ianthemovie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:30 pm
Putting it slightly differently: is there anything that Gillespie does in this film, in terms of style or content, that wouldn't have worked just as well if this screenplay were entirely divorced from the world of
101 Dalmatians? I ask this question sincerely as I still haven't seen the movie. It makes me wonder (along with The Curious Sofa who hints at something similar in their post) whether, if
Cruella is really an imaginative and original piece of filmmaking, why does it need to exist in relation to this source that it seems to little-to-no interest in relating to in the first place? Change the character names and I'm guessing you'd have something far more interesting, and it wouldn't be burdened by the ghosts of the Disney and Smith versions. But of course a major studio like Disney would not be able to sell such a film (and wouldn't have greenlit it in the first place).
Yes, it would have and does work divorced from that world- isn't that exactly what knives and I have argued in our respective longwinded writeups? I'll just speak for myself, but I think I outlined just that in detail. And as for why they needed to tie it into an already existing world, well, why does that need to carry an intrinsic burden? That was the question knives posed, as I interpreted it. The burden seems to be superimposed by the viewer (or in some cases, by people before they even see the movie- and I'm not even referring to you, I've spoken to several friends who have lodged these same predetermined questions burdening the film with their own burdens without having seen it). There is a lot of value in taking a familiar world and making something entirely new with it. When we see a new Bond take over (and to align with the prequel logic as here, we can point to Craig's 'prequel' Bond), we don't say, "Hey wait, why isn't Daniel Craig as misogynistic as Connery? What must have happened to him between these time periods to warrant a change in attitude and a loss of grit?" We accept that they are different spins on similar characters.
The value of manipulating ideas - whether using familiar iconography, milieus, or more abstract concepts - is that it provokes us to recognize a new angle, to think, feel, see something novel and grow in our adaptability and perceptiveness as a result. It's the consumer's rigidity that stunts them from this process, which is fine and everyone's right (and I certainly have my fair share of moments where I do this too, in no way am I trying to say I'm "above" it), but arguments that the film is a failure because a viewer isn't willing to take it as-is and find its value within those constraints isn't fair.
The Curious Sofa wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:57 am
What keeps it from being a good film is how it's continuously forced to acknowledge its origins. I'm fine that it isn't faithful to the source, but I rolled my eyes at the unconvincing attempts at explaining Cruella's motives, which never move beyond the most trite pop-psychology level and at all the the "aha" moments which pay lip service to 101 Dalmatians. Half of the film is corporate deadweight and you won't find anything as graceless in the Dodie Smith novel or in the original Disney animation.
Cruella is at its best in its mid-section where Cruella keeps upstaging The Baroness. That's where the film takes flight, being its own thing and hinting at what it could have been if studios weren't slaves to franchise service. I wasn't convinced by the time and energy it strains at being a 101 Dalmatians prequel and I'm not sure why I should be satisfied with a " good for that it is" compromise. While I liked the film better than Lane, I get where he is coming from.
I don’t know if anyone is disagreeing that the explanations of her motives “move beyond the most trite pop-psychology level,” but what about the proposed reading that this is intentionally mirroring Cruella’s own refusal to engage with her deeper psychology? We watch her begin to stew in intangible feelings and then either suppress them before our eyes and make them tangible with anger, or literally get whisked away from a confrontation by a character or music cue. This is another example of how such a criticism doesn’t have to be an inherently bad thing because of how the film’s technique is working in step with the blockbuster's need to restrict us to some superficial depth, to give it a unique twist and make it deep on its own terms. I thought it was an incredibly realistic and subtle (yes, in a fantasy bursting with pizzazz) depiction of how people bury their more challenging emotions. What these articles are arguing, as I see them, is that the film is going into overdrive with psychological sentiment, and so are you saying you’d rather see that, even
more trite approach?
It seems like you're both more upset that there was "franchise service" rather than accepting such and meeting the film where it's at, where it is utilizing the expectations of the studio and doing something very interesting with that reality. I'm honestly hearing a "damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't" complex from those critiquing this film- either it goes into excess empathy and becomes problematic and trite, or it is too restrained and becomes pop psychology and trite. Can't the film be doing the latter in a unique and self-reflexive way that uses the compromise to demonstrate a raw truth about how we avoid our more uncomfortable emotions?
On the previous page, I went to great detail to explain why I believe this is true, deconstructing certain specific scenes, so I am genuinely curious, The Curious Sofa, what you think about those points in relation to your criticism, since we seem to agree on what the film did but not on the intricate merit in what it accomplishes through the elisions.