the problem with Cruella's costumes...

Summary by Krater

This video provides a costume analysis and review of the Disney movie Cruella, comparing it to the 1996 live-action 101 Dalmatians starring Glenn Close, and the 1961 animated film. The creator discusses the character's background, fashion choices, and portrayal in the various adaptations, concluding that while Glenn Close's Cruella embraced her villainy and iconic fur fashion, the newer Cruella's portrayal as a sympathetic anti-fur character lacks the same impact.

From the video

Answers: How does the costume design of Cruella compare across different adaptations and what does it say about her character?

• Cruella costume analysis
• 101 Dalmatians movie comparison
• Disney character fashion
• Fur in fashion history
• Punk fashion influence on Cruella

What it concludes

• The incarnation of [1996] Cruella as a fashion designer has been essential to her contemporary success—despite her obsession with literally wearing the fur of dogs, she is, by all accounts, 'fabulous.'
• The 1961 movie posits Cruella as simply an evil, sadistic woman, but the '96 movie makes us question whether or not Cruella wants these Dalmatians for art or for cruelty.
• The strategy behind the humanizing campaign that really kicked off in 1994 has been less to sell fur than to sell names and faces to clearly thwart the image of fur as an economy of death.
• Cruella's ferocious appetite to get the little dogs as her second skin reads as a burlesque, yet provocative piece of pro-fur rhetoric.
• If you look closely, Cruella is indicative of the very culture it pretends to critique: its central character is a white woman whose concerns and politics begin and end with herself.
• Until the 1980s anti-fur campaigns, synthetic fur was perceived by the industry and designers—and the consumers—as the poor woman's skin, the bastard beast, worse—the castrated image of the fur trade.