Ever since she was a little girl, Cruella (Emma Stone) has never been one to play by the rules. She knows better, often causing trouble for herself and her mother Catherine (Emily Beecham). But finding herself homeless and without a family, spins Cruella in a direction she didn’t see coming. On the streets, she befriends Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Houser), who grow up together picking pockets and scraping by, living it rough. But Cruella still dreams to become a fashion designer, where she’s always shown a knack that is going to waste. After nabbing a job on the bottom-rung of a fashion agency, she awaits her big break, until she is swept up by mega fashion icon Baroness von Hellman (Emma Thompson). As Cruella grows in confidence, she will learn what she can from her self-absorbed mentor, all while looking to make a bigger name for herself on the sly. Cruella is directed by Craig Gillespie.
I was ready to hate this movie – making a protagonist out of arguably Disney’s purest villain, who epitomises evil and animal cruelty to boot, seemed like an unusual task to undertake from the very beginning. We already have a grand live-action depiction of Cruella de Vil as well, played by Glenn Close. But, let’s not judge a book by its cover (or a movie by its poster, as it is), and if enough people have put their money behind this project to make it work, then let’s hear it out. What’s Cruella de Vil’s backstory to me? I’ve never had a desire to think about it; but since Cruella exists, there is something fun about two despicable business tycoons trying to consume each other’s empire to reign supreme – if the movie had been entirely about that, then I think I could have truly gotten behind with it. But Cruella also depicts a bleeding-heart childhood and a sleepy exploration into family scandal, revolving around a ruby necklace, that I could have done without. To put it simply, when the story gives me an opportunity to revel in Cruella’s cruelty, I was inclined, but try and make me sympathise with her; I recoil at the thought.
It’s a sturdy soundtrack that does all the work keeping this movie’s energy up for a good while, until the Baroness shows up. Then the Baroness essentially exemplifies the same callous ‘badassery’ that we’d usually ascribe Cruella, and is the most eye-drawing character of the entire movie; are we going to get her backstory next? Maybe she’s not as bad as she seems, as well. This Cruella model for filling in the past could insist upon itself forever, couldn’t it? All ribbing aside, I should give the movie a few ticks – I like how the movie makes out that Cruella, Jasper and Horace are old friends, implying it’s their childhood bond that’s the reason the two crooks are willing to help the wicked ordeal of stealing puppies… later on. I was sceptical when I first saw Paul Walter Hauser cast as a ‘badun’, but I came to forget that he was putting on a British accent, and he and Joel Fry complimented each other rather well. The movie also looks gorgeous – considering Gillespie’s last movie was the brilliant I, Tonya, it’s good to see this movie’s direction and visuals back up that form. After a while it’s clear that this movie is meant to be a reimagining of Cruella’s story, and not a mere prequel providing the missing pieces to a concrete character that’s already so renowned; unlike Solo: A Star Wars Story and more like Joker, where traditionally good characters now come with question marks and there’s sympathy to share amongst the villains. These revelations are not letting this movie off the hook though, as I still really struggle to justify its existence; the idea to have Cruella’s mother murdered by dalmatian, as a sort’ve attempt to equate Cruella’s hatred for future actions is the most mind-boggling decision to me since Ernst Stavro Blofeld became James Bond’s brother – someone wrote that; someone was in charge of planning out that scene and the actors had to act it out. Cripes!
But I think this movie’s biggest problem is, who is its target audience exactly? Is it Disney fans, heist fans, female fans, the young or old? I just think in a competitive marketplace, where at least two new releases come out every week, if you’re not making a big statement to a certain number of people upon impact, then I can see a movie like Cruella getting thrown out of the societal psyche pretty damn quickly. Mind you, I write this having not seen any other audience reaction yet, and there could be a legion of passionate people already demanding Cruella 2. I personally wonder what this movie might have been like if another studio was behind the project perhaps, because try as I’m sure they did, Cruella feels safe, where the story involves two waring ladies who celebrate their unwavering ruthlessness and intelligence. It seems a little silly to say, since Disney is a big company with many voices coming through the doors, but a bit of searing wit, and antagonism that cuts to the wick, appears missing from this movie, and Cruella might be evidence towards a style of storytelling that sits in Disney’s family-friendly blind spot. Hmmm. I imagine Cruella might have shone brighter in the hands of Edgar Wright or Martin Scorsese; call me crazy.
Meryl Streep may have been excellent a few years ago, but the real DeVil wears dalmatians, and having sat with Cruella, I’ve softened enough to say that I am a little happy to see the crazed fashion designer return. And yet, this Harley-Quinn inspired anti-hero routine is severely lacking compared to the antiquated tried-and-true callousness of the original classic. Cruella De Vil is an icon of unscrupulousness, and I suppose it’s only natural for writers and filmmakers to want to get her out of the toybox, remould her, and play with her again. This movie is interesting, but not much more than that.
2.5
Leave a Reply