# Maleficent, Cruella, and Harley Quinn: from Villainesses to Antiheroines. Reinvestigating Female Evil in Contemporary American Cinema

Alexandra Meyer

► To cite this version:

Alexandra Meyer. Maleficent, Cruella, and Harley Quinn: from Villainesses to Antiheroines. Reinvestigating Female Evil in Contemporary American Cinema. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2023. dumas-04214497

HAL Id: dumas-04214497

https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-04214497

Submitted on 28 Sep 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
MALEFICENT, CRUELLA, AND
HARLEY QUINN: FROM
VILLAINESSES TO ANTIHEROINES

Reinvestigating female evil in contemporary
American cinema.

Alexandra Meyer

M2 Recherche - Études anglophones

2022-2023

Under the supervision of Marianne Kac-Vergne

Jury: Marianne Kac-Vergne and Monica Michlin
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Marianne Kac-Vergne for her guidance and advice throughout the writing of this dissertation; her feedback and suggestions have been of considerable help.

I would also like to thank Alice, Anaïs, Johann, Joséphine, Suzanne and Tiphaine for their support and for the many hours we shared in and out of the library during the past two years – they would not have been as enjoyable without you.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
TABLE OF CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>1</td></tr></table>

I. "Let Us Tell An Old Story Anew": Rewriting, Retelling, Reframing And Reclaiming 9

A) "The Story Was Not Quite As You Were Told": Reinvestigating The Tales Of The Past 9

B) "This Is Our Story. And I'm Telling It, So I'll Start Where I Fucking Want": The Emancipatory Power Of Self-Narration 24

a) A New Perspective 24

b) Storytelling 29

c) The Power Of Commentary 34

d) Women In Film And The Extrangetic Reclaiming Of Storytelling 38

II. "Much To Avenge, Revenge And Destroy": The Mitigating Circumstances Of Female Evil 41

A) "She Was To Learn": The Overdetermination Of Female Violence And The Making Of Natural Born Killers 41

B) It's A Man's Man's Man's World 59

C) "It Wasn't Her I Was Challenging. It Was The World": The Political Implications Of Female Evil 72

a) Redefining Family 72

b) "I Was Never An Establishment Kind Of Gal" 75

c) Maleficent And Nature: An Ecofeminist Reading 83

III. Defusing The Threat: Innocuous Villainesses And The Reassuring Portrayal Of Female Evil 90

A) "One Who Was Both Hero And Villain": Beyond The Hero/Villain Dichotomy 91

a) Beyond Bad Reputations 91

b) The Kaleidoscopic Identity Of Complex Antiheroines 94

c) Remorse And Improvement 100

B) Bad To The Bone But Easy On The Eyes: Revamping The Female Villain 102

C) Beyond Realism: Distancing Effects And The Fallacy Of Female Violence 115

Conclusion 128

Annex 131

Works Cited 133
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
unlikable man is inscrutably interesting, dark, or tormented, but ultimately compelling, even when he might behave in distasteful ways. [...] When women are unlikable, it becomes a point of obsession in critical conversations by professional and amateur critics alike. Why are these women daring to flaunt convention? Why aren't they making themselves likable (and therefore acceptable) to polite society? (2018: 76)

And indeed, in the past, the most discussed antiheroes of film have been men (The Godfather, Patrick Bateman from American Psycho), while most articles talking about antiheroes prioritise male examples (Murray, 2020), or even ignore their female counterparts all together (Laib, 2023 and Leroy, 2022). Despite some canonical examples in other art forms and in myth (Lady MacBeth, or Phaedra), women in film have scarcely been allowed the same imperfections as men. Omar explains the rise of the female antiheroine through the diversification of content due to the multiplication of available programs, but also because of a slow increase in the number of women given a seat at the table behind the scenes. The emergence of post feminism already gave rise to some representation of imperfect female characters in romantic comedies, with the most striking example being Bridget Jones, who haphazardly tries to adhere to the expectations of femininity (McRobbie, 2008), but the female characters' wrongdoings were limited to excessive day drinking, a supposedly unhealthy diet and awkward conversation skills — seldom were they able to actually do harm and remain the characters the audience is made to root for. However, female antiheroines seem to have grown in number, as "in the past several years, a significant number of television female characters were in fact constructed as anti-heroines" (Tally, 2016: 1), as well as in the nature of their evil deeds: they now stalk their exes (Crazy Ex Girlfriend), turn into money launderers (Good Girls), or become assassins (Killing Eve).

