Could Cruella Remind Us Why We Love Disney Villains?

If you were to ask the average person what they remember about Disney’s 1961 animated film 101 Dalmatians, they will ALWAYS, without exception, bring up its iconic baddie Cruella De Vil. With her distinctive black and white hair, gigantic fur coat and obsession with turning the titular animals into a new item of clothing, Cruella De Vil is one of the quintessential Disney villains. Cruella’s popularity is now being exploited by the forthcoming 101 Dalmatians prequel Cruella, which reveals the backstory of the notorious villain. Set in 1970s London, Cruella explores how Estella De Vil became the deranged clothing mogul who has terrified so many of us over the decades. The project was first announced in 2013, and has gone through several directors and screenwriters, with I, Tonya director Craig Gillespie overseeing the finished film. Cruella is being released in May, and the promotional campaign has begun in earnest with the first posters and trailer, released last week.

Out of all the Disney live-action remakes, Cruella initially seemed like one of the most pointless. Only the most hardcore fans seriously asked questions about the origins of Disney villains, and many of them can think of several baddies who deserve the prequel treatment more than Cruella. The production line of live-action remakes seems to be divided between nostalgic Disney Renaissance hits which can bring in more money and older classics which can be updated more effectively*. 101 Dalmatians sits outside the latter group, as the charming but relatively lightweight original film does not have the same room for improvement as Cinderella or The Jungle Book. It doesn’t help that 101 Dalmatians already received a perfectly serviceable live-action version in 1996 (most notable for Glenn Close’s magnificently hammy take on Cruella De Vil) so there seems to be little need for another go at pleasing fans of the source material. However, any project can be made into a must-see with a talented cast and crew, and a good promotional campaign, and the trailer for Cruella generally raised interest in the project and shows that there is plenty of dramatic potential in Cruella’s backstory.

One of the major fears about the project is that it could sanitize a villain who is famous for being one of Disney’s nastiest. The iconic Broadway musical Wicked started the trend for proving that classic literary villains were “just misunderstood” and this revisionist approach proved a huge inspiration for the Disney films Frozen and Maleficent and their TV series Once Upon a Time. Needless to say, fans do not want Cruella to adopt the same approach, and the trailer responds effectively to this concern. Although the short synopsis hints that Cruella’s slide into villainy is motivated by revenge on a tyrannical fashionista (played by Emma Thompson), the trailer focuses on Cruella embracing her destiny as a woman who is “brilliant, bad and a little bit mad”. At the same time, the trailer seems to emphasize two of the things that makes Cruella De Vil work so well as a villain. The first of these is her flamboyance. Emma Stone’s wobbly English accent has received some criticism, but she seems to capture a good deal of the unapologetic haughtiness and fanaticism that made Cruella so enjoyable in the original animated movie. The second of these is a bit harder to notice, but probably even more important in getting us to connect to Cruella. Her spontaneously combusting coat and grand revenge schemes indicate that she has a very powerful creative vision and will do anything to ensure that London “gets” it. It is easy to relate to people who don’t get the full credit for their hard work and imagination, so this should be a useful way of ensuring we care about seeing Cruella become the villain we all know and love to hate.

However, many of the concerns about the project still remain. The trailer and poster have made it clear that Cruella is more provocative than the average Disney movie, but it is still a relatively sanitized form of edginess. The poster received some social media mockery for replacing the A in Emma Stone’s name with a symbol similar to the Anarchist insignia, and this embodies concern that the punk movement will be handled in a shallow and appropriative fashion. It is telling that the most conspicuous indicator of the 70s setting in the trailer is Cruella quoting the hook of Helen Reddy’s “white feminist” anthem - “I am Woman, Hear Me Roar”. It would be foolish to expect a detailed examination of the punk movement, but it would be frustrating if Cruella fails to properly engage with the radical, destructive power of this subculture. The limits of the PG rating (or a PG-13 if Disney feel bold enough) could prevent Cruella from taking her revenge missions too far and reduce the nastiness which is necessary when you want to provide an origin story for a tyrannical villain.

