Paddington: a review

The film adaptation of Micheal Bond’s Paddington sees a talking bear subsequently called Paddington, forced to leave ‘Deepest, Darkest Peru’, where he has been living with his aunt and uncle. Due to an earthquake his uncle is killed. Prior to his birth, they are visited by one Montgomery Clyde, an explorer from the Geographers Guild in London ( pretty much the Royal Geographers Society) who invites them to visit sometime. The film sees Paddington embark on an adventure in order to seek a new life in London. Once there he meets the Browns (a middle class family, consisting of amongst others Hugh Bonneville and Julie Walters,) who take him in. However on his arrival he is face with the threat of Millicent (Nicole Kidman), a taxidermist and the daughter of Clyde, who wishes to literally stuff Paddington in order to avenge her furthers reputation. Clyde’s refusal to document the talking bears lead to his mission being admitted from the records of the Geographers Guild. Thus this embarrassment for Millicent leads her to seek revenge against Paddington. Central to the films story is the idea of refuges, and the status of Paddington as a refugee. whilst this topic has already been covered from an asylum law perspective (see Colin Yeo, Dec, 2014), it is worth noting the way the film depicts London, and by extension Britain. Throughout the film London is shown to be bright, cosmopolitan a multicultural. Indeed the cameo of a calypso group every so often out to be read as a sustained defence of a progressive, liberal Britain. Indeed the Brown’s strange, withdrawn, neighbour of Mr Reginald Curry (Peter Calpaldi) is adamant that he has deep reservations about Paddington, he maybe just the start of a flood of bears into London. In this way the film functions as a parody of contemporary discussions around immigration. Yet what also interested me was that it also attempted to portray Britain as facing a dilemma in terms of understanding itself. Whilst the majority of London was depict in light bright colours, the exact opposite was the case in 2 instances, the Geographers Guild and the Natural History Museum. With regard to the former, its depiction was that of an conservative reactionary institution whose workings are show to be old and archaic. Somewhat interestingly the film was produced by Paul King, who did the Harry Potter series. This is significant in terms of how the scenes in the guild compare to the depiction of Diagonna Ally, with emphasis being placed on the elitist, mechanical nature of the organisation. Yet, in this context this is seen to it in opposition to the organic liberal 1cosmopolitan portrait of suburban London . Such a contrast is also on show in the depiction of the Natural History Museum. Like the seen in the Geographers Guild, dark colouring is used in the film. But here the emphasis is on the way in which the Museum represents British ideas of superiority and imperialism . But the fact that the villain (Kidman) is a taxidermist suggests that the film seeks to highlight the significance of colonial exploitation in Britain’s past. In the portable of the idea taxidermy, the film depicts activity as a way to justify and narrate historical progress . thus the museum and the idea of historical collections itself is portrayed as a relic of British imperialism. So is it any good? Yes. But its success is in part as a result of the fact that it not only defended and extols the idea of 21st century multicultural Britain, rooted in a liberal cosmopolitanism. but it highlights a paradox at the heart of contemporary British conservatism . That it, the fact that the colonial exploits and expeditions so central to the narrative of British history lay the ground for the multicultural society we have today, a point which gives certain political parties major headaches. In the end Paddington is superb because it is funny and delightful, but if I am honest it made me proud to live in a country that welcomes anyone and allows them to feel at home.