'Black Bond' Debate Shakes and Stirs, and It's Not Particularly Helpful

All this talk over the past few days about Idris Elba being the potential next Bond compels me to write an article regadng the views the situation, and the wider implications of race in casting choices...and whether there should be these implications, at all. I'm not here to advocate whether or not he'll be great in the role; merely, just to implore everyone to take a licence to chill. This has all become, frankly, much ado about nothing.

Four actors who've been touted to play the next Bond.

Four actors--and let's leave it at that. Why categorize?

Take Anthony Horowitz's comments from the other day: he called Elba 'too street' to play Bond, which perhaps, in retrospect, was a somewhat unwise choice of words. But I have no doubt that there was not a hint of what many people assumed to be, connotations of 'James Bond being white is of paramount importance to me'. Note that he did not make any reference whatsoever to the Elba's ethnicity aside from the fact that he felt 'there were other black actors who could do it better'. Now actually I do take some issue with that statement, but hold onto that for a bit: back to the point, he merely stated that he was open to the idea of a 'Black Bond', but that Idris Elba was not his ideal choice for a 'Black Bond' (I believe he listed Adrian Lester as one of his options; on a separate note, I appreciate that Horowitz gave a shout out to perhaps one of the more underrated, due to his priority and love for stagework over screenwork, British actors working today). Hence, regarding Horowitz's comments, I think people should just take the time to look over what he said exactly, and stop trying to fire up even more speculation and controversy regarding all this discussion over the next Bond. And no, that's not to diminish the importance of the Bond franchise whatsoever, nor of fan's opinions, or studio's decisions when it comes to casting. I understand that in many people's eyes there is an ideal conception of Bond, and when it comes to Idris Elba, it's the same as any other: some think he's perfect, some think he's a good choice, some think he isn't, some just don't care and want to see who the next villain is. So really, this is the same, or at least should be the same, as any other potential casting decision, if you think about it. Except for the fact that people have, unfortunately, made it into a race issue.

It's just not helpful, making mountains out of molehills, smelling racial conspiracy over a casual aside, that's really no different, except for the intense media coverage, to me mentioning that in my own honest, frank opinion, I would prefer Chiwetel Ejiofor (another excellent actor) as Bond over Elba (who is a fantastic actor in his own right as well), and that my ideal pick would be either Ejiofor and Henry Cavill, depending on what sort of direction the studios are planning to take the franchise in post-Craig. Note: I did not say, I would prefer Ejiofor over Elba as a 'Black Bond'. I prefer Ejiofor over Elba purely on basis on how, in my very, very subjective opinion, I envision Bond. And I am equally fond of the idea of either Cavill and Ejiofor playing Bond, and not seeing either of them as a 'White' Bond, or 'Black' Bond, respectively. And I would not mind if Damian Lewis, another very good actor, were to be given the opportunity to take over Craig's future vacancy (I've heard some people say a ginger Bond would lack intimidation; well all I have to say with regards to that is, watch Lewis on Wolf Hall. Or The Escapist. Seriously when the man wants to be, Mr Lewis is one hell of an imposing presence). Anyway I've meandered on a bit now so to bring this point to (temporary closure), with regards to any actor chosen to play a role as iconic as Bond, there's bound to be heated advocations, criticisms, and reservations on either side. Some people will think he's the best choice, others think he's all kinds of wrong, or that there are other better options.

And there's nothing wrong with being averse to Elba's potential casting choice, so long as you don't bring race to the front. I'm not talking about the casual internet troll who uses all manner of racial slang and stereotypes; that sort of chap can go do one for all I care, his/her opinion being completely negligible. I refer to what some people might call institutionalized racism, but what I prefer to term narrow-mindedness: basing colour and creed above all and going against any decision that results on inquality based on these factors. And thing is, a lot of the time this so-called 'institutionalized racism' doesn't come from the institutions itself, but from the debates surrounding the insitution. It's the power of the internet, social media, the news etc. that sometimes generates these issues, and having watched many instances of this as years go by, it's really quite disturbing how sometimes, we so subconsciously encourage narrow-mindedness of this sort. It can all, in short, become quite messy when people start to bring issues of race in correlation with issues regarding art forms like film and television.

I guess writing a heated article about taking a chill pill about all this ruckus might be a tad bit hypocritical. The written word is always fuel for more discussion, so what I'm hoping is that what I'm discussing here will provide, however small, a meaningful contribution to the argument against there being the label of 'Black Bond', and indeed, there being racial labels in any sort of casting decision. Does race really matter, with regards to the casting of roles? I don't think so, so far as the quality of the casting choice and finished product is concerned. Given that the actor concerned is right for the role, and the role itself is written the right way, and that both factors work in accordance with a film, there's nothing wrong with casting an actor outside of his or her ethnicity. Take for example William Hurt playing  Luis Monila in 'Kiss of the Spider Woman'. Technically the character is Brazilian, which Hurt, Washington-born and with blonde hair and blue eyes, is clearly not, and the film nor Hurt's performance makes any attempt to hide this. No one really raised an issue with this at all, for a good reason: he gives a great performance regardless of race. He won an Oscar for the role because he realistically conveyed

Same goes for many other similar performances in which actors play outside their race, ethnicity, nationality etc., with varying degrees of success. The quality of their performance depends on the quality of the script, acting, direction, and not the casting itself. Feel free to disagree, but say, for example, there was nothing wrong at all with casting actors in roles outside of their race in 'Cloud Atlas' because the intent was the symbolize the intertwinement of all human natures, throughout the ages. Any problems I found (which were far and few in between) with some of the choices were down to the makeup employed, or the take the actors took for the character. And what about 'Othello'? Over the course of television and cinematic history, the likes of Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir Anthony Hopkins have portrayed Othello in what some have criticized as 'blackface', but what I like to simply call, black make up that, rather than having any racist connotations, I believe was simply a way for the actors to find their way into the character. There have been white actors playing Othello. There have been black actors playing other Shakesperean characters (just off the top of my head, Kurt Egiyawan as Angelo in a recent, excellent production of 'Measure for Measure' I saw at The Globe). And so on and so forth, and none of it bothers me at all, nor should it.

