Citizen Paddington: Why Some Consider The Lovable Bear’s Films Among The Greatest Ever

H/T To SALON For The Image

A few months ago the film community was abuzz with the news that Citizen Kane, the 1941 Orson Welles classic about a newspaper mogul’s troubled life which has been claimed by many to be the greatest film ever made, had been outranked on Rotten Tomatoes’ critical scores by Paddington 2. The 2017 sequel to the 2014 film adaptation of the beloved children’s books about a talking bear from “darkest Peru” with extra polite manners and a taste for marmalade that gets taken in by the middle class Brown family when he immigrates to London. If you were a casual movie-goer (especially here in the states) you were most likely taken aback at this news, “The movie with the CGI talking bear that I skipped over those years ago?!” If you were a hardcore cinephile or a British movie-goer in general, you weren’t that surprised such a thing had occurred. The film’s legacy among some as “perhaps the greatest movie ever made!” has been a point of debate if not even a meme for years on Film Twitter since it was first released, and with each passing year as more and more become aware of its high stature with some film snobs, its reputation has only gotten stronger.

The biggest reason I think many casuals are stunned by the fact that two films about a talking CGI animal interacting with human actors could be so revered among the same folks who have actually seen all the Best Picture nominated films when they’re announced, is the fact that such films have both been a dime a dozen in modern Hollywood and yet so many of them have been so bad in quality. Some of the laziest screenplay writing has come from these movies, mainly because Hollywood is only interested in making a quick buck rather than make a work of art that can pass the test of time. Beloved properties like Alvin and the Chipmunks, the Smurfs, Peter Rabbit,  Pikachu, and Sonic the Hedgehog among others have been adapted to screen in films that feature loud, over the top screaming from our human protagonists, outdated pop culture references, childish toilet humor, singing and rapping from the CGI creatures in an attempt to modernize them, and a host of other things has lead these sort of films to earn a reputation as silly movies made for kids that adults fear being dragged to the theatre by said kids to go see. To be fair the quality in these movies can range, I myself really enjoyed Detective Pikachu a few years back, but generally they all follow a certain lazy formula that doesn’t aspire past much other than little effort for as much money as possible.

So its not too surprising that when a British produced adaptation to a British property like Paddington the Bear came along in Christmas 2014, most Americans (I included) tuned out when it got to the states in early 2015. Not only did it seem like another one of those lazy CGI creature causes trouble for the humans movies, but it being something more British kids grew up with than American kids helped a lot of parents over here to avoid the dreaded situation of their children begging them to go take them to see it. The film, however, still thrived, making 280+ million on a moderate budget of 65 million and getting rave reviews that have it sitting in the high nineties on Rotten Tomatoes. To make things even more impressive, the film was nominated at the BAFTAs for Best British Film and Best Adapted Screenplay; plus it won the Best Feature Film at the BAFTA Kids Awards. It was a critical reception that wasn’t lost on many who were paying attention, and some who had dismissed the film watched it – the very first converts if you will to a forming cult around these movies.

Then came the sequel, which faced similar stereotypes against it in the states as many still hadn’t discovered the first film for themselves. It came out around Thanksgiving of 2017 and to the states in early 2018. The movie got an even greater reception from critics and up until a few months ago even had a rare 100% rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It did about the same financially, making 220+ million on an even smaller than the first film budget of 40 million. It was also nominated at the BAFTAs for Best British Film and Best Adapted Screenplay, but this time was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Hugh Grant who to this day has stated his role in Paddington 2 was the greatest of his career and has called the film “a masterpiece”. Plus it too won the Best Feature Film at the BAFTA Kids Awards.

This seems to be the movie where a lot of cinephiles started to discover these Paddington films, as it blew up on Film Twitter and quickly started to gain converts to those who argued it may just be the best ever. And in the years since the film has only gained more converts, especially this past year as news spread about the sequel outranking the supposedly greatest film of all time. On YouTube, you can find various interesting video analysis on these movies including one recent one I found in which someone came into the sequel expecting to find it overrated after reading the news about its Rotten Tomatoes triumph, only to come away declaring it perhaps his favorite film ever. One other video I found was from a fellow who seemed to enjoy a darker “life is meaningless” outlook to existence and yet compared such a sunny film like Paddington 2 to a dark film like No Country For Old Men and found the movie to be as good as that Best Picture winner. Another analysis you can find even features what I think is an interesting commentary on how the Paddington films are in a way a tale about an illegal immigrant who is taken in by another country and makes those around him and thus his community better.

For my part, I discovered the first film around late 2016. I hadn’t thought much about it past a trailer I saw for it before watching Guardians Of The Galaxy, a film I stated as early as last year as my top film from 2014. I’m embarrassed today to admit I scoffed at it at the time. I remembered news had hit about a sequel coming and I decided to look up the first film’s critical reception and was stunned to find just how well received it was by critics and the fact it even earned some big BAFTA nominations. I had to see this for myself and I came away extremely impressed and loving the film enough to grade it an A+. When the sequel came out I loved that one as well and gave it an A-. In the years since, I came to be aware of the cult of film fans that championed these movies among the best there is and this past week as of this writing I decided to revisit them again. I remember loving the movies, but re-watching them some time later I only enjoyed them even more, even changing my mind on the sequel’s grade and upping it to an A+, and I have to say now the first film might have surpassed Guardians Of The Galaxy for me as my top film of 2014 and the sequel might have surpassed Coco for me as my top film of 2017. In fact these movies may be an all-time favorite for me now, like in my personal Top 5, because I found myself re-watching them twice in the last week and went ahead and ordered myself the blu-rays for each film afterwards to add to my collection.