During this same period, there has been an increase in the number of spinoffs and prequels which have come out: with the high rates at which films are spewed out in Hollywood, the industry has seen the interest of not having to create new content out of nowhere. Hollywood has seen a proliferation of film franchises at the cost of standalone films: "Over the past few decades, creating global film franchises (which we define as consisting of at least two globally marketed films in a series of sequels, prequels and/or spinoffs) has become a primary strategy for firms in the movie business, and in recent years, franchises have dominated the global box office" (Filson, 2018: 448). These franchises have proved to be highly successful, as attested by their box office success over the past decade: with the exception of 2021, there was never more than one standalone film in the top 10 films of the box office since at least 2014 (see
annex 1). This comes a long way from what could be seen in the past: "If it seems like there are more franchise movies around these days, that is because there are: seven of the 10 top-grossing movies globally in 2014 were sequels. Compare this with the year-end box office tally 20 years ago when only one of the top 10 — the Harrison Ford-starring *Clear and Present Danger* — was a sequel" (Garrahan, 2014). Garrahan goes on to explain this trend: "Hollywood studios love franchise films because they have built-in awareness with audiences". This has given way to what Fritz calls a "franchise-dominated business" (2018: 99), noting there has been a shift in the loyalty of viewers, who no longer pledge themselves to a star, but to a franchise: "Moviegoers looking for the consistent, predictable satisfaction they used to get from their favorite stars now turn to cinematic universes. Any movie with 'Jurassic' in the title is sure to feature family-friendly adventures on an island full of dinosaurs, no matter who plays the human roles" (100). This change of dynamic can be felt to such an extent that "[t]he franchise film era is, in many ways, a return to the studio system. Only now the major entertainment companies don't own the most important talent—they own the most important cinematic brands" (12). This trend is not particularly new, as the very term "prequel" gained traction when *Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace* was released in 1999, and for decades, there has been a market for these commercially successful ventures, banking on pre-established fanbases. Television productions seem to be continuing in that direction, as there has been a trend in prequels which give backstories to the characters of notorious franchises, with such striking examples as *The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power*, and *House of the Dragon*, which garnered massive media attention as they were released on Amazon and HBO in late 2022 and created a tidal wave in home entertainment. The same process is to be noted across genres, in films with varying target audiences, which have come to complete films that had been released decades earlier, be it *Monsters University* in 2013 (a prequel to *Monsters, Inc.*, 2001), *Rise of the Planet of the Apes* in 2011 (a reboot of the 1968 *Planet of the Apes* series), or *Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens* in 2015 (a sequel to the *Star Wars* films which had been released between 1977 and 2005).

In short, recent years have seen the proliferation of spinoffs based on previously established franchises, an increase in female-led stories, and a growing interest in villain origin stories. At a time when the male antihero has lost his momentum and in light of the commercial success of spinoffs, the female villainess-made-antiheroine seems to come to the rescue. At the intersection of the various trends which have hit the film industry in the last decades, stand the heroines of *Maleficent* (Robert Stromberg, 2014), *Cruella* (Craig Gillespie, 2021) and *Birds of*
*Prey* (Cathy Yan, 2020). Seeing their thematic similarities, these three films have already been compared and studied in conjunction (Mishra, 2021). Shortly after the release of *Cruella*, Mishra likened the treatment of these three characters, analysing the films as “femme fatale retellings”. As the films reinvestigate nefarious characters, they will offer an interesting ground to study the place of the female antiheroine in contemporary Hollywood cinema. The relatively short period in which these films came out (2014-2021), shows a new-fangled interest in these types of stories. All three films are spinoffs from earlier films, which are themselves taken from previous works, be it a novel, a fairy tale, or a comic book series. Unlike the series mentioned earlier, such as *Fleabag* or *Good Girls*, where we were made to adhere to the complicated characters from the start, these films reintroduce us to characters we were originally made to fear in the works they were first featured in, as they were presented as villains long before they became the heroines of the newer films dedicated to them. *Maleficent*, *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey* let us see how evil women can be transformed into lovable characters even when we were made to fear or hate them to begin with. This will offer us fertile ground to study the ways in which female evil is authorised, but also constrained and mitigated in contemporary American cinema, where female antiheroines have so long been outcast or neglected.

