The name’s Bond—James Bond. A symbol of British espionage, charm, and cinematic spectacle since the 1960s, the character has thrilled audiences for generations. But while 007 may be timeless in appeal, the franchise has not been immune to criticism—especially when it comes to its portrayal of women. The latest to stir the debate? Two British cinema icons: Dame Helen Mirren and Pierce Brosnan.
In a striking new interview, Mirren tore into the long-running spy series, calling it “drenched in sexism” and criticizing how it has historically depicted women. She even went as far as to say she’s never liked James Bond or how women are treated in the films. Her comments have sent ripples through the industry and reignited conversations about gender roles in legacy franchises.
Pierce Brosnan, who wore the iconic tuxedo in four Bond films from 1995 to 2002, responded with thoughtful diplomacy. While he didn’t fully denounce the franchise, he admitted to a “certain agreement” with Mirren’s assessment. Their discussion—albeit indirectly—happens as both actors co-star in the new Paramount+ series “MobLand,” making the conversation all the more relevant and timely.
This exchange between legends isn’t just celebrity chatter. It reflects a deeper cultural moment: Can beloved film franchises evolve without losing their identity? Is there room for James Bond in a more progressive, inclusive cinema landscape? Let’s dive into how this headline-grabbing exchange is reshaping the conversation around 007.
Helen Mirren’s Bold Critique of James Bond
Helen Mirren has never been one to hold back—and her take on James Bond was no exception. In her recent interview, she described the Bond franchise as being “born out of profound sexism.” To Mirren, the problem isn’t subtle or nuanced. It’s baked into the very DNA of the character and his world.
“I never liked James Bond. I never liked the way women were in James Bond,” she said plainly. For decades, Bond girls were often presented as eye candy—conquests, assistants, or victims—rarely given the complexity or agency of their male counterparts. Even with changes in recent films, Mirren isn’t convinced enough has evolved.
Interestingly, Mirren didn’t support the growing call for a female James Bond. She argued that creating original stories about extraordinary women in espionage would be more meaningful than gender-swapping existing male icons. “Why not tell stories of real women in the intelligence world? Women who are already fascinating without needing to be James Bond in a dress?” she asked.
Her stance sparked a flurry of media reactions. Supporters praised her for calling out the franchise’s blind spots, while critics accused her of being dismissive of efforts to make Bond more progressive. Either way, her comments struck a chord and have been shared widely across social media and cultural outlets.
Mirren’s voice carries weight not just because of her legendary status in cinema, but also because she’s never been afraid to challenge the industry she thrives in. Her criticism echoes a broader movement calling for authenticity and depth in how women are portrayed on screen—not just in spy thrillers but across all genres.
Brosnan’s Response: A “Certain Agreement”
Pierce Brosnan may have once been the embodiment of the suave, martini-sipping secret agent, but he’s also a man of the modern world. When asked about Helen Mirren’s critical remarks on Bond, his reaction was neither defensive nor dismissive. In fact, he agreed—at least in part.
“She let them have it,” Brosnan said, with a chuckle. “Yes, there’s a certain agreement there.” He didn’t reject her points but instead acknowledged that the franchise has a legacy built on certain dated tropes. However, he also made a key point about the world within which Bond exists.
“There’s a certain world and room to move within the proscenium arch of what Ian Fleming put down,” Brosnan added. In other words, Bond is a character crafted from a specific cultural moment—mid-20th century British espionage fantasy. Updating him for the 21st century is tricky without breaking the mold completely.
Brosnan’s response is telling. As someone who played Bond during a time when the character was already starting to modernize (his Bond was more emotionally aware, less overtly macho), he understands the balance between honoring tradition and embracing progress.
He’s also not new to this conversation. Over the years, Brosnan has expressed openness to a more diverse Bond—be it a woman or a person of color. But in this exchange with Mirren, he emphasized dialogue and reflection over outrage, adding depth to an already complex debate.
The Brosnan–Mirren Dynamic in “MobLand”
It’s somewhat poetic that this conversation is happening while Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren star together in a high-stakes crime drama. In “MobLand,” the two play rival mafia bosses in London, delivering performances that ooze power, control, and confrontation. Ironically, their roles in the series flip some of the gender dynamics that Bond films have historically upheld.
Despite their fiery on-screen chemistry, Brosnan confirmed that they didn’t discuss the Bond franchise during the production of “MobLand.” Still, the subtext is hard to ignore. Two legends, both with deep ties to British film and television, are sparking global conversations simply by speaking their truths—whether on set or in interviews.
Their collaboration brings a unique lens to this debate. Brosnan, once the quintessential male action hero, now acknowledges the limitations of that role. Mirren, often cast as commanding and cerebral, continues to champion more thoughtful portrayals of women in film. Together, they embody the evolution that many believe Hollywood needs.
“MobLand” itself doesn’t directly tackle the Bond issue, but it does show how powerful storytelling can be when actors are free to break out of traditional molds. Perhaps it’s a subtle statement: that characters can be strong, complex, and compelling without falling into outdated stereotypes.
Has Bond Changed? A Look at Gender and Representation
The Bond franchise has made efforts to modernize—especially in the Daniel Craig era. From “Casino Royale” to “No Time To Die,” female characters like Vesper Lynd, Moneypenny, and Nomi (played by Lashana Lynch) were portrayed as smart, strong, and pivotal to the plot. Craig’s Bond was also more emotionally vulnerable, even tragic.
But has it been enough? Critics argue that the changes, while welcomed, are surface-level. Bond may treat women with more respect now, but the essence of the character—still rooted in power, dominance, and charm—remains unchanged. And for some, that essence is the problem.
The franchise’s long history includes numerous examples of female characters being disposable or hyper-sexualized. From Ursula Andress’s iconic bikini entrance to the poorly aged pun names like “Pussy Galore,” the films have often prioritized style over substance when it comes to women.
That said, there’s real potential for change. With a new Bond yet to be cast and producers like Barbara Broccoli open to reinvention, the franchise stands at a crossroads. Can it honor its past while fully embracing the future? Can Bond still be Bond if he’s radically different?
The challenge isn’t just about optics—it’s about authenticity. Audiences today are smarter, more diverse, and more demanding. They want characters that reflect the complexity of the real world, not just stylized fantasies. And that includes 007.
