Every young child has heard a story beginning with the words “Once upon a time…”. The plot is quite straightforward - boy meets girl, boy saves girl, marries her and they live happily ever after. Perhaps the most infamous iteration of this trope is the fairytale Cinderella. Its most recent adaptation, Cinderella (2021), is a flamboyant musical packed with stars such as Camila Cabello and Billy Porter. A large marketing point of the film was its progressive rhetoric and the diversity with the main message of the film being one of female empowerment and inclusivity. These deliberate distinctions made to the original, Disney’s Cinderella (1950), also serve as the downfall of this adaptation as poor execution has turned it into a product of commercialised feminism and tokenism.
First, let us look at both of our protagonists. The 2021 version - called Ella - is played by Camila Cabello, a Cuban-born American singer. Andi Zeisler (2008) would use this as an example of broader representation in the media of the role women play. Camila Cabello playing Cinderella, a character that is often though of as white, is the personification of Zeisler’s vision of feminist pop culture, with representation on screen. In contrast the original version - called Cinderella - is the template for a caucasian, blonde female, blue eyes and all. Cinderella does not have a clear purpose beyond playing an integral part of the romance in the tale. The original character is subjected to the male gaze that Zeisler references, creating a female protagonist who does not challenge the prince’s masculinity.
Ella’s main motivation throughout the film is to set up an atelier and become an entrepreneur, a prospect that was forbidden for women in her kingdom. She attends the ball in hopes of building a clientele among the elite and royalty in attendance. When the prince proposes to her on the condition that she gives up her dream of being a designer, she places her career above him. In the end she does get the best of both worlds, becoming a successful entrepreneur while marrying the prince. While on the surface the narrative is of her refusing to reduce herself to the affections of a man, much of the storyline meets ideals of popular feminism outlined by Sarah Banet-Weiser (2015). The feminist decisions that Ella makes do not bring about any structural change within the fictional kingdom. She alone is granted agency to run a business by the man she marries while the other women in the story do not enjoy the same benefits. Similarly, the film as a whole preaches female empowerment through cheesy phrases and slogans such as "Who cares what anyone thinks? What matters is how you feel when you look in the mirror” thrown together at the end of scenes. It does not challenge viewers to question the existing global patriarchy. In a review for Digital Spy, Gabriella Geisinger put it best, saying “Ella herself is the poster child for an Instagram-era girlboss feminism that is fundamentally vapid, and the rest of the film follows suit” (Geisinger, 2021). The distinction in the original is that it does not have a feminist agenda to commercialise - it, much like its successor, is a product of its times. Hence, it portrays a princess as the 1950s would - demure, naive and unambitious.
Another famous figure in the 2021 film is Billy Porter, who plays the fairy godmother. The original fairy godmother’s makeover is done with the focus being the male gaze of the prince, without a vestige of feminist motivations. A prominent member of the LGBTQ community, Billy Porter’s version was intended to allow for broader interpretations of the familiar image of the fairy godmother. His role draws parallels to Queer Eye, as a queer character performs a makeover on our protagonist, Ella, so she is suitable to visit the palace and interact with upper social classes. This insinuation that a physical makeover would allow Ella to reach her true potential plays into Katherine Sender’s (2006) hypothesis of female self-help being aesthetic in order to achieve social mobility. This once again highlights popular feminist tropes as it conforms to existing patriarchical ideals of female self-improvement without ever improving upon those ideals.
In an interview with Insider, Billy Porter revealed that his character was intended to subvert expectations of gender norms. "It evolved and the thing that came out of the evolution was 'magic has no gender,' so make it genderless,” he said (Adekaiyero, 2021). It is thus counterintuitive to name the character fairy godmother, instead of something more non-binary. The character embodies Susan Sontag’s (1964) concept of intentional camp, the flamboyance of the godmother bordering on cringe as it feels ingenuine and forced in order to pander to the queer community. The original fairy godmother had an air of whimsy about her that built suspended disbelief among audiences. Walter Benjamin (1936) would argue that the new adaptation relies on Billy Porter’s cult of personality, failing to provide the character itself with enough complexity to preserve the aura of the original version. The Cinderella (2021) fairy godmother is simply a product of tokenism.
In an interview with The Motion Picture Association, director Kay Cannon said she wanted to “retell or rewrite this story how [she] had always wanted it to feel, and make [Cinderella] more active, independent” (Combemale, 2021). While much of the dialogue is consistent with this, it does not translate into the plot of the film. Ella gains agency due to the benevolence of the men in her life, while the other women in the story did not see any progress, reinforcing the concept of popular feminism. The other aim Cannon expressed was to make her version more inclusive. While some positive steps were taken in this direction with the casting, the writing of those characters pandered to numerous stereotypes making it an uncomfortable watch. While the film attempts to address the shortcomings of the original, it fails to reimagine the tale comprehensively enough to justify yet another remake of this fairytale.
