Cruella

[Ramza00]

Ultimately the point about "continuity" is a red herring, whether used as a defense of the story or as a disappearance into the weeds of which version it is in continuity with.

This is clearly a movie which trades on the cultural understanding of the character of Cruella de Vil. It cannot escape from that, and because of that the iconic elements of that character (eg. the desire to skin and wear puppies) are inextricable from it.

Yes, but I will argue a trace of an image, which has been traced again and again and again so much that only nerds point out where the images were changed ... a formed enough image in the public's mind stands for reinvention and that is the nature of culture and fashion.

How many nerds can point out X imagery comes from John Milton's Paradise Lost? X can be lots of things but lets say the "imagery" of death which is then appropriated by other fictional characters?

Subverting the image, subverting the trace is literally how culture works and it is not unique to this one movie. It happens all the time. And the movie is self-aware enough of what it is doing that it plays with conventions and expectations like a performance.

[DaOldeWolf]

We could have McLeach's parents killed by a flock of eagles, Clayton's family murdered by gorillas, and a retelling of Mulan where the Mongols only want good grazing and farming land instead of the barren wasteland beyond the wall they have to live in.

XD

I figure the "why make Cruella, or Maleficent, or Joker, or Wicked Witch of the West, a protagonist" has the same answer in all cases - charisma. Turning charismatic villains into protagonists works.

I can see that but I personally believe that there should be purpose behind it. Cruella is a film about Disney villain of a successful franchise from Disney with a cool design in a time where Disney cares the most about making revenue. I don't have high expectations for this to turn out to be good. It's like the live action Lion King. This sounds like a dumb concept. And this is coming from a big fan of Disney.

Why make a tv show about Tony Sorprano? We make shows about villains all the time. Why is this one moral foundation where no Cruella for that is sacred and another moral foundation where Goodfellas is acceptable to make a movie for and thus not set apart for Mob movies are cool?

People watch movies not just for moral teachings, we watch for many reasons including spectacle. Likewise a villain can be a protagonist and have dozens of woman against society, women against fellow women, women against self, women against nature, women against dogs, etc, etc. Movies are not just about sympathy they can be more than that.

Why do we ask these questions for one type of movie but not another? Why is it a women villian, who wants a fur coat and suddenly we are questioning the motives for a movie most of the people questioning have not seen.

Well I seen it and I like it, if you do not want to see it that is fine. But most of you are wrong if you prejudge what the movie is about

( Also feel free to wait for it to be free streaming, it is a solid B+, but the movie is fun and we all need an excuse to leave our house if one can do it safely with vaccinations. )

I think you are confused with what I said. I specifically mentioned my distaste of creating stories of sympathy and redemption for those undeserving or trying to create backstories to justify awful actions. That is my specific issue with the film.

I wouldn't have any issues if they had picked a villain by circumstance like the butler from Aristocats if they want to write about a potentially sympathetic backstory, or a villain with still unexplored plot elements like Hades (the god killing potion, the different appearance from the other gods, his desire to govern the Olympus and his relation with the Fates) or at the very least, be a complex villain like Frollo for character study material.

Cruella has none of these qualities. There is a lot of 101 Dalmatians media out there. This isn't even the first time she was given backstory. Her motives are simple and petty. And no, she isn't a victim of circumstances. I don't see anything worth a 2hr run film for me.

[Maryring]

The same could be said of the Wicked Witch of the West in the 1939 movie, as a purely petty villain with no other goal than to steal the Ruby Slippers from Dorothy,

and yet the Wicked book and musical, which turn an unsympathetic villain into a sympathetic one, without ever crossing the line into making them a hero, were very successful.

Wanting to steal back an item that was looted off the corpse of your sister by her (accidental, but still) killer before the corpse was even cold is a lot easier to make sympathetic than a dog killer whose defining trait is wanting to kill puppies to make a fashion coat. Especially since the movie gave the Wicked Witch very few evil things that she does on screen.

