The “Peter Rabbit” – is an American animated feature film based on the stories of the English writer Beatrice Potter. The film premiered on February 9, 2018 in the US. The script and direction of the “Peter Rabbit” was performed by an American Will Gluck, who earlier noted the creation of such immoral pictures as “Friends with Benefits” (2011) and “Easy A” (2010).
This specialization of the producer of a children’s film is alarming – and this proves to be justified. A simple familiarization with the subject of the “Peter Rabbit” easily makes it clear, that this movie is contraindicated for children – in the same way that the “Friends with Benefits” with the “Easy A” are contraindicated for young people. Nevertheless, after the plot is summed up, we will also thoroughly analyze the main themes of the “Peter Rabbit”.
The plot (completely, with spoilers)
Rabbit Peter, his three sisters Mopsi (in yellow), Flopsy (in red) and Pixie (in blue) and their cousin Benjamin flee to plunder the farmer McGregor while he shears the lawn and is distracted from his garden. Rabbits are portrayed as nice, cute little naughty wantons, and a farmer – as a descent of hell. The farmer’s lawn mower breaks down, and he pays attention to the noise in the garden. Sisters, who are on guard, help Peter to escape from the garden, but he remains to stick the farmer carrots between the buttocks. The farmer grabs Peter’s rabbit and threatens to eat it, as he ate his father. Sisters aid the farmer to fall into the trap. Peter escapes from the paw of the farmer and runs away, losing his jacket. Rabbit is finally rescued by a neighbor of a farmer named Bea, who passed by. Bea justifies the theft of rabbits, but promises that they will continue to procure food in other places.
The girl invites the rabbits to wait for the starting rain at her house. She wipes them dry and water with blackberries. It is demonstrated that she is a painter in the style of “modern abstractionism”, and also periodically draws rabbits, only in a more beautiful style. Bea’s paintings carry a viewer to the past.
Previously, on the site of McGregor’s garden was a meadow of a family of rabbits, consisting of a parent couple, Peter and three sisters who lived in a hole under a tree. The rabbit father, having lost his meadow, went to steal to the farmer’s garden, where he had been caught. The farmer’s wife made a pie out of him. Later, the rabbit’s mother died, and Peter and his sisters were left on their own. Also they were joined by his cousin Benjamin. They all live in the same hole under the tree. The audience is told that Bea has replaced the rabbits a mother.
The rain ends and the rabbits gallop home. Peter sees from afar that the farmer made a scarecrow out of his lost jacket, inherited from his father, and angry. He again jumps into the garden and takes his jacket. The farmer again catches the rabbit and wants to kill. Holding Peter by the ears, the farmer dies of a heart attack. Peter and his family and animals from the nearest district fly into the garden, ruining it. In the house of the deceased farmer, the animals organize a party, rejoicing at the death of the “tyrant”.
Meanwhile, in London, McGregor’s nephew, Thomas, is building a career in the Harrods store. He is denied promotion to the head of the department of toys, although he is the most outstanding worker. On this basis, he has a nervous breakdown, and he is suspended from work. Also, Thomas is informed about the death of his relative and the inheritance of his property to him.
Thomas goes to the village house and discovers there the devastation arranged by the local inhabitants, and themselves. The new owner drives the destroyers of the land and brings the house and garden in order.
Bea discusses the new owner with the upset rabbits and promises to negotiate with him so that he allows the rabbits to steal from his garden. Bea meets Thomas, gives him a gift-“bribe” (binoculars for bird watching), curses the past owner of the site and vaguely asks not to close the gate so that the animals can engage in his plot “their own affairs” (theft). Thomas does not pay attention to the request and further strengthens the protection of his territory.
Rabbits Peter and Benjamin ignore the barriers and make their way to the Tomas garden in a new way to continue to steal. Thomas notices them and tries to kill them. He manages to grab Benjamin – he puts it in a sack and carries by car to the river to drown. Peter and his sisters jumped into the car and saved their brother. Not noticing that the rabbits remained in the car, Thomas goes to London – to purchase funds for their destruction in a special store. In London, he also accidentally meets Bea and offers to drive her home. During the trip, the characters show sympathy for each other, which angered the rabbit Peter, still hidden in the car.
