Cruella (2021)

I’ve never really been a fan of the 1961 animated adaptation of 101 Dalmatians, and missed the 1996 live-action remake (starring Glenn Close). However, even someone with as little interest in the material as I had knows the menacing spectre of Cruella De Vil. With her skeletal form, white fur coat, black dress, cigarette, and signature black and white hair, she has such a commanding presence. And of course, there’s her theme song. Yes, Cruella is certainly one the most iconic Disney villains and one of the scariest.

So when I heard that Emma Stone, who is one of my favourite actors, was going to be portraying this character, I shuddered. And not in a good way. Do not misunderstand me: I think Emma Stone did wonderfully in the role and brought some wonderful sympathy and depth to the character, but much like The Wicked Witch from Oz, the Great and Powerful, the charm and likeability of the actor made it difficult to accept the illusion. She’s not scary enough to me. Great actress, though.

Of course, that’s what the movie’s trying to do: give a unique perspective on a despicable character. There’s been no shortage of these kind of characters throughout cinema, but they’ve been cropping up a lot in modern media: Joker, Thanos, Noah, Megamind, Gru, the aforementioned Wicked Witch, Wreck It Ralph, Maleficent, etc. The unique thing about this is a twist on the idiom “everyone is the hero of their own story, even if they’re a villain in someone else’s.” The problem with these kinds of movies, and especially these kind of characters, is that there’s a lot of work that needs to go into the story and character to make them relatable and interesting, in addition to putting their terrible deeds on the back-burner.

Not that I ever saw Cruella as… THAT evil. Killing dogs is despicable enough and killing puppies is abhorrent. Having said that, she is a fashion mogul, so… this is kind of expected behaviour. I’m given to understand that it’s a very dog-eat-dog world. Additionally, she hired someone else (Horace and Jasper) to kill them. She’s the reason why and evil, but when you measure her up to killing and maiming people to achieve power like Jafar or Ursula… it’s exactly what her name is… cruel, but not evil. And what about Maleficent, who, in the animated Sleeping Beauty basically cursed a baby because she was insulted. That’s evil.

So, the real trick to these kind of movies is getting us to care about these kind of characters, which shows the strength of the storytelling skills if they do this successfully. I do feel empathy for Emma Stone’s character, but I’m not 100% convinced that this is Cruella De Vil. And there’s a lot, in terms of writing that undoes the good will that this movie has.

For starters, we get a cliched backstory, accompanied by narration: gifted child, isolated from society, kind of a tough-girl archetype, strays from the crowd, and dead parent (Disney’s biggest cliché). After child Cruella (at this point, her name is actually Estella, played wonderfully by Emma Stone) inadvertently causes her mother’s death by crashing a party for her fashion idol, The Baroness (played to perfection by the amazing Emma Thompson). Ashamed, she flees to London, where she joins the thief gang of Horace and Jasper (see, I always thought that they were just her employees) and they begin a life of crime, with her making the disguises and helping to pull the heists. Ten years pass and they get her a present: a position at a fashion store that she adores. When she gets there, she’s employed as a maid and snubbed by the store manager. Until one day, she gets drunk on the night shift and redresses a mannequin in the window, prompting the Baroness (visiting the store) to hire her on as a designer.

Having finally gotten a real shot at a fashion job, Estella lives out her dream and her designs make an impression on the Baroness and the two grow closer. Until, Estella spies her mother’s necklace around her mentor’s neck, and resolves to steal it back, with the help of Horace, Jasper, and their new friend, fashion designer Art (“as in work of…”). They attempt to steal it at a gala, where she reveals herself, disguised as Cruella (in a fiery and impressive manner, I might add). Despite being set up as a person who throws others who upstage her out, the Baroness instead has a quick chat with Cruella, for reasons that are explained later, only for it to be revealed that she’s wearing the necklace that they’re trying to steal. A minor disruption is caused, and one of the Baroness’s dalmatians (which were the ones that pushed Estella’s mother off the cliff) eats it, where Cruella discovers that the Baroness killed her mother by using a dog whistle to summon said dalmatians.

She kidnaps the dalmatians and puts a word in with her reporter friend, Anita, who was cleverly woven into the story and doesn’t meet Roger (the Baroness’ lawyer who is later fired) in the movie at all. Over a very visually interesting montage, Cruella starts upstaging the Baroness doing public displays of her fashion prowess, while Estella sabotages her from within the organization. During this time, she devolves more and more into the Cruella personality, even to the point of mistreating Horace and Jasper, which they take issue with.

Of course, being the brilliant woman that she is, The Baroness deduces that Cruella and Estella are one in the same. She breaks into their flat and burns it down, leaving Estella to die, seemingly unconcerned with having killed her mother. The Baroness frames Horace and Jasper for the murder, but her sycophantic butler, John (played by an underutilized Mark Strong) saves her.

Why does he do this? Well, this twist is what nearly ruined the movie for me: The Baroness is Cruella’s birth mother and killed her adoptive mother because she thought it was a shakedown. John, when Cruella was born, was ordered to kill the baby as the Baroness didn’t want a child, but he gave her away. John devotes himself to helping Cruella claim her rightful place, while the city thinks that Cruella is dead. The Baroness is set to host a gala at her estate (mirroring the opening scene), which Cruella seeks to sabotage.

