The State of California v. OJ Simpson, Oscar Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, Galileo before the Inquisition… now our age will be able to add its own entry to the annals of famed legal proceedings. Because Paddington is suing Spitting Image.
It is the barmiest news story of late against fierce competition. The Telegraph has revealed that Canal Plus, the holders of the rights to Michael Bond’s furry Peruvian, are launching an action against Avalon, the makers of Spitting Image. You may be surprised to hear that Spitting Image is still a thing. After an ill-advised revival on ITV in 2020, via the now-defunct streamer BritBox, it has recently returned yet again, this time on YouTube.
The Spitting Image Paddington is co-host (with puppet Prince Harry) of a fictional podcast – titled ‘The Rest Is Bullshit!’ – that acts as the anchor to the show. He is depicted as a wild-eyed, foul-mouthed coke fiend – South American, you see.
I’m making it sound funnier than it is. This latest revival of Spitting Image, though technically free from the direct oversight of Ofcom, is hobbled in much the same way as the last one: it has to toe the line of the polite media consensus, which is very far from reality. The huge elephants in the nation’s room cannot really be mentioned. We still can’t even say in public what we’re terrified of, though everybody knows what it is.
This renders Spitting Image, for all its surface raucousness, equivocal and timid – something satire cannot successfully be. It has followed other formerly brash brands like the Onion and Viz into pretend-naughtiness while complying with the progressive consensus. We are indeed swamped by ancient programmes and publications that cannot function in the modern world; in the mainstream, only South Park retains its edge.
It’s a cliché that reality is now so strange that satire is almost impossible, but it’s also true. Many of the political or public figures of today are outlandish, contradictory and difficult to sum up. And fame just doesn’t operate in the same way any more: you can’t rely on celebrities being recognised by viewers. Mass market satire is a defunct model (and I’m not sure what a new, functional one would look like, because it hasn’t yet been invented). It’s rather as if ITMA or Much Binding in the Marsh were still around in the 1980s.
We hear a lot about how the age of deference ended in the 1960s, but it’s made a comeback in the past decade. We just defer to different people and ideas this time – and Spitting Image doesn’t go anywhere near them. The Harry and Paddington podcast gag should last about 20 seconds, but instead it goes on and on, and on. Putting a beloved kiddie character on drugs is crass and obvious – very early-teen humour – but it could still be funny, maybe? Yet it is only tedious.
Still, Spitting Image couldn’t have asked for better publicity than this silly court case. Is Paddington so very sacred now that his holy image cannot be profaned, like a marmalade Mohammed? How could this daft YouTube sketch possibly affect the Paddington ‘brand’? It’s perfectly capable of parodying itself. The looming musical sounds ghastly; I chanced to catch the preview of the first song, released the other day, ‘The Explorer and the Bear’. Things I’d rather hear than go through that again include that government emergency signal, and an unexpected ‘Allahu Akbar’ on a crowded tube.
Is Paddington so very sacred now that his holy image cannot be profaned, like a marmalade Mohammed?
What possible legal basis can there be for this action? The Telegraph reports that Canal Plus are citing ‘design and copyright concerns’. But nobody is going to confuse the Spitting Image Paddington for the real thing. In fact one of the big problems is that it doesn’t look enough like the original, and not even enough like a bear. It’s more like a rat – a sort of chubbier Rizzo from The Muppets.
The rude or inappropriate parody of fictional characters, particularly children’s characters, is a long-established part of our culture. There were Victor Lewis-Smith’s gay Daleks, the ‘real Mr Men’ poster that adorned many a student bedroom, endless tedious riffing on the druggy aura of The Magic Roundabout. This is no different.
Where will it end? Can we now sue puppets – can puppets sue each other? Can we have a judicial review of Sooty, issue a restraining order on Sweep, or sue Soo? Could I sue Paddington for excessive tweeness and polluting the discourse with his ghastly, simpering platitudes? Reparations are surely in order.
If this does come to court, I want to see character witnesses in the stand vouching for Paddington’s ethical integrity – Basil Brush, Metal Mickey, Postman Pat – and support from the wider bear community, Rupert and Bungle. What a glorious waste of time and money. But in a frequently bizarre and scary world, at least this particular insanity is trivial – which is a great relief. Let the fur fly.
Comments