What does James Bond really have to do with modern-day Britain?

OPerhaps we are overburdening a fantasy character by making him into a representation he is not

n paper, the James Bond that sparkles on the silver screen simply does not make sense for a secret agent. He drives flashy eye-catching cars like Aston Martins, Rolls Royces and Lotuses. He literally announces who he is. “The name’s Bond, James Bond.” He’s a standout character that attracts attention in his suave suits and oozes charisma. Instead of blending in, he stands out. Newspaper reporters don’t notice all those high speed car chases causing destruction. And a womaniser of that much impact and volume? That’s going to get its own TikTok trend surely.

But in a way, all of that seems to be the point of this global hero, who is deemed by so many around the world to embody Britishness. To stand out rather than fit in. To break the rules rather than abide by them. In fact, to behave as though the rules simply don’t apply.

This week is the 70th anniversary of James Bond. The publication of Ian Fleming’s debut Bond book, Casino Royale, took place on April 13, 1953. Since then, more than one hundred million books within the Bond series have been sold worldwide, according to Ian Fleming Publications. New editions of the original Bond books are being released on April 13 to mark the anniversary with other events planned for this year. The first Bond film Dr No was released in 1962 and the 25th and most recent instalment was in 2021 – No Time to Die.

There’s much discussion about James Bond and what he represents about Britishness today. Is he a relic of a bygone era, or can he be reinvented for the modern age? It’s a proxy for a more existential discussion Britain is having about itself. Is it clinging on to old notions of the empire, the winning of the World Wars and its once global superpower status a sign of being a relic, or can Britain – like the James Bond movies – reinvent itself for a new world order?

Bond was a character looking for a purpose in a post-colonial era; a character created by people with a certain vision of themselves in the world. Fleming was married to Ann Charteris, previously married to the second Viscount Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail newspaper. Prime Minister Anthony Eden famously stayed at Fleming’s Goldeneye estate in Jamaica – where the Bond novels were all written – to recuperate from the impact of the devastating defeat in the Suez crisis. It’s a cosiness of what might be called the “ruling classes” that rankles in a more egalitarian Britain today.

But as the success of the books and the films continually show, the glamour and chutzpah of Bond are a winning formula for fans. A chance to escape into a an easy, smooth, fantasy world. And why not?

Which means that Bond is at the same time very important and also not important at all. His status as embodying Britishness mean that discussions about whether 007 should be a woman or a person from a minority ethnic background are deeply heated and revived every few months as part of the culture wars.

All of which then begs the question, why does Bond have to be an all-encompassing representation of all things British for the Britain of today? He’s certainly a giant culture figure. And we can all agree that he is a huge source of soft power for Britain at home and abroad. But perhaps we are overburdening a fantasy character by making him into a representation that he is not.

And if audiences want 007 to morph into a female or minority ethnic character to change things up, reflect more diverse cinema audiences and give Bond somewhere to stretch the character’s creative legs through new personas, then what a brilliant way to extend the films and their appeal. Roger Moore and Daniel Craig were wildly different Bonds. Why not a woman or someone Black? Why would that be any more or less plausible?

One of the most famous lines in the Bond films comes from the 1964 film Goldfinger. The eponymous villain has captured Sean Connery’s

Bond and tied him to a torture device so he can be cut in half by a high powered laser. Bond asks Goldfinger whether he expects him to talk. And Goldfinger replies with a sneer “No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die.”

Do I think Bond is a current representation of Britain? No. Do I think – to fulfil Goldfinger’s desire – that the franchise should end? Absolutely not. We should absolutely have more Bond. But we can also remember – he is a fantasy of a different era. And real life has moved on. Not everything needs to have an existential meaning and not every beloved story or character needs to be fought over for ownership in the culture wars.

The films are great entertainment, and maybe they are better placed to be depicted as modern hi-tech gloss on a period drama rather than something new completely. Let’s enjoy Bond in his element, although he can and should be modernised for new audiences and representation.

But what we don’t need to do is put him on a pedestal as a proxy for a new 21st century British identity.