Daniel Craig, Idris Elba, & the “many-Bonds” theory

IF YOU’RE NOT REALLY a Bond fan, then you might have encountered the notion that suave, handsome British actor Idris Elba ought to play suave, handsome British spy James Bond once Daniel Craig’s had his fun in Spectre & its followup. The elephant in the room, of course, is that Elba is a black actor – well so what? It’s the 21st Century, why shouldn’t Bond be black? Are we still really that hung up on race? Is Sir Roger Moore just a massive racist? Well. Quite what is supposed to be progressive about taking a character who is a thug, a very definite child of privilege &, on several occasions, a potential rapist of women, & making that character black, is left as an exercise for the reader.

More practically, for those who like to at least pretend to take Bond continuity seriously, one wonders why anyone would advocate a character undergoing a Race Lift during an ongoing series. When Harvey Dent somehow changed from black Billy Dee Williams in Batman to white Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever, that was presumably the result of carelessness, & it’s irritating to viewers that, even if Billy Dee Williams was unavailable, the producers couldn’t have made at least some effort to cast an actor who bore a resemblance. Would the new Bond undergo a race-changing process? Last time Bond did that, this was the result:

Presumably, though, the majority of black-Bond advocates are not unaware that Fleming’s character is white (see, for instance, Live and Let Die, in which his investigation of a black criminal gang operating out of Harlem, Louisiana & the Caribbean is hamstrung by his being, well, a “honky”) & that the current incarnation of the character is white, but rather have a vague notion that maybe “James Bond” is a codename-? Maybe that’s why his appearance periodically changes? Maybe that’s why when he visits an independent Hong Kong in 2002 he seems no older than he did complaining about The Beatles in 1964? Maybe Mi6 gives the honourable “James Bond” codename to its best agents, such as the darkly handsome one with the very slight Scottish twang, or the tall thin one who was always smirking & raising his eyebrow? Maybe that’s why we actually see the initiation of a new “James Bond” in Casino Royale?

Presented like that, the evidence seems persuasive; but then, selectively presented evidence usually does. Casino Royale is a reboot, like Batman Begins; & if, from Skyfall onward, the producers are reintegrating elements of the old continuity then that does not undo the rebooting, it’s just Broad Strokes or Mythology Gag. The fact is that the producers have always been keen to reinforce that Bond is a single agent, right from the very start, & given the cavalier approach to continuity in the series generally, this must be very significant. When Sir Sean Connery returned as Bond in Diamonds Are Forever, he began with a Roaring Rampage of Revenge for his dead wife Tracy, who married George Lazenby in the previous film. Sir Roger Moore mourned Tracy in the opening scene of For Your Eyes Only, a scene written specifically to reinforce the continuity of Bond actors in the event of recasting. Pierce Brosnan was given much dialogue playing on the tragedy of his wife’s murder.

Daniel Craig’s Bond, of course, has yet to undergo that particular tragedy, but, since his films have, in a series first, explored the character’s past, we know for a fact “James Bond” is not his codename: Bond is his name before he obtains his 00-status, it is the name on his parents’ grave in Skyfall, & it is the name of his aunt in the Spectre trailer.

But never mind all of that solid evidence, what about common sense? We know that, in both the old & the reboot continuities, Bond uses the name Bond at all times, business or pleasure. If you use a name to identify yourself specifically at all times, no matter what, then it isn’t a codename, it’s just a name. “007” is a codename. “007” is the position that an Idris Elba character could actually take up, were James Bond to retire or die.

We also know, if we’re sensible, that film is limited as a medium, & occasionally it’s necessary to recast actors. I’ve already mentioned Tim Burton & Joel Schumacher’s 1989-1997 Batman film series, & it’s a useful comparison: we saw three Batmans in four films, but fans aren’t suggesting wild theories to “explain” these changes. The three actors were close enough in looks that we could accept it. Actors are sometimes recast. In the reboot Dark Knight trilogy, Rachel Dawes went from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal, & while some fans rejoiced, the characters didn’t comment on it any more than they would on the film’s score, or how an attack that doesn’t connect knocks someone out. Film is representation, not presentation. Why, 1995’s GoldenEye opened with a scene set nine years earlier than the main plot of the film: it’s 1986, the Cold War is ongoing, & Pierce Brosnan plays Bond in a scene that presumably takes place between 1985’s A View to a Kill (starring Sir Roger Moore) and 1987’s The Living Daylights (starring Timothy Dalton). He’s not playing “Moore’s Bond” or “Dalton’s Bond”, he’s playing Bond.

Then why is the “Bond is many people” theory so popular? Well, for one thing, fans like having fan theories, though this one isn’t exactly a fan theory as only a casual viewer could be taken in by it. Additionally, I think there is some lingering confusion caused by the dire 1967 spoof Casino Royale, in which Mi6 changes the names of all of their operatives to “James Bond” in order to confuse the enemy & to protect the real James Bond, David Niven. The ’67 Royale isn’t very good, & it hasn’t been seen by many people, but presumably it had enough of an impact on the collective subconscious to give viewers a vague sense that somehow, you couldn’t trust someone was telling the truth when they told you their name was Bond, James Bond.