Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Cruella De Vil: Our Fear and Awe of the Spinster
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 тра 2021
- The first 1000 people to use this link will get 30% off an annual Skillshare Premium membership: skl.sh/thetake05214
Perhaps what’s always been most frightening and explosive about Cruella de Vil is that she’s an older, single woman who doesn’t much care for the ideas of marriage and family. In the 1961 Disney adaptation, Cruella became happily single and anti-domesticity, and beginning with the 1996 live action film starring Glenn Close, she also became a career-driven girlboss of the fashion world. As this epitome of villainy gets the sympathetic-star treatment in 2021's Cruella starring Emma Stone, the centering of Cruella indicates a growing respect for her type, while her lingering evil betrays that the rebellious, nontraditional woman still has the power to unsettle us. Here’s our Take on Cruella’s journey to becoming a protagonist, and how she encapsulates our culture's fear and awe of the archetypal spinster.
Support The Take:
Shop our Limited Edition Merch: www.the-take.com/shop
Support our channel and look great doing it with Take t-shirts, hoodies, and more!
If you like this video, subscribe to our channel and support us by:
Joining our Patreon: / thetake vote on the topic we cover next, gain early access to videos and much more!
Follow The Take:
Facebook: / thisisthetake
Instagram: / thisisthetake
Snap: / 6898188394
Twitter: / thisisthetake
Website: the-take.com/
We are The Take (formerly ScreenPrism).
The first 1000 people to use this link will get 30% off an annual Skillshare Premium membership: skl.sh/thetake05214
nice
this video is terrible. Cruella is hated bc shes evil and sociopathic, not bc shes a businesswoman or single. Shes selfish, cruel and kills endangered animals for coats, stop trying to throw a political agenda that single women are dangerous, thats not the case at all, in fact id say majority of the hate cruella gets is from female viewership bc they hate that she wants to kill puppies.
Also your synopsis of miranda is completely wrong. Society didnt want her to fail, shes literally regarded as the top person to work for if you wanna make it in fashion bc shes so well-reknown. Stop forcing an antiwoman agenda. Miranda isnt evil, but she demands excellence in everthing as a perfectionist which spilled into her interpersonal relationships. Thats why she was so lonely and miserable at the end of the film..
Im sorry, whoever thinks cruella de ville ever thinks is the evilest in disney villains than scar or jafar? I swear the take is just a mouthpiece propaganda for weaponization of feminism. Nobody has ever thought that Cruella is the most evil villain among disney villains. In fact shes the most vanilla villain among disney villains. Now its time for you to cognitively connect your values with veganism and twisted stand on feminism
Can you do some trope videos covering the religious fundamentalist, the Blackshirt, or the Hypocrite character archetype?
It’s hard for me to make sense with those ANTI-FEMINISM girls ! I hope they read the room & keep their SUBMISSIVENESS under control, stop defending men when you’re not a man . Anyway wasn’t Cruella in the original book once married to an owner of a fur factory 🤔 later he appeared in Glen Close version as someone works for her ! ... so I don’t know how exactly this important detail is forgotten even though the content is mainly built on this idea 🙄
I like the original cruella they gave her a big coat to make her seem more intimidating with her physique like the way a big boss man might do, she takes masculine tropes and feminizes them, the smoking, the brash and loud voice, the savagery she shows when she wants something to the point of obsession and using the car as a weapon!
Honestly I disagree - it’s not masculine traits, they drew from old Hollywood movie stars for this - that was the desired feminine emancipation trope in the 30’s.
@@Aesthety very true, but rarely is the flapper a figure of capitalist oppression for the willingness to engage in villainy and be in a position of power as the madmen associated with business.
Sure with her coat on she take a significant imposing amount of space like a broad back/shoulder business man but removing the coat does not diminish her authority.
As such, it is empowering that Cruella does not have an imposing body because she is not a brutish caricatures of Wallstreet of fatness or broadness. The character further creates humor and awareness from possessing a dainty female body, slimness to point of fragility, is not exempt from acts of vile wicked sickness.
@@salmahernandez3142 I disagree. Drawing the visual relevancy between broadness and brutishness vs slimness and fragility is vey literate and unwittingly “on the nose”. There was never a relation between size of body and the degree of power - other than that of antique warrior logic. But certainly not in capitalist dynamics. You’re basing your idea on some cartoonish caricatures. Moreover I said old Hollywood movie star, not flapper there is a massive difference between these two tropes. Women had premeditated fearsome, emancipated archetypes available to them way before whatever 4th feminism discourse makes us believe. She’s the embodiment of Greta Garbo more so than Josephine Baker. Her aesthetic taste as much as her conduct depicts that to a T. For more info I invite you to watch the analysis on my channel
@@Aesthety excellent. I'll add your video analysis to my list.
Regarding the "on the nose" and "antique warrior logic" caricature being clearly obvious as it is a cartoon and it helped in my childhood reinforce my parent's teachings that anyone can be bad and evil.
You are correct I disregarded old original Hollywood aesthetic from my own limited framing of old Hollywood being from the 50's. When you mentioned Greta Garbo I could immediately see how that would be more befitting.
I am still a little puzzled where/why the 4th feminist arguement for making no empowered women believe before modern times, but I will take it as the general population not educated at a surface level to history beyond 30 or so years. In any case I look forward to seeing your video.
@@salmahernandez3142 apologies, I actually misread your previous point - it does seem to seal the point that she can be intimidating WITHOUT the need to possess sense of physical intimidation stemming from broad body. It sure as hell can create a sense of empowerment! I stand corrected.
As for the 4th wave feminism argument - yes, that is exactly what I meant! Thank you
Joker: "We live in a society"
Cruelly: "We live in a Disney movie"
It's interesting to note that Cruella was actually written long before Joker was even pitched, filmed and released.
@@trinaq and in the book she was married, so these movies took her husband away from her and are now "empowering" her into something she actually isn't.
@@availanila No one cares about the husband, no ooone.
Society = Disney movie. ;)
@@trinaq comiic wise no
To me, what's most terrifying about Cruella is that she is the most real out of all the Disney villains.
She's a cold and manipulative psychopath who doesn't care about anyone but herself and seems to take pleasure in hurting others who can't fight back, in her case, defenseless puppies.
Unlike most mystical or magical Disney villains, Cruella actually could exist in the real world.
Edit: Yes, Mother Gothel, Judge Frollo, and Lady Tremaine, at least in the first Cinderella, are realistic as well. Thank you to those who pointed it out.
I'd argue Mother Gothel and Judge Claude Frollo are more realistic. Mother Gothel is a pro at gaslighting her daughter, and Frollo is a religious zealot with a holier than thou complex. So many people can relate to being gas lighted by a parent, and a lot of people hate organized religion because of people like Frollo
well shes one of the most realistic along side with mother Gothel and Judge Frollo.
