So Daniel Craig is done, perhaps, being James Bond?
Fine, then. Why not Emily Blunt?
- Been kicking ass for years. Blunt is every character she has ever played. Meaning, quite simply, she’s damned talented at her craft.
- Natural to the genre. With action roles comfortably under her belt Blunt has demonstrated the capacity for the demanding physical stunts we expect and demand in Bond films.
- Seductive. Oddly felt compelled to call that out. Right, then.
- Funny accent. Of course, I say so in jest. Even if she weren’t a Brit it wouldn’t matter what accent she has. Spies, after all, do not need to be native to the country they serve.
Really, assuming Blunt would be attracted to the role, the question is, “Why not Blunt?”
Why a female Bond?
The Craig era has delivered an excellent reboot, but, come on, what more could another male actor bring to the slate that a female actor could not? If Craig indeed is done and it is time for a reboot, then why not a true reboot — specifically with Emily Blunt?
But the name is James
Purists may disagree — would Ian Fleming approve of a female Bond? Would the producers and caretakers of the Bond franchise, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, approve? Would this be too radical a reboot for a multi-billion dollar franchise? Would worldwide audiences even accept a female Bond? If I recall, there was quite the outcry over the selection of Daniel Craig, yet he didn’t take long to own the role. So again I ask, why not Blunt?
A more empowering Bond girl
Wouldn’t Blunt as Bond bring yet another element of empowerment to women everywhere still struggling for equality in a male-dominated world, including Hollywood? If female moviegoers have been attracted to Bond films in the past based on casting, would the casting of Blunt as Bond not be equally attractive?
Would Blunt as Bond turn off male moviegoers who can’t imagine Bond as a woman? If moviegoers can accept women in lead roles in action films like The Hunger Games and Divergent, why not Bond films? And, more importantly, why not Blunt?
If Bond were a woman….
Blunt as Bond of course begs the question: who then would be the Bond men? Or, in a more progressive storyline, would there still be Bond girls? But, uh, I digress.
Bond — Jamie Bond?
Is that what we’re suppose to call a female Bond? And what of the signature introductory “The name’s Bond. James Bond.” line? Would “Jamie Bond” work in that context? Why not just leave it at “The name’s Bond,” and get on with it, then? A Blunt Bond’s got better things to do!
Anyway, what’s in a name? It’s the character — and the actor playing him or her — who matters.