Bea invites Thomas home to talk, shows her paintings. Rabbits follow the couple and find out that Thomas is allergic to the blackberry. Also during the meeting, Bea tells Thomas that she considers rabbits to be ideal creatures, whereas a young man considers them to be pests.
Bea and Thomas start an affair. Heroes walk together, do yoga, go boating, go on picnics, play – for which at every step the rabbits are led, led by a disgruntled Peter. At one of the meetings, Thomas tells Bea about his difficult childhood, about the death of his parents, the orphanage, about the fact that he has the talent to help people, which he realized while working at “Harrods”. Suddenly it starts to rain, and the characters run home to Bea. Rabbits also run after, but Bea slams the door in front of them, not noticing. If earlier she had sheltered them from the rain at home, wiped and drank with water – now she did this to Thomas, and not to them. Peter gets angry and breaks into Bea’s house. Bea is glad to see him and introduces him to Thomas. Thomas pretends that he is also happy about the rabbit, so as not to spoil relations with Bea, although he still considers him a pest and would like to kill him. As long as Bea is absent, Thomas and Peter fight, and when she comes they pretend they are friends. As a result of the brawl of the heroes, Thomas accidentally spoils one of Bea’s paintings, but it looks like a rabbit’s paw. Bea is angry with the rabbit and expels from the house. Then the rabbit decides to “remove” the beloved of Bea.
Rabbits train and prepare. They make their way to Thomas’s house and prepare traps for him in bed and other traps that he falls into when he wakes up in the morning.
Thomas begins to chase rabbits around his house, overcoming the pain, but they manage to escape. Thomas once again decides to kill the rabbits at any cost.
The hero organizes on the land a special electrical protection against pests and attracts rabbits with peanut butter. Rabbits understand that this is dangerous and does not lap it up. Instead, they remake the Thomas device and connect electricity to the door handles in the house. Thomas receives multiple electric shocks and eventually falls from the second floor on the ground. Peter Rabbit and his family are happy that they killed him. Thomas, however, is alive. He wakes up to the night and goes to the burrow of rabbits with dynamite. The hero throws a mountain of dynamite to the rabbits and is already ready to undermine them – but suddenly Bea appears, involuntarily saving the rabbits. Thomas pretends to collect flowers for her at night to give her a gift. He still hides from the girl his hatred for the rabbits, she likes, and his struggle with them. Heroes are kissing. Peter Rabbit sees this, he’s upset and angry again. Peter admits to the family that he perceives Bea as a mother and is very jealous of her.
The next day, Peter implements a new plan. Brothers and sisters-rabbits throw Thomas with vegetables from his garden with slingshots, and later with blackberries, to which, as they know, he is allergic. One of Peter’s sisters gets Thomas right in his mouth. The hero is at the point of death, but he manages to inject the right medicine into his leg. Peter and the family are upset that again they could not kill him. Thomas begins to throw dynamite into rabbits, not sparing the garden. It turns out that Peter Rabbit had a plan to “bring” Thomas to white heat and aggressive actions against them with his family – so that Bea learned about his negative attitude towards rabbits. But Bea does not hear the crash of dynamite, as she listens to loud music in her headphones. Peter’s plan breaks down. Thomas manages to grab a rabbit. When he starts to choke him, Bea finally appears, finally hearing the noise through the music. Thomas pretends not to strangle, but to rescue a rabbit – and lets go of him with Bea. Also, the detonator from dynamite falls from his pocket, which is still pelted with a rabbit hole. Peter Rabbit changes the plan – and undermines his own house with Thomas’s dynamite. The tree, under which there was a rabbit hole, when falling also destroys the house of Bea. The girl accuses Thomas of everything that happened, is disappointed in him because he used explosives against rabbits, and breaks off relations.