I'd say the same about Lady Tremaine too
How about Dolores Umbridge?
@@akiram6609 She's not Disney, but yes, she is awful and represents the corruption of both the government and the school system at large.
Personally, I never thought Cruella was that old, she just didn’t take care of herself. She smokes in every other scene, her skin is gray and she’s basically a skeleton with skin. You can also see a bent spoon by her bed, make of that what you will.
She’s also supposed to be Anita’s age, who doesn’t look that old either.
Exactly. It's very explicitly stated that Anita and Cruella went to school together (either high school or college) and that's why they know each other despite being of very different social classes. Anita is quite clearly in her 30s at the absolute oldest. Cruella is just a hard living smoker and is, also, the kind of woman who would starve herself to a skeletal state (while, also, having the money to "supplement" her looks with unflattering plastic surgery since her extreme upturned nose seems to imply a nose job to me). Cruella, basically, makes herself look much older than she is. In terms of looks, she's always given me strong Wallis Simpson vibes (who was also obsessed with maintaining an extremely thin frame) though I don't know if she was an inspiration in her design at all.
As a kid I thought she was an octogenarian who ALSO didn’t care for her skin 😂 I really bought into the evil = ugly = old trope that Disney likes. She looks Yzma from Emperor’s New Groove lol
As a kid, I thought being that awful a person made her ugly. I mean, bad guys out for world domination are common in movies and rarely happen in reality. A bad guy who hunts down puppies to wear them and no other real 'evilness' was just worse somehow.
Does Cruella get very angry and bend the spoon with her thumb? Or is that another Disney villain that abuses silverware?
@@JohnB-nj5io Nah shes just aware she's in the matrix
The Take: what makes Cruella stand out from other villains is the fear she brings because-
Me *cuddling with my dog on the couch while I watch this*: yeah her love of killing anima-
The Take: -the fact that she’s a single woman
Me: what
Exactly! Animal cruelty is what stand the most about her… and her hair.
They really have a single agenda. Because I hear this discussion before in they other video
I allways yhought she was unmarried and single bc nobody wanted a psycho puppy murder for a romantic relationship :v
@@christianebuchheim2730 ikr, shes single bc shes evil, not the other way around.
Yeah, that particular take of theirs is starting to get stale lol
Cruella deville is not a punk icon she's a corporately sanctioned girlboss which is about the furthest thing you can get from being punk
Agreed, Cruella doesn't exactly scream "Punk Icon", but she's a self made, single woman who subverts societal expectations.
They’re talking about the new one. She went from old money heiress, to fashion establishment, to punk fashionista and Grrrl! power in the latest iteration. The ever changing societal values and expectations. Conservative, liberal capitalism, underclass anarchy
This. Thank you
This!
Bet we'd be hard-pressed to find a single punk who thinks she's iconic. 🤔
After having worked in the fashion industry I'm not surprised Cruella ended up thinking skinning puppies for coats was a good idea, even as she started so far removed from that
thank you, the movie is not bad
"Shall I get you a step stool so you can look in my eyes when you threaten me?" Cruella DeVil
Ooh, talk about an epic burn! I always did love Cruella's scathing insults! 😎
@@trinaq me too
So the redemption story for Cruella isn’t going to address any of her animal abuse? That’s a huge part of her character, it’s kind of the essence of her evilness, her cruelty to animals. 🤷🏻♀️
I didn't saw the movie but I thought I hear damaltion kill her mother in the new one
@@Watch-0w1 I'm pretty sure that's a trope on TV Tropes somewhere.. not for Dalmatians specifically of course but "(Blank) Killed my (Blank) Now I must get revenge on all (Blank)!"
@@Watch-0w1
That’s fucking hilarious. I couldn’t make this shit up if I was high.
That’ll probably come up once Disney remakes 101 Dalmatians
@@Watch-0w1 That sounds sooo dumb that I had to look up the film on wiki to confirm. What the actual fuck?
Everyone: She's evil because she literally wants to kill 101 puppies for a jacket
The take: She's seen as a villan because she's single and old
Yup...my thoughts exactly 😂
Typical the take outtake...
@@Aesthety yes!!!
@@rebeccamelara664 I used to like the take but the recent videos they have been releasing have been just misses. This being the biggest.
@@shelbymckinney8888 For me their worst video was the one in which they call Harry Potter a villain, because he acts out while suffering PTSD and trauma. That video just astounded me beyond words. So many people bash Harry for being “whiny” in OoTP, despite everything he’s been through and The Take straight up says he’s not a hero or role model. According to them Hermione should have been the hero, and they conveniently ignore her flaws while demonizing Harry for being a regular flawed teenager. I can say for certain that if Harry was a girl that video would not have been made and instead the Take would have talked about what a great feminist icon the character was.
In the book she has a husband, he’s the one who kills and skins the animals and makes her fur coats.
She’s still an accessory
So
The cartoon Cruella was supposed to be around 30 years old. She probably looked like that because she never ate any food, chain smoked, prob had some other substance abuse issues (she mentioned that she was always miserable and wretched feeling), intense rage issues and in general had a rotten core that caused her to prematurely age
Or because Disney didn’t want to portray a pretty young women as a villain.
@@jaimicottrill2831 or because in other times the kids movies were suposse to be for kids. So it has to be complettly easy for them to understand whose the villain, wholesome colours for the heroes, black white and red for the villain
Jaimi Cottrill 30 isnt even old
@@gingerisevil02 is was considered “oldish” to be unmarried at 30 in those days!
@@jaimicottrill2831 It still is not cause that misogyny isn't antiquated. People still think unmarried women int heir 30's are basically worthless. but 30 is not old.
Do you think Cruella had girl power?
"Yes"
Do you think she effectively utilized girl power by trying to kill puppies to make a coat and being responsible for the death of hundreds of animals in the sake of fashion?
I love the Eric Andre reference
The Take: We'll be right back
it's called girl power because she was alone in it.
get it? if it was just one man no one would say that it's "boy power" or some other shitty label because you expect the man can do it on his own. how they use the term "girl power" has nothing to do with the morality of the actual thing the characters do.
she was alone, single, without a man to help her. that was what actually mattered. cruelty to animals was just a by product because she can't be bothered to commit to killing people. she has restraint.
power is power. there is no morality in it by itself.
@@andreaaacruzer5318 she still killed puppies...
I guess this truly does make her Anna Wintour who was responsible for bringing back fur when many designers had stopped using it.