And has already been said. A Cruella movie sells itself by stating the question "Do you want to watch the movie about why the puppy killer became a puppy killer?" It's completely fair to answer that question with "no, not at all, and why on earth would I want to do that?"

[Kitten Champion]

I figure the "why make Cruella, or Maleficent, or Joker, or Wicked Witch of the West, a protagonist" has the same answer in all cases - charisma. Turning charismatic villains into protagonists works.

Apparently Cruella is quite popular. Like, she wins favourite villain polls among fans.

Personally, she's one of the most one-dimensional and deeply unsympathetic of all the Disney villains and doesn't stand high on my "make a solo live-action film about them"-list I could plausibly make. However, yeah, on metric of sheer entertainment she's easily the most memorable thing about the 101 Dalmatians. With a creative design, some great animated movements and facial expressions, and Betty Lou Gerson's performance she definitely stands out.

So I can see why she's popular, but on the other hand it's a... difficult character to write for one of these. Like, I certainly couldn't do it. I'd need to remake her into something like Nicole Kidman's character in Paddington, I guess.

[Ramza00]

Cruella has none of these qualities. There is a lot of 101 Dalmatians media out there. This isn't even the first time she was given backstory. Her motives are simple and petty. And no, she isn't a victim of circumstances. I don't see anything worth a 2hr run film for me.

Who says she is a victim of circumstances?

Also laughing at another post that I can't explain without spoilers, so here is your spoiler block.

Spoiler

Show

Wanting to steal back an item that was looted off the corpse of your sister by her (accidental, but still) killer before the corpse was even cold is a lot easier to make sympathetic than a dog killer whose defining trait is wanting to kill puppies to make a fashion coat. Especially since the movie gave the Wicked Witch very few evil things that she does on screen.

*whistles*

[DaOldeWolf]

Who says she is a victim of circumstances?

No one is which is precisely my point. Since there is no depth to her character, no grand motivation, no big unexplored elements to her or even a narrative reason within the story that might justify her actions (like being the victim of circumstance), there is nothing especially new or interesting to explore here.

[Ramza00]

No one is which is precisely my point. Since there is no depth to her character, no grand motivation, no big unexplored elements to her or even a narrative reason within the story that might justify her actions (like being the victim of circumstance), there is nothing especially new or interesting to explore here.

Explain Chicago (2003) ?

[DaOldeWolf]

Explain Chicago (2003) ?

Not sure what you want me to explain?

Chicago isn't a sequel or prequel centered around the villain to any franchise (as far a as I know). Context here is important. This isn't a random film about a random character. This is a film trying to give a sympathetic and justifying backstory to a Disney franchise villain that after this movie will try to go on a puppy killing (and stealing) spree (more than once depending on what might be considered canon).

[Ramza00]

Not sure what you want me to explain?

Chicago isn't a sequel or prequel centered around the villain to any franchise (as far a as I know). Context here is important. This isn't a random film about a random character. This is a film trying to give a sympathetic and justifying backstory to a Disney franchise villain that after this movie will try to go on a puppy killing (and stealing) spree (more than once depending on what might be considered canon).

You are keeping making the claim of Disney wanting a “sympathetic and justifying backstory”, and I am disagreeing with this claim.

[Psyren]

Cruella is that b-word that tried to skin dogs.

That's her only claim to recognition. If we're not actually seeing the story of the b-word that tried to skin dogs, why is it even called Cruella?

You keep talking about a grand continuity, but LITERALLY NOBODY is arguing that. They're saying that a movie featuring a character from 101 Dalamatians that takes place prior to the events of 101 Dalmatians which also has other characters from 101 Dalmatians is a prequel. There's no giant corkboard of continuity madness, it's a literal straight line which you have to jump through hoops to justify it not being in the same universe.

Exactly. It's not like she's Lex Luthor and you can tell a wide variety of stories in the Cruella mythos. She's known for one key act of villainy, and if you remove that - which you pretty much have to do if you want her to be any shade of sympathetic - you might as well start with an original character. But hey, there's no money in that.

