Why should we cast a woman as the next James Bond? To prove that women are dangerous and corrupt too

A woman actress as Bond isn’t a fantasy. It’s a chance to give Bond more realism

'Gillian Anderson can make you believe in Jane Bond, the truly dangerous woman' (Young Vic)

A new rumour seems to pop up every week - Idris Elba will be the next James Bond! No, Aidan Turner! Jamie Bell and Tom Hiddleston are the latest men to have faced furious Bond scrutiny, but perhaps we’re all looking in the wrong direction.

We shouldn’t be searching for a man to take Bond’s place. We should be keeping an eye out for a woman.

I agree with many fans that Gillian Anderson would be a perfect Bond. Sure, Tilda Swinton has the mystique, and Emily Blunt has the moves, but Anderson's onscreen presence embodies the single characteristic that Bond needs above all others. I believe, if her mission depended on it, that Anderson would kill.

I believe, in a word, that she is dangerous.

The problem is not that we’re short of women heroes in Hollywood. The kick-ass heroine has become a staple of television and action films. But from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to agent Natasha Romanoff in The Avengers, the fashion has been for women to be super-powered, comic book characters.

Bond is a dramatically different kind of character. The opportunity exists for a stellar actress to play that role - not an overblown super-heroine, but a truly dangerous woman.

The Bond archetype at its best, as written in Ian Fleming’s macabre novels, or as glimpsed inCasino Royale but in few other Bond movies, is a dangerous man. Bond has no superpowers; no radioactive spider bite or Kryptonian heritage that gives him super-strength. Bond’s power is his will. Once it’s set on a goal, nothing, not even murder, is too far.

Humans with this kind of terrifying willpower are rare but real. And they’re as likely to be women as men.

We are, as a culture, so terrified of dangerous women that we delete them from our stories and replace them with princesses, priestesses, prostitutes and finally, now, super-powered heroines. Any caricature we can dream up is enough, so long as it obscures the reality that real women can be just as mighty as men. They can be secret agents, political leaders, corporate executives or any other powerful person. Women can be strong. Women can be corrupt. Women can run the world.

A woman actress as Bond isn’t a fantasy. It’s a chance to give Bond more realism.

But to make this transition perfect, we need to go a step further than simply casting a great actress to run alongside Mr. Bond. We need a handover, from one Bond to the next.

And it needs to be lethal.

Picture the scene. Ruthless new operative Jane Bond is on the trail of a threat to national security. Given recent news, a billionaire real-estate mogul seems credible. Perhaps he’s even harbouring plans to buy the US Presidency.

On the path to catch him, who does Jane come up against but - James Bond!

Advancing in years, his health suffering from an endless martini diet, Bond has done what so many public servants nearing retirement do today: he’s sold his skills to the private sector.

A cat-and-fox game ensues. The former 007 is fooled into thinking he has the upper hand. But wait! Jane hits James with a dose of his own brand of sexual betrayal, then she breaks him during one-on-one combat. Finally, she dispatches the traitor with a single headshot from his own Walther PPK.

And, just like that, the Bond universe has a new boss. She’s twice the killer the old Bond ever was.

The most recent Bond movies have failed for clear reasons, by refusing to steer away from the campy fantasy of James Bond 007 towards the darker reality of national security shown in movies like Zero Dark Thirty. A dangerous woman lead here, as there, is the answer.

Gillian Anderson is the actress for the role. And even if some audiences won’t enjoy seeing James die, I suspect Daniel Craig will relish acting out that final scene.