A black James Bond , would it bother you?

[Pet shop boys]

Black, white, yellow, brown, I was never a huge Bond fan.

Translation : If I was a fan it would have bothered me. 



WoooSHHHHHHH  TA NA KA

[Al Doggity]

One can certainly posit the zero-sum theory. Do you believe that the mainstream film industry is as pellucid as not to be a part of the hegemonikon mind? Moreover, you seem to agree with my suggestion that a non-zero-sum creation (with diverse appeal) would prove more successful and lasting. Bond is white, encoded with all of the symbols and contradictions which inheres to British whiteness, and, yet, also transcends that encoding by alluring to non-white, non-Brits.

OK. Gotta go. Maybe I'll check back in late tonight or tomorrow.

I don't think you can posit the theory because the idea of "appropiation" wouldn't apply to the casting of a mainstream film franchise, especially if the casting was done by the studio that owns the rights to the film franchise.


I don't see anything in my post that implies endorsement of a non-zero-sum creation. That's only partly because I don't think there is any such thing. From the standpoint of tallying race, there's no ostensible difference between casting a minority in an existing property and creating a new property for a minority star. Which would be more successful? Obviously an established property is a safer bet.

[Kwon_2]

They would have to rename him LeJames Bond

LeBron Bond

Tyrone Bond

Darnell Bond

Marcellus Bond

Jamal Bond

DeAndré Bond

Antwan Bond

DeShawn Bond

JaMarcus Bond


---

By the 1970s and 1980s it had become common within African-American culture to invent new names.

Many of the invented names took elements from popular existing names. Prefixes such as La/Le, Da/De, Ra/Re, or Ja/Je and suffixes such as -ique/iqua, -isha, and -aun/-awn are common, as well as inventive spellings for common names.

The name LaKeisha is typically considered American in origin, but has elements of it pulled from both French and African roots.

Other names like LaTanisha, DeShawn, JaMarcus, DeAndre, and Shaniqua were created in the same way.

Punctuation marks are seen more often within African-American names than other American names, such as the names Mo'nique and D'Andre.

http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Names-Now-Classic-Cool--The/dp/B0009X1MMS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393738023&sr=8-1&keywords=Baby+Names+Now%3A+From+Classic+to+Cool--The+Very+Last+Word+on+First+Names+The+Way+of+The+Nignog

[drkaje]

No OutOn Bond, Kwon_2?

Lazy bastard!

[Yamcha]

[BIG AL MCKECHNIE]

He is supposed to be a white Scottish man according to the books. The minute that poofy fellow Roger Moore got the part they broke with racial tradition. It's been downhill ever since.

[Kahn.N.Singh]

I don't think you can posit the theory because the idea of "appropiation" wouldn't apply to the casting of a mainstream film franchise, especially if the casting was done by the studio that owns the rights to the film franchise.


I don't see anything in my post that implies endorsement of a non-zero-sum creation. That's only partly because I don't think there is any such thing. From the standpoint of tallying race, there's no ostensible difference between casting a minority in an existing property and creating a new property for a minority star. Which would be more successful? Obviously an established property is a safer bet.

In case it's not being picked up, I'm using a conceptual vocabulary employed by British cultural theorists, most notably, by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams.

The "non-zero-sum" creation of character (e.g., like a Bond) is a "win-win" because it can appeal to diverse audiences in diverse ways. So, e.g., it's possible for in-group white-Brits to secure feelings of identity and pride from Bond's encoded white-Britishness (which is, I take it, the source for the uproar over Elba's possible casting, which would strip Bond of this characterological essentialism), and it's possible for non-Brits enjoy the appeal of Bond's other traits like his swagger and proficiency, which, make no mistake, is still tied to the character's encoding, but is enjoyed by out-group members who find that character and his encoded traits enjoyable -- a win-win. As you write, "you can enjoy the film without even considering [Bond's cultural and racial encoding]." Yes, one can, but just because one is not aware of what one is enjoying, does not mean that what is going unperceived is not a huge part of the pleasure one is experiencing.

Moreover, the "taking" or "appropriation" of the Bond character (traditionally white), and its subsequent "giving" or "assignment" to a black actor can be done by the film rights-holders, whether they're white or black. The issue is one of erasure, namely, the emergence of black-Bond (encoded to give birth to Bond's new "blackness") at the expense of white-Bond.

Again, I understand this idea to be the source of the controversy, and, take it or leave it, I'm out on the subject.



  

[Al Doggity]

In case it's not being picked up, I'm using a conceptual vocabulary employed by British cultural theorists, most notably, by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams.

The "non-zero-sum" creation of character (e.g., like a Bond) is a "win-win" because it can appeal to diverse audiences in diverse ways. So, e.g., it's possible for in-group white-Brits to secure feelings of identity and pride from Bond's encoded white-Britishness (which is, I take it, the source for the uproar over Elba's possible casting, which would strip Bond of this characterological essentialism), and it's possible for non-Brits enjoy the appeal of Bond's other traits like his swagger and proficiency, which, make no mistake, is still tied to the character's encoding, but is enjoyed by out-group members who find that character and his encoded traits enjoyable -- a win-win. As you write, "you can enjoy the film without even considering [Bond's cultural and racial encoding]." Yes, one can, but just because one is not aware of what one is enjoying, does not mean that what is going unperceived is not a huge part of the pleasure one is experiencing.

Moreover, the "taking" or "appropriation" of the Bond character (traditionally white), and its subsequent "giving" or "assignment" to a black actor can be done by the film rights-holders, whether they're white or black. The issue is one of erasure, namely, the emergence of black-Bond (encoded to give birth to Bond's new "blackness") at the expense of white-Bond.

Again, I understand this idea to be the source of the controversy, and, take it or leave it, I'm out on the subject.



  

Well, as you're out, I'll keep this brief. You may consider it an emotional "win-win", but the things you listed aren't the only factors involved. They are not even the most important factors to everyone. The importance of his "encoding" is a matter of your perception, not an immutable part of Bond's narrative. I don't think erasure is an issue when it comes to mainstream hit film franchises with literally decades of history and dozens of books and films.