The mere existence of a Cruella-centric movie poses some fascinating questions about Disney’s villains. Cruella De Vil embodies the classical “Form” of the stereotypical Disney Animation villain – intimidating but also ridiculous, flamboyant, cruel (but in a rather safe and fantastical way), deliciously arrogant, and willing to do absolutely anything to get what they want. Disney Animation have been responsible for some of the best villains ever seen in the animated genre, but this tradition has dried up in recent years. Can Cruella remind us why we love Disney villains so much, or is their brand of delicious nastiness no longer relevant? How can the Disney villain be adapted for the 21st century?

Villains Elsewhere

Emma Stone first signed on to play Cruella De Vil in 2016, but filming on the movie did not conclude until November 2019. During this time, several villain-centric comic book adaptations have enjoyed significant success. Spider-Man spinoff Venom was a huge hit despite its widely mocked trailers, whilst Joker became one of highest-grossing non-Disney films of 2019 for turning the crown prince of crime into a Scorsese-style antihero, with Joaquin Phoenix winning almost every Best Actor award for his turn in the title role. However, the supervillain who is the biggest influence on Cruella is Harley Quinn. Created to be the Joker’s henchwoman in the legendary Batman: The Animated Series, Harley Quinn left her toxic boyfriend to become an iconic villain protagonist in her own right, appearing in two movies and an animated series. The main reason for Harley’s appeal is that her total lack of inhibitions can feel pretty liberating – in a world where you are expected to behave as politely and sensibly as possible, seeing Harley Quinn wreak havoc with a baseball bat and pet hyenas can provide a catharsis for many of our frustrations. Seeing a character push past the limits of decorum and decency can provide a safe outlet for our desire to do the same thing, and that is one of the main reasons why we enjoy classic Disney and comic book villains so much.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that Cruella director Craig Gillespie has form when creating villain stories. His biopic I, Tonya applied the villain protagonist formula to the controversial figure skater Tonya Harding, honestly acknowledging her many flaws whilst also making it clear that she had to deal with an abusive mother, an awful husband, and a cruel media culture which dismissed her as “white trash”. However, the most fascinating influences on Cruella is Aline Brosh McKenna, one of the first screenwriters involved with the movie. McKenna worked on The Devil Wears Prada, the 2006 hit about a woman working for an extremely demanding fashion magazine editor, and it seems like the dynamic between Cruella and Emma Thompson’s Baroness will be a more extreme version of Andrea Sachs’s relationship to Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada. Although Tony McNamara is the primary screenwriter for the finished film, McKenna retains a “story by” credit, and if enough of her perspective on the fashion world was left in, then that could really enhance Cruella. There are several less obvious benchmarks for the movie. For all its cartoonish silliness, Minions showed that it was possible for families to flock to a movie focused on villains who do not need to be “redeemed” in any way. Though the Minions are cute rather than frightening and have plenty of positive traits, they are still creatures hardwired to work with the nastiest brutes they can find. In short, the last few years have demonstrated that it is entirely possible for a film centred on a villainous character to appeal to a wide audience, so Disney’s decision to persevere with Cruella has been validated.

There are two ways that films can make us root for the villain. First of all, they usually pit said villain against even nastier baddies. Many of the greatest fictional villain protagonists, including Hannibal Lecter and Walter White, often find themselves battling against characters who are even more dangerous and twisted, and this ensures that we stay on their side despite their many heinous deeds. There is also the more nebulous fight against “society” and the cruel and prejudiced systems that keep our protagonists repressed and frustrated. Audiences are often able to relate to the frustration, and filmmakers can use their villains to make powerful observations about how unfair and unjust the world can be. This ensured that Joker and I,Tonya were able to capture the attention of critics and audiences and become unconventional Oscar winners.

