No, There's Not a Legit Movement to Boycott James Bond Because Aaron Taylor-Johnson Is Jewish

By Dustin Rowles | Film | March 25, 2024 |

By Dustin Rowles | Film | March 25, 2024 |

Over the weekend, someone told me they saw on Facebook that there was a movement to boycott the next James Bond film because they had hired Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who is Jewish, for the title role (Taylor-Johnson’s casting has not been confirmed, and is likely a rumor that gained a life of its own). My first thought was, “That doesn’t sound right.” I didn’t even know that Aaron Taylor-Johnson was Jewish, and I doubt that many people did. Besides, the controversy surrounding Aaron Taylor-Johnson is almost always about the 23-year age gap between him and his wife, Sam Taylor-Johnson. I know people who read entertainment news, and trust me: The age gap is the only thing anyone actually cares to talk about.

The idea that someone is boycotting Bond because Aaron Taylor-Johnson — who has no known connection to Israel — purely on the basis of the actor being Jewish is textbook antisemitism. There is no doubt that antisemitism (and Islamaphobia) are on the rise since October 7th, but this still felt fishy. I did some research, and it appears that the story originated on … The Daily Mail. Of course.

The Daily Mail cited two or three examples of people on Twitter/X threatening to boycott, and claimed, based on those tweets, that the hashtag #BoycottJamesBond was being widely used. I temporarily suspended my own boycott of Twitter/X to do some investigating, and I found the same two or three examples cited by The Daily Mail. And that was about it. Basically, one user with very few followers expressed excitement that a Jew would be cast as James Bond, and two or three people who have very few followers took issue with his casting because he’s Jewish, and tried to get the hashtag going.

The hashtag wasn’t going anywhere until The Daily Mail wrote about it, and then the only people using the hashtag appeared to be people complaining about antisemitism. Haaretz and the Jewish Chronicle, among others, subsequently picked up the story, citing basically the same two or three tweets. Two or three people do not a movement make.

Nevertheless, the story landed on Facebook, where a bunch of irate people lost their shit because two or three people on a social media site known for being toxic and antisemitic expressed outrage that a Jewish man had been cast as James Bond. In other words, The Daily Mail turned the opinion of two or three nobodies on a dying social media site into a shitton of clicks, and in doing so, further divided everyone.

I wasn’t going to write about this because, like, duh: This is what the media does. But then I read a piece over on The Spool that echoed the same issue. Remember Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar speech, the one that generated so much controversy because there are a lot of people who deliberately misquoted and misunderstood his words. Jonathan Glazer did not say, “We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness.” He said, “We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,” and he clearly referred to the dehumanization of both Israelis and Palestinians. Those were his words! The guy who directed an Oscar-winning film about the Holocaust decidedly did not refute his Jewishness.

I’ve read dozens of articles taking issue with those who have deliberately misconstrued Glazer’s words — most of them written by Jews — but I’ve honestly only seen a few people doing the misconstruing. And yet, there was an open letter apparently signed by a thousand Jewish professionals in the industry who took issue with Glazer’s speech.

Or was there?

Because as The Spool points out, the open letter is a Google form that anyone can sign without verification, and there are clearly a large number of fake signatures and fake names on the open letter.

Variety and other trade magazines never provided that context, according to The Spoolhow many publications in the entertainment news industry are owned by Penske. It’d be easier to name the companies that are not owned by Penske. And this open letter was covered by most of Penske’s publications. Again, from The Spool:

For [Penske Media] and Variety, Glazer’s speech and the open letter presented such an opportunity. By framing their coverage as a “backlash” and a “controversy,” a collective outcry rather than the scattered whimper that it was, the company was able to fan the flames of a hot-button issue, dragging it out for as long as possible in an attempt to draw more eyeballs to their publications. The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, where the name “Riverto Thesea” remains listed, have also reprinted the letter.

It is unsettling the amount of controversy created by the media amplifying the voices of a few fringe elements. That’s not to say that we don’t have issues — there are genuine disagreements among passionate people — but so much of it is driven by a media ecosystem that feeds off the very same division that the former President spends so much of his time sowing. These are textbook examples.

Unrelated: Watch the fantastic Ramy Youssef special MAX released over the weekend. It’s fantastic.