Paddington in Peru: A hard stare at cultural appropriation

“It’s called a hard stare. Aunt Lucy taught me to do them when people have forgotten their manners”

—Paddington Bear in Paddington 2

Paddington in Peru is the third film in the live-action series following the adventures of the titular character, which premiered in the UK on November 8, 2024. Paddington is a bear from the jungles of “Darkest Peru” known for his blue duffle coat, red hat, and insatiable love for marmalade. He was adopted by the Brown Family—Mrs. Mary Brown, Mr. Henry Brown, and their children, Judy and Jonathan—after arriving illegally in the UK. In this installment, Paddington receives a letter from the Reverend Mother at the Home for Retired Bears in Peru urging him to visit Aunt Lucy, the bear who rescued him when he was lost as a cub. Sensing the trip could be the perfect chance for the family to reconnect after growing somewhat distant, Mrs. Brown encourages the idea. Together, Paddington, the Browns, and their housekeeper, Mrs. Bird, embark on a journey to Peru.

Like Paddington, I too hail from Peru and migrated to the UK nearly 6 years ago in search of new opportunities; however, my circumstances were notably different as I am privileged to hold Polish citizenship and did not have to enter the country illegally. Having been away from Peru for 8 years, I was also eager to see aspects of my country and its culture portrayed on the big screen. Memorable moments included the appearance of Peruvian actor Carlos Carlín stamping Paddington’s passport as he said “Welcome to Peru,” followed by a montage of brief shots of the Historic Centre of Lima and the Rainbow Mountain in Cusco, the narrow and treacherous high-altitude mountain roads traversed by a combi (minibus), and Andean children wearing chullos (Andean earflap hats) and ponchos. However, the accuracy of these portrayals of Peru began to falter after these scenes.

Paddington in Peru represents a subtle form of cultural appropriation that may go unnoticed by those unfamiliar with Peruvian culture. Cultural appropriation occurs when dominant organizations or producers (often Western or those reflecting Western ideals) commodify cultural elements of historically marginalized groups while failing to compensate or respect the voices of those whose culture they appropriate (Zakrzewska et al., 2024). This practice of extracting not only tangible, but also intangible reflects a colonial dynamic, similar to when Western powers historically extracted and exploited resources from colonized cultures, silencing non-Western voices (i.e. the Other) and perpetuating stereotypes that portray them as exotic, inferior, and exploitable (Said, 1979). However, in the marketplace, organizations can appropriate the image and resources of the “exotic” Other to construct an aura of authenticity for their products (Zanette et al., 2021). I explore this problematic aspect in this review, by examining how the practices of cultural appropriation in the making of Paddington in Peru shape but are also shaped by colonial logics.

In the film, cultural appropriation is evident when tangible cultural elements are decontextualized and recontextualized to create exotic yet familiar visuals for audiences. For instance, Paddington finds a map in Aunt Lucy’s room with “start search here” marked at Rumi ¹ Rock, which is described as “a sacred Inca stone circle deep in the jungle” by Reverend Mother. Nevertheless, the Inca Empire was mainly in the Andes and along the coast, with some influence extending into the cloud forests, which is a zone between the Andes and the Amazon. While Inca presence reached these highland forests, Mr. Brown’s reference to being at “the threshold of the actual Amazon” suggests a setting much deeper in the rainforest, beyond the typical extent of Inca influence. Similarly, as Paddington and the Browns search for a way to reach Rumi Rock, the background features characters dressed in traditional Andean garments that are designed for the cold climate and not the warm and humid jungle. This misfit highlights how organizations serve as colonial cultural gatekeepers by selectively appropriating cultural elements without understanding their significance. This can lead to the trivialization of the Other’s culture, which perpetuates colonial imaginaries rooted in stereotypes and disregarding other aspects and cultural groups.

Cultural appropriation is also evident in the film’s decontextualization and recontextualization of intangible cultural elements to create a simplified yet compelling plot that Western audiences can easily follow. For instance, Paddington and the Browns come across captain Hunter Cabot and his daughter Gina, who agree to take them to Rumi Rock in their boat. Hunter Cabot is obsessed with finding El Dorado, the mythical city of gold, and is haunted by the ghosts of his ancestors, including a conquistador symbolizing the legacy of Spain’s plunder of the Inca Empire. The film portrays El Dorado as hidden in the Peruvian Amazon and linked to the Inca Empire; however, the myth originated from Spanish chronicles of Muisca rituals at Lake Guatavita in present-day Colombia, where a chief covered in gold dust made offerings to legitimize his succession (Quintero-Guzmán, 2024). This demonstrates how organizations can homogenize and conflate diverse cultural elements from marginalized groups, treating them as interchangeable and erasing their unique identities.

Building on these insights, it becomes evident that the film focuses on exploiting tangible and intangible cultural elements but disregards native people. Beyond the appearance of Carlos Carlin as previously mentioned, there is a noticeable absence of Peruvian actors. Instead, the film features Spanish actors Antonio Banderas as Hunter Cabot, a riverboat captain, and Carla Tous as his daughter Gina. This casting is significant due to the colonization of the land we now know as Peru by the Spanish Empire, with Hunter’s character reflecting the exploitative practices of conquistadors. Gina mentions that the Cabot family suffers from the oro loco (gold madness) curse, which seems to absolve Hunter (and by extension the colonizers he embodies) from accountability, potentially trivializing the destructive impacts of colonialism. Therefore, the exclusion of Peruvian actors is a strategic choice, as the film’s narrative perpetuates the colonial idea about lands being empty and in need of “discovery” by foreigners.

While the commodification of cultural elements can be evident to a discerning observer, a significant concern regarding cultural appropriation, as previously mentioned, is the lack of compensation or recognition for the communities from which these elements originate. In this case, the film further alienates Peruvians and Indigenous Peoples from Peru by opting to film primarily in Colombia, drawn by the country’s substantial tax rebates and cashback incentives. This decision represents a missed opportunity to engage with Peruvian actors, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders in a meaningful way, ensuring their voices are represented. Ultimately, this choice perpetuates colonial patterns of extraction and exploitation of cultural elements without directly involving or benefiting the local populations who are the rightful stewards of these traditions. Likewise, this echoes colonial practices whereby control over cultural storytelling remains concentrated in the hands of outsiders rather than those with lived experience and historical ties to the culture being depicted.

In conclusion, Paddington in Peru serves as a critical example of how popular media can perpetuate problematic cultural representations that reproduce colonial logics under the guise of family-friendly entertainment. The practices of cultural appropriation unpacked in this review are also present in other children’s films such as Disney’s Pocahontas, which romanticized and distorted Indigenous history for a Western audience, and Moana, which, despite being celebrated for representation, still faced critiques for homogenizing diverse Polynesian cultures into a single narrative. For scholars, this raises important questions about the role of organizations in cultural and creative industries in shaping young audiences’ perceptions of Othered cultures and how these organizations can engage with these cultures in a more informed, respectful, and socially responsible manner. Thus, I highly recommend Paddington in Peru to scholars and teaching instructors in organization studies, and other disciplines such as marketing and sociology, as a significant case study of cultural appropriation that can go unnoticed due to its framing as a children’s story, which leads audiences to focus on its lighthearted and entertaining aspects rather than its deeper cultural implications.