I wish they did a prequel movie for The Devil Wears Prada
Now THAT’s a movie I’d love to see. I’ve always assumed that Miranda herself was the “smart fat girl” when she started out just like Andie but through her talent and ruthlessness was able to rise to the top of her industry
That's actually a really good idea tbh. At least she didn't try to kill puppies.
nah... it would be just another cliche. Miranda used to be a sweet girl once but then she had heart broken, had a terrible boss, or a terrible bf, or toxic parents who destroyed her heart and soul and look at her now. yawn.
Anna P I dunno, i think they could do something interesting with the character. Unlike Cruella, I don’t think Miranda is an evil woman or even a bad person. Maybe it could show how a very smart but unglamorous girl could actually lean into her smarts and natural cunning to rise up in the fashion industry (where traditionally looks and glamour are the most important attributes)
@@bryanalstoncoxing dunno. my perception of Miranda, especially from the book, was that she was actually a really bad and even evil person, beyond any redemption, having destroyed so many people :( it was hard to imagine what kind of environment she must have grown up in to become somebody so heartless and callous.
The Take: Cruella is seen as evil because she's a single older woman
The rest of the world: Wow, i never thought about it like that! And i never will
@@SailorDoggo Not even the 60s was that. It's a reach.
@@SailorDoggo It is a reach. Cruella doesn't deal well with being denied what she wants, probably because she's always been rich and always could get what she wants. She wants that fur coat made of dalmatian puppies, so she wants those puppies, no matter what way. Her looks are more digging into the upcoming 1960s 'thin model' aesthetics. She's a fashion addict who has her own idea of beauty and that beauty includes her thinness - which she supports with her smoking (killing hunger with nicotine is a strategy used by many in the past). She says herself that fur clothing is her love - and she doesn't react well to being denied it.
If I murder someone’s dogs, now I have an excuse. I’m a single boy, so that means my backstory to why I murder puppies is complete.
If the message of a movie was just "skinning puppies is bad" it wouldn't be a very interesting movie. The skinning of the puppies allows you to identify the villain. The characteristics that separate her from the protagonists allow you to associate those characteristics with villainy.
👏👏👏
Thank you!
One of my favorite lines of all time is from animated Cruella: "This horrid little house is your dream castle. And poor Roger, he's your bold and fearless Sir Galahad!" followed by mocking, uproarious laughter. Boss as fuck, lol.
The Take: She's treated as the most evil because she's single and old.
Everyone else: Pretty sure it's the puppy killing...
😂 😂 😂
I was thinking the same thing
The rare times that The Take missing the take 🤣
@@thekiwisqu33z34 yup; this exactly. It always comes down to cultural significance. In western society, dogs are seen as family members, so any act of violence against them is seen as a crime. But then, like you said, we do exploit other animals for their meat or skin, like cows, which are considered sacred in other cultures, like in India. This being said, we’d all be a bunch of Cruella’s in these societies.
@@julietafernandez6350 it's not about cows being sacred or dogs being family members. It's about both these species being sentient. You wouldn't kill a child who was not your family member, would you? You wouldn't kill an atheist just because they are not 'sacred', would you?
If Cruella was married, had chilldren and had no career she would still be villian, because SHE WHANTS TO MURDER THE PUPPIES !!!
Is anyona gonna say that Jafar or Frollo were made evil just because thay were unmarried and had a succesfull carrier ( if we can call it that way) ?
But, if woman are in the same position, you immidiatly think, that thay are villified, just because of thair lifestyle, not the actions.
P.S. Sorry for bad English and possible gramatic mistakes
The point is that if she was married, had children and no career, she wouldn't want to kill puppies. Socially, this tropes only raise a flag when applied to women, killer or not.
@@ericabaqueiro8142 in the book she was married and had a sone
@@nani2155 i haven't read the book, so I can't give an opinion about it, but they said in the video that she didn't pay attention to her family, so i suppose it's similar to have no family and equally bad. Plus, I believe the video focuses more on the movie adaptations, since there's three of them, and cinematography and literature work with different languages
@@ericabaqueiro8142 what?
@@ericabaqueiro8142 having children or a husband doesn't mean you pay attention to them. Cruella's focus is on fashion, not her family. Yet, that means she's not a spinster who kills other people's babies because she's a monster - she's an egoistical woman who loves fur coats and is prepared to commit crimes (or have others commit them) so she gets what she wants. That makes her, in general, a pretty realistic villian.
The 'the adaptions tell us the true story' argument doesn't really work. A lot of movies are 'in name only' or not even that. Disney left out the husband, probably because he wasn't important to the story and book-to-movie adaption always cut material not necessary for the core story. Same for the live-action versions - Cruella's family isn't needed, so they're not in the movie. That doesn't necessarily make it a symbolic decision, merely a financial one (less actors to hire).
I mean, Disney cut Angeline Fowl from their "Artemis Fowl" production - eradicating the only positive aspect in the MCs life at that point and the future mother of his future twin brothers... Adaptions don't have to be faithful and choices in them don't have to make any sense.
Cruella was already an "ICON" as a fashionista villain. Shes already amazingly devilish.
She didnt need a sympathetic background, shes a old lady that wants a puppy coat cuz it would look pretty on her, thats it.
Yeah that’s part of what I liked about her character. She’s a rich sociopath with rage issues and a stellar sense of style and fashion. What else is really needed to know about her?
@@bryanalstoncoxing i worked for THAT version of her. Only when i was doing projects for her company she had 3 teacup chihuahuas that were so mean they had to be sedated to go to the vets. The biggest one was 8lbs but the vet insisted they be sedated before appointments
@@kellylockwood8287 wow I’m sorry you had to work for someone like that it sounds awful but also PLEASE elaborate if you don’t mind
It was inevitable. Cruella was always kinda an old baddie and her drip is undeniable 🤷🏾♂️
she skins puppies alive and drowns kittens ? yeahh such a baddie ..
@@amy-rq3ur i hope you dont wear leather, mink, crocodile, rabbit hide, or even wool. Cows and sheep are still mistreated and its animal cruelty but since we eat their meat its okay. I'm not saying that I agree with cruella killing dogs and cats but we all have some cruel in us for supporting an industry that mistreats animals.
@@harmonyx9189 ive been vegetarian the majority of my life and am now vegan. I would never ever dream of wearing fur and actively campaign against using animals for profit. It’s disgusting and inhumane. The fact you’re trying to defend a character who drowns several litters of kittens and attempts to skin puppies alive makes me concerned for humanity.
@@amy-rq3ur im not trying to defend her. I even said that I don't agree with cruella in my first reply, please read before you write. And I never will agree that what she did was okay. its just many people forget that we do the same with animals that aren't normally pets. I meant no hate and im super happy that you do actively campaign against using animals.
Ppl insist on missing the point. I always loved her fits!
