I've seen it today for myself and my goodness the BBFC how ridiculous they are. It's perfectly fine for children. Nowadays why do people feel the need to molly coddle etc!?
When I first posted on this topic, I was prepared to give the BBFC the benefit of the doubt. I strongly believe in giving detailed information about a movie to parents and then leaving them to decide whether it's suitable or not. That's what a "PG" classification is for: if it had been a "12A" which actually puts restrictions on attendance it would be a different matter, but a "PG" is meant to be just about providing information for parents and guardians.
However after actually seeing the movie, I'm veering towards the "what the heck were they thinking" side. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but IMO the "inuendo" and "bad language" comments are non-starters (I've just checked the BBFC site, and the only use of bad language they cite is "a single mumbled use of 'bloody'." - that's it!). In the case of "mild threat", the earthquake at the beginning
might be considered mildly disturbing for very young children, as might the ending where Paddington is in danger of falling into a furnace. but TBH Disney has done similar scenes in the past much more explicitly and still got away with a "U" rating.
The only one I'd give the BBFC some leeway with is "imitable behaviour". They tend to come down hard on that because they are concerned - with some justification - that the Daily Mail or similar is going to run some story about children getting injured after copying what they've seen on-screen. The irony here however is that one of the sub-plots in
Paddington is the father being over-protective towards his son, with the film taking what I would call a more "Dangerous Book for Boys" attitude towards childrens' play and hobbies.
The thing is though that I've just sat through a screening in a cinema packed with young children and the all
loved it, and they all trooped out happily without any signs of trauma. There were a few vocal concerns about Paddington's fate during the chase at the end, but nothing compared to what I've heard at screenings of
Lady and the Tramp or
WALL-E (both "U"s). The girl next to me was so small she had to sit in her mother's lap, and both of them enjoyed the film without any concerns. By comparison, when I saw the "PG" rated
ParaNorman (which I also thought a very good film, BTW), there were a few children aged between 8 and 10 who did admit afterwards to finding parts of it scary. But then
ParaNorman is IMO a strong "PG":
Paddington isn't remotely close.
[/Rant]
reply
share
PoisonRegal
10 years ago
When I first posted on this topic, I was prepared to give the BBFC the benefit of the doubt. I strongly believe in giving detailed information about a movie to parents and then leaving them to decide whether it's suitable or not. That's what a "PG" classification is for: if it had been a "12A" which actually puts restrictions on attendance it would be a different matter, but a "PG" is meant to be just about providing information for parents and guardians.
However after actually seeing the movie, I'm veering towards the "what the heck were they thinking" side. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but IMO the "inuendo" and "bad language" comments are non-starters (I've just checked the BBFC site, and the only use of bad language they cite is "a single mumbled use of 'bloody'." - that's it!). In the case of "mild threat", the earthquake at the beginning might be considered mildly disturbing for very young children, as might the ending where . but TBH Disney has done similar scenes in the past much more explicitly and still got away with a "U" rating.
The only one I'd give the BBFC some leeway with is "imitable behaviour". They tend to come down hard on that because they are concerned - with some justification - that the Daily Mail or similar is going to run some story about children getting injured after copying what they've seen on-screen. The irony here however is that one of the sub-plots in Paddington is the father being over-protective towards his son, with the film taking what I would call a more "Dangerous Book for Boys" attitude towards childrens' play and hobbies.
The thing is though that I've just sat through a screening in a cinema packed with young children and the all loved it, and they all trooped out happily without any signs of trauma. There were a few vocal concerns about Paddington's fate during the chase at the end, but nothing compared to what I've heard at screenings of Lady and the Tramp or WALL-E (both "U"s). The girl next to me was so small she had to sit in her mother's lap, and both of them enjoyed the film without any concerns. By comparison, when I saw the "PG" rated ParaNorman (which I also thought a very good film, BTW), there were a few children aged between 8 and 10 who did admit afterwards to finding parts of it scary. But then ParaNorman is IMO a strong "PG": Paddington isn't remotely close.
[/Rant]
Very detailed and couldn't agree more!
reply
share
darkhawk76
10 years ago
The mild language and innuendo warnings are pretty stupid. However I can seen why the immutable behaviour thing is there, specifically to do the fridge. Harsh but understandable IMO.
reply
share
Ivor_Bucket
10 years ago
Perhaps you missed the exotic boxer reference near the beginning. If that's not innuendo, I don't know what is. It certainly made me guffaw. Whether that justifies a PG certificate I neither know nor care. I'm too busy chuckling about the rest of the film.
reply
share
Spielburger
10 years ago
Actually I did laugh at that, but no one else in a packed cinema appeared to. The jokes in the explorer's film seemed to go over the heads of most of the (admittedly much younger) audience, although to me it seemed to be heavily inspired by "Across the Andes by Frog".
Besides: that wasn't what the BBFC were getting at. Their main concern regarding sex/innuendo was the scene with Hugh Bonneville in drag, which does rather make you wonder what they think of children going to pantomimes...
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/paddington-film
reply
share
Ambrosia-I
10 years ago
The BBFC isn't suggesting that parents don't take their children to see Paddington. People do know what to expect in pantos - the double entendres, men dressed as women, etc. The PG rating is simply making parents aware of things in the film, not advising them that it should be avoided. Regarding imitative behaviour, the fridge thing hit home to me - I remember news items decades ago about children being found dead in abandoned fridges because they'd hidden in them and couldn't get out. Obviously that was a very rare occurrence, but there were even TV ads warning people to take the doors off fridges when they threw them away. The BBFC may seem overly cautious in this instance, but I honestly don't think the rating will stop people taking their children to see the film.
reply
share
Spielburger
10 years ago
People do know what to expect in pantos - the double entendres, men dressed as women, etc. The PG rating is simply making parents aware of things in the film, not advising them that it should be avoided.
Fair point.
I agree with you re the "imitive behaviour" issue, too.
reply
share
iKickstand
10 years ago
Do you guys think the film is suitable for a 3 year old? Is there enough going on to keep her interested if she doesnt understand all the dialogue?
reply
share
Spielburger
10 years ago
Do you guys think the film is suitable for a 3 year old? Is there enough going on to keep her interested if she doesnt understand all the dialogue?
Not sure if these are intended as two separate questions.
The issues of suitability/
appropriateness has already been discussed and depends largely on your feelings regrarding "threat" and "imitable behaviour".
As far as keeping a 3-year-old interested: I'd think so. Most of the audience reactions I've heard about with regards to young children have involved those around 5 years old, and they've been good. However the girl sitting next to me was younger - about 3 or so - and she enjoyed it. There was the odd question to her mother regarding plot, but she was rapt through most of it.
There are a
lot of visual jokes and slapstick throughout the film, and some chases (although some of the action touches on "imitable behaviour" territory, e.g. sliding down banisters).
It's bright and colourful, and the bear is loveable (one of the nice things I noticed in the queues was young children taking their teddy bears - particularly Paddington soft toys - into the cinema with them).
reply
share
waswasere
10 years ago
I remember news items decades ago about children being found dead in abandoned fridges because they'd hidden in them and couldn't get out.
That was because fridges in the sixties had latches which couldn't be opened from the inside.
"I know it looked like I fell... but it was all part of my plan!"
reply
share
Max_cinefilo89
10 years ago
but TBH Disney has done similar scenes in the past much more explicitly and still got away with a "U" rating.
Lest I'm mistaken, the BBFC has actually cited some of those Disney movies (most notably Toy Story 3, which was criticized by parents for having a U rating) as the reason for more recent rating decisions like this film's PG.
reply
share