›

The "Bond girl" actresses get too much blame

M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
edited February 2022 in Bond Movies Posts: 541
Oftentimes people will talk about which "Bond girls" are good or bad. However, much of this is based on decisions the directors, writers and producers (basically, older upper-class men) make rather than their own acting had.

Vesper and Tracy had freedom to be complex nuanced characters. The majority of "Bond girls" get limited screentime, or are limited to scenes that are either sexual or them being helpless awaiting rescue.

When fans say "this Bond girl ruined the movie"; keep in mind, in most cases, those actresses were just doing everything their bosses told them to.

Many of the "Bond girl" actresses are younger, still up and coming and hungry. They'll take a role that's demeaning or creatively limiting because starring in a big film will help their career. Actresses at the peak of their career typically aren't picked for the role, because then they'd be demanding more creative freedom.

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,152
    True, enough. Like most of us, I alternately howled and squirmed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist but, well, Denise didn't write the part or cast herself, so...
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    Venutius wrote: »
    True, enough. Like most of us, I alternately howled and squirmed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist but, well, Denise didn't write the part or cast herself, so...

    She did take the money, though. No, seriously, I really like her in the role. :)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2022 Posts: 5,970
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    True, enough. Like most of us, I alternately howled and squirmed at the idea of Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist but, well, Denise didn't write the part or cast herself, so...
    She did take the money :)
    I'd take it too haha :D
    I don't know about anyone else but her name always bothered me than her being a nuclear physicist.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    Typically the girls are the least of the films' problems. The only two I dislike are Jinx and Madeline.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,270
    I don’t really dislike any of the Bond girls, nor the actresses who play them. Are there some wooden Bond girls? Absolutely, but they don’t do enough to take me out of whatever film they’re in. Having said that, not a big Jinx fan.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited February 2022 Posts: 3,152
    Bond girls good! I don't dislike any of them either - I might not be able to suspend disbelief long enough to accept Denise as a nuclear scientist, but Denise herself? What's to dislike, man?!
  • AKillToAViewAKillToAView
    edited February 2022 Posts: 440
    I always thought the accusations she was too stupid to act, and not that she was simply given no good material, were a little unfair.

    Especially given that the same year she did a fine (and funny) job as the villain of the film Drop Dead Gorgeous.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    I think the classic example is Britt Ekland, who does a really good and funny job playing the character she was given, but making her be stupid for comic effect is probably the worst writing for a Bond girl in the whole series.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I never really had an issue with Denise Richards because ultimately her character was completely superfluous and no good actress could have made it work. She was clearly inserted into the film to do two things: Spout exposition dumps regarding nuclear bombs and assure fans that Bond will have a woman in bed at the very end after Elektra gets killed.
  • AKillToAViewAKillToAView
    edited February 2022 Posts: 440
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    I never really had an issue with Denise Richards because ultimately her character was completely superfluous and no good actress could have made it work. She was clearly inserted into the film to do two things: Spout exposition dumps regarding nuclear bombs and assure fans that Bond will have a woman in bed at the very end after Elektra gets killed.

    That's what makes that whole movie so fascinating to me.

    You can see the Daniel Craig era trying to be born prematurely but it's stuck inside the structure of the Brosnan era's fear of going too much outside the typical Bond formula.

    This is not a criticism, it's just such an interesting dynamic to see play out.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2022 Posts: 16,413
    Yes, when Purvis & Wade came onboard they were trying to shake it up and add new things but it’s like turning an oil tanker in the sea I guess. Being a fan at the time, the ideas of Bond being injured, MI6 blown up, the Bond girl being the villain and M kidnapped did feel like quite a departure; it’s easy to forget that looking back from now, where the films are much less formulaic.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,789
    It's not that they get too much blame, but like the leading actor (the Bond actor themselves), or every cast in the Bond films, the leading ladies should be convincing and credible too, and to the lesser extent good in acting.

    The only Bond "actress" I didn't liked is Barbara Bach.

    Her delivery was monotone and didn't had that much reactions, her character (especially in the part where it's revealed to her that her boyfriend died), there's supposed to have an emotion, but she failed to conveyed it.

    Barbara Bach even made George Lazenby a real actor in comparison. 😁

    But she's beautiful though.

    She's so stiff and by the numbers.

    The others weren't their fault, it's more on the writing or directing though (like Halle Berry or Denise Richards).
  • JustJamesJustJames London
    Posts: 216
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes, when Purvis & Wade came onboard they were trying to shake it up and add new things but it’s like turning an oil tanker in the sea I guess. Being a fan at the time, the ideas of Bond being injured, MI6 blown up, the Bond girl being the villain and M kidnapped did feel like quite a departure; it’s easy to forget that looking back from now, where the films are much less formulaic.

    I will now good naturedly point out that all of those things are in fact the new Bond formula, to a greater or lesser extent — largely because there’s a limit to how often you can blow up MI6. Or put M in direct peril. If you take riffs on that (MI6 buildings/personnel for example, and M in peril if not outright kidnapped… ) and on the Bond Girl being the Villain (Most have been not squeaky clean and at least heavily implied *at some point* to not be on Bonds side… but that’s often true back to the sixties) then it’s very much the current formula.

    But for the most part the Dalton & Brosnan eras actually did *more* with their leading ladies as characters than ever before, and on balance, probably as much as the Craig era, just without quite so much of a direct focus as we are now used to. Though it’s actually less than you would think… the roots of Madeline are there in TLD and GE particularly.
Sign In or Register to comment.