The Demise of the Disney Villain

We all love the classic Disney villains – baddies like Maleficent, Captain Hook, Ursula, Scar and Hades have blended nastiness, flamboyance and comedy in a larger-than-life fashion. Whilst children often hide behind the sofa when these characters arrive, adults often find these characters entertaining rather than scary, and actually develop an odd admiration for them. A large portion of Disney fans spent their time idolizing villains such as Scar – a regicide who runs his kingdom into the ground - and Ursula, who spends her leisure time turning innocent merfolk into wretched wormlike creatures. These characters are morally reprehensible in a variety of ways, but their sheer enthusiasm with which they carry out their dirty deeds makes them incredibly enjoyable to watch. The best things about the villains are their sheer uniqueness. Whilst Disney protagonists are usually young, slim, and handsome, Disney villains enjoyed wonderfully distinct designs provided by animators such as Marc Davies and Andreas Deja. There is also the voice-acting, provided by a collection of charismatic voice actors. Some were relative unknowns (Betty Lou Gerson, Richard White, Johnathan Freeman), others were famous and respected veterans (George Sanders, Vincent Price, Jeremy Irons), but all brought the villains to life with the panache and energy required. Many of the villains also get villain songs, which allow them to sell their vision to other characters in an especially memorable and entertaining fashion, and a memorable comeuppance, which usually involving falling to their death in some way. These characters maintain an impressive balance, being threatening enough to add a genuine sense of jeopardy whilst being eccentric enough to ensure that even their scariest moments do not become too disturbing…

The popularity of Disney villains has meant that they have become a formidable mini-brand for Disney. You get plenty of Disney Villains shows at the Disney theme parks, and Disney Villain merchandise ranging from novelty pins to board games. Serena Valentino has created several books for Disney Publishing which retold classic Disney films from the villain’s perspective, with the recent Gotham inspired novel City of Villains further emphasizing the fact that Disney Villains are the fairy tale equivalent to Batman’s “Rouges Gallery” – a collection of villains just as iconic as the heroes they lose to. The most successful exploitation of the Disney Villain brand has been the Disney Channel franchise Descendants, consisting of three TV movies, an animated series, and plenty of tie-ins set in a universe where the children of Disney villains are trying to make their own way in the world. Despite all this milking of the existing villains, Disney Animation have barely given us any worthwhile new Disney villains over the past decade or so. Why is this the case?

The factors which caused the demise of the Disney villain were effectively outlined in 2017, when online film reviewers Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) and Lindsey Ellis simultaneously released videos discussing this topic, and both shared the same basic insight. Early Disney films often had rather bland protagonists and needed a memorable villain to drive the story, but as the heroes and heroines took control, the classic villains felt increasingly unnecessary. Many of the best Disney Renaissance villains exploited or reflected the flaws of the protagonists – Ursula takes advantage of Ariel’s impulsiveness, Prince Eric’s desire for the perfect girl AND King Triton’s overprotectiveness in order to (temporarily) succeed in her goal of taking over Atlantica, Gaston’s obsessive desire to take Belle for himself contrasts with the Beast’s increasingly selfless mentality, Scar represents the extreme example of Simba’s childhood desire for power without responsibility - but others rouges felt like they merely existed to provide a source of conflict. With the dynamics between the protagonists becoming an increasingly powerful force, the villain became less integral to the story. The last villain to be added to the core line-up of the Disney Villains brand was Tangled’s conniving baddie Mother Gothel. At an earlier point in Tangled’s long and complicated journey to the big screen, Gothel had a larger role, but in the finished film, her manipulations of Rapunzel are secondary compared to Rapunzel’s adventures in the wider world. Gothel is probably one of the most underrated Disney villains ever, but when people discuss why they loved Tangled so much, they usually bring up Rapunzel, Flynn Rider and their eccentric sidekicks ahead of her.

If there was one villain who embodied how far the classic Disney villain had fallen, it was Frozen baddie Prince Hans, a seemingly perfect prince who reveals himself as a treacherous scumbag roughly 75% of the way into the film. Hans throwing Anna under the bus when she needs him most has a certain visceral impact when you see Frozen for the first time (There are plenty of incidents of people providing a memorably angry reaction in cinemas and theatres) but when you examine it clearly, you can see plenty of problems that make Hans one of the worst-written rogues in Disney’s gallery. To be fair, the core concept behind the character is utterly ingenious – many of the love interests in older Disney animations were implausibly kind, brave and handsome (Prince Phillip and Prince Eric are the two defining examples of this) so what if we had a prince with an ulterior motive for adopting this “perfect male” persona? However, the delivery was far less impressive – there is no reason why Hans could have been reduced to a surprise villain, as other approaches could have provided him with more psychological depth - or made him a greater threat - whilst maintaining the “don’t rush into a relationship with the first man you meet” message.

