🐱 Amazon’s Cinderella Is Extra Bad

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty


Amazon’s new Cinderella is radical. Bad as it is, it dares to eliminate even the fantasy basis of traditional ethics, goodness, and scruples. First, this ruthlessly woke Cinderella checklists a Latina heroine (Camila Cabello) and a British prince (Nicholas Galitzine). The casting choices purposely avoid traditional, Anglo-Saxon whiteness, which Hollywood now considers “supremacist” — as if Latin America and Great Britain did not have their old class and race issues.

This retelling of the 18th-century Charles Perrault tale flaunts its modernization most spectacularly (insultingly) through the gender-fluid fairy-godmother character (Billy Porter) who grants Cinderella’s wishes. Porter paraphrases the new Tiffany jewelry-store ads: “This is not your mother’s” Cinderella, mother.

Amazon’s radicalism is to be expected — but not to be shrugged off, although many will by automatically dismissing it as a sub-Disney version. Still, it’s worth noting precisely how low the Amazon remake sinks. Simply bashing its ineptitude would be predictable, especially after Disney’s insipid 2014 live-action Beauty and the Beast, whose ghastly style director-writer Kay Cannon emulates.

The rags-to-riches story is reimagined through faddish politics, going against the idealistic values formerly associated with the “Cinderella” tale. Cannon is never so clever and culturally challenging as Anne Fontaine, in her remodeling of the “Snow White” fairy tale in White as Snow; she merely refutes Perrault’s touching romanticism.

Cabella’s Cinderella longs for a career as a fashion designer (a too-soon rip-off of Cruella) rather than consecration and fulfillment through marriage to the handsome prince. Her personal feminist cause opposes what Bruno Bettelheim in The Uses of Enchantment recognized as the “moral education” that once made the fairy tale instructive and enduring. Morality is now replaced by ambition and trite notions of sexual and social “justice.”

No wonder this film is so unmoving. Cannon’s hackwork bears no relation to Bettelheim’s idea that “each fairy tale is a magic mirror that reflects some aspects of our inner world, and of the steps required by our evolution from immaturity to maturity.” Fact is, Cannon downplays “inner world” desires in favor of political-world self-righteousness. This turns the fairy tale facetious. It believes only in social justice — not “magic,” which was another way of saying spiritual affect. Instead, Cinderella’s “glass ceiling” aspirations suggest social revolution rather than the perfect copulation metaphor of the glass slipper.

In this way, Cannon’s updating is truly juvenile. Watching how she directs the jukebox-musical numbers (overcrowding and ruining Janet Jackson’s “Rhythm Nation” and Des’ree’s “You Gotta Be” with banal, regimented choral choreography) reminded me that Cannon was similarly visually crude in Blockers, an infelicitous movie about the threat of adolescent sexuality, which maybe was the worst film of 2015.

Cinderella doesn’t earn Cannon that distinction this year (stay tuned). Aside from Cabella’s flavorless striving pop couturier (Cabella herself is a bland pop star compared with Disney’s quasi-exotic Selena Gomez), the film’s most striking failure is Billy Porter’s high-fashion, high-collared ghetto sprite. Porter in his work always flaunts the transvestite and transsexual issues that now preoccupy woke Hollywood. His drag queen is, as they say, “extra,” yet the queer showcase lacks conviction when Porter introduces himself as “fabulous,” leaving out the word “fairy.” Such politically correct defiance is also obtuse.

Our deepest childhood, moral recognition of things is not transformed by Amazon-Disney fiat, but merely renovated according to PC terms: Cinderella’s Stepmother (Idina Menzel) and Stepsisters (Maddie Baillio and Charlotte Spencer) are no longer mean but quite kindly — as if the feminist filmmakers refuse to recognize the Jen Psaki she-devils among their ranks.

It all comes down to a pitifully unconvincing Cinderella made for microaggression sensitivities — those who choose to no longer behave ethically because they have lost their moral foundation. Plus, the quasi-medieval costumes are hideous inducements to wealth and privilege, like AOC’s “Tax the Rich” gown at the Met gala ball, in which a cultural gatekeeper and would-be heroine poses as the Cinderella of the insane.
 
Plus, the quasi-medieval costumes are hideous inducements to wealth and privilege,
Man, I wish I could get drunk and just write the dumbest shit of all time and get paid for it, lol.
 
This article is just saying. It’s a Cinderella story. And they’re disappointed not that it’s bad, but it’s like… Cinderella.

I don’t know why I bother.
 
Cabella’s Cinderella longs for a career as a fashion designer (a too-soon rip-off of Cruella) rather than consecration and fulfillment through marriage to the handsome prince.
I can't get over how the movie harps on this, with numerous characters remarking "a lady can't make dresses" when dressmaking and embroidery were the main things that women of all social status did. It was one of the few things low status women could do to make money 'legitimately' and they had to do it anyway because making clothes was much more affordable than buying them. Courtly women did it too, as group activities and also just to have a hobby. Their work was a status symbol, even, used to signal favor both by being given and by being worn.

If you want to make dresses because it legitimately interests you, becoming a Queen is practically ideal. You'd have access to the finest materials, additional labor if required, and opportunities to showcase your work at balls and public functions. It's a win win for everyone involved.

Modern feminist notions simply do not function in the reality of past eras, these modern attitudes are a luxury of our time. The only thing worse than injecting them into settings where they don't belong is doing so this clumsily.
 
Honestly, if they made a movie about some dude wanting a sugar momma and hooking up with some hot playboy millionaire blueblood to fund his basketball or videogame-making venture, I think most niggas would be like "Yeah... That would be sweet..." and not one normal dude would complain about power structures or whatever dumb shit is on the table.
 
Ah Armond White... he's like the movie reviewer moviebob imagines himself to be.
 
It sux.

I have not seen it and misspelled half of my review. I will defend it to the death as being of the same quality as this and 90% of the other reviews the film will receive.
 
Back
Top Bottom