PADDINGTON: Weird and Wonderful

Pretty much every big screen reboot of a beloved childhood TV show has been terrible. Yet for people with a certain nostalgia for it, they will end up loving it regardless of quality. I never watched the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles when I was growing up, which is why I can recognize that the recent Michael Bay-produced reboot is terrible, but a worrying amount of people I’m friends with can’t see it as anything other than an extension of what they loved when they were younger.

As most of these films are trying to get by purely on nostalgia alone, it seems highly unlikely that younger audiences will be as engaged as older ones. Yet if filmmakers took the opposite route, rebooting the franchise entirely for child audiences, they would alienate the fans who made the franchise a success in the first place. The reason Paddington is so successful is because it updates the franchise into something completely different from Michael Bond’s books to engage today’s generations of kids (because stories called things like “Paddington Visits the Stock Exchange” don’t exactly scream great cinema), whilst retaining a core understanding of the characters that ensure older audiences won’t be left alienated. The film has already been a notable success in this regard, as the cinema I work at has had multiple screenings where there wasn’t a single child in the audience- even though there is enough in here to engage viewers of all ages.

Charmingly weird, but possibly too weird for non-British audiences?

Of course, before we get to the new story, we have to get through all of the usual “origin story” business. Generations earlier, an explorer named Montgomery Clyde ventures to Darkest Peru where he first discovers Paddington’s ancestors, some kindly, marmalade-loving bears with an inexplicable talent of speaking basic English. Upon leaving to go back to his hometown of London, he tells them that they are welcome to visit should they ever get into trouble; years later, after an earthquake all-but destroys the forest, Paddington (voiced charmingly by Ben Whishaw) makes the trip to London in the hope of finding a new home. After being found on the street, he gets reluctantly taken in by The Browns, an upper middle-class family who own the sort of house that only exists in movies that you can’t help but want to move in to yourself.

This is where the similarities with the books end; whereas they had an adorable tweeness where every plot seemed to revolve around Paddington finding new ways to acquire marmalade, this new movie version follows Paddington trying to escape the fate of being turned into taxidermy by a crazed museum owner played by Nicole Kidman. The fact that it manages to go dark (compared to the books at least) whilst still being a family-friendly delight that will please the oldest and youngest viewers alike makes it one of the more unexpected cinematic treats I’ve seen recently.

The reason Paddington works is because it doesn’t get by purely on nostalgia, with director Paul King instead creating something that’s equal parts weird and wonderful, respectful to the source material yet entirely unique. King is probably best known for directing several episodes of The Mighty Boosh (as well as weirdo-comedy Bunny and the Bull), which shows he’s got a keen eye for surrealism, as well as innovative visuals on a shoestring budget. But this is the first time that he makes any of the strangeness onscreen seem anything approaching believable, let alone worth emotionally investing in.

However, this uniquely British surrealism makes it highly likely that the film will be as successful internationally; a bizarre recurring visual gag of a group of reggae buskers appearing out of nowhere (not too dissimilar to the drummer in Birdman) won’t be appreciated for its silliness by international audiences who equate all of British humour to dry, social-awkwardness (thanks, Ricky Gervais!). Of course, there shouldn’t really be any cultural or language barriers when it comes to good comedy, and after watching this on the same day as the entirely laugh-free Horrible Bosses 2, I thoroughly recommend this to audiences worldwide as an antidote to the string of joke-less Hollywood comedies that have stunk up multiplexes recently.

Paddington – a political statement in disguise?

It’s not just the humor that’s distinctly British either. One of the many things I loved about the movie was its positive view on immigration, at a time when a high-profile work of British pop-culture needs it. For those of you unfamiliar with British politics, I’m talking about controversial political party UKIP, whose central policy of curbing immigration has seen them (not entirely inaccurately) accused of racism. One of their MP’s even referred to Africa as, “Bongo Bongo Land,” whilst another claimed that the reason Britain faced severe floods last year was “because of God’s reaction to gay marriage.”

Despite seeming like a political satire of the funniest order, UKIP are real and disconcertingly successful – they actually came first in the European elections earlier this year, which is conclusive proof as to why you should never let the general public decide on anything important. In Paddington we get the multi-cultural view of London (and by extension, Britain) that should act as conclusive proof as to the positives of immigration. After all, if we didn’t allow it we would never have anybody as charming as Paddington wash up on our shores.

Vocal Performances

Ben Whishaw’s vocal performance as Paddington is one of the best voice-only performances I’ve seen recently, second to only Scarlett Johansson in Her. Like Scarlett, Whishaw wasn’t even the original actor to voice the role, as up until a few months ago the film was completed with the voice of Colin Firth. Yet Firth has such a distinct, not to mention old-sounding, voice that would ultimately distract you from the character. I’ve seen Whishaw in countless films before, yet could never pick his voice out of a vocal police line-up; this unfamiliarity, not to mention bounds of warmth and friendliness, are likely to make audiences warm to Paddington more than if it was Colin Firth. Firth’s voice has a sense of world-weariness to it which makes him perfect to introspective roles like A Single Man, but terrible for roles that rely on a childlike quality like Paddington.

Not all of the performances are as successful. Whereas most of the performers (such as Nicole Kidman as the taxidermist or Peter Capaldi as the nosey neighbour/UKIP substitute) play their roles with a gleeful campiness, others dial up their roles far too much. Jim Broadbent plays an Eastern European shop owner with one of the most unrealistic accents I’ve ever heard, making his Australian accent in Filth sounding tangible by comparison (although it does answer the question – yes, you can still be a good actor in spite of terrible accent choices).

Yet to criticize (or worse, just nit-pick) problems that are in Paddington is a problem in itself. This is a film best enjoyed when you let your inner child take over and do all the viewing for you. I may have a childhood nostalgia for the books, but as a cynical bastard of the highest order, let me tell you that Paddington isn’t a good film because of any prior emotional investment, but because it IS a good film. It takes me back to the joy of reading about Paddington as a child without making it feel nostalgic due to the new approach to the story. It’s far from perfect, but it is an essential view – and let’s face it, who would have expected to say that about a film whose main character’s sole trait is eating marmalade?

Paddington is in UK cinemas now, but US viewers will have to wait until January 16th. All international release dates are here.

Do you have childhood nostalgia for Paddington Bear? If you don’t, has this affected the way you’ve seen the film?

(top image source: Studio Canal)