There are three main flaws with the way Prince Hans is handled as a villain. First of all, the film is too focused on making his villainy a surprise, with most of the foreshadowing being the sort of freeze-frame details that are difficult to notice even after several rewatches – Hans wearing gloves in almost all his scenes, him looking towards Arendelle instead of Anna, him pulling his coat tighter towards himself when the snow arrives. These hints may be clever, but this is a fairytale adventure film, not The Masked Singer, and the obsession with keeping a surprise reduces any tension. Frozen’s villain twist also relies on the contrivance that a character who has accomplished so much by playing the good guy chooses to drop the act at the precise moment when keeping up the charade would be the most important for him. Worst of all, this big shock leads to a reveal scene where Hans plays every Monologuing Villain cliché totally straight, culminating in Anna telling him “You won’t get away with this!”. Most Disney villains fail to heed the warnings of the “Evil Overlord List”, but the subversive ingenuity baked into the concept of Prince Hans makes it feel especially irritating in his case. An idea that could have been a fascinating deconstruction of “perfect man” stereotypes instead comes across like a contrived plot device to ensure that the climax has a conventional baddie.

Disney’s next two films, Big Hero 6 and Zootopia, also featured surprise villains, confirming Disney’s addiction to villain twists. Both these films had a strong mystery element, so it made sense for them to use this trope. However, their decision to do so confirmed that Disney were out of ideas when it came to villains, and its surprise villains were relatively weak compared to the memorable and well-developed protagonists. By not revealing their villains until the last third of the film, Disney were following the lead of Pixar, whose numerous surprise villains were usually created in a far more organic and effective fashion. Although Disney’s surprise villains were supposed to be more “realistic” than the traditional rouges, they lacked the personality of these classic baddies and thus felt LESS truthful and plausible. Surprise villains became superfluous even more quickly than the conventional kind, and this shift was embodied by Frozen II, which dropped Prince Hans almost entirely in order to provide a more unusual and thought-provoking subversion the surprise villain formula. Frozen II had a mystery arc (who or what caused the crisis in the Enchanted Forest?), making a villain twist inevitable, but the person responsible for the conflict is a character who died in the prologue. Instead of fighting a villain, Anna and Elsa must undo the legacy of their murderous, magic-phobic grandfather. In the era of #BlackLivesMatter, this focus on the way in which the bigotry of past rulers has fueled present-day problems feels incredibly timely, and although some critics felt the solution to the issues was a bit rushed, Frozen II’s subversion of Surprise Villain tropes demonstrated that the problems facing the modern world cannot simply be defeated by imprisoning or killing a nefarious mastermind.

Shaking Up the Disney Formula

Although Frozen highlighted the fact that Disney’s villains were no longer up to standard, it also demonstrated that you did not need a conventional baddie to be the primary source of conflict. The main source of conflict is Elsa’s inability to control her magic powers, and the damage this does to her relationship with Anna. Frozen was originally intended to be a more straightforward adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, with Elsa as a fairly typical tyrant, but rewrites (fuelled in part by the creation of her iconic signature song “Let It Go”) - and the casting of Wicked star Idina Menzel in the role - meant that she evolved into a troubled protagonist who struck a chord with audiences in a way that few Disney characters have managed. The praise given to the way Queen Elsa subverted traditional villain tropes encouraged Disney Animation to further explore the idea that their new lineup of leading characters could get a happy ending not by vanquishing a villain, but by learning to control and address their faults and mistakes. In Moana, secondary protagonist Maui is the one responsible for setting all the problems into motion, as his decision to steal the Heart of Te Fiti turns the Island goddess into the destructive Te Ka and unleashes the blight which threatens Moana’s island. Although Moana has several smaller villains (the egocentric giant crab Tamatoa gets an enjoyable villain song, but only appears from one scene and a quick end-credits joke), overarching antagonist Te Ka is an uncontrollable and misunderstood force of nature which can only be brought back into balance by treating it with respect and compassion. Wreck-It Ralph sequel Ralph Breaks the Internet took the concept even further by forcing the titular lead to face up to an army of clones created by his own internal demons. As Disney decided to devote all their attention to exploring the worst sides of their protagonists, they begun to discard the concept of the villain entirely.

