Poor Peter Rabbit..

Yes, apparently this iconic story by Beatrix Potter, originally published in 1902 and now made into a movie, has had some very negative feedback with people asking us to boycott it..why? Well here is a link to the reasoning why they think so here in Australia...even although the film has not actually been released here so it would seem it's based on feedback from USA where it was released last week. My opinion...WTF! I mean...seriously...it's PETER RABBIT..it's BEATRIX POTTER...we all know the story...I don't know anyone who died from reading it. Anyway..rant over...thoughts, if you have any...???

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-11/peter-rabbit-calls-sony-pictures-apologise-food-allergy-scene/9420102

I haven't watched the movie but I have read the link and taken a look at some of the reviews. A fair amount of people enjoyed the movie and accepted it for what it was. An animated adaptation of a Beatrix Potter book updated to appeal to the more modern audience. It seems that as usual sadly you have people willing to see the worst in things rather than taking it for what it is.

I have seen many other movie where the use of allergens has been put into food for comical affect and there wasn't a backlash for them. Take Harry Potter movies where characters regularly ingested food that made them have adverse reactions. Movies where all manner of things have been added to food like laxatives and poison. Snow white was fed a poisoned apple and then there are the many cartoons where pies and cakes contain exploding bombs.

This movie tracks the many foiled attempts of a rabbit to kill the farmer one of which happens to be attempted poisoning by giving him food he is allergic to. Even the much loved Paddington movies have scenes that would be considered life threatening should someone take it into their head to re-enact. Yet we didn't see any back lash for that movies.

Most people and kids understand that bullying is wrong so surely by connecting a bullying attempt to poison by feeding an allergen could be considered raising awareness of the dangers of food allergies and that its just as dangerous as trying to electrocute, poison or stab someone. Certainly it could serve as an opening for a two way conversation between child and parent or teacher on more about the dangers of food allergies.

I cant help wondering if perhaps some people are just setting out to ruin a perfectly good movie. Other wise why have they not raised such public complaints about the other movies and cartoons?

^^ Really good points, Milly!

Welp. I did a double take when I saw the thread this morning. And then when I had some down time at work, I saw it made it in the news. Also, hope you can excuse my long response!

I guess that is big on Sony's part to immediately and sincerely apologize, even though I'm pretty sure the public would see it in a "cartoonish, slapstick way" (in Sony's words).

I don't understand boycotting it, as it doesn't appear to pose immediate harm or hateful rhetoric. I haven't seen the film myself, but I'm very familiar with the books (I have a precious collector's edition somewhere in the attic).

I mean, it's not like food allergies haven't been used against an "archnemesis" before. But since this film is catered to kids and family, they were probably worried about young kids getting that idea, to do it as revenge or a prank.

I know a story on Facebook was trending recently (end of January) about three teens who intentionally exposed a fellow student to pineapple, despite them knowing of her allergy. The teens actually faced felony charges. They conjured up this plan and apparently the classmate could have gone into anaphylactic shock and died if not treated immediately. She was taken to the hospital and was alright, but this story, and other cases of food allergy bullying, may be on people's minds.

I don't know how commonly this kind of bullying happens, and honestly I haven't given it much thought, but I can only imagine if a school is cautious and doesn't serve a particular food because of a student... a fellow classmate could easily use that information and think they're playing a little joke when in reality, it could be a deadly one.

I'm also not a parent so I can't invalidate or speak for the parents who ARE upset over the film's portrayal of allergies. I know some have spoken out against the film.

In all honesty, I would find it more upsetting if a family-centered film had racist stereotypes or used racist slurs. In my mind, that demands getting outraged about.

In a PC culture, we have to pick our battles. This doesn't seem to be attacking or dehumanizing a marginalized group, so personally, I don't see the issue. This isn't bigotry. It's not sexism. It's not racism. Food allergies are always serious, no matter the severity, and I don't believe Sony was trying to downplay or mock that. It's simply a somewhat important scene in the arcs of the two main characters, Mr. McGregor and Peter. If anything, it makes Mr. McGregor more realistic as a fictional character because he has food allergies.

I think Scott Mendelson summed it up quite well in his Forbes article concerning this, "in order to sell the idea that Peter Rabbit is a flawed character who needs to be better, he has to act out in potentially unsympathetic ways before the film's emotional climax."

A scene showing bad behavior from a fictional character does not mean that that behavior is being endorsed. I am hesitant to see how this is adding stigma to those with food allergies.

I do know that food allergies seems to be a real issue in today's society but...to be honest no one that I can remember from my childhood days ever 'suffered' from this. Almost everyone went home for lunch in my primary school and those who didn't went to dinner school where there was one thing on the menu...take it or leave it. No one died...the ambulance was never called to take anyone away because they had eating the wrong thing. Is there now something in our food that was not there in the past causing the problem?

It's the same with ADHD...no one ever 'suffered' from that either...people did not eat fast food back then...there was a fish & chip shop on the corner but...although the food was deep fried it was 'fresh' to a certain extent and...it was a treat that was bought maybe once a month.

So I guess, after my rant...:) do you all think the food were are now eating, to a large extent processed could be causing these problems??

Hellon,
(Warning you've got me started lol)
Re food we are now eating .....

I am getting on in years and I can tell you when I was growing up we grew our own veg, only got two types of milk full fat or skimmed which arrived in glass bottles. We spent lots of time out in the fresh air getting muddy, climbing trees, working the allotments so our bodies were facing a much higher ratio of germs than kids of today. The food we buy in supermarkets taste nothing like the food we used to eat. Take the tomato even the vine grown variety are nothing close the sweet flavoursome tomatoes we used to grow. All these plastic wrapped foods leave plastic molecules in the food, food is full of chemicals to make it last longer or look better, then there are the chemicals to keep insects off the crops, the farms that feed vegetarian animals body products from their own species.

The medications that are flushed into the water systems that get sucked up into the clouds and then rain down on us. The too sterile environment that the kids are growing up in... Its no wonder we are suffering more allergies and immune system issues.

Super important question to ask, Hellon...

I have never been allergic to anything and I'm not too informative on the actual chemicals in our current food, but I can only imagine.

Very insightful, Milly. I know a few people who have wanted to grow their own garden to eventually one day depend *almost* solely on it. They talked about the benefits and being able to rely on homegrown fruits/vegetables.