Now, I'm not saying anything about the movie's quality. It may be great. After all, I greatly enjoyed Joker, which is a Batman prequel. However, I completely understand someone not wanting to see it because we know where the character ends up. It's a prequel.

The difference with Joker is twofold: first it's about a guy who clearly is not the Joker we know (among many other indicators, he's contemporary with Thomas rather than Bruce), and second Joker himself is far more of a concept or a title than "Cruella" could ever be. You can have a Joker origin about an unconnected character because Joker is an idea - there is no one highly specific act of villainy that causes the idea of Joker to implode if removed. Cruella meanwhile is... well, Dienekes summed her up.

You are keeping making the claim of Disney wanting a “sympathetic and justifying backstory”, and I am disagreeing with this claim.

You do know what protagonists are right?

Even Infinity War had to make Thanos sympathetic to a degree, because he was the protagonist of that film.
Even Death Note had to make Light Yagami sympathetic to a degree as well, because he was the protagonist of that series.

No sympathy = failed protagonist, regardless of their alignment.

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Gladly

[Thrudd]

You are keeping making the claim of Disney wanting a “sympathetic and justifying backstory”, and I am disagreeing with this claim.

So you're saying Disney is intentionally making a movie about an unsympathetic psychopath, and the audience is meant to revile her throughout?

[Willie the Duck]

Yes, but I will argue a trace of an image, which has been traced again and again and again so much that only nerds point out where the images were changed ... a formed enough image in the public's mind stands for reinvention and that is the nature of culture and fashion.

How many nerds can point out X imagery comes from John Milton's Paradise Lost? X can be lots of things but lets say the "imagery" of death which is then appropriated by other fictional characters?

You'd be surprised. If you know, then likely the other (nerds is a self-included term, yes?) nerds do too.

Subverting the image, subverting the trace is literally how culture works and it is not unique to this one movie. It happens all the time. And the movie is self-aware enough of what it is doing that it plays with conventions and expectations like a performance.

Yes. Re-imaging, re-interpreting, and re-framing a story or concept is something that happens all the time. Oftentimes playing with who is the villain or how villainous they are is a major way to change the story around. And that's what this story is -- it is Maleficent, or maybe the upcoming Loki (another character we saw being absolutely horrific somehow becoming charmingly roguish through reinterpretation) series. I don't see anything about this one that is specifically different.

That said, people are correct that the draw of this movie (like Maleficent or Loki) is 'come see what we've done with this character for whom you already have strong feelings.' It is perfectly reasonable for someone's response to be 'that doesn't interest me.' I think on its own merits and if the movie does not owe anything to an existing continuity, it works fine enough as a delightful villain romp similar to the recent Joker movie, it's just arguable if that's the case.

The more I think about it, the more I think this movie is most similar to Maleficent. It to, had very little in ways of arguing why anyone would want it... but if you're okay with the premise, is not a bad movie.

[Ramza00]

You do know what protagonists are right?

Even Infinity War had to make Thanos sympathetic to a degree, because he was the protagonist of that film.
Even Death Note had to make Light Yagami sympathetic to a degree as well, because he was the protagonist of that series.

No sympathy = failed protagonist, regardless of their alignment.

Protagonist is a Greek word made famous in Aristotle’s poetics where he was comparing different types of plays several hundred years old at the time of Aristotle’s writing.

Protagonist merely means first actor in Greek in a literal sense, and the first actor speaks about his motivations to the audience “off screen” where the action pauses in certain type of stories that Aristotle was talking about.

————

And this literally happens where Cruella is the omniscient narrator telling her backstory when she was 13 before time traveling to age 25. We think at first Cruella the narrator takes place between the transition from Act 1 to Act 2, but it is actually the transition from Act 2 to Act 3 and Cruella learns a bit of trusty that recontextualizes all the scenes that occur prior. Act 2 Cruella thought she knew everything, but Act 3 knew far more, and at the start of Act 3 she is no longer the omniscient narrator for her story is not finished and stuff then happens.