References
Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Zeisler, A. (2008). Feminism and Pop Culture. New York, NY : Seal Press.
Banet-Weiser, S. (2015, January 11). Popular Misogyny : A Zeitgeist. Culture Digitally. https://culturedigitally.org/2015/01/popular-misogyny-a-zeitgeist/
Adekaiyero, A. (2021, September 3). Billy Porter explains why he's playing a genderless Fairy Godmother in 'Cinderella' remake: 'Magic has no gender'. Insider. https://www.insider.com/billy-porter-cinderella-genderless-fairy-godmother-2021-8
Geisinger, G. (2021, September 7). Cinderella's feminism is its biggest flaw. Digital Spy. https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37497024/cinderella-review-feminism/
Combemale, L. (2021, September 13). Director Kay Cannon on Bringing the Modern & the Funny to “Cinderella”. Motion Picture Association. https://www.motionpictures.org/2021/09/director-kay-cannon-on-bringing-the-modern-the-funny-to-cinderella/
First, let us look at both of our protagonists. The 2021 version - called Ella - is played by Camila Cabello, a Cuban-born American singer. Andi Zeisler (2008) would use this as an example of broader representation in the media of the role women play. Camila Cabello playing Cinderella, a character that is often though of as white, is the personification of Zeisler’s vision of feminist pop culture, with representation on screen. In contrast the original version - called Cinderella - is the template for a caucasian, blonde female, blue eyes and all. Cinderella does not have a clear purpose beyond playing an integral part of the romance in the tale. The original character is subjected to the male gaze that Zeisler references, creating a female protagonist who does not challenge the prince’s masculinity.
Ella’s main motivation throughout the film is to set up an atelier and become an entrepreneur, a prospect that was forbidden for women in her kingdom. She attends the ball in hopes of building a clientele among the elite and royalty in attendance. When the prince proposes to her on the condition that she gives up her dream of being a designer, she places her career above him. In the end she does get the best of both worlds, becoming a successful entrepreneur while marrying the prince. While on the surface the narrative is of her refusing to reduce herself to the affections of a man, much of the storyline meets ideals of popular feminism outlined by Sarah Banet-Weiser (2015). The feminist decisions that Ella makes do not bring about any structural change within the fictional kingdom. She alone is granted agency to run a business by the man she marries while the other women in the story do not enjoy the same benefits. Similarly, the film as a whole preaches female empowerment through cheesy phrases and slogans such as "Who cares what anyone thinks? What matters is how you feel when you look in the mirror” thrown together at the end of scenes. It does not challenge viewers to question the existing global patriarchy. In a review for Digital Spy, Gabriella Geisinger put it best, saying “Ella herself is the poster child for an Instagram-era girlboss feminism that is fundamentally vapid, and the rest of the film follows suit” (Geisinger, 2021). The distinction in the original is that it does not have a feminist agenda to commercialise - it, much like its successor, is a product of its times. Hence, it portrays a princess as the 1950s would - demure, naive and unambitious.
Another famous figure in the 2021 film is Billy Porter, who plays the fairy godmother. The original fairy godmother’s makeover is done with the focus being the male gaze of the prince, without a vestige of feminist motivations. A prominent member of the LGBTQ community, Billy Porter’s version was intended to allow for broader interpretations of the familiar image of the fairy godmother. His role draws parallels to Queer Eye, as a queer character performs a makeover on our protagonist, Ella, so she is suitable to visit the palace and interact with upper social classes. This insinuation that a physical makeover would allow Ella to reach her true potential plays into Katherine Sender’s (2006) hypothesis of female self-help being aesthetic in order to achieve social mobility. This once again highlights popular feminist tropes as it conforms to existing patriarchical ideals of female self-improvement without ever improving upon those ideals.
In an interview with Insider, Billy Porter revealed that his character was intended to subvert expectations of gender norms. "It evolved and the thing that came out of the evolution was 'magic has no gender,' so make it genderless,” he said (Adekaiyero, 2021). It is thus counterintuitive to name the character fairy godmother, instead of something more non-binary. The character embodies Susan Sontag’s (1964) concept of intentional camp, the flamboyance of the godmother bordering on cringe as it feels ingenuine and forced in order to pander to the queer community. The original fairy godmother had an air of whimsy about her that built suspended disbelief among audiences. Walter Benjamin (1936) would argue that the new adaptation relies on Billy Porter’s cult of personality, failing to provide the character itself with enough complexity to preserve the aura of the original version. The Cinderella (2021) fairy godmother is simply a product of tokenism.