People really Disney villains like Ursula..who tf likes Cruella??? She may be a “less extreme menace” but dude SHE STILL SKINS PUPPIES.
I loved her when i was a kid but i dont think i understood the part about killing puppies lol
I mean you don’t like her as a person but the characters itself.
@@juanitacanon3120 yeah. “we love to hate the villain” or something like that as they say
Have you ever seen someone miss the point so badly it physically hurts you
Cruella didnt took down the establishment, she became the establishment 🙄
Just like a lot of people that tried to take down the establishment
@@kittykittybangbang9367 but cruella never had a problem with the establishment in the first place lol
She literately got the establishment arrested for murder wtf are you talking about?
To echo an above comment:
The Take: “What makes Cruella so terrifying?
Me: the fact the she perpetrates an extreme amount of capitalist exploitation and exhibits little to no regard for any life but her own (she treats Anita and anyone else who works for her like utter crap) even to the point of torturing and murdering animals for her own gain??
The Take: She’s a rebel!! She is a punk icon! She is an older, single woman!
Me: she is not a rebel. Or a punk. She is literally the model for psychopathic capitalist exploitation.
The Take: She’s become an aspirational figure!
Me: ummm...what.
I have to say...this video takes The Take’s white feminism to a whole new level. Congrats.
Cruelty is cruelty plain and simple
I've been the biggest 101 Dalmatians fan since I have memory... I never ever even thought about Cruella's relationship status... she's scary because she wants to kill puppies and has a bad temper.
It's not about her being a single woman or a "girlboss" or whatever. She literally killed puppies
Yeah this whole thing is a stretch. She wants to kill puppies
Hannibal Lecter literally ate people.
@@TheWoostergirl puppies>people
Cruella really doesn't need a sympathetic back story, but a Jafar back story, now that I'd watch!
Agreed, with all of the renowned Disney female villains suddenly gajning sympathetic back stories, I'd love to see Hades, Jafar or Frollo's origins get explored.
then you seriously need to watch Twisted - it's on UA-cam for free and it's one of the funniest and heartfelt Disney reimaginings so far!
@@lisaisaprincess23 If they try to do it to Ursula, I'll lose it!
@@user-cp1pi7qr1i noted, thank you!!
@@emmaw2634 To give you fair warning it also has a lot of "adult humor" such swears. It's still a great show though.
I thought it was said best when Daniel O'Brien pointed out that they were supposed to be classmates but Anita was a normal person and cruella was clearly a "thousand year old mantis". 😂
Amazing
I always thought that Glenn Close is the evil version of Meryl Streep.
@Graziela Almeida Yes!
Ever notice in older Disney cartoon movies, how the villain character is almost always drawn super skinny & angular? Maleficent, Cruella, Jafar, Snow White's stepmother.....
True! And the fairy godmother types are chubby! Sponsored by the junk food industry?
This was actually discussed in a Disney book (think it was The Illusion of Life or maybe an old interview). Basically, we emphasize with infants, so Disney princesses are designed to look like babies (big head, huge eyes) and the villains look angular/realistic because it contrasts them against the protagonist.
@@TheMedicatedArtist I think you mean empathize, not emphasize. But that makes sense.
Errrrm, are Ursula the Sea witch, Gaston, Stromboli or Madame Mim a joke to you?
I have quoted 4 examples to match your number (although there are more), and all of the villains I mentioned were in movies pre Aladdin (Jafar).
One only sees whatever they want to see in order to suit their narrative....
@@greyLeicester Relax, I said almost always. I didn't forget about Ursula, but I did in the moment forget about the others you listed. I just was making a point that the villains from older Disney movies were most often drawn very angular.
Glenn Close's Cruella at least valued her employee. Damn, that 101 dalmatians film made me want to pursue a career as a fashion designer.
Spoilers: I never became or will become one.
I don't think she's disliked for any of these reasons. It mostly come down to her willingness to murder puppies to make a coat. There's a trope called "kicking the puppy" which is used to show how awful a character is. She's not kicking them, she want to kill and skin them.
Seriously, I’m amazed to the lengths people go to get a “victimized woman” point shoved in there. Not a single person has said that she’s hated because of those reasons. She wants to kill and skin puppies. Plain and simple, that’s all you need to be hated.
In the book she drowns every litter of kittens her cat has. She’s horrible. Not into the redemption story.
God Damn It, why won't Just sterilise the poor thing
Cruella wanted to kill dogs in the original. Even if she was a dude she still would be evil.
By the way, try to remember that this is a prequel so however fun she looks, she still tries to kills puppies in the end so keep that in mind.
It's more alternate universe at the end. The Cruella at the end of the movie is definitely not gonna try and skin puppies.
No she doesn’t
The Simpsons actually did an episode where Mr. Burns wanted to make a coat out of the puppies which the Simpsons' dog had sired. Worked perfectly well as a 101 Dalmatians parody.
@@sammykent5752 Yes, they should make an Disney film with an alternative universe in which Pol Pot doesn't commit genocide. What a great family treat that would be.
@@_Sakidora_ what?
I was always just scared of her as a kid because I love animals and she instantly has it out for the dogs.
I hope Emma Stone will be the best part of the movie, pull a Maleficent in a sense. The role is fun after all!
Likewise, I adore Emma, and I can't wait to see her portrayal of an iconic Disney villain! 🤍🖤
i like emma and i love her acting but she is not cruella
Maleficent was terrible, tbh.
@@thankunext5602 you need to see her. She’s absolutely perfect.
Nothing like Glenn Close
Though I can see your point about the tradition to represent spinsters as evil, I think this video is quite a stretch. Audiences identify Cruella as evil because she is willing to kill innocent animals to satisfy her vanity, it has nothing to do with being single or a successful business woman. And you forgot to mention that the 90's remake of "101 Dalmatians" implies that Cruella had a tiger from the zoo killed and skinned to make a coat. Isn't that already a clear sign that the woman is clearly a psychopath? Plus, she was an elitist narcissist who treated Anita awfully in both the animated and live action versions; she viewed down on people poorer than her, like Roger; and she abused and mistreated the people working below her, incluidng Horace & Jasper and her employees in the 90's version. And she put a driver at risk of dying when she crashed her car against the truck to stop the dalmatians from escaping. Cruella is definitely a fun villain to watch, but she is undeniably a villain. Better look for actual positive examples of successful single women in the media instead of trying to make us empathise with an evil woman.
The heteronormative family unit: husband, wife, and 101 dogs. ;)
Interestingly enough the reason why they made her so ugly in the animated movie when the book described her more as a beautiful fashionista, was because Disney didn't think it would be a good idea to have a young, pretty woman as a villain.