Whilst Disney Animation’s recent rejection of villainous characters is an admirable creative risk, their recent films have suffered from a lack of focus and clarity. This has really fueled demand for villains and antagonists to make a comeback, as they represent the simplest, most memorable way to generate conflict. However, instead of returning to the classic flamboyantly evil baddies, Disney Animation’s latest blockbuster Raya and the Last Dragon will feature a new evolution of the Disney villain with Raya’s nemesis Namaari. A former childhood friend gone rouge, Namaari‘s opposition to Raya seems to be based on the sincere belief that she should be the one to solve the problems affecting the world of Kumandra. The screenwriters of Raya and the Last Dragon have explicitly described Namaari as a character who is “very much like Raya” and has a “good logical reason” for her actions. It also seems very likely that Namaari will be redeemed, especially as Raya learning to trust people and see the good in them is the foundation of her character arc. If Namaari’s subplot is delivered effectively, then Raya and the Last Dragon will prove that it is possible for a Disney villain to be more grounded and sympathetic, and thus fit in with the modern focus on more complex and nuanced characters.

We need to make it clear that Disney films have not always followed the traditional villain template. This was most clear when Disney Animation begun to stray from the Disney Renaissance formula from 1999 to 2008. Treasure Island adaptation Treasure Planet stayed faithful to the moral ambiguity of the iconic antagonist Long John Silver, an unscrupulous schemer who genuinely cares about protagonist Jim Hawkins. In Brother Bear, when protagonist Kenai is turned into a bear, he is forced to run away from his own brother, who believes that he is the carnivorous ursine that killed both his siblings. The “Surprise villains” of the Disney Revival had precedent in Clayton from Tarzan and Commander Rourke from Atlantis – who only revealed their villainous nature relatively late in those films - but these gruff and condescending authority figures were far more suspicious than the likes of Hans or Professor Callaghan, so the exposure of their true nature was barely a surprise. Bolt didn’t even HAVE a villain – the criminal mastermind who the titular dog and his child actress sidekick Penny have to fight in their TV show is just an actor who is not planning any nefarious schemes in real life. Some of the best Disney villains of all time have also represented deviations from the comical but villainous conventions. Whilst most Disney villains are fairly static – focused on being representations of an exaggerated, fantastical villainy, others have hit closer to home. Beauty and the Beast managed the difficult feat of making the villain Gaston both comedic and realistic at the same time, starting as a pompous nuisance but turning increasingly dangerous and destructive as the story progresses. However, the most notable and successful example of a “realistic” Disney villain is Judge Claude Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, probably the most disturbing villain Disney have ever created. In contrast to the over-the-top misbehavior of other Disney villains, Frollo’s combination of religious fanaticism, hatred and lust feels horrifyingly real. In both cases, the more grounded, almost deconstructive approach played best to the older audiences who have helped make Disney villains so popular and ensured that Gaston and Frollo gained a substantial fanbase, and they are usually seen at the very top of Best Villain countdowns along with Cruella, Ursula and Scar. As enjoyable as the Disney Villain formula is, moving away from it can actually yield impressive results.