Peter leaves and places his house for sale, Bea also prepares to leave, and also leaves her painting. She says goodbye to the rabbit Peter. The rabbit once again wants to “fix everything.” He asks his sisters to detain Bea, and he himself puts off by train to London to find Thomas and return him to the village to Bea. Benjamin joins Peter. In London, they inspect the sights and appear in the “Harrods” store, where Thomas was once again recruited. Seeing the familiar rabbits, Thomas is enraged and begins to chase after them, destroying the store. Peter first talks with Thomas and tells him that Bea wants to leave home and painting. Peter convinces the hero that he must return the girl. As a result, Thomas throws his career at “Harrods” and with the rabbits goes back to the village – on a bus, boat, car, plane, motorcycle. Thomas tells Bea not to leave her favorite home and favorite pursuits because of him. The hero asks forgiveness from the girl and confesses her love. Bea reminds Thomas that he blew up a burrow of rabbits and her house. Although Peter did it, Thomas falsely assumes responsibility for what the rabbit did. Bea forgives Thomas only when the rabbit shows her that he himself pressed the detonator button.
Suddenly, come the buyers of Thomas’s house. They do not want to cancel the deal, and then the rabbits decide to repeat the scheme used earlier with Thomas. Rabbits conduct electricity to the door handle – the buyers are shocked several times, also they see a devastation inside the house, arranged by local residents and hurriedly leave, agreeing to cancel the deal. Thomas praises the rabbits for the chaos in the house.
During the credits, the restoration of the house by the forces of Thomas and rabbits is depicted / returning Bea to painting / the fact that rabbits are allowed to steal from the garden of Thomas / also that relations between Thomas and Peter are still bad, but for the sake of Bea they “hold on”.
In the scene after the credits it is shown that Thomas opened his own toy store, and Bea organized an exhibition of her paintings. One of Peter’s sisters retells previous events to the local cock. Peter Rabbit first offers the title of this story adventures of all members of his family, and then decides to call her “the adventures of Peter Rabbit.”
As you know, any children’s films and cartoons are evaluated primarily as a teaching material. Therefore, we will explain in detail what “Peter Rabbit” teaches, what topics and ideas it contains.
Violence and cruelty (-)
Usually moments of violence in harmful children’s films and cartoons are an unpleasant, but “additional” phenomenon, which we note at the end of the reviews. Here it is literally the central element of all that is happening, from which it is necessary to begin. The “Peter Rabbit” is just full of violence and cruelty. Purposeful attempts of heroes to kill each other, blows, falls, terrible kind of slamming traps, multiple electric shocks, explosions of dynamite, destruction of houses, suicidal breaks of ones feathers – brutal moments “call the shots” from the beginning to the end of the story. Heroes threaten to eat each other (farmer and rabbit Peter) or in fact eat (the farmer ate Peter’s father), the heroes organize agonies for each other (rabbits and Thomas), rejoice at the pain and death, and grieve for not being able to commit murder (initiatives rabbits against two owners of the garden).
The most monstrous thing is that all these moments the creators of the film offer children-audiences as entertaining and humorous. However, it is absolutely clear that murders and pain are not normally related to entertainment. Such an attitude “pain / violence = fun, funny, entertainment”, which we see at every step in the “Peter Rabbit”, obviously has a very detrimental effect on the viewer. Raising a child, the attention of which the film claims, on the basis of such “entertaining” violence at best will be reflected by his/her increased anxiety, at worst – will form a similar heartlessness and cruelty in his/her soul.
Already, only one sign of hyper-violence in “Peter Rabbit” is to refuse to show it to children.
Harmful humor (-)
The next significant point of the film is the presence of a lot of harmful humor. “Peter Rabbit” is declared as a comedy, and, indeed, jokes during the narrative practically do not end.
In general, humor can be both useful and harmful, depending on what is being laughed at and how. If an object for laughter is chosen something tragic or requiring serious attitude, such humor is harmful to a person. Laughing at what is normally not funny is shaping the corresponding vision of the question in reality (for example, laughing at someone else’s pain on the screen produces an attitude to react with laughter at someone else’s pain and in life). Systematically laughing at unacceptable humor, a person is intellectually corrupted, accepts an inadequate perception of reality.
