Can James Bond be played by a female?

(Please read before you comment. Don’t just react to the title.)

It’s easy to conclude that “007” can be female, because that’s a code, and we have already seen it done in No Time To Die.

What about James Bond?

Well, Ian Fleming’s James Bond is most definitely male.

He also has a scar on his right cheek, which no cinematic James Bond had.

If we can change that, the colour of his hair, his age, his build, and the era in which he operates, all without getting upset—after all, all these changes defy the original Fleming source material—can we change the colour of his skin, or even the gender of the character?

After all, whilst it is highly unlikely that a Bond-like character of the literary period, the 1950s, would not be a male caucasian, all alternatives to that combination are plausible in 2025.

It’s not that we can’t reinvent James Bond as played by a woman or transgender actor. I can think of no less than five ways it could be done. It’s whether it’s a good idea.

Those five ways that I can think of:

One. James Bond itself is a codename, and it gets assigned to a female operative to help disguise her identity. Yes, this would be revisionary as it is patently not what Ian Fleming wrote in his books.

Two. James Bond was born with female physiology but is transgender and has taken a traditionally male name. Also revisionary.

Three. James Bond was born with male physiology, but is transgender, has physically transitioned, but retains the birth name. Also revisionary.

Four. The character is female but was given a traditionally male name by her parents. Also revisionary.

Five. The character is male but is played by a female the same way gay actors have played straight, straight actors have played gay, non-policemen have played policemen, non-spies have played spies, and caucasian actors have played characters of Asian descent. In other words, make a bold, potentially transgressive statement about what acting is.

To restate myself, if I can think of five ways, it’s not that it can’t be done, it’s whether it’s a good idea.

This is where we need to talk about art versus commerce.

Art should challenge convention. It should subvert assumption. It should smash boundaries. In art, whenever I hear myself or others say that we can’t, I think then that we must.

Commerce is different. Commerce needs to be what consumers will respond to with their hard-earned dollars. Art may challenge and change what consumers respond to, but commerce serves consumption as it is.

James Bond films are art, at least in the technical crafts, but they are also commerce, and I’d say they are more commerce than art.

There is also the question of how much we should honour the literary source. Not that the films have done so.

There is also the question of the devotion of fans to an established form. James Bond films monetize the devotion of a faithful fan base to an established form. It is perhaps unwise to subvert that form.

So, is it a good idea?

If I was the producer of whatever the next James Bond project is, responsible for its commercial success—and you may thank your deity I am not—I’d conclude that it’s not a good idea at this time. I’m not sure the audience is ready for it, and I would want to honour the literary source.

In fact, I would want to go back to the 1950s and 1960s, and tell Ian Fleming's stories, faithfully, in sequence, in the period they were written. That, however, would also not be good commerce.

Perhaps a faithful transposition of those stories to 2025 might be my angle.

Spin-offs, and building an expanded 007 universe, which is what Amazon seems likely to do, is perhaps a better way of making a more diverse world of secret agents and megalomaniac villains.

Never say never, though.