Bond and Britain: An interview with Dr Claire Hines

Colloquially, James Bond has been listed alongside the Prime Minister and the England Men’s national team manager as the tripartite signs of the stability of the nation. The last time all three positions were filled was half a decade ago, before Daniel Craig’s retirement as 007 following 2021’s No Time to Die. Then-PM Boris Johnson has had four successors since then, and since Daniel Craig’s first outing as Bond in Casino Royale (2006), eight managers have taken the helm of the English national team.

As speculation ramps up surrounding the impending casting announcement of the seventh actor to take on the role, I had the opportunity to interview Dr Claire Hines of UEA’s School of Media, Language and Communication Studies, an expert on James Bond, popular cinema, gender, and British screen culture. In our discussion, we spoke about Bond’s relationship to British identity, the character’s place in the modern day, and the characterisation and representation that the casting will inevitably reflect.

The actor matters because each Bond becomes a reflection and creation not only of Britain’s geopolitical position but also of changing ideals of masculinity

Dr Claire Hines

In a time when extreme political debates surround what really represents Britain and British values, Dr Hines sheds light on both the character’s and chosen performer’s importance to British identity and self-understanding:

“Bond occupies a unique place in British cultural identity because he functions as a national myth. He embodies a fantasy of British (masculine) competence, resilience, sophistication and international relevance that often exceeds Britain’s actual geopolitical power. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, Bond has projected an image of Britain as a nation still capable of influencing global affairs.

“The actor matters because each Bond becomes a reflection and creation not only of Britain’s geopolitical position but also of changing ideals of masculinity. For example, Pierce Brosnan’s Bond attempted to reconcile traditional masculine heroism with the more self-aware gender politics of the 1990s, while Daniel Craig’s Bond emerged in an era of uncertainty, presenting masculinity as vulnerable, emotionally expressive and psychologically damaged, while still retaining physical potency.”

Given this idea of Bond as a “national myth”, a lot of pressure must therefore be placed on the producers and filmmakers of any given Bond film. The question arises, therefore, of whether they feel that they are reflecting something about British society, or are they creating that feeling?

“They do both. Bond films are highly responsive to social anxieties and cultural trends, but they also help shape public understandings of Britishness.

“The producers have constantly adapted Bond to remain relevant. The shift from Cold War espionage to terrorism, cyberwarfare and global criminal networks reflects changing social concerns. However, Bond also creates cultural narratives by presenting particular visions of class, gender, masculinity and national identity that audiences then recognise and debate.

“In that sense, Bond acts as both a mirror and a fantasy.”

In response to a question on whether American funding from Amazon MGM and French-Canadian direction by Denis Villeneuve could marry to create a ‘British’ film, Dr Hines stressed the importance of culture and symbolism from within the films. “As long as Bond remains connected to MI6, London, British society and politics, audiences are likely to perceive Bond as British”. The friction, however, between the need for 007 to act as a “global entertainment brand” as well as remaining a “specifically British cultural product”, is labelled by Dr Hines as “one of the most fascinating aspects of the next phase”.

Today Britain faces questions about its place between Europe and the United States, just as Bond increasingly struggles to justify his own relevance within modern intelligence structures

Dr Claire Hines

On where the British super spy can find his place in the modern world, the comparison was drawn with Britain’s own place on the world stage:

“Today Britain faces questions about its place between Europe and the United States, just as Bond increasingly struggles to justify his own relevance within modern intelligence structures. The films typically dramatize precisely this anxiety: how does an old institution maintain significance in a changing world?”

Since 2021’s No Time to Die, much discussion online has debated whether the film series should return to the era in which it was born, with many proposing a 1960s period piece to reinvigorate the franchise. Dr Hines is, however, sceptical about a return to the past – “Bond’s long-term survival arguably depends on his ability to speak to the present, not simply recreate a nostalgic past”.

As a character, Bond has spent decades justifying the existence of both the Double-0 programme and himself. How long can the filmmakers and studios justify digging up the ‘sexist, misogynist dinosaur’ for more instalments? In as many words, the question is whether Bond has a place anymore?

“Yes, but only if the films continue interrogating the character rather than simply celebrating him. Bond has survived because the franchise is to a certain extent self-aware. Since the 1990s, and especially during the Craig era, the films have repeatedly questioned Bond’s masculinity, relevance and methods. That’s a must.”

Dr Hines similarly underlines the potential to investigate these questions as well as questions around the actions of intelligence agencies themselves. “The challenge for modern Bond is not to present espionage as unquestionably heroic, but to acknowledge its ethical ambiguities. Interestingly, that tension has often made the character more compelling.”

Why not make Bond a symbol of inclusivity rather than a backwards looking symbol of Britishness?

Dr Claire Hines

Much criticism of the character is similarly drawn from his upper-class heritage and elite Eton education, with many arguing that the new casting of Bond presents the opportunity to reflect a more diverse nation. Dr Hines believes that this debate boils down to “who gets to represent Britishness”, stressing that discussions around the spy’s identity will “inevitably become discussions about Britain’s identity”. “Why not make Bond a symbol of inclusivity rather than a backwards looking symbol of Britishness?” she asks.

British popular culture characters are routinely reimagined – there have been fifteen version of Dr Who on British television, and at least three takes on Sherlock Holmes in recent memory. With Bond currently at the forefront of this revitalisation, Dr Hines states that “These characters operate as cultural institutions. They belong to multiple generations rather than a single audience. Every new casting becomes a conversation about continuity and change, tradition and modernity”.

With final screen tests underway and an announcement expected imminently, it remains to be seen whether Jack Lowden, Callum Turner, Josh O’Connor, or a surprise late inclusion, will take on “one of the most rewarding and risky roles in cinema”.