As for the “Peter Rabbit”, as mentioned above, violence and cruelty are often presented here in a humorous way – which is an absolutely unacceptable presentation of these topics. Catch in the trap / screams from the pain / calling the hearse “cold-meat cart” / hitting the forehead / responding to a request to detain the heroine – “Should we break both her legs or only one?” / brash self-breaking of ribs, etc. – all this is not funny. This is a “toxic”, harmful humor, forming a comic vision of absolutely non-comic things.
It is gratifying to note that public activists in the US and Australia have spoken out negatively about one of the most harmful and cruel jokes of “Peter Rabbit” and called for a boycott of the film. We are talking about a joke with an allergic reaction. In one scene, the rabbits throw Thomas with a blackberry, knowing that he has an allergy to it, after which he “laughs” painfully until he injects himself with the medicine.
The president of the nonprofit organization Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Kenneth Mendez, addressed an open letter to “Sony Pictures”, which released the film, and pointed to the impermissible mockery of the consequences of an allergic reaction (anaphylactic shock) in “Peter Rabbit”. Mendez also recalled that the film company is not the first time joking about allergies, and before that, such episodes were in “The Smurfs” (2011) and “Cloudywith a Chance of Meatballs” (2009). The charitable American organization “Kids with Food Allergies Foundation” said in a letter to Facebook that jokes about food allergies are harmful. “Such coverage of this disease adversely affects patients and induces the public to perceive allergic reactions not serious”. In the Australian organization “Global Anaphylaxis Awareness and Inclusivity”, the film was called “socially irresponsible” and noted that in Australia, every tenth newborn is diagnosed with food allergy. This organization launched a petition demanding “Sony Pictures” to bring a public apology, which was signed by almost five thousand people. To all else on Twitter was launched hashtag #boycottpeterrabbit, under which activists called for boycotting the tape.
As a result, the manufacturer of the cinema officially apologized for the cruel joke. However, this is only one of the many harmful and offensive jokes present in “Peter Rabbit”, and in reality “Sony Pictures” should have apologized for the whole film. Nevertheless, even such a small successful attraction of such an unscrupulous film company to the responsibility in front of the society is an encouraging social factor…
Returning to the conversation about harmful humor in “Peter Rabbit”, we also note another impressive part of it, which can be called vulgar and obscene: these are jokes about drinking from the toilet, about nakedness, rubbing the doorway with buttocks, peeping rabbits out of the trousers’ pants, sister’s brother’s phrase – “I sometimes look at the buttons, but it turns out it’s your nipples,” a discussion of the taste of “yellow” and “brown” snow, wiping the buttocks on the comb, etc. Presenting to children-spectators such a “low level” as a humor, and in general as information to perception – is a deep disrespect to them, to their development and formation.
Gallery of unpleasant characters (-/+)
The next moment – the characters of the film. Among the main actors of the film, not only is there not one that can be taken as an example, moreover, they are all as one unpleasant – both conditionally positive and negative.
The central “positive” character, the rabbit Peter – is a disgusting thief and practically a murderer, whom cinema makers try hard to “sell” to the viewer as a bold, fluffy prankster. Observation of his “sweet” adventures and “innocent” pranks (= unceasing theft and attempts to torture and kill the owner of the garden) causes a single desire – that he quickly disappeared from the screen. Peter – pathos, cynical, arrogant and selfish character, dealing with crimes from the beginning to the end of history. He is anyone, just not a positive child-movie character.
It is also worth noting that Peter is another “positive” criminal hero from the modern media conveyor – following the fraudster Nick Wilde of “Zootopia” (2016), thief Flynn Rider of “Rapunzel…” (2010), robbers and ministers of evil – minions (2015) ), the thief Aladdin from the cartoon of the same name (1992).
Time after time, producers of mass cinema and animation offer viewers to empathize with “good” criminals and, of course, take their example! After all, these are the main characters – those for whom the viewer follows the history, with whom he compares himself and whose behavior patterns and way of thinking he./she involuntarily adopts as a model.