By now those who have continually dismissed these movies might still be wondering how on Earth is it films made for children have become so beloved among adults, built up such a dedicated fanbase, and entered one of its films into the debate as to what the greatest movie ever is. How is it that films that the same people who rank gritty things like The Godfather or pretentious arthouse type movies like Man With A Movie Camera among their favorites also rank these among those films? It all comes down to the fact that those behind the making of these movies are actually making a film that is trying to tell a story that can be passed down through the generations. These aren’t films that will be forgotten in due time like so many of these CGI creature movies will be; there’s actual competent filmmaking going on in here that you’d expect from an awards contending project rather than a kids’ movie. And I’m going to go through the major reasons that I believe make these films a step above so many others to the point that some seriously argue they might be the best we’ve ever seen.

The Paddington films should be shown in both film and writing classes for its exceptional use of characters, their arcs, and paying off events that happen earlier in the story. Anyone who is trying to tell a story in any medium is well aware of Chekhov’s Gun, and yet its easy for even some master storytellers to take it for granted. These films are a masterclass in making every story beat matter to the entire story that is being told on screen, and using every character in a way that makes them matter to the story.

Characters are introduced in a way we don’t linger on them too long, there’s no exposition by another supporting role or anything like that, and just a simple sentence from them can give us an introduction to their personalities. In the first film the entire Brown family just needs a quick conversation between them that lasts no more than a minute for us to understand who they are, what each of them are like, and how each of them interact with one another. Characters also each serve a purpose, even if at first its hard to notice. From each member of the Brown family going through a struggle of their own that is resolved and even helps in the climax of both films, to smaller side characters such as a barbershop client in a scene that seems to be a throwaway slapstick number that ends up becoming a key figure in the plot of the second film when his profession is later revealed. Hell even pigeons in the first film who seem to just be part of a running gag end up mattering as part of a solution in the climax to that story.

Furthermore characters don’t really set themselves up to just be types.  For instance, It would have been easy to write Mr. Brown as someone who’s making outlandish facial expressions and shouting all the time when Paddington gets himself into trouble, but instead Hugh Bonneville plays him as a straight man as if he and Paddington were a sort of comedic team. It would be just as easy to make the villains of each film whether it be the scornful Millicent Clyde in the first film played perfectly by Nicole Kidman or the narcist actor Phoenix Buchanan in a performance from Hugh Grant that may be his best ever for the second film, be nothing but two dimensional baddies. But they too even have backstories and motivations that drive their actions, even as they do some horrible things to try and get their way.

Even in films with smaller ensembles, it could be easy to forget about making every character and every scene matter and the Paddington films execute this flawlessly, every single moment in the movies serve a purpose. Every line, every action, every running gag, every motion on screen. Even some of the greatest films of all time have a hard time pulling that off, and these movies do it in a way that it almost seems as simple as getting out of bed.

In a day and age when lazy Hollywood executives are putting children’s properties up on the big screen to make fart jokes and rap, the Paddington films use his good-natured manner and the film’s aesthetics (more on that later) to give us a mixture of more intelligent and subtle comedy in its dialogue to slapstick humor that could be in leagues with the Charlie Chaplins and Buster Keatons of the world in how they’re executed by a CGI bear no less! There’s a play on names and puns as punchlines, situational comedy that ranges from Mrs. Bird pretending to be a frail woman to trick a security guard, to Mr. and Mrs. Brown arguing over her theory their neighbor is up to no good and he claiming they both had been right when she’s vindicated; and there’s even a running gag with a security guard through both films that’s a nice callback when it happens again in the sequel.

But what really helps these films feel different than other CGI talking creature movies is how timeless the aesthetics help it feel and how the color palette is used. The latter is used expertly in the way it at times matches the mood of the characters when Paddington is around or not, bright when he’s making everyone’s day better and dim when he’s not around to spread good manners. In the second film we watch a prison go from dim to bright and colorful before our eyes as a montage plays showing us Paddington’s effect on the place.

There’s art direction in these movies that gives us amazing magical realism in some scenes from Paddington going through a projector screen while watching an old film, to a pop up book coming to life as we enter his mind, to a doll house that represents the Brown family home,  to the painted tree on the walls of said home losing their leaves when Paddington’s presence is missed and growing back when he returns. And never do we get a feel of too many modern things, setting itself up to be plenty relatable to future generations who’ll discover this movie in the same way classics from the forties can still be relatable to us today.

Now do I myself think either of these is the greatest film ever made? No, I don’t. My argument for that title would be among my top two personal favorite films, In The Heights and The Shop Around The Corner, as I am a big believer that a movie fan should always champion their personal favorites as the best ever. But do I think these movies are better than Citizen Kane (a film I enjoy and respect immensely), and do I think they have a stronger argument than that movie does for the title? Frankly yes, I personally do. These are both about as close to perfect as any film can be in every aspect of making a movie; there’s actual dedicated care given to these films that I wish more kid friendly adaptations would try to achieve. Even Pixar movies struggle to match the kind of filmmaking we see in these at times. As the Browns say at the end of the first film, “Every house should have a marmalade day”, and, well, I believe every film collection should have the Paddington films in its library.