Live-Action Baddies

Disney’s live-action remakes aim to expand their source material to fit a more epic tone and style. However, this shift in focus on has actually proven to be a weakness for the classic villains, with Disney providing underdeveloped backstories for the likes of Gaston and Jafar to “explain” their villainy and dialing down the flamboyance which made them so enjoyable to watch. Marwan Kenzari’s “hot Jafar” was one of the most criticized aspects of the live-action Aladdin (though he has fortunately redeemed himself with his hero turn in Netflix film The Old Guard) and no-one was pleased to see the “Live action” remake of The Lion King ** cut down Scar’s signature song “Be Prepared”. However, the film which really took this trend of “expanding” Disney villains to its logical conclusion was Maleficent, with Angelina Jolie as the titular wicked fairy. This Wicked-style reimagining of the Sleeping Beauty was essentially a PG version of the “rape revenge” subgenre currently epitomized by Promising Young Woman. Casting Maleficent as a wronged woman seeking vengeance on Princess Aurora’s corrupt and treacherous father, it took pride in being the Disney live-action remake which deviated most from the source material, as Maleficent finds herself becoming a secret mother figure to Princess Aurora and undergoes an unusual redemption arc. With the success of Frozen fresh in the memory when Maleficent was released in May 2014, it proved a formidable hit and inspired a 2019 sequel – Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. Despite the fact that Angelina Jolie did a good job at capturing may of Maleficent’s most enjoyable quirks and mannerisms, neither film fully committed to the idea of Maleficent as a villain, with both putting her against far nastier human monarchs who were motivated by their hatred of Maleficent’s fairy race. However, the two Maleficent films (especially the first) demonstrated there was money to be made in exploring the backstories of Disney villains, which played a key factor in getting Cruella out of Development Hell.

The greatest cautionary tale for Disney’s live-action villains was their recent flop Artemis Fowl, based on the hit YA literary franchise of the same name. In the source material, Fowl is a preteen master criminal, initially devoid of conventional morality (though he undergoes some character development during the sequels) but possessing the charm, charisma and power that made him immensely popular with readers. In the film, he is a more generic antihero motivated by the need to rescue his kidnapped father. This big change alienated fans of the original books from the outset and did not provide anything unique or entertaining enough to win over newcomers. If Cruella makes similar mistakes by changing Cruella De Vil too much it will represent the worst of both worlds, leaving and leaving critics and audiences wondering why Disney made a film about Cruella in the first place. The Maleficent approach won’t work for Cruella – Setting aside the contrast between the two villains, Cruella is not under any pressure to subvert “True Love’s Kiss” fairytale cliches, and the more grounded setting means that it can’t provide the same fantasy spectacle. Therefore, it needs to be confident in embracing Cruella’s villainy.

Disney Channel Baddies

If you want a memorable new Disney villain, you are best off watching an animated Disney series on Disney Channel or Disney +. Since Disney Television Animation, Disney’s Animated Series arm, was established in the mid-1980s, their shows have featured many memorable villains, from Darkwing Duck’s intimidating arch enemy Negaduck to David Xanatos, the charismatic and urbane Lex Luthor style antagonist in Gargoyles. DTA shows have a permanent home on Disney Channel and its various offshoots (Disney Junior, Disney XD), and though these shows usually cater to a smaller family audience, they have gained a healthy adult fanbase in recent years. Older viewers have been drawn to Disney Channel animated shows due to their increasingly sophisticated and mature storytelling, and one of the most notable examples of this is their range of impressive villains. The acclaimed Ducktales reboot effectively updated villains from the original show – including Magica De Spell and Flintheart Glomgold - whilst adding new ones such as Lunaris. Gravity Falls gave us the unimaginably terrifying (but still frequently amusing) interdimensional demon Bill Cipher, whilst the manipulative and fanatical Toffee proved the standout villain in Star Vs. The Forces of Evil. Recent Disney Channel series have often taken full advantage of the long form format of TV series by blending classic Disney villain tropes with increased moral complexity. In Big Hero 6: The Series, Obake was an enjoyable throwback to the criminal masterminds who dominate Disney’s rouges gallery (complete with the reliably villainous voice of Andrew Scott) but the late reveal that his insanity is the result of brain damage adds a tragic layer that leads to an unexpectedly powerful conclusion. Even the Disney Junior show Elena of Avalor showed an impressive amount of ambition and maturity when it came to designing its rouges gallery. Although it contains plenty of traditional villains (including a music-hating tyrant voiced by Jane Fonda) it is Elena’s opportunistic, self-destructive older cousin Esteban who represents the most difficult test of her character development.

