giving himself in to a desire that he has attempted to repress throughout the course of the entire series – to love and finally let people in.
However, this ending felt like a pretty definitive end to the series as a whole. It grappled with the limiting nature of the concepts that the films have based themselves on and accepted that within a modern world, this definition of masculinity feels somewhat obsolete. While most people are taking steps to move forward and expand the binaries of gender, what is the point in uplifting an ideal that feels so opposite to this?
This is something that James Cameron has expressed concern over, describing his issues with the franchise and the scope of masculinity that is explored, saying, “The James Bond films are rotten at their core. The guy’s a womanising drunk. He’s a complete scumbag, he really is. It’s male fantasy: I’m married and faithful, but I’d really like to be that guy and have a different woman every other night. If you’re going to do a comedy, you don’t just send up the gadgetry. What you send up is the moral centre or the immoral centre of it. What would it really be like to try and live that fantasy? It ain’t going to work because that’s not who most men really are.”
This is an interesting idea and one that proposes questions about how these stories could be adapted to fit into our world in the future. As Cameron suggests, perhaps the best way to present this character is to criticise or satire him and place him in a context that highlights his flaws. Much like the intentions behind Casino Royale, the film shows a cocky and arrogant man who is made aware of his own vulnerabilities after falling in love, realising that he isn’t this untouchable man and he is subject to the same human trappings as everyone else.
With discussions about how the story might change and who will reprise the character, with many discussions and heated debates about how faithful it should stay to the source material, it’s looking as though there is no new future in sight. Perhaps, James Bond belongs to the past and he will never return to our screens.