After breaking Horace and Jasper out of prison, apologizing to them, and enlisting their help, as well as John and Art, they conspire to take the Baroness down at her gala. They send black and white wigs to the guests so she can hide in plain sight. Cruella gets the Baroness to confess to her mother’s murder and expose herself as such by getting her (The Baroness) to push her (Cruella) off the cliff (again, mirroring the beginning, in a beautiful display of poetic symmetry). Of course, Cruella faked her death and had all the guests witness the event, meaning the Baroness gets imprisoned and Cruella takes over her mansion and her fortune.

So, here’s why the third act twist does not work for me. I always envisioned Cruella as a self-made woman, who’s ruthless tactics and shrewd business sense had made her a very rich and powerful person. This was someone who had earned the right to be feared and would do anything to get to the top. The fact that she was the heir to the Baroness’s fortune seemingly ruined this, as it felt like, as hard as she worked to achieve her revenge and as much as she struggled, it felt undone by the fact that she was born for this. It hurt the overall message by saying that she was born into greatness, rather than achieving it herself, like Rey from Rise of Skywalker.

There’s a brief scene where the Baroness says something like “the only way to get ahead is to be cruel.” Not a philosophy that I 100% agree with, but is not untrue. Anyways, Cruella really delves into that during the second act, which is where the movie shines. The ongoing struggle between Estella turning into Cruella and sabotaging the Baroness is enjoyable to watch. And we see just how far Cruella is willing to go to get her revenge and achieve her dreams. It’s honestly a good watch.

The second act is also where the costuming comes into prominence, which makes sense given that it’s a movie about fashion. There’s nary a thing that Emma Stone wears during this section that doesn’t radiate cool, and the Baroness always has stunning looking dresses. Personally, I don’t get the fashion, but that’s not really new for me. I really love the leather outfit that Cruella wears and the white coat bursting into flames to reveal the Baroness’ old design underneath, probably subtly symbolizing how she is the Baroness underneath or how she’s going to burn the Baroness down.

The first act really has a problem with the amount of narration in it. You’ve heard it before: “don’t use narration.” To be honest, I never really understood this “rule” as so many good movies have used narration effectively. Having said that, this film did make me realize why I hear this “rule” so often. The entire opening prologue (which lasts 20 minutes) is narrated when it doesn’t have to be. We can understand Cruella’s guilt and behaviour without the narration because the visuals and the acting come through. It came across to me as training wheels, holding our hand because it doesn’t trust us to put 2 and 2 together. With that said, you could argue that the narration is just Cruella being egotistical.

Despite a huge amount of liberty being taken, Cruella is very interesting to watch as a character. I’m a sucker for good psychologically tortured characters and suggesting that Cruella developed a split personality due to the trauma of losing her mother and blaming herself for being the reason why is a very interesting backstory. Her being a fashion prodigy early on is fine and setting up her need to rebel and take revenge is good. The true breakdown of her character in the second act, where she learns the twisted definition of “success” and starts applying it to her daily life is very engaging. And like I said, Emma Stone portrays this wonderfully and masterfully brings sympathy and empathy to this character.

The Baroness is the funhouse mirror of Cruella’s moral, having taken the lesson to the absolute extreme. She hints that Estella’s mother was not the only one that she’s killed, and tries to kill Cruella just to stay on top. Cruella does pull back and not kill her in the end, showing how much better she is than the Baroness. And Emma Thompson, who I usually know from more motherly or commander with a heart of gold roles, plays cold and heartless to absolute perfection. I got shivers every time she was on screen.

The other characters in the film don’t really do anything for me. As I mentioned, I though Mark Strong was under-utilized, and by casting him I knew that he had a bigger role in the movie that immediately thought. Jasper felt like the “simpleton in love with the savant” archetype, and the movie really didn’t need that. I’m glad that they didn’t confirm that he was in love with her, but that’s just the impression that I get. I felt like Art needed a bigger role. He was interesting on a visual level. The Baroness’s stooges were interchangeable, Anita and Roger were nice little touches and having them be so close to Cruella that she gave them the dalmatians in the end adds more to that story.

Honestly, the only character in the film, other than Cruella and the Baroness, that I enjoyed was Horace. He consistently got a laugh out of me, repeatedly stuck to his guns, and was a genuinely likeable character.

The sets in the film felt a little faded, but they are meant to convey the time period. Call me crazy, but I also think that there’s a lot of contrast between the dark and the light in this film as well, likely due to stylizing it like Cruella’s hairstyle. It keeps me engaged, though.

Though this wasn’t a movie I was keen on seeing and didn’t think needed to be made, I did find myself enjoying it way more than I thought. I loved the story of a talented and unappreciated person working their way to the top and doing so through deception and being conniving and cut-throat. True, I do feel that the good will of this message is undone by the “born for it” twist, but there is enough good characterization in the second act that I feel the movie deserves some attention.