However, the Disney Channel adversary who represents the most radical innovation for Disney villains is Cassandra, the primary antagonist in the third and final series of the surprisingly ambitious Tangled followup Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure. For the first two seasons, Cassandra is Rapunzel’s spiky yet supportive handmaiden and closest female friend, but has one major character flaw - She is increasingly frustrated with being stuck in Rapunzel’s shadow, and wants to find her own destiny. After finding out that she was the abandoned biological daughter of original Tangled villain Mother Gothel, Cassandra falls under the influence of the sinister demon Zhan Tiri, (who like the classic Disney villains, takes great joy in being rotten to the core). Influenced by Zhan Tiri’s manipulations, Cassandra steals an enchanted moonstone from under Rapunzel’s nose, acquires several unnatural magical powers from it, then goes off the deep end. The mission to redeem Cassandra becomes Rapunzel’s driving force in Season 3, and in the series finale, she succeeds in bringing Cassandra back to the side of good. Cassandra stands out because she is a tragic antiheroine as much as a villain – an innately good women driven down a terrible path by her self-doubts and her need to prove herself. Fans were divided on the execution of Cassandra’s arc, with some finding her fall powerful and relatable, but others claimed that this arc was badly paced and inconsistently written, and (most damagingly of all) argued that Rapunzel’s mission was not worth it. However, the concept behind her was powerful and attention-grabbing enough to win over plenty of fans. It also helps that Cassandra had an impressive villain design, with imposing armor and electric blue hair, and gets to sing not one, but TWO of the best Disney villain songs of the 21st century. Despite the fact that Cassandra borrows so much from traditional Disney villains, the influence of Queen Elsa is equally strong – after all, Cassandra is voiced by Broadway star Eden Espinosa, who took over from Idina Menzel in the role of Elphaba in Wicked. However, the focus of the series remains on Rapunzel, and forcing her to take on a character descended from her kidnapper ensures that Rapunzel’s Tangled Adventure represents a far more effective take on the idea of “fighting a villain’s legacy” than Frozen II. With Cassandra, the line between protagonist and antagonist became more blurred than ever, and this represents a fascinating template for any future Disney antagonists in any medium.

Conclusion

During Disney Animation’s first few decades, animated movies were something of a novelty, so Disney’s animated films relied on simple, visual stories with clearly defined good and evil. Over the last few decades, we have begun to expect greater complexity in animated movies, so Disney have begun to focus on creating increasingly nuanced and three-dimensional protagonists. However, the classic villains have continued to exert a grip on our imaginations. Does the focus on old villains at the expense of new ones mean that the days of the Disney villain are over? The answer is No - Disney are still creating great villains and you just have to know where to find them. As long as villains can provide conflict, there is still room for the excesses of Disney’s classic rouges, but we need something more than simply being mean and sinister, and that is probably for the best.

In addition to being a shot in the arm for the Disney Villains brand, Cruella could provide some respectability for Disney’s live-action division. Disney’s live-action remakes (and their sequels) have generally been extremely average, feeling like safe, bland money-spinners which demonstrate the lack of original ideas in Hollywood and fail to compete with the original movies. However, “average” is not a word you can use to describe Cruella De Vil, and the trailer provides an indication that the film will capture much of the flamboyance and nastiness which makes her so enjoyably detestable. Making a villain more “realistic” should not mean making them weaker and more boring. In fact, highlighting and examining the traits that make Disney’s baddies so iconic could actually allow them to be more entertaining and threatening, and provide us with a greater appreciation of why we enjoy these villains in the first place.

Notes

*The Little Mermaid, which has just started filming after 10 months of COVID-19 related delays, fits into both camps, which is pretty appropriate for a film which served as the bridge between Classic Disney and the Disney Renaissance.

** Technically, it is “photorealistic CGI remake”, but Disney persistently refers to it as live-action, so we have to use that term. The row over how to classify the 2019 The Lion King has fueled the belief that the live-action remakes are trying to “replace” the original films, further adding to the backlash against them. This allegation is probably not true, but that is a topic for another time…