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 the notion that the metropolitan elite still has moral authority over the rest of the country and can tell it what to do. I say it can’t!