So yes I know what protagonist means

————

I do not know what you mean by Sympathize or the similar word Empathize for those words are a washed from meanings and they came from two different language traditions, and they have gained additional meanings since then.

Rudolf Lotze coined Empathy (this is contested) with Sympathy being far older in English and how people used the word Sympathy is not constant. What Hume and Smith meant by Sympathy is sometimes Empathy in modern lingo other times Sympathy and it was already a 200+ year old English word before those two moral philosophers talked about it and a dozen different famous people after them from poets to psychologists to other philosophers.

————

Can we follow the train of logic of Cruella, yes. It all makes sense from her perspective as the story unfolds. Can we support all her choices she makes? The answer is no but some will say yes. Is Cruella aware of her actions and how it affects other people the answer is very much yes.

Do you want more of a list?

So you're saying Disney is intentionally making a movie about an unsympathetic psychopath, and the audience is meant to revile her throughout?

Hardly. I am saying people are human and still can be villainous.

But also cheer and see something as vile or wicked at the same time. These are two separate emotions and you can feel them at the same time much like you can feel joy at another person good or bad fortune.

That said, people are correct that the draw of this movie (like Maleficent or Loki) is 'come see what we've done with this character for whom you already have strong feelings.' It is perfectly reasonable for someone's response to be 'that doesn't interest me.' I think on its own merits and if the movie does not owe anything to an existing continuity, it works fine enough as a delightful villain romp similar to the recent Joker movie, it's just arguable if that's the case.

I am fine with people not wanting to see it. But let me have my self absorb fun needling people who are also self-absorbed when they ask a question like I do not understand why something exists? And then expect things exist to please their sensibilities.

We live in the world of abundance, thinking things should own flatter them and make them happy is missing how vast this world is.

Put another way from another Disney Property

Spoiler

Show

When someone begs the question, do not be surprised when someone points out the logic is circular and you just want to assert your opinion in faux objectivity.

Subjectivity is good, everyone embrace it please

[Willie the Duck]

I am fine with people not wanting to see it. But let me have my self absorb fun needling people who are also self-absorbed when they ask a question like I do not understand why something exists? And then expect things exist to please their sensibilities.

I don't think people have been doing that, they have been saying that this thing does not please their sensibilities. They have not been demanding it do so.

We live in the world of abundance, thinking things should own flatter them and make them happy is missing how vast this world is.

People haven't been saying that thing should flatter them and make them happy, they've been saying they don't think they would like a movie, nothing more or less.

Put another way from another Disney Property

Spoiler

Show

Wow. Physician, heal thyself.

When someone begs the question, do not be surprised when someone points out the logic is circular and you just want to assert your opinion in faux objectivity.

Exactly who is the individual you think has declared their position to be the objective one?

Subjectivity is good, everyone embrace it please

Again, physician heal thyself.

[Psyren]

So yes I know what protagonist means

Knowing the etymology/dictionary definition of the word, and what makes one effective, are two different things.

Disney knew they should at least try for sympathy when they threw in the unintentionally hilarious "dalmatians killed my mom you guys!" Start of Darkness scene into this movie - which is being roundly and rightfully mocked and ridiculed. I don't blame them for trying, but again, this just isn't the character that kind of expansion can really work on.

[Ramza00]

Knowing the etymology/dictionary definition of the word, and what makes one effective, are two different things.

Disney knew they should at least try for sympathy when they threw in the unintentionally hilarious "dalmatians killed my mom you guys!" Start of Darkness scene into this movie - which is being roundly and rightfully mocked and ridiculed. I don't blame them for trying, but again, this just isn't the character that kind of expansion can really work on.

You have not watched the movie yet you think you know a thing. I already said the movie is not about that, like at all.

[Keltest]

You have not watched the movie yet you think you know a thing. I already said the movie is not about that, like at all.

If the question is "Why would anybody ever want to go see this?" then answering with "you arent allowed to make any judgements about it at all" is just going to be interpreted as "so it has no redeeming values and we shouldnt go see it."

