Movie Review – Paddington 2
It is unusual for British audiences to applaud at the end of a film, but
that’s what happened when I took my two kids to watch Paddington 2 on Saturday
evening. However I didn’t join in with the applause, and in actual fact found
myself angry that a children’s story had been subverted by a cast of the same
old gang of luvvies into a tale of social justice.
The scene where the neighbours come together to protect the refugee bear
from Peter Capaldi’s character, a sort of Blakey from ‘On the Buses’ but without
the Hitler moustache who clearly represents social conservatism (and is in fact
the only social conservative character in the whole movie) made clear what the
real message of the movie was. This scene, entirely superfluous to the plot,
was a pure virtue broadcast for welcoming child refugees into the country,
couched in exactly the same terms used by luvvies to welcome actual “child”
refugees.
In real life, of course, none of the luvvies who had either (i) advocated
for child refugees by saying they would give up a spare room in their houses, or
(ii) said they would leave the country if we voted for Brexit actually did so.
In fact, all of their words have been proven to mean nothing. The movie
industry, finally being torn open by the Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey
revelations, is a moral cesspit. And yet here we have the people who live and
work in that industry, who know it warts and all but who refused to break cover
on it in case they lost the chance of earning more money from it, instructing us
on the ‘correct’ morality. And the person they are lecturing, representing
social conservatism, is a Hitler lookalike. It’s not an accident.
The Brown family live in an enormous house in an upmarket area of London
that would cost at least £3 million with their two children and a housekeeper.
The husband has a mid-management job in an insurance company and is passed over
for promotion in a scene in the movie, and the wife is a jobless brat who
dabbles in her hobby of illustration and although the children are teenagers she
still needs to have a geriatric housekeeper caring for her rather than the other
way round. On a mid-management salary, wife not working and school fees to
pay they would be living in zone six outer London with both parents working and
kids in breakfast and after-school clubs. Houses and lifestyles like that are
out of the reach of normal British families even in the upper middle class, and
yet there they were, fantasy paragons of morality giving us a lecture on
welcoming refugees as they breakfasted in enormous, beautiful four-storey
homes. Much like the actors who lectured us from their walled palaces in real
life.
The portrayals of social class and race in the movie were also very
revealing. Of course, diversity quotas had to be ticked off early on so in the
first scene Paddington walks/rides down the street with a mixed race lady, a
south Asian doctor, a black bin man, a white male ex-forces officer and white
female newspaper seller. After getting that box ticked, Paddington then gets
sent to prison (yes, really) where all the inmates are white except a single
token black face, and of course, the prison warden is black to be absolutely
sure that nobody gets the wrong idea about the single black inmate. The clear
message is diversity good, white people bad. I wonder if there is a single
prison in London that has this ethnic mix? And apparently, there are no Asian
people in prison. Not one.
Inserting the virtue signal on child refugees into the movie is what made
me disgusted. And the movie’s own lack of self-awareness was crass. The star
of the movie, Hugh Grant, is a man of such low morals that he has fathered a
child with a girl who worked at a Chinese takeaway he visited with no intention
of marrying or being a father to the child. What moral high ground does he stand
upon? But who needs moral high ground when you are upper class? Both the main
stars of the movie are called ‘Hugh’, both went to expensive private schools,
both went to Oxbridge…. You get the drift.
So here we have it, the upper classes of England are more welcoming to
refugees from Peru than their own citizens in the world outside London that is
never seen. Paddington doesn’t ever mention England, or Great Britain, only
ever London. In fact, the whole film is London, London, London, but the London
it shows is that of Disney’s Peter Pan where everyone lives in Georgian
crescents. Perhaps a few scenes in the houses where the majority of refugees
actually live would have added credibility.
Anyway, once again the left have subverted our children’s minds and
planted their message. Refugees good. People who question or oppose them bad,
and probably Nazis. Prison is full of bad white people because white people are
bad. The upper-class metropolitan elite are wonderful, as is London, and nobody
else’s opinion is valid.
This film is what I refer to as pre-Brexit, by which I mean that the
meaning of Brexit has not yet sunk into these people and they still resist it.
What Brexit voters were saying when they voted to leave was ‘hey, London, don’t
forget about us. We are every bit as British as you. Don’t put foreigners
ahead of us’. This film still clings to
t0.0.0.1778444202PTJ4Pvg1Ek/npJR:005d6ecb E:2060545.786549614
V:10fa.7e3.1.1.16.1.US S:Nag890 [N3]3]o [N3]tty [mN]hin [mN]iCVItz20a
tLbSEeQ5xlvcHr61cG07jvqWjHCUmZZjN9mTfycdO4x+WDUEaO0lsXjeHe+GX1