With the rest of the characters the situation is no better. Smiling, beautiful Bea, who is claimed to be the adoptive mother of rabbits, often looks silly. She never notices the cruelty of her favorites (by the will of the writers, of course) and paradoxically considers them to be “ideal creatures” / always justifies their “innocent” deeds / tries to organize them the opportunity to steal from someone else’s garden / allegedly a true support for rabbits, for some reason does not contain her own vegetable garden for their food, but only watered with water and “covers” the plundering of someone else’s land / easily throws rabbits at the promise of always supporting them / is two-faced – cute communion with the farmer, then insults him in front of Thomas / is a representative of modern “art”, that does not add attractiveness and positivity to her image.
In the image of the antagonist Thomas, bad manipulations are clearly read – on the one hand he acts as a “promised” villain, because at some point a good tear is squeezed out of the viewer into his account. It turns out that killing rabbits and drinking from the toilets of Thomas just had a difficult childhood full of suffering, he has a deep scar on his soul and stuff. All within the framework of modern Hollywood propaganda: the villain is not so bad if he had a difficult childhood, or someone betrayed him.
On the other hand, Thomas – also plays the role of good man in the substitution of good and evil. The hero is clearly endowed with much more positive features than the protagonist rabbit Peter, and more drawn to the positive hero. Thomas – a responsible employee, able to ideally help customers in the store. He likes cleanliness and order, classical music, has career goals. It seems like a positive type! Cleanliness, responsibility, help to people, understanding of art – in contrast to the propensity for theft, murder and lawlessness in the “good” Peter. However, the positive features of Thomas are either brought to the absurd, or mixed with negative ones – for a rearrangement in the film of good and evil. Cleanliness is brought to overfastidiousness and pettiness, pursuit of career – to cruelty and paranoia, responsibility – to tediousness, and the rest is mixed with stupidity and “loserism.” His main “vice” is the desire to protect his house and garden from the robbery of criminal rabbits. Here, villainy, yeah?
In general, the images of Peter, Thomas and Bi evoke a strong sense of dislike. Given the destructive messages of the film, this, in fact, is not so bad and fairly honest, for which you can put the picture a kind of plus.
The secondary heroes of “Peter Rabbit”, in general, also do not act as bearers of any virtues. The rabbit’s brotherhood is not given anything except to be Peter’s weak-willed retinue obediently following him along the “slippery” path, while other local beasts are either the same robbers (fox, hedgehog approving the theft of rabbits) or simply degenerates (badger, deer, rooster, pig), through which the viewer extensively dumped low-quality and unflattering humor.
It is also worth noting that the technical performance of the heroes-rabbits is specific, and in many instances they look rather repulsive. Which again is quite honest, considering what ideas these heroes are promoting.
Lowering the heroes-mentors (-)
In addition, we note such an interesting manipulation. In the enlightening films and cartoons the protagonists are often taught by knowledgeable hero-mentors, as a result of which the viewer receives a very important installation for life: to learn from the wise and, if necessary, to correct mistakes under their influence. The protagonist of the film in question, Peter, obviously, also needs personal evolution and correction of mistakes – he has false values and performs many destructive actions throughout the story. Along with him in the film there is not even one, but several characters with the mentor type, but at the will of the authors, none of them performs mentoring in relation to Peter – and each in its own way.
Characters-mentor No. 1: parents
Parents for the young are the main mentors. Although the parents of Peter the rabbit are loved by him, but in fact they are taken out of the scene – both have died. It is characteristic, as in one scene Peter touchingly turns to their portrait, allegedly for the parents’ council and participation. Voice-over begins to broadcast, what wisdom they could now say to the son, and after a mockery is given – we have a story here of a different kind, and parents actually did not say anything. To which Peter gave a very happy reaction. The message about the parents is clear – it’s great when the “folks” do not bother with their morals.
Character-mentor No. 2: Female hedgehog
At the beginning of the story, Peter the rabbit with a daring look runs to steal on a farmer’s garden. To him on the way there is an adult, power-like at first glance hedgehog. The heroine stops Peter, and the scene looks so that now she will explain that it is not good to steal. The hedgehog strictly addresses the rabbit: “What did I tell you about the raids against McGregor?”. Peter slyly: “That I brought you something (stole)?”. The hedgehog: “Precisely. Do not forget”. I.e. the adult heroine with the mentor type approves the criminal actions of the young hero.