*Maleficent*, starring Angelina Jolie as the lead actress, came out in 2014 and focuses on retelling the story of Sleeping Beauty, casting a new light on the renowned tale. We are shown Maleficent as a young fairy, living peacefully in the Moors, before she meets a young boy named Stefan (Sharlto Copley), whom she befriends and falls in love with. Years later, he returns to the Moors and betrays the titular fairy by cutting off her wings and giving them to the king of the rival kingdom, to prove his allegiance as the humans wage a war against the Moors. Maleficent seeks her revenge on Stefan, who has now become king, by putting a curse on his new-born child, Aurora (Elle Fanning). As times go by, Maleficent takes pity on the young girl and grows to regret her curse.

*Birds of Prey* follows Harley Quinn after her split from the Joker in a time following the events of *Suicide Squad* which had been released a couple of years earlier. The film focuses on a group of women, including Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Montoya (Rosie Perez), and Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett) who come together to fight Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), a megalomaniac billionaire who rules over Gotham City, and who is in search of a young girl named Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco) after she stole a diamond worth millions of dollars.
Finally, *Cruella* follows the notorious character from *The Hundred and One Dalmatians*, from her birth to her early adulthood. The troublesome girl, originally named Estella (Emma Stone), becomes orphaned at a young age and is made to band up with Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) and Jasper (Joel Fry) to make a living by stealing her way through London. As she grows older, she develops an interest in fashion which she puts to use in her schemes and creates disguises for the three of them to wear. Her passion for clothing and design leads her to work for the Baroness (Emma Thompson), an evil fashion magnate who is ultimately revealed to be responsible for the death of Estella's mother. As she finds out about the Baroness's involvement, Estella seeks out her revenge by creating a second identity for herself, under the alias "Cruella", and makes her marks as a rival fashion designer who takes down the Baroness's empire.

These films thus cover a wide range of themes, inscribe themselves in various genres, and take on varying approaches to the stories which unfold. Despite their heterogeneity, they are all big budget films, and all relative commercial successes, although *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey* were affected by the Covid 19 pandemic – and had a simultaneous release on Disney + or early release on video – which mitigated their box office results. They are, however, directed towards relatively different audiences: *Maleficent* is a PG film, suitable for children, whereas *Cruella* was rated PG 13, and *Birds of Prey* was the first DC film to be rated R. This means our films are allowed very different levels of graphic representation. While these films offer us very different approaches to their title characters, they all focus on characters who had previously been characterised as the villains of the original stories that they were featured in. As the films do not completely diverge from the original works they are based on, and the characters continue to act in contestable ways, the new protagonists of our films can be characterised as antiheroines.

As the very term suggests, an antihero is a character who goes against the traditional expectations we have of a hero, yet who takes on the role of protagonist, and whom we are ultimately made to root for. Both villains and antiheroes, then, are made to commit reprehensible actions, but we are made to root for one and not the other, for a variety of reasons:

> As the name suggests, the antihero lacks traditional heroic qualities like conviction, courage, physical prowess, or intelligence. Further, the antihero is plagued by human frailties such as weakness, arrogance, cowardice, doubt, envy, indolence, or stupidity.
> 
> [...] But these flaws do not fatally condemn the antihero in the audience's eyes. This is because the flaws are (a) mild in the grand scheme of things, (b) peripheral to the core
of the hero's personality, (c) forgivable or at least exculpable (because, for instance, they result from some wrong done to her in the past), and (d) outweighed by some virtue(s) that the antihero possesses. (Eaton, 2012: 283)

As such, the antiheroine can be defined as “a deeply flawed, yet at the same time, sympathetic character. She is one who is neither uniformly good nor evil, but has qualities that mark her as being capable of doing bad things for good reasons” (Tally, 2016: 8). The study of these characters will help us understand how they can be reclaimed, reassessed, and how such a shift is possible. We will therefore see how the re-examining of these characters helps us root for them and showcases the growing freedom in the representation of female imperfection. As the stories take on a new perspective and refresh our view on pre-existing characters, we will be able to study the newfound space for female-led stories and antiheroines.