I think you need to tone down the hostility about 3 notches here friend, because its really getting in the way of your point. Youve been taking criticism of the movie bizarrely personally since the start, even by the standards of somebody defending something they liked. If somebody is misjudging the movie, dont just tell them theyre wrong and to get out, explain what, exactly theyre getting wrong, and why the difference matters.

[Ramza00]

If the question is "Why would anybody ever want to go see this?" then answering with "you arent allowed to make any judgements about it at all" is just going to be interpreted as "so it has no redeeming values and we shouldnt go see it."

I think you need to tone down the hostility about 3 notches here friend. Youve been taking criticism of the movie bizarrely personally since the start, even by the standards of somebody defending something they liked. If somebody is misjudging the movie, dont just tell them theyre wrong and to get out, explain what, exactly theyre getting wrong, and why the difference matters.

The original question why was this ever made, like why does this exist, why did this get greenlight?

Which is a different question than why would I want to go see this. Yes I am taking this personally for no one asks why Batman V Superman exists, or horror, or romance comedies, etc. The question is offensive at its core. If you do not want to go see it fine, but please do not pretend one has a faux objectivity of what is good or bad.

Doing so makes a person speak out of place.

[Keltest]

The original question why was this ever made, like why does this exist, why did this get greenlight?

Which is a different question than why would I want to go see this. Yes I am taking this personally for no one asks why Batman V Superman exists, or horror, or romance comedies, etc. The question is offensive at its core. If you do not want to go see it fine, but please do not pretend one has a faux objectivity of what is good or bad.

Doing so makes a person speak out of place.

The two questions are basically the same. "Why does this exist?" "Who is this made for?" "What is the thought process behind deciding this needs to be a thing?" "Why would anybody want to go see it?" "What about this did they think was good?"

Theyre all going to have the same answer.

[Ramza00]

The two questions are basically the same. "Why does this exist?" "Who is this made for?" "What is the thought process behind deciding this needs to be a thing?" "Why would anybody want to go see it?" "What about this did they think was good?"

Theyre all going to have the same answer.

Can you imagine the question being rude? Yes or No?

[Sholos]

I suspect the answer to, "Why was this made?" is as simple as, "Disney thought people would pay to see it, regardless of quality." I don't think the main branch of Disney has all that much faith in its audience.

[Keltest]

Can you imagine the question being rude? Yes or No?

Only in the sense that a bad review is "rude." The movie is an inanimate thing, it cant feel offended. In this context it may be a bit scornful, but only because the answer is suspected to "nothing. There is no good reason why anybody would want to see this and it has few, if any redeeming features as a movie."

But every moviemaker or author needs to be able to answer that question well. Its a key question to the success of your product.

[Ramza00]

Only in the sense that a bad review is "rude." The movie is an inanimate thing, it cant feel offended. In this context it may be a bit scornful, but only because the answer is suspected to "nothing. There is no good reason why anybody would want to see this and it has few, if any redeeming features as a movie."

But every moviemaker or author needs to be able to answer that question well. Its a key question to the success of your product.

Can you believe that is one way to see the world but it is not the only way? That concepts like representation matters not just with actual people (like how you present real people like LGBT people) but also genre matters where one thing affects another thing, likewise how representation matters with how people move through society and interact with other people?

Can you believe that, by which I mean can you see that? (I do not believe we can separate belief from seeing, they are linked, what makes sense uses organizational principles one of which is belief in order to bring order to shapes and other aesthetics.)

—————

Put another way would you ask a political movie, why did someone greenlight you?

Would doing so be a rude question?

[Keltest]

Can you believe that is one way to see the world but it is not the only way? That concepts like representation matters not just with actual people (like how you present real people like LGBT people) but also genre matters where one thing affects another thing, likewise how representation matters with how people move through society and interact with other people?

Can you believe that, by which I mean can you see that? (I do not believe we can separate belief from seeing, they are linked, what makes sense uses organizational principles one of which is belief in order to bring order to shapes and other aesthetics.)

—————

Put another way would you ask a political movie, why did someone greenlight you?

Would doing so be a rude question?