Pretty much Cruella is just the Vegan's to villain. Her only real crime is that she is a vain and loves furs
Um also the fact that she wanted to kidnap a family’s dogs and wanted to skin them for a coat? I think that’s a lot different from “loving fur”
I mean also that she was going to kill puppies
@@vsh1998 I mean, it is Disney´s choice to make her like that? The book describes her as a pretty, evil, woman. A corporation in the 1950s having prejudices and making characters reflect certain prejudices...isn´t a far reaching concept, lol.
And that she kills endangered animals for their skins irregardless if they are owned. It isnt just dalmations, but tigers, panthers and other animals too.
@@naomisathyendra6973 Well, yes but it's a different Cruella then. Like each with it's own. Disney developed a personal character to their story, and undoubtedly she's evil for more that just being single... Like, she wants to commit murder, she treat people in a harsh way. I think, making the relation that they did is not a problem, however, she really evil for what she wanted something that you don't see single women want. Like she single fine, she wants to kill my dog, it becomes questionable no matter race, ethnicity or relationship status.
Nah....I'll be skipping this one. I don't like remaking villains into "relatable" characters anymore. I've seen enough of that from Maleficent (which I enjoyed watching, but don't want to see anything more come from these type of scripts) to Joker in Suicide Squad. I'm good.🤘🏽
Same here. I don't need to see villains rehabilitated. I'm fine with recognizing evil/immorality can exist without trying to soften or explain it.
And yet you took the time to type this word salad out?
Priorities people
You are in for a treat it’s not a redeeming story is a retelling of how she became who she is. It’s incredible. Don’t miss it.
Same but I’m watching it because I like Emma Stone lol
It was actually a great movie if you take it for what it is and don’t compare it to anything. All of the references to the 70’s and designers in the film are amazing. It’s worth watching at least once! 🙂
I do notice Anita looks younger than same-age Cruella.
Cruella/Anita dichotomy reminds me of the dichotomy between Bridget Jones and the sleek brunette professionals in the movies.
Also why are villainesses aesthetics so.....delicious?
That is indeed a rather interesting question which could produce a video by the ladies. Perhaps it's the overall non-comforming with usual dressing standards? How come the majority of them is so fab?
@@lydiap5558 Probably because they dress to impress with their looks and still look so powerful without conforming to the binary of soft/feminine and angular/masculine.
The cartoon Cruella was supposed to be around 30 years old. She probably looked like that because she never ate any food, chain smoked, prob had some other substance abuse issues (she mentioned that she was always miserable and wretched feeling) and in general had a rotten core that caused her to prematurely age
I was writing a big pretentious comment about how this was a missed opportunity, that her "evil old woman" is just aesthetics, that that the problem is that they're put in an ACTUAL evil character... And then I got to the middle of the video.
I nearly told you to do exactly what you did because I only watched the beginning of the movie.
That's the internet baby, anyway great video
There's no thrill in being evil unless you're a sociopath.
Ok there is a huge leap in logic and thought to go from "person who wants to kill puppies" to "representation of the single woman in the modern world" when that seems more incidental than having anything to do with anything.
Is this projecting? Grasping at straws to find redeemign qualities in a villain hwo isn't all that deep really? Is it somehting else, I have no idea but it doesn't seem to make sense unless you revise things completely.
I think both are true though...She is single and transgressive of traditional family values AND she's evil. You don't have to root for Cruella to see there are parts of her ordinary people can relate to, while there is a whole side of her we should fear.
Lots of single women are viewed positively and with admiration in our culture: Lara Croft, Wonder Woman, etc etc. Cruella Daville's problem isn't that she's unmarried. It's that she takes anti-social behavior up to 11. She's the female equivalent to Kevin McCarthy's character in UHF, and this is unattractive in both men and women alike
The examples you gave are of young very attractive women who also are not realistic characters to begin with.
@@rondolo1 Not realistic you say..... You've never seen a real life archeologist who rocks a bikini just as niftily as Lara Croft does? Dunno that Cruella is a particularly realistic character either, so much as she is a caricature. Her not having a husband is simply a side effect of her being a moral reprobate. A man who was similarly devoid of redeeming qualities likely wouldn't keep a woman around for very long either
@@MechaJutaro in my experience moral character has very little correlation with how successful someone’s love life is. Especially for women.
@@rondolo1 Those of low character frequently have unpleasant personalities, even when they possess superficial charm. Thus, all but the hanger-ons and sycophants pretty soon leave
This is such a stretch that it becomes ridiculous. She wants to kill and skin almost a hundred puppies to make a coat, she's not even single in the book and her being single is really not what makes her evil. It's not that deep.
ikr, I feel like The Take is sometimes really stretching things. As you said, she's not a villain because she is single and is a girlboss or whatever, but because she wants to kill and skin a bunch of puppies for a piece of clothing. And surprisingly, since we watch the movie from the PoV of a dog, she's the villain. And she has some additional traits to it, but these traits make her just a more interesting character.
It’s an essay chill
Their videos were really good before, like that Cinderella video. But for whatever reason, maybe the writing team has changed, their content is just terrible now. There's a very strong bias against men, and the videos seem more misandrist than feminist and they just have the worst takes. That Harry Potter video was just god awful.
I mean these videos are about underlying themes and dissecting thropes. The fact that she is an older rich woman without a male counterpart was a concious choice by the writers. I do agree some of it is slightly to far fetched but it's still an interesting thinkpiece
@@janhavi1977 You have a point there. I still love their channel, and find myself agreeing with a lot of their arguments. The one exception is the Harry Potter video, which became so controversial, that it was quickly taken down within a day for insinuating that Harry, A LITERAL CHILD/TEENAGER during the events of the series, was suddenly the "Bad Guy."
As fun as the new Cruella film is, I was disappointed that Disney once again made an original villain “sympathetic”, instead of exploring the roots of her true evil and hold her accountable. The original Cruella was cruel to animals and people she considered inferior, which already says a lot about her personality. But because Disney cannot really commit to explore a truly evil protagonist, they had to erase the nasty side of Cruella and paint it instead as just an eccentric, misunderstood woman.
I love Glenn Close’s depiction so so much. She understood the assignment.
Much like the queer-coding of many villains, particularly Disney ones, the spinster is a common shorthand used to tell us that there's something "off" about the character. Heteronormative and in this instance, amatonormative cultural norms dictate that people who do not want or strive to uphold the ideals of patriarchal marriage and the nuclear family as the pinnacle of life achievements are threatening, unnatural, deviant, and yeah, even evil. Using happy single-ness or spinster tropes isn't what makes a character a villain, per se, but it's used to reinforce their wrong-ness to the audience.
Great video.