Yet the definition of “antiheroine” we have been working with so far limits her to a female version of the antihero, and perhaps overlooks some of the specificities that derive from her gender. One needs, when considering the antiheroine, to take into account how her gender comes into play. Indeed, the antiheroine

is usually “edgy”, in the sense that her actions and her personality do not obey the conventions of traditional femininity, though she may or may not behave at times in conventionally masculine ways either. And this is where the definition becomes even more interesting, because as we will see, some of the qualities of some of the anti-heroines reside in their transgression of traditional female attributes that include the injunction that female characters should be likeable (Tally, 2016: 8).

As a consequence, the antiheroine stands up to a system that has long dismissed her: “The ascent of the antiheroine in contemporary culture challenges the boundaries that limit women to idealized motherhood and domestic partnership, allowing space for narratives that diverge from social prescriptions and characters who embody visions of womanhood that affirm choice, agency, and alterity” (Haas, 2020: ix).

The focus of this work will therefore be to study the means through which the films engage in a reworking of the title characters, making them shift from villainesses to antiheroines. The fact that these characters were originally villains makes them even better
candidates to study how antiheroines are constructed as lovable figures despite their imperfections, and we will be able to study the gender specificities of the reworking of the characters. Gender is at the centre of the reflexion on antiheroines as they gained momentum at a time when women in film were increasingly given the leeway to act in imperfect ways. By focusing on these repurposed villains, we will be able to see how they are not just envisioned as the female version of antiheroes. The character's gender plays a part in the way the antiheroine's condemnable actions are represented, as more precautions are taken to enable the viewer to root for an evil woman in a society which sees female sadism as taboo. Subsequently, the aim will also be to see how subversive the representation – and celebration – of violent women can be when “female sadism is not supposed to exist and remains deeply repressed within Western heteropatriarchy” (Morrissey, 2003: 173). While the representation of female villains is not a new phenomenon – as attested by the prevalence of the evil witch in fairy tales, or the sexual threat posed by the women of film noir – their portrayal as positive figures will be an object of study. As Cruella, Maleficent and Harley Quinn become the focus of the films at study, we will be able to see how their stories are reframed, and how the films justify or mitigate their villainous traits, while simultaneously considering what role the issue of gender plays in their representation as evil yet lovable figures.

These interrogations will lead us to consider how *Birds of Prey*, *Cruella* and *Maleficent* address the stories they were based on, and how the films depart from the treatment of the characters in previous works. As they rework earlier material, the films question the univocity of storytelling and present stories as mere perspectives on a given event. It is through the representation of a new, female perspective, then, that we are made to change our minds on characters, while the previous works are presented as limited, if not flawed accounts.

As these new stories reframe old tales, they offer us more insight into the characters and a better understanding of their psyche and motives. In addition, reframing the narrative leads us to question the virtue and validity of the system which the characters were vilified for standing against. In this manner, the films are able to justify, or at least explain the behaviours displayed by the characters, while their gender, and the marginalisation which stems from it, partly explains their rebellious attitudes. By giving more room to the exploration of the characters' inner conflicts and suffering, the films help us both empathetically feel for the characters and rationally endorse their actions.
Finally, the films work to make the characters much less threatening, even when they do commit reprehensible actions. Be it because of the enduring taboo of feminine evil, or because of the need to exonerate them from their previous wrongdoings, the representation of the antiheroines' evilness is particularly tame and mitigated; the portrayal of their misdeeds is consistently marked by a reassuring distance that ensures they are never threatening. Ultimately, we will see how the female antiheroine remains lovable because of how sparingly and momentarily she diverges from the expectations we have of a woman on the one hand, and of a hero on the other.
# I. “LET US TELL AN OLD STORY ANEW”: REWRITING, RETELLING, REFRAMING AND RECLAIMING