Character-mentor No. 3: Brother Benjamin
Peter has a cousin, Benjamin, who thinks and acts more sensibly and meaningfully than Peter. So it begs his positive impact on the criminal Peter – but this does not happen. On the contrary – Benjamin is humiliated all the way by Peter and his sisters (= fat, poorly dressed, not native, but cousin, cowardly, sluggish, etc.). And closer to the end of the film, “happily” proclaims that the path and the meaning of Benjamin’s existence is, it turns out, to obey Peter, to do everything he says, and to participate in all his insane, immoral affairs.
Character-mentor No. 4: Bea
Another character in the image of the mentor is Bea, declared as a substitute for Peter’s mother. And instead of explaining to the rabbit that stealing is bad, she “punches” for him the opportunity to rob someone else’s garden, convincing both McGregors that this is fair. After all, rabbits once lived on the place of this garden (this manipulation is still dealt with separately). Often Bea does not see Peter’s actual deeds (sadism, etc.) and does not even really care about him, although it was stated verbally.
Character-mentor No. 5: Pig
Also periodically on the screen appears a power Pig, which looks much more serious than rabbits. But every time, as a joke from a sedate, he turns into an intemperate, ridiculous glutton or screamer. In other words – minus another potential mentor.
Total, the film introduced a number of mentoring types, but all of them deliberately do not perform their mentoring function for the main character:
– virtually absent and incapable of teaching (parents),
– approve the negative behavior of the hero, instead of learning (hedgehog, Bea),
– humiliated and ridiculed in front of the hero (Benjamin, Pig),
– falsely is taught by the main character (Benjamin)
Through this staging of the scenario of the young spectator following the behavior of the protagonist Peter, one sets up that you do not need to listen to the elders and the wise, you know everything yourself, they must listen to you, the mentors are ridiculous and they need to be laughed at (the story line with Benjamin) etc.
“Blackened out” image of the family (-)
It is important to note that in the film, as a positive message, the family theme is actively proposed: brothers and sisters of rabbits support each other in many ways, motivate, often apologize, touching their foreheads touchingly. It would seem that positive family values? It could be, if not for the structure, values and occupations of the rabbit family pictured on the screen.
The family structure through which family values are offered here is not complete. Parents of rabbits, as already said, are dead, which already raises questions about the actual family sending of the film. Replacing the same rabbit parents, the hero, Peter, frankly does not fit this role, because he leads the remaining children in the family on a deeply destructive path that will not end well for them. This is not parental care.
Further, rabbits allegedly care about each other, always stick together and work in a team – but what are their aspirations, what are they doing? Family team here is cohesive and with a kinship feeling engaged in robbery and robbery! Peter sets himself the mission to provide for the family – but for the sake of it he is outrageous and ready to kill people! On the one hand, the rabbit cultivates for the deceased parents, often recalls them, on the other – uses the old parental instruction to kill the other with a current (Peter is inspired by the words of his father “you can not outwit the fox, so use his cunning against him” and goes to kill Thomas electricity!). The two sisters stick together and work towards common goals, yes – but they constantly quarrel over who is older and one of them hates the other (Mopsi: “Imagine the face of the one you hate”, Flopsey: “Yours, means” ). Peter praises his relatives for the successfully put traps and rakes in Thomas’s house, and they laugh together about how it hurt. Peter hinted to his sisters and brother that he himself killed the first McGregor, but then confesses: “I did not kill old McGregor. He died of a heart attack”, to which the sisters respond: “We knew. Just wanted to flatter you”. Flatter! Praise for the murder! To kill within this family is a triumph, a pride.
In view of all this attachment to violence, hatred and crime, the image of the family here is extremely overshadowed and “dented out”, and family values are the lowest of the low.
The main idea is parasitism instead of creation (-)
And, finally, we turn to the main idea of the film, which is expected to be destructive – it is the positivity of parasitism and the discrediting of fulfilling life. How does this message line up?