I would love to see an episode of The Take discussing origin stories. Pop culture has been obsessed with origin stories for the past decade, and it’s a really interesting phenomenon
There is nothing that can make Cruella de Vil sympathetic to an audience in any great sense. She is the ultimate villain along with Maleficent: evil for the sake of evil. Nothing happened in her past that made her go crazy - it is her nature. If we are being honest, Cruella's worst offense is technically stealing puppies to kill. She has no intention of killing and skinning them herself. She just wants the fur and to push back against Roger (he is kind of a jerk towards her, instead of just declining her offer in a civil tone).
This video made me think more about how we as a society have made up a career vs marriage problem for women. Too many stories like The Devil Wears Prada and such, frame it as impossible to have a happy work/life balance. If 90s Cruella chose work over family because she knew she could not have both, that is the real problem.
Actually it's a problem for both gender, if someone want to marry he/she have to know that they gonna have to dial down their career driven side to spend more time with their significant other, and if a couple want to have children, they gonna have to pass even less time in their job, in special women.
"She just wants the fur and to push back against Roger (he is kind of a jerk towards her, instead of just declining her offer in a civil tone)."
I mean to be fair who's civil about someone wanting to skin their dogs for a coat
@@grazielaalmeida8438 I disagree : it is literally the nature of women to be more impacted then men by the work vs family dilemma. We are the ones who will spend at least 9 months gestating our child, this is a real drawback in a career, notwithstanding the fact that society expects us to spend more time taking care of said children than men (which plays in their favor).
@@mikemorro140 Yeah really. What do people expect?
"Can I skin your puppies?"
"No thank you. ❤️"
@@carinecampier This is true, but also men have to focus on their children, if he prefers his career over family, he's not a real father. But society says that a man can have a family and continue to give focus to his career, even having a traveling career, but this is delusional, becouse in future his kids gonna regreat their father's neglection. A man can and must continue his career after he has built a family, but he have to put focus in this family, and a woman even more, her focus is the education of her kid.
I really loved that once they came to giving Cruella a backstory in Once Upon a Time, the twist was that she wasn't "made" by some tragedy, but simply was a sociopath. It just felt refreshing.
I always wondered if Alonso was actually Cruella’s husband and she just treated him like a butler. It seems like the sort of thing she would do plus It would explain why he was so loyal to her, even when she was in prison and it’s possible she was married in the cartoon as well, he was just never mentioned.
That's a good point! Plus when you watch the movies it almost seems like he's terrified of her but he also really cares for her? Definitely an unhealthy relationship regardless of its nature.
Also off topic, but I love your username is so deliciously gothic & fabulous!
In the original book she is married to a pelletier
@@IsKraOrange which makes sense if she loves wearing fur.
I’m gonna watch this because Emma Stone, but I also really don’t believe they can make Cruella sympathetic. Even Once Upon A Time knew that was a lost cause.
One of their best decisions was what they did with Cruella. They deviated from their normal "redeeming villians" or "evil isn't born it's made" formula to show the reality that some people are straight up born evil and psychotic. And Victoria Smurfit did an amazing job as Cruella
"Cruella looks markedly older. From there the film links being unmarried with having bad values."
I think the film links her willingness to kill animals for something as shallow as fashion with having bad values... And if my dog were to back away and snarl at someone (when he usually doesn't), I'd distrust that person too.
Others have said it in the comments and I have to agree, this take is quite a stretch. There're probably much better examples of "spinster" vilification, and I absolutely agree it's a very problematic trope. Love her hair though!
Why is it either or? I think both things are happening. Stories are multi-layered after all, and these kinds of tropes and social messaging are more often than not subconscious.
There's what's happening on the surface - let's take an insanely cruel woman and make her as cartoonishly evil as possible. What makes Cruella of the novels so frightening is that on the surface she is conventionally desirable.
And then there's what's happening below the surface in 1960 and all the things we might conjecture as to why the studio took the complex character of a beautiful married heiress from the novel and chose to make her single, anti-domestic, aggressive, ugly and vain to the point of insanity. But we don't really need to be doing guess work here, one of the original animators literally said they thought "nah pretty women shouldn't be evil" when designing her. I don't see how it is a "stretch" to say they linked their attitudes about femininity at the time to how we should perceive villainy. They straight up did and told you they did.
I kind of see The Take's point. It is problematic that most female villains are older spinsters. I don't think The Take is trying to say that her being old and single is the ONLY reason why she's considered evil, but it's curious that they made her in this specific sort of way, given the historical context with the movie coming out in the early 60s.
And also the fact that people act like she is the most evil of all the villains, and therefore doesn't deserve her own movie because it's "trying to make her look good". Yes, she's obviously evil, but most people didn't have a problem when The Joker had a whole movie justifying his evil deeds and making him killing multiple people and starting riots look "heroic" and the "voice of the common people". Maleficent cursed a baby to sleep for 100 years once she turned 16, as a baby, because of what the baby's father did. Yet people loved Maleficent. From what it seems, it seems that Disney isn't trying to hide the fact that she's always been evil in the new movie at least.
@@reeloddity2160 and @Elizrebezilma Dommdo fair points. Thanks. I wasn't saying it was either-or, just that it seemed this take was overlooking the actual evil things about the character, which shouldn't really be glossed over, I think. But yeah, like I said, I agree that making spinsters inherently evil and married people inherently good is a very problematic trope that needs to be dismantled and countered.
Here is my, mby a bit controversial take:
You all just think shes sooo evil because you think puppys are cute. If she wanted a coat made out of crab shell or something, you wouldnt care at all.
And cruella probably wastn thinking "puppys are cute so I want to destroy them, because evil" her thoughts probably were just " pretty fur, i need it for fashion" and back then when the movie was made fur coats were still quite common, so nobody would have cared if she just wanted to kill something that is usually used for coats.
I would care if she tried to make a crab shell coat out of stolen pet crabs.
My vision of Cruella's a lot more than 'skinning puppies'. As far as 101 Dalmatians goes, I've only read the 1950's book and watched the original Disney movie ... I wasn't into the live action ones or the following cartoon movies/shows when they came out so I've never seen them.
My Cruella is a rich, spoilt brat who grew up to be a rich, spoilt Karen. My Cruella was Anita's classmate, and they were not friends as Anita was afraid of her. My Cruella got expelled from school. My Cruella married a furrer specifically due to her love of furs. He created all the furs she wanted, whenever she wanted. My Cruella was a self-centered and abusive asshole to everyone. Her husband was afraid of her.
My Cruella viewed animals as things. Things that were either useless and disposable OR valuable and useful to her. My Cruella had a pet white cat, a valuable purebred, that she hated and abused. She drowned the kittens whenever her cat had a litter.