As they take on the task of retelling a pre-existing story, the films in our corpus all navigate a complicated relationship to the materials they are based on. As they focus on characters which were previously only secondary, they bring to light the limits of one-sided tales and are able to give us a fresh perspective on old characters. The films acknowledge the works that they were based on, but also take some distance, so as to reframe the narrative, and demonstrate the limits of the previous depictions of the characters. We will therefore be able to see how the retelling of old tales can enable the reframing and the reclaiming of a story that had escaped the previously villainous characters.

## A) “The story was not quite as you were told”: reinvestigating the tales of the past.

The very first words uttered in Disney’s *Maleficent* acknowledge the work’s history and set out the project of the film: to “tell an old story anew” (00:00:30-00:00:37). Indeed, the 2014 film is based on the ancient tale of “Sleeping Beauty”, which can be traced back to the early 14th century, as a version of the myth appears in *Perceforest*. The medieval tale then went on to be adapted and retold numerous times: among these many retellings, we can cite Charles Perrault 1697 version in *The Tales of Mother Goose*, as well as *Dornröschen* which was written by the Brothers Grimm in 1812, or Disney’s 1959 animated film *Sleeping Beauty*. Throughout the years, a wide range of works have been created in relation to the character – a young princess cursed as a baby to fall into a sleep like death by pricking her finger on a spinning wheel as she reaches sixteen years of age, only to be awakened by true love’s kiss. Through Aurora’s voiceover narration, *Maleficent* sets out to tell us the well-known tale once again, assuming that the viewer will be familiar with the source material. *Maleficent’s* aim is to give us yet another adaptation of a story which the viewers are supposed to be familiar with. The very term “anew” carries its own share of ambiguity: the term does not only convey the idea of repetition, but also the idea of renewal – it can signify both something being done an additional time, and something being done in a new way. As the narration continues, the disembodied voice (later revealed to
be Aurora's) comments "let us see how well you really know it" (00:00:37). From the start, there is a suggestion that the stories which have been told previously may still be lacking, despite their numerous retellings. The film acknowledges its multifarious heritage, as the closing credits roll: *Maleficent* is "Based on DISNEY'S SLEEPING BEAUTY and 'LA BELLE AU BOIS DORMANT' written by CHARLES PERRAULT" (01:30:44).

*Cruella* and *Birds of Prey* also derive from a rich history, as they are based respectively upon "the Novel 'The One Hundred and One Dalmatians' By Dodie Smith" (01:59:40) and "characters from DC" (01:41:50). *Cruella* is based on a series of materials: the character first appears in Dodie Smith's 1956 novel *The One Hundred and One Dalmatians*, but the film is bound to echo Disney's two animated adaptations (1961 and 2003), and successive live-action films (1996 and 2000), all based on the original novel. Similarly, *Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn*, draws from a long list of pre-existing works: it is a direct spinoff of *Suicide Squad* (2016) but is also an adaptation of the original DC comics. Harley's character first appears in 1993, in the seventh episode of *Batman: The Animated Series* ("Joker's Favor") and has gone on to appear many times in various media, be it the comic books *The Batman Adventures*, from 1992 to 1995, or the 2002 animated series *Birds of Prey*.

All of the films at study have several origins and sources, and they all aim to tell a story from a new point of view, to reinvestigate a well-known character, to re-examine tales which have already been told many times before. As such, these new films have to find their place among the many other works, that have already been created around the same topic. The endeavour of adapting or revising a story is heavy with meaning, and the relation that the new films have with their sources is interesting to study, as they refuse to take the previous works at face value and choose instead to renew them. As Žižek notes, there is a form of respect in the renewal that comes from adapting a classic with a new perspective:

> One thing is certain: the only way to be faithful to a classic work is to take such a risk: avoiding it, sticking to the traditional letter, is the safest way to betray the spirit of the classic. In other words the only way to keep a classical work alive is to treat it as 'open', as pointing towards the future; or, to use the metaphor evoked by Walter Benjamin, to act as if the classic work were a film requiring a chemical for development which is invented after the fact. In this manner, it is only today that we can get the full picture.
> 
> (2019: 335)
While adaptation and revision can be seen as a homage to the source material, there is something quite postmodern about the project of reinvestigating a well-known story. Indeed, the films at hand seem to defy the notion of a hegemonic, comprehensive, and exhaustive story, even when the previous works were presented as closed narratives. As the films were released so long after the original works featuring the characters, it is safe to say that *Cruella*, *Maleficent* and *Birds of Prey* were not always destined to be made, and the original works had not necessarily accounted for the possibility of any future development to the stories they told. The message is nowhere clearer than in *Sleeping Beauty*: the film starts with a book opening and ends with that same book magically closing as the story comes to a fold (figures 1-6).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figures 1-3: A book opening at the beginning of *Sleeping Beauty* (Geronimi et al., 1959, 00:01:50-00:02:04)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figures 4-6: the book closes at the end of *Sleeping Beauty* (01:14:41-01:14:48)</figcaption></figure>

As both volumes of the animated version of Dodie Smith's novel conclude with "the End" appearing on the screen (figures 7 and 8), they also present themselves as complete stories.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: "The End" (One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Reitherman et al., 1961, 01:19:07)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8: "The End" (101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure, Kammerud and Smith, 2003, 01:13:30)</figcaption></figure>

Even if the characters are picked up again in the second volume, it is in the form of a new story, with the possibility for either film to be seen independently from the other. These first films
were meant to be somewhat totalizing – they were thought of as stand-alone films, and the
creation of a follow-up that brings this into question cannot be taken for granted. Yet the sheer
amount of content which has been created in relation the universe imagined by Dodie Smith
questions the possibility for a story to ever be completely told. Beyond the two animated films
and two live-action remakes of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the franchise includes two
separate animated series (one in 1997-1998 and a second in 2019-2020).

As for Harley Quinn and *Birds of Prey*, the situation is slightly different: the film follows *Suicide Squad*, which was already part of the DC comics extended universe. Harley Quinn was already thought of in terms of a macrocosm of characters – as can be seen with the fact that *Suicide Squad* had a post-credit scene teasing another film (although it foreshadowed *Justice League*, not *Birds of Prey*). In addition, *Suicide Squad* ended with the Joker breaking Harley out of prison, leaving way to the possibility of her story continuing, as it does in *Birds of Prey*. Harley Quinn, when she was introduced as embodied by Margot Robbie, was never meant to be a one-hit wonder. Even the source material – the comic books and animated series – were designed as serials; they were meant to leave room for the characters to evolve as the series progressed. Before *Birds of Prey* even begins, the opening credits inscribe it in a long line of superhero films, as images of the Flash, Batman, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman appear on screen, before transforming into the DC logo (figures 9-13). This contributes to the conception of this array of characters as essential elements of the ever-evolving DC cinematic universe.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figures 9-13: production logo at the beginning of Birds of Prey (Yan, 2022, 00:00:24-27)</figcaption></figure>

These characters are all constituent of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe), a collection of films
and series that started in 2013 with *Man of Steel* coming to the screens. It now consists of over
13 films – with at least three more in the works – and one television series. The DCEU
comprises many prequels, sequels, and crossover films, with characters that are made to evolve throughout their representation. The very term “universe” to describe the franchise suggests that all of these characters evolve alongside one another, in an intertwined world in which they are made to coexist, and sometimes interact. It is not intended as a closed universe but is on the contrary meant to be very open, as it draws on the tradition of comic book series. Perhaps by definition, Harley was meant to be ever evolving, and to be rebooted as many times as necessary: *Birds of Prey* continued in this tradition by leaving room for the possibility of a follow-up, as *The Suicide Squad* (2021) takes up Harley once again once she is back in prison after the events of *Birds of Prey*.