In the film, the situation is that the rabbit family was unfairly deprived of its meadow where the farmer McGregor’s house and farm garden appeared, which also killed rabbits-parents (father at the farmer’s hands and mother at the hands of grief). The current raids of rabbits, children, on this territory, their theft and treachery of both McGregors are demonstrated to the viewer as a bold struggle for good and justice.
In this storyline, it’s easy to notice a lot of inconsistencies. Firstly, McGregor settled on a rabbit meadow not in a remote forest, but in some elite village, where there are other residents – i.e. we can assume that his placement was completely legitimate and justified from the point of view of society. Secondly, nobody took the house directly from rabbits, and as for the meadow, there is still a lot of space around to break another meadow. This is perfectly visible in some frames, where a tree of rabbits is shown – near the rabbit hole there is a whole forest and a lot of wasteland. When the farmer McGregor arrived and took a rabbit meadow, the rabbit parents had the opportunity to break a new garden. But instead the scriptwriter modeled the situation that rabbits starved and suffered because of the farmer – and the rabbit-father was FORCED to go to the farmer to steal and was UNFAIR and tragically killed and eaten. And his children, as a grown-up, had nothing left but to avenge their father and meadow … by stealing from a plentiful farmer’s garden.
The story seems absurd, but there is logic. The logic is to drive young audiences into the head that appropriating the results of someone else’s work and fraudulent life is normal, good and fair. The whole history of the robbery of rabbits is shown under the aegis of good and justice! They just get the truth – their meadow is taken away, and, hence, now they will steal.
The creative life in the “Peter Rabbit” is intentionally shown to be wrong and villainous (= McGregor, caring for the garden, responsible work). Parasitic life is the right and good (= rabbits appropriate the results of another’s work and engage in robbery as justice). Certainly, the plot of this film was formed precisely for the sake of promoting a dishonest lifestyle as a norm.
“Goofs” and artistic insolvency (-/+)
We also note that the film as a whole is rather poorly worked out. Dialogues, the motivation of the characters, the events – everything gives the impression of inconsistency and confusion – that, in view of the destructive goals of the film, one can, in principle, assess the medium-positive.
Here are some “goofs” of the film, in addition to the above mentioned points, that rabbits were not prevented from breaking a new meadow for growing vegetables, and Bea, being the adoptive mother of rabbits, does not feed them and easily throws them when they meet Thomas, and then lose their verandas .
– Bea promises to old McGregor that rabbits will get food for themselves – but they continue to steal, despite the agreement.
– It is not known why rabbits never talk to Bea, although she is their benefactor.
– The obvious priority number 1 for rabbits is to plunder McGregor’s garden. However, when Thomas and Bea begin to meet, and no one follows the vegetable garden, rabbits for some reason do not overeat the available vegetables, but watch for a couple at every step.
– Bea slams the door in front of rabbits when it starts to rain and gives Thomas a preference. Peter desperately says: “We will get wet!” Although three feet from Bi’s house is his own hole.
– After the explosion of the hole and home of Bea, the girl finds out the relationship with Thomas, mentioning that she actually liked it. Thomas is surprised that she likes it, as if for the first time she knows about it – but the characters have already gone on dates and kissed.
– Peter and his sisters crookedly hang a portrait of their parents in Thomas’s house. Later this portrait hangs evenly – while Thomas hates rabbits and would rather throw a portrait, rather than correct.
– When Bea discovers a carrot in the trumpet of the car on which she was going to leave the village, she says that one of her many enemies has done this. It was mentioned that Bea does not communicate with anyone particularly.
– Thomas purposefully reached a high position in “Harrods”, which realizes his talents, and easily throws it from the suggestion of a rabbit, who many times tried to kill him.
– Bea told Thomas that there is a place for everyone in the world – but she did not tell rabbits to motivate them to arrange a new meadow with their own garden.
– Peter does not apologize to Thomas for trying to kill him.
– Bea yells at Thomas, worried about his unjust actions against rabbits – while simultaneously going to abandon them forever.
Let’s sum up the results
The film “Peter Rabbit” is another anti-pedagogic Hollywood movie, deliberately instilling in children destructive values and suggesting false truths.