Yes, i absolutely would. And i would expect a pretty good answer from a political movie, since theyre inherently going to be dated and likely poorly received by a portion of the audience, implying some deep need to get this particular movie out now.

And before you try and rephrase this another dozen ways that dont change my answer, how about we just skip to the part where you try and describe what actually makes this movie worth watching? Because your resistance to this is increasingly making me suspicious that you cant actually defend it being any good and just dont want to admit to enjoying something that you know isnt very good.

[Rodin]

Can you imagine the question being rude? Yes or No?

No, I really can't.

The thread has brought up why movies of this type are made - e.g Wicked, Maleficient, etc. There can be value in going back and looking at the motivations of villains who were not deeply explored in the original work, especially in the case of the Oz universe where there is a lot of underlying lore that most people are unaware of. Heck, it's what the Star Wars prequels should have done instead of spending all their time on the Clone Wars.

I've still yet to see a reason why Cruella of all people was picked out of the Disney canon other than "she's popular". Her motivation is shallow and evil - she's a rich person who wants a puppy fur coat, and if that means stealing and slaughtering a family's pets so be it. There isn't a lot to explore with that character, and the base premise of "Dalmations killed my parents" is laughable on its face. For the record, I feel the same way about Maleficient - she doesn't have enough of a personality in the original work to merit a movie exploring her dark and troubled past.

[Ramza00]

Yes, i absolutely would. And i would expect a pretty good answer from a political movie, since theyre inherently going to be dated and likely poorly received by a portion of the audience, implying some deep need to get this particular movie out now.

And before you try and rephrase this another dozen ways that dont change my answer, how about we just skip to the part where you try and describe what actually makes this movie worth watching? Because your resistance to this is increasingly making me suspicious that you cant actually defend it being any good and just dont want to admit to enjoying something that you know isnt very good.

Do you understand what punk is, and how it rejects authoritarian “normative” frames one person puts onto another and say you are only allowed to be acceptable in a way that I find accustomed too?

Hint this is one of the themes about this movie. Whether a baby girl who is born with two hair colors is a freak and how should society treat her, and is she the one who is wrong or is society / some people in society the true thing which is wrong?

She was born this way, should she change to make other people comfortable, is she taking up the wrong kind of space?

Hell she should have never been born at all some say? Just like her movie should never be made at all?

[Keltest]

Do you understand what punk is, and how it rejects authoritarian “normative” frames one person puts onto another and say you are only allowed to be acceptable in a way that I find accustomed too?

Hint this is one of the themes about this movie. Whether a baby girl who is born with two hair colors is a freak and how should society treat her, and is she the one who is wrong or is society / some people in society the true thing which is wrong?

She was born this way, should she change to make other people comfortable, is she taking up the wrong kind of space?

Hell she should have never been born at all some say? Just like her movie should never be made at all?

If youre attempting to sell me on the good qualities of the movie, you are not doing a terribly good job. A movie's theme isnt its quality. Is it a good movie? Would i want to watch it? Does it execute the theme well?

Current reviews seem to largely say "no, it does not, its laughably bad."

[Ramza00]

From Rotten Tomatoes

CRUELLA
PG-13 2021, Comedy/Kids and family, 2h 14m
73%
TOMATOMETER
258 Reviews
97%
AUDIENCE SCORE
1,000+ Verified Ratings

73% of critics gave it a positive rating and not a negative rating (27%)

[Keltest]

From Rotten Tomatoes

CRUELLA
PG-13 2021, Comedy/Kids and family, 2h 14m
73%
TOMATOMETER
258 Reviews
97%
AUDIENCE SCORE
1,000+ Verified Ratings

73% of critics gave it a positive rating and not a negative rating (27%)

Cool! I didnt know that! But youre still dancing around my question, and that tells me a lot more about the movie than critic reviews do.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Cool! I didnt know that! But youre still dancing around my question, and that tells me a lot more about the movie than critic reviews do.

+1 this. I think I'll be avoiding Cruella and find something else to watch for my first trek back to theaters.