The Cruella I knew, had never heard or seen a Dalmatian until she happened upon Anita years later and was introduced to the breed. Cruella immediately fell in love in their coat pattern. She admired it and she wanted it. Given her backstory above, it was natural for her to take the next (logical to her) step and have her husband create a new fur coat for her out of the Dalmatian puppy fur.
She isn't a complex character and she certainly isn't a good person. Cruella is the kind of person who, if she were to be originally written today, would still have been a rich, narcissistic Karen who would marry a man (who would take her abuse) with means to provide for her so she could indulge in whatever her materialistic love was. Perhaps she still loves furs? She could have endangered species bought and kept until they could be skinned for their fur coats.
OMG the comments taking a whimsical and amusing essay so seriously 😂😂😂😂
I see where you're coming from but The Take brings it on themselves...they make everything whimsical and amusing into a "Is ____ toxic?" hot take lol. And puppy murderers into PATRIARCHY BAD 😂
I would have said Cruella’s big offense is wanting to harm creatures that are entirely innocent - can’t be at fault for anything and can’t even understand why they suffer - for an entirely superficial reason. She even already has a fabulous wardrobe. She in no way NEEDS a new fur coat. It doesn’t even symbolize the alleviation of some kind of perceived grievance for her. It’s just what she wants... this week.
There’s nothing wrong with being single, fashionable, and swanning about. That’s basically my lifestyle, haha.
You’re not supposed to want to destroy other people’s families just because you don’t happen to want one of your own. Being grossed out by someone else’s marriage and family is also not being a particularly good friend, fwiw. Being an exploitative entrepreneur doesn’t inoculate men against criticism; why should we give a free pass to greed or exploitation in women?
Fwiw, I love some of the Cruella movies, specifically for the fashion and camp. I’m looking forward to the new movie, even if I’m not totally confident a semi-sympathetic backstory will be a good fit for this particular character. But speaking as a single woman who loves clothes and may already be perceived as aging and irrelevant by her culture at large... I’m never going to find killing other people’s pets sympathetic.
I will agree to this: the original Disney Cruella was clearly meant to inspire visual disgust, which is probably a more powerful shortcut to the audience’s animosity than even killing family pets. And the notion of rejecting women who cannot offer us beauty to consume, especially if they nonetheless draw attention to themselves, does have to do with failing to fall into one of the available, accepted narratives left over about how women can still making themselves useful and amenable despite aging and/or not being beautiful. In other words, is a combination of ugliness and vanity in the original Disney character design intended to help turn the audience against Cruella? Hundo p, as my sister says. The choice to draw Cruella as they did was not arbitrary; it’s a way of tapping into real audience prejudices against aging women who still act like they deserve a whole awful lot from life. We do not necessarily welcome “I want” songs from every woman, haha. Still, I think it is a big leap from feeling very threatened by someone who would tear your family apart just to look good, to equating that with feeling threatened by any woman who is not domestic. Caring about the happiness and safety of your loved ones and the family unit itself is not just for well-behaved women who won’t make history. It’s human. It’s the very idea of having a loved one, any loved one at all. If Cruella doesn’t understand what a loved one is or why it’s more important than a coat, that’s probably not good for a careerwoman, any more than it is for any other type of human.
@@emilyglass6625 sometimes people end up having no one in their lives other than themselves. It’s not always because they are evil.
Aaannnns queue all of the impressionable teenagers and young adults who will start mimicking her toxic behavior and narcissism now.
I haven't watched the new movie but as someone who grew up watching the 101 Dalmatians movies, and as an animal lover who grew quite disturbed as a child to learn about the existence of the animal fur industry, I am gonna skip the movie. I don't know what arc they will adopt for this, but Cruella was always evil. She wanted to kill numerous dogs to make herself a fur coat. She was always a part of a destructive industry. No. Cruella doesn't deserve a single sympathy point.
Thank you, finally someone who makes some sense
i agree. i dont understand why she is more evil than people who skin other animals or exploit them. Baby cows are just as defenseless as puppies..
I adore the original animated Cruella De Vil from the 60s. Nothing will overshadow that masterpiece!
Cruella might want to kill puppies but she was always my favorite Disney villain for her style and in a way groundness of her crimes.
Like yeah cursing newborns with a fate worse than death is nice and all but wanting to make coat out of cartoon puppies that literally feel needs to get married is so absurd i can't hate it in safe fictional space, i don't even like those dogs in original cartoon they're so weird.
I'm actually happy Cruella is getting her own movie she deserves it i just hope they let her be evil in it going more for villain origin story than Maleficent treatment.
From what I heard they did give the Maleficent treatment but extra stupid.
@@shelbymckinney8888 I just got back from the movie and all i can say - whoever told you that was sadly lying, it's villain origin story
Not the comment section missing the symbolisms surrounding the puppies, which the Take clearly lays out.
THANK YOU GOSH
idk y’all I feel like she’s the worst one like she literally just wanted to kill puppies and violently too like there is no girl boss in her for that
But she _is_ girlboss. Girlboss is an evil illusion.
I love the use of 'spinster' here- it's appropriate to her social image and her work in the fashion industry
At least in the original Disney film I wouldn't call them a traditional family as pongo and perdita/ Roger and Anita adopted puppies that weren't theirs. Even if it's under a hetero look it's still an unconventional family unit.
It's literally still hetero. They're literally straight dogs
@@stephaniewilliams6756 I know it's straight dogs. hetero family does not equal conventional or traditional family.
Cruella is seen as wicked for wanting to skin puppies for their fur but I recently began to think about whether Cruella truly is evil or not. Think about it. Unless you're vegetarian or vegan you are essentially taking a part of an animal which thereby leads to it's death. For most of us it's meat, for Cruella it's their fur.
I don't think its fair to compare animals being bred for food and dogs being killed for their skin which in many countries are explicitly banned for doing so. So it boils down to whether or not you agree with Cruella committing a crime...
See this is the actual spicy take im looking for. Not that id agree with puppy murder, but at least theres a fair point about how we value some animals as companions more than others.
What if instead of puppies, they were baby cows? And instead of a fur coat, she wanted hamburgers and handbags (which a lot of people want). Would calf murder be less evil than puppy murder?
@@yummyunicornninja9561 True.
It’s all the same to me. Animal exploitation is fucked up.
This one misses the prompt for me. Not bc “cruella murders puppies” bc so many people who write those comments eat meat or use leather) but because it centralizes the idea the cruella has become “punk”. No. Punk is anti establishment. Absolute rebellion. Cruella does not subvert the authority, she becomes the next version of authority. There’s nothing punk about becoming the new world order.
I couldn't help but get images of Lucille Bluth running through my head through most of this video. She is one of my top favourite villains.