In an interview with The Motion Picture Association, director Kay Cannon said she wanted to “retell or rewrite this story how [she] had always wanted it to feel, and make [Cinderella] more active, independent” (Combemale, 2021). While much of the dialogue is consistent with this, it does not translate into the plot of the film. Ella gains agency due to the benevolence of the men in her life, while the other women in the story did not see any progress, reinforcing the concept of popular feminism. The other aim Cannon expressed was to make her version more inclusive. While some positive steps were taken in this direction with the casting, the writing of those characters pandered to numerous stereotypes making it an uncomfortable watch. While the film attempts to address the shortcomings of the original, it fails to reimagine the tale comprehensively enough to justify yet another remake of this fairytale.
References
Benjamin, W. (1936). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Visual Culture: Experiences in Visual Culture.
Zeisler, A. (2008). Feminism and Pop Culture. New York, NY : Seal Press.
Banet-Weiser, S. (2015, January 11). Popular Misogyny : A Zeitgeist. Culture Digitally. https://culturedigitally.org/2015/01/popular-misogyny-a-zeitgeist/
Adekaiyero, A. (2021, September 3). Billy Porter explains why he's playing a genderless Fairy Godmother in 'Cinderella' remake: 'Magic has no gender'. Insider. https://www.insider.com/billy-porter-cinderella-genderless-fairy-godmother-2021-8
Geisinger, G. (2021, September 7). Cinderella's feminism is its biggest flaw. Digital Spy. https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a37497024/cinderella-review-feminism/
Combemale, L. (2021, September 13). Director Kay Cannon on Bringing the Modern & the Funny to “Cinderella”. Motion Picture Association. https://www.motionpictures.org/2021/09/director-kay-cannon-on-bringing-the-modern-the-funny-to-cinderella/
Hi Anika! I love your post! Your topic was quite engaging and well fleshed out. I am one of the people who refuses to watch what feels like the millionth remake of Cinderella. To your point about the diversity of the cast, I definitely agree. Though I am happy to see Disney moving away from its historically all White main leads, its inclusion of main cast members from minority groups in roles created for White characters definitely feels forced and disingenuous. You also make a great connection between Andi Zeiler's Popular Feminism and the new Cinderella story (pretty sure that's the actual title for another Cinderella movie (another title)). The story of the woman who ended up with it all, or the underdog, is one that serves to reinforce the idea that the world we live is equal and anyone who wants something can achieve it a long as they work really hard (and marry a prince). It undermines the structurally unequal system that serves to keep certain groups in a stagnant position, while elevating others. It demonstrates the notion presented by Zeisler, that pop feminism doesn't even attempt to challenge patriarchy. It encourages women to persevere in an unequal system without challenging the system itself, then identifies a woman who is moderately successful in achieving her dreams to use as an symbol of alleged equality. Building on your argument, I think there is also something to be said here about the amount of remakes that the story of Cinderella has had. A Screen Rant article estimates that there have been over 500 versions of Cinderella worldwide. This brings me back to the topics of Augmentation and Distribution that we discussed in the Walter Benjamin reading in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. These new renditions of Cinderella not only stray away from the original storyline (augmentation), but also inhabit spheres that they were never envisioned occupying (distribution).
ReplyDeleteHi Anika! Thank you for writing such a well-thought out and extensive commentary on the new Cinderella Film. I’ve never seen the 2019 rendition of Cinderella, but something that I found interesting about your dissection of the film was your commentary on Ella’s agency. I love how you draw on how Ella’s success on becoming an entrepreneur was largely dependent on her connections and marriage to the prince, something that other women in the film do not have. This paints a larger picture about the inconsistencies between who has the tools and connections in order to achieve in a career and who does not. The movie then becomes a product of popular feminism, as, like you mentioned, Ella’s decisions to not have any effect on or address the many faults within the structure at the heart of this fictional world. She alone ‘lives happily ever after’. Your commentary, as well as a similar commentary made by another classmate on the remaking of the Lion King that I read, reminds me of Adorno and Horkheimer’s belief that everything circles back to capitalism. When making a movie, the main objective of the production team is to sell. Therefore any attempt to appeal to feminist ideologies, in this particular case by trying to paint Cinderella as more independent and casting her role to Camilla Cabello who is not white with blonde hair and blue eyes, transforms the film into a product of popular feminism and loses a sense of authenticity. Unfortunately to be pessimistic, it’s difficult for me to see how, despite the possible intentions of a production company, we can combat this constant result of the feeling of inauthenticity surrounding a film that attempts to address social issues.
ReplyDelete