The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Not so Cruella, definitely not de Vil

Cruella represents yet another witness to the disturbing trend where Disney tries to update one of their former classics to 21st-century progressive culture.

Emma Stone stars in a scene from the movie "Cruella." The Catholic News Service classification is A-III -- adults. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 -- parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. (CNS photo/Laurie Sparham, Disney Enterprises, Inc.)

MPAA Rating: PG-13
CNS Rating: A -III
Reel Rating: 2 out of 5

In the fantastic parody musical Twisted, each Disney villain is given the opportunity to justify his evil. One by one they sing:

Ursula: “I only wish to reclaim what was mine!”

Scar: “I only wished to improve relations between the races!”

Gaston: “I only wished to save her!”

Hook: “I only wished to teach the boy responsibility!”

Suddenly, Cruella de Vil bursts onto the stage and belts, “I only wanted to make a coat out of puppies!” The others turn and scowl in disgust. “Why would you want to do that?” Jafar grimaces. It is the perfect description of the character the American Film Institute once rated the 39th greatest villain in film history. But Cruella, Disney’s latest live action redemption of a classic baddie, completely ruins this vision. Director Craig Gillespie’s un-iconic interpretation certainly isn’t “the Devil,” and it’s barely even cruel.

Like every young girl in movies these days, Cruella (Emma Stone) was “a little different.” Even at ten, she proudly sported monochromatic hair, creates fabulous outfits, and punched male bullies at recess. When her mother is murdered before her eyes, she runs away and joins a set of thieves, Horace and Jasper (Joel Fry and Paul Hauser), determined to make something of herself by any means (usually illegal) necessary. She eventually lands a job designing clothes for the Baroness (Emma Thompson), a cartoonish version of Miranda Priestly complete with her own discount Stanly Tucci. At first, things are looking up as her boss expresses an unusual lack of contempt for the young artist’s gowns. Yet things quickly go south with a tale of betrayal, one-upmanship, murder, and worse that would make even Eve Harrington blush.

It must be said that the always brilliant Emma Stone gives everything she has to this performance, but it was handicapped from the beginning. Cruella does things that are mean and selfish, but never cruel and even has a redemptive arc despite not starting out all that bad. Her most important trait was hatred of dogs and desire to turn them into garments. Yet Stone’s Cruella loves dogs, even dogs who do not like her. In fact, her own yellow terrier Buddy (Bobby) plays a key role in her schemes. Instead, the filmmakers have chosen to emphasize Cruella’s affinity for fashion, which is not unique. It could have been any skill taken to extremes—like drumming in Whiplash or figure skating in the Harding-Kerrigan feud. Despite the insistence of her younger self, she isn’t “special.”

This might be blasphemy coming from a man who rarely wear anything but polo shirts and cargo shorts, but the fashion isn’t great either. The sumptuous dresses the Baroness fawns over are gaudy, pretentious, and impractical. The best designs are the simple clothes Cruella wears around town, like leather jackets and black skirts. These outfits do a great job representing the punk aesthetic of London at time. Sadly, she too gets caught up in the world of high fashion and is soon designing fare even more sickening. Unfortunately, this film is a shoo-in for the Oscar for Best Costume Design, which often goes for the “biggest” over the “best.”

Cruella represents yet another witness to the disturbing trend where Disney, under the control of Bob Iger, tries to update one of their former classics to 21st century progressive culture. In 2017, I wrote about this in my review of their updated version of Beauty and the Beast:

Now, Disney has turned on their own center, going after the very ethics that made them so memorable in the first place. They have no reason to be ashamed. It was their heartfelt and brilliant depiction of Judeo-Christian morality that made Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and The Little Mermaid into masterpieces of cinema. Yet today, Disney shuns its own legacy.

Cruella is a smart, confident, driven woman and cannot be evil. To think she could be evil is now considered ancient, patriarchal thinking. Yet what remains when her villainy is taken away is a dry, transparent story that is among the most average of Disney’s dependably average live action updates.

There was a way to make a compelling story about a younger Cruella. In the original novel by Dodie Smith, Cruella is given a more fleshed out backstory. In the 1920s and 30s, she was a famous, fashionable socialite, married to rich older man and always on the cover of the best gossip magazines. By the 1960s, she was old, widowed, and forgotten. Her desire to create a dog coat was one last gasp to restore her former glory. That would be a Cruella worth watching and joyfully hating. Instead, the audience is given this. Disney hasn’t made a single good film since John Lasseter left in 2018, and that’s no coincidence.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Nick Olszyk 167 Articles
Nick Olszyk teaches theology at Marist Catholic High School in Eugene, Oregon. He was raised on bad science fiction movies, jelly beans, and TV shows that make fun of bad science fiction movies. Visit him online at his website, Catholic Cinema Crusade.

10 Comments

  1. “Disney tries to update one of their former classics to 21st century progressive ‘culture’.

    How true.

    How sad.

  2. Thanks for this insightful review.
    I have no intention of seeing this movie but need to understand what’s really going on in the popular culture. So thanks.

  3. “even has a redemptive arc despite not starting out all that bad.”

    That fits in with what seems to me to be their goal: villains aren’t bad, because there is no evil, there’s just “different” that we must tolerate.

  4. ” In the original novel by Dodie Smith, Cruella is given a more fleshed out backstory. In the 1920s and 30s, she was a famous, fashionable socialite, married to rich older man and always on the cover of the best gossip magazines. By the 1960s, she was old, widowed, and forgotten. Her desire to create a dog coat was one last gasp to restore her former glory.”

    In a mass culture dominated by feminism, there can be no vicious females.

  5. I profoundly disagree with the analysis that this is some kind of Disney update conforming to the Progressivism of our time. On the contrary, whether intentional or not, the movie serves as a strong critique against abortion. In particular, the notion that it is better to have an abortion for the sake of one’s career. The movie accurately points out that such a justification is fundamentally selfish.

    “Cruella is a smart, confident, driven woman and cannot be evil. To think she could be evil is now considered ancient, patriarchal thinking”

    This, quite frankly, is a ridicoulous thing to say. This suggests that the movie refuses to portray women as capable of evil. Has the author forgotten that Cruella is the protoganist and the antagonist is Baroness, a woman? Baroness clearly qualifies as someone who is confident, smart, driven, and evil. This is hardly holds up to the accusation that the movie shows such thinking is “patriarchal thinking.”

    Recent Disney movies are certainly guilty of the kind wokeness you insinuate, but this one ain’t it chief.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*