No
Really ? i never care if she was single but the way she treats people around her, she never actually seem to care about humans or animal lives, she only cares about herself(that wouldnt be bad if she didnt hurt others to accomplish her own evil wishes)
She does make some good points in the 1996 remake. Not that a woman can't have a successful career and be mother and wife at the same time, that's just the way Cruella sees the world. Kinda reminds me of Katharine Hepburn's point of view (though on herself only). In fact Cruella has always somewhat reminded me of Katharine Hepburn, but evil.
Loved this!
The difference between her and a lot of the other villains is that, while they want power and going to the top, she's already there and attacking a group that could never be a threat
I gotta disagree with this take. 101D was my favorite Disney animated film as a kid and still is but the fact that Cruella is a spinster/single or her image never mattered to me. It was always the animal abuse.
The Take: it’s not her fault she’s bad, but unfair societal expectations placed on women (or some such)
The Drinker: Nah, it’ll be fine
Go away now! Glad to see another fellow Drinker fan, and on The Take’s video too!
she’s terrifying cause she’s realistic but the DRIP
Villains be dripping
I think Cruella knows about Roger's song but doesn't sue to keep attention off herself while she steals puppies.
Watching this video I can't help the feeling that the animal abuse Cruella is so keen on executing in order to get the furr-coat she desires, is somewhat ignored as a main factor of her being evil. All the tropes are well explained like always in THE TAKE's videos, but the one action Cruella is known for that makes her truly evil, is the fact that she unapologetically and illegally wants to kill a hundred or more puppies. This is something our society highly condemns as wrong, evil and/or immoral. Yet it is extremely hypocritical to hold a person accountable for that since our modern society consumes industrial animal products, thus supporting industrial animal farming and therefor animal cruelty and animal abuse. ""Look at that evil woman wanting to kill those poor puppies for a fur coat. How cruel! How selfish! Would you like some bacon with your eggs?"
Yall did not just call Cruella a girlboss 😭😭
“She’s not evil because she’s single” would be correct if this were a real person. However, she is not a real person; she is a character which means every aspect of her, including her marital status was chosen to support her villainy. That’s why all Disney villains are single. Idk why y’all watch this channel if you aren’t interested in how archetypes reflect cultural norms. Art reflects the values of the culture it was made within. This culture is heteronormative. This is basic stuff and not a stretch at all
Thank you!! Movie makers know exactly what they are portraying
they arnt vilains beacause they are single, they are single because they are vilains, seems legit
Disney villains are single because the SO would serve to humanize them further due to them loving and being loved by someone. As soon as your villain loves or is loved by someone, they can’t be “pure evil” or something like what the Disney classics were going for. That’s pretty classic screenwriting. They’d also add another character who needs to play a role in a narrative that’s meant to be really tight. This is why villainous Bonnie & Clyde couples are either put on the forefront or usually explored in longer formats.
@@sculptor8752 yea, because all nice kind people are happily married /S.
thats a lie...
Cinderella stepmother was married and had 2 kids...them married cind dad.
same for snow white stepmother, I mean "Stepmother" means she married snow white dad.
The Queen of hearts had a king.
And maleficent it's a fairy....fairy's don't marry, they are Nature wilds, having free Magic and wild sex.
We will forever be making movies trying to be fair portraying characters because no director understands that humans are complex, you can be rightfully single, old and fashionable and still wrongfully try to kill dogs
Cruella is 'the end justifies the means' type of gal. She does it all for the aesthetic and because she wants to.
Evil or not, she's fabulous darling.
I can not wait to watch this film in the cinema! I’m so excited 😆 I have not been so eager to watch a movie 🍿 in a LONG time!
I adore Glenn Close as Cruella. I’m pretty excited to see Emma Stone in the role too. I hope they don’t try to “Maleficent” her too much. I like her being evil. No need for a sob story.
I think you guys are reading too much into it
I don't get why movie/story makers don't let villains be antagonists. Yes, many people prefer the villain rather than the hero sometimes but we don't need to sympathize with them a 100% to like them. Let them be murderers, let them be bad just for the sake of it, whatever it is just let villains be villains.
Are they scared that people can like murderers? Abusive characters? Seems to me these people are the ones who struggle to grasp the fiction vs reality concept.
Some people seem to be missing the point. Yes we get it, she's not hated because she's an independent single woman, she's hated because she kills puppies. It's just that in the context of 1950s "domestic bliss", such a characterization was considered atypical of societal norms. Being atypical was/is considered a bad thing (we want people to conform to our expectations), therefore we adopt these characterizations as shorthand to codify villain vs. heroine for audiences. The movie isn't outright saying "being an unmarried single career-driven woman into fashion makes you evil" but it is saying isn't that just the sort of person who would be evil compared to sweet young domestic Anita? This character in isolation means nothing, but villain after villain after villain constantly being identified using these characteristics as shorthand means something - it both shapes and reflects how we perceive members of our society.
Ahh I have long awaited this video
EEEK, Cruella is going to be released tomorrow, I can't wait!
*You know you spend too much time on the internet when the number of views is just 340.*
Im auditioning for Cruella in 101 dalmations the musical, and i watched this to get to know and study the character more and it really helped!! I know alot more about her now and i will update you on the audition and if i get the part or not😁😁
They should make cruella a savage instead of a raving karen, have her divorce her husband taking everything he owns and then run up the oipum trade with more investments all the while taking exotic animals from the Indochina colonies and selling them as so! She needs new material to work with to keep up with new trends to the point of toxic obsession.
Ooh we need a take on representation of the single woman!
I do feel this is a stretch, but if we entertain videos insisting that Lion King is actively promoting classism and anti socialist segregation, I think Feminist readings of these films should have room in the essay space. We criticize The Take in a harsher way than we criticize other essays that can be equally out there at times.
That is a good way to put it. I think people sometimes forget that media critique is usually subjective, and that this subjectivity isn’t a bad thing. Media allows for multiple interpretations and comparisons to multiple facets of life. It is possible to take many and even widely different lessons and themes from the same work, so any given take on it is a great chance to get a glimpse into someone else’s viewing perspective, which in turn can give us empathy and insight into the actual life experiences that have shaped the way they view fictional stories. Pushing back against a feminist (or other) type of critique of media simply shows an unwillingness to listen and learn from unfamiliar perspectives, because the critique in and of itself isn’t some end all be all summary of the work that defines it without room for anything else.
No I think videos arguing that Lion King was prompting classism are just as moronic as this video that claims people see Cruella as evil because she’s a single woman. I mean....wow.
Cruella, the Cersei of Disney World!
I completely agree on the fact that the story makes it seem as if being single and old makes her evil