Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service

HetFlex_K 51M
160 posts
6/2/2015 6:10 pm
Paddington (a punkin post)


A few nights ago I sat down to watch the recent movie adaptation of Michael Bond’s popular book series, “Paddington”, who’s protagonist is a hapless and lovable bear from darkest Peru. When I first heard they were making a movie I was excited. I had seen a short bit of a few episodes of the “Paddington” series that was aired on the BBC, and was unimpressed with their adaptation, so I had hope that the movie would have the chance to do his character justice.

I will admit I am normally a “book is better” person, and in this case I feel I might have been especially biased, as I have had read to me (and have read to myself and stuffies) the Paddington stories for as long as I can remember. I have always found British humor and tales to be delightful, so I naturally fell in love with the plucky orphaned bear from Peru with a keen fondness for marmalade, who was found at Paddington station by the Brown family and subsequently adopted. Clumsy and disorderly, but helpful to a fault, Bond always portrayed the plucky cub as a well-meaning mini tornado who somehow managed to make it all right in the end, thanks in no small part to the Browns. I suppose that’s what I love about him; he continuously manages to spectacularly fuck up (such as the time he was given an old sewing machine and managed to destroy every pair of the neighbors pants in his attempt to hem them), yet in the end it always works out for the better (in the case of the sewing machine, it turned out to be very rare, and was purchased by a museum for a large sum in addition to new pants, which were hemmed of course). Nowhere else in my world was there anyone who was as exuberant and relatable as Paddington for a girl with stardust in her eyes and bandaids on her knees.

Over the next few months, I occasionally saw sneak peaks and trailers, and each one left me with a little hope and a little worry, as I saw more of the plot revealed, and more of the artistic licensing that had taken place. So, when Papa saw Paddington at Redbox, and asked “Didn’t you want to get this one?” I was hesitant, but decided to give it a go. Watching the first half hour or so ,I had several thoughts; Paddington was cute, the backstory was adequate, if a little altered, and the Brown family was similar to how I envisioned them. One thing I found quite amusing is that they changed the Browns’ housekeeper, Mrs. Bird, into their “older relative” who basically keeps house for free because she likes to feel useful. Why that’s more acceptable than a paid employee with a deep fondness for the family is beyond me, but perhaps they felt it would be more relatable?

I was slightly frustrated by the insistence of having the Browns try to find the explorer who came to Darkest Peru and gave Paddingtons uncle the hat that Paddington has throughout his adventures. They made Paddington’s staying contingent upon finding him, instead of having them simply open their heart and home. I expected changes, however I did not expect Nicole Kidman to show up as the villain; a crazed museum curator who finds rare animals and stuffs them alive. She set her sights on Paddington for some reason or other, but honestly, I didn’t stick around to find out why. There was never a need for a violent encounter in the books, and when I saw her flying through the Browns house wielding a knife, trying to “ready the bear for stuffing” I knew I was done giving this movie chances.

It was obviously yet another way to add more excitement, as clearly filmmakers have a very low opinion of Jane and Joe Public, and assume that if there isn’t an explosion every ten minutes, people will lose interest and turn it off. Maybe they are correct; box office receipts for Fast and Furious number what-the-fuck-ever will undoubtedly prove them right in their assumption. It saddens me that so much of todays media follows one basic train of thought: for something to be enjoyable to the majority, it must have explosions, sexual innuendo, and several very annoying pop songs thrown in to add to the noise. Anther recent movie, “Home”, also followed this theme, with emphasis on the intrusive pop songs, but I suppose we should have expected it with Riana headlining the (voice) cast. Another more shocking case of this trend I found in Florida, where a marine attraction uses special effects in their manatee encounters, while having the nerve to bill themselves as an “all natural haven for manatees”. With todays market, there is no audience for simple films or nature without additives. People demand excitement and instant gratification, especially in the US. I wish Paddington had been redone by a foreign company, perhaps then it would have a chance to stay true to the original story without the audience being bored to death.

As Papa would say, “Idiocracy” is not just a movie, it’s a foretelling of what’s to come.


Become a member to comment on this blog