Former Bond Girl Jenny Hanley has blasted Hollywood bosses with a stark warning: “James Bond must stay a man.” Hanley, who starred in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969), says 007 is “quintessentially British and unmistakably male” and that turning him into a woman would betray creator Ian Fleming. “If you want a female spy, brilliant — but write your own story. Don’t be lazy and hijack Fleming’s,” she said. With Amazon now in charge of the franchise, Hanley begged producers: “Keep Bond British, keep him male — change that and you’ve lost Bond forever.”
I appeared in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in 1969, playing one of Blofeld’s “angels of death” in his Alpine lair. It was an extraordinary experience, not only because of the film’s global success, but because of what it represented. James Bond was — and must always remain — quintessentially British and unmistakably male. Ian Fleming created him as a particular kind of Englishman: tough, charming, flawed, and unashamedly masculine. That male identity, alongside his cultural roots, is inseparable from the character’s enduring appeal. Remove it, and you no longer have Bond — you have someone entirely different.
It is therefore with some concern that I note the changes currently being discussed. With Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson — who for decades guided the series with such careful stewardship — stepping back earlier this year, the franchise has moved into new hands. Amazon now has responsibility for production, and while I respect the global nature of filmmaking today, I must appeal to them: please don’t forget Bond’s roots.
Denis Villeneuve, the hugely talented director behind Dune, is said to be at the helm of the next picture, with Steven Knight of Peaky Blinders fame writing the script. Both are formidable artists, but the question remains: will they hold true to Fleming’s vision? Bond must not become a generic action hero. He is not simply a spy who could belong to any country. He is Britain’s spy.
And, crucially, Bond is a man. Fleming did not just imagine “Agent 007” as an interchangeable role that could be filled by anyone. He conceived James Bond as a particular kind of British male — hard-edged, gallant, and sometimes ruthless. Those contradictions made him compelling, and they remain part of his identity. Strip that away, and you no longer have Bond. You have something else entirely.
This isn’t a matter of nostalgia. It’s about cultural identity. I have spent much of my career — beyond acting, through decades as a broadcaster on Capital Radio, BBC television, and most recently as a presenter on Talking Pictures TV — championing the value of heritage. Audiences respond to authenticity, and Bond without his British, male identity would lose that authenticity.
When I joined Eamonn Holmes and Penny Smith on GB News recently, I was asked whether I had any favourites to take on the role of Bond. My answer was simple: I don’t mind who plays him — provided the essence of the character isn’t changed. Bond was imagined as a tough, urbane, very British man of the 1940s and ’50s. That DNA should remain intact.
We all know that times move on and stories evolve. Bond has adapted before, whether in terms of casting or in modernising his world. But evolution must not mean erasing the very qualities that made him unique.
If audiences and filmmakers want a female 007, then good — I would welcome a strong new heroine in the spy world. But don’t be lazy and bathe in Fleming’s limelight. Write your own story, create a new icon, and let her stand tall on her own merits. That way both traditions can flourish: Fleming’s Bond as he was conceived, and fresh stories that reflect the diversity and creativity of today.
For me, Bond must remain exactly what Ian Fleming intended: a tough, urbane, quintessentially British male character. Change that, and you risk losing what has made the franchise so beloved for generations.
Discover more from PeopleMatter.TV
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.