Instances in which casting an actor outside his/her race backfires, therefore is not usually the fault of the casting itself, it's the approach that was taken. Mickey Rooney's performance as Mr Yunioshi in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' doesn't work for me at all not because of the racial connotations of the role, nor the fact that Rooney was playing outside his race. It could've worked if the performance itself wasn't so ill-conceived in terms of fitting so awkwardly with the rest of the film, and just not being particularly funny. Rooney was a talented comedian and, had he and Blake Edwards taken a different approach to the role, I could easily have seen it woking. Contrast that to, for example, Max Von Sydow as 'Ming' in 'Flash Gordon'. Technically speaking an instance of casting an actor outside of his race, and also taking on another racial stereotype, in this case the 'Fu Manchu' trope. It works as a performance because it's fun, and fits in with the rest of the film as just another entertaining factor to it.

But I digress. Anyway, back to Bond. I would agree that in the case of a pop culture mainstay like 007, the circumstances do differ slightly. Many factors do have to be taken into consideration, one of them being Ian Fleming, the creator of Bond, and his conception of the character. Fleming described Bond as facially resembling entertainer Hoagy Carmichael, having 'dark, rather cruel good looks', black hair, blue-grey eyes, around 6 feet tall. It's clear that Elba doesn't fit some of these criterea, and yes it is almost certain that Fleming had always conceived of Bond as being Caucasian. On the other hand, with all the different portrayals of Bond over the year, does it really matter? Fleming himself was not averse to having certain liberties taken with his character. For example, despite never having intended to give Bond a Scottish heritage, Sean Connery's portrayal of the character compelled him to add it in in later novels. The likes of Roger Moore and Daniel Craig don't fit Fleming's original conception of the character perfectly, so far as physical attributes are concerned, but they made the character their own in very distinct ways that, as with all casting choices, worked for some, didn't work for others.

Indeed all Bonds up to this point have, to one extent or the other, played different variations of the role, with different emphasis on aspects of 007. Brosnan and Connery played up the charm, Moore the humour, Dalton and Craig the cool professionalism, Lazenby the more sensitive side (which again I don't think was ever Fleming's intent with the character, but hey, in my opinion it works for the film). What I'm trying to say that each Bond thus far has varied and distinguished, as well as paid homage to, the original Bond in different ways. Why should Elba, were he to take on the role, be treated any differently? I'm sure, were he to be cast as Bond, he would take on the character in his own distinct way, like any good actor would. Perhaps a bit of that intangible charm he has to his public persona, merged with the 'street smarts' of Luther or his character in 'Rock'n'Rolla', the command of Hemidall...or maybe I'm just being presumptive, and he'll go for something different to what I'd expect. Or maybe I'm being even more presumptive

Again it doesn't matter. Were he to be cast as Bond, Elba would be a different, unique sort of Bond. Just like any Bond. So why does Idris Elba have to be a prospective 'Black Bond'? Can't he just be the prospective next 'Bond? Is it too much to, like desiring art to be appreciated for art's sake, to want creative choices to be more about the 'creativity', the artistic ballast behind the choice, rather than the sometimes superfluous connotations of the choice itself? Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I've had it with being too cynical about these sorts of things; it only serves to make one more susceptible to further debate, which isn't what I want. I want a choice to be a choice, and that's that.

I'm no fan of trying to categorize an actor's suitability for the role based on his, or her, race. I completely understand that sometimes factors like foreign distribution and box office come into factor: for example, 2012's 'Bullet to the Head' replacing Thomas Jane with Sung Kang in order to appeal to a wider ethnic audience; or the recent Ridley Scott effort 'Exodus: Gods and Kings' casting Hollywood stars as opposed to actors more ethnically fitting to the roles, causing controversy of 'whitewashing'. There were economic and financing reasons for these decisions, and while we may not all agree on them, we have to understand that filmmaking's a business. And I'm fine with that. I'm just hoping that race never becomes an issue when talking about the quality of a film or performance itself. Michael Jordan is not a 'black Johnny Storm', he is a separate take on Johnny Storm distinct from Chris Evans', and any problems with the films or his performance should be attested not to his race, but his approach--and anyway, in my opinion, he was by far the best part of that mess of a film.

Mark Strong as an Arab character in 'Body of Lies', Yul Brynner throughout his whole career, Ben Affleck in 'Argo', Amitabh Bachchan as the Jewish Meyer Wolfshiem in 'The Great Gatsby', or the likes of Warner Oland and Myrna Loy back in the day playing Oriental characters--one's views towards these performances should be purely orientated towards how the performance and portrayal alone work within the film (although I admit in the case of biopic figures, like John Wayne as Genghis Khan in 'The Conqueror', it is trickier territory; it's all down to context as well, but usually I can see where the controversy is coming from, in this regard). Similarly, if Idris Elba is to be offered a chance to be the next Bond, let's not see it as having any sort of connotations any greater than a terrific actor being given a great opportunity. Simple as that.

(All images from Wikipedia/Wikimedia)