Daniel Craig doesn't think James Bond's lead should be female - but his comments fail to understand the crux of the argument. When Sean Connery was thwarting ‘Dr No’ in 1962, anyone who suggested casting a female ‘James Bond’ would've been laughed out of the room in a hail of cigar smoke and misogyny. Fortunately, times have changed, with the world of movies and TV taking baby steps to address the gender divide. Female representation in the superhero field is improving, ‘Doctor Who’ regenerated into a woman, and A-list stars are quicker to call out any disparity in earnings.
‘James Bond’ hasn't always been the greatest flag-bearer for social change, but the Daniel Craig era has kicked the door open for more modern, meaningful female characters - the likes of Naomie Harris' Moneypenny, Léa Seydoux's Madeleine Swann, and Lashana Lynch's Nomi, who takes 007's job in ‘No Time To Die’. When it comes to a woman actually playing ‘Bond’, however, Daniel Craig draws the line.
The actor recently commented, "There should simply be better parts for women and actors of colour. Why should a woman play James Bond when there should be a part just as good as ‘James Bond’, but for a woman?”
On one hand, Daniel Craig is absolutely correct.
There's a huge dearth of franchise-leading, ‘Bond’-style roles for women and people of color, and there should be more iconic characters available for such actors. Craig must be commended for making this point publicly, using his considerable sway in the industry to highlight where change is necessary. And as the outgoing ‘007’ implies, it would wonderful if we lived in a world where Jane Bond (obviously not that title, but still...) was a 70-year-strong, record-breaking franchise that had grossed billions of dollars and become a household name. But we don't, and therein lies why Daniel Craig has missed the point of having a female ‘007’.
Collider