The open-endedness of the films can also be seen in *Cruella*, as it ends with Jasper asking: “so what now?” (02:04:19), effectively paving the way for a further reprisal of the story being told – and a second film is said to be in the works (Jackson, 2021). While *Maleficent* ends in a fairly traditional fashion and could be read as closed ended, a sequel, entitled *Maleficent: Mistress of Evil* was made in 2019. By reinvestigating previous works that were meant to be closed – at least when it comes to *Cruella* and *Maleficent*, the films seem to take on a postmodernist approach. As Booker notes, postmodernism is partly characterised by a “radical suspicion toward ‘totalizing metanarratives’” (2007: xiv). And by taking up narratives which have already been told, the films seem to question the notion that stories can be truly complete.

The films give various reasons and justifications as to why they are retelling an old tale, and the relation they maintain to the previous works can be more or less distant. They all dialog with the earlier works, but they can do so by negating or updating the sources, by creating a clashing narrative or by simply giving the viewers an idea of what could have preceded or followed the original story. Interestingly enough, all of our films have a different temporal approach to the original works they are based on. In *Cruella*, all of the events take place before what we are told in Dodie Smith’s novel or in Disney’s previous adaptations of the book. In *Maleficent* however, while the film also starts off as a prequel, it ends up covering the events which occur before, during, and after those explored in *Sleeping Beauty*: we are shown young Maleficent, long before she is turned into a villain. After establishing this character, *Maleficent* covers the temporality of the original film: we see the curse and the saving of Princess Aurora. While *Sleeping Beauty* ended shortly after the princess was saved, *Maleficent* adds further development to the story, as Aurora is in turn crowned Queen of the Moors: the film thus also contains elements of a sequel. As for *Birds of Prey*, the film can mainly be characterised as a
sequel, with few mentions of events happening before Harleen Quinzel was Harley Quinn; the film gives us glimpses into her life before *Suicide Squad*, but chiefly focuses on what happens afterwards. This has many consequences on the way the films are able to redeem the characters: they can give us a backstory to explain how the characters became what they became, they can show us their future redemption, or they can contradict the stories we know, by giving us a competing narrative.

The use of prequels to explain the evolution of a character is nowhere clearer than in *Cruella*. The film gives us the story of a young Estella, from a very early age, up until her twenties. The film glides over the time of Estella's life between the moment she first encounters Jasper and Horace, up until her early adulthood, with a time jump from one to the other. Yet the editing of the film erases this discontinuity by creating a strong sense of fluidity. The time jump is made to be very smooth, as we transition with seemingly no cut from a twelve-year-old Estella, played by Tipper Seifert-Cleveland, to the young adult version of the character, played by Emma Stone (figures 14-18).

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figures 14-8: transition from a twelve-year-old Estella to a young adult version of the character (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:14:45-00:15:03)</figcaption></figure>

The two parallel images of Estella in a close-up shot (figures 14 and 18) are tied together smoothly as young Estella bends down to only reveal the empty mirror (figure 16) and an older Estella comes back up. The camera is then made to seemingly enter the mirror to follow Estella as she leaves the bathroom. This continuity editing technique gives us the impression of a continuum between Estella's life as a child and her actions as a young adult, perhaps justifying the latter by virtue of the former: we are meant to understand her actions in light of the tragedies of her past.
More broadly, as they continue to tell a story that has already been told, we will have to study how faithful the new films stay to the original works. In many ways, the films try to pay homage to the original material, through various echoes and nods to their heritage. In *Maleficent*, the link to the original *Sleeping Beauty* film is clear as the spell scene bears striking resemblance with that of the 1959 animated version. Not only do the two scenes contain the exact same speech, but they also have similar constructions visually, and some of the shots are made to be direct references to what could be found in Disney's animated version of the tale (figures 19 and 20). The two shots feature similar colours, and as Maleficent turns around, her dress creates a silhouette which resembles the character's figure in *Sleeping Beauty*. While the 2014 live-action film does not feature the soldiers which frame the evil queen in the animated version, *Maleficent* aims to recreate a strong sense of symmetry with the windows in the background framing the Queen of the Moors as an echo to the symmetry of the older version.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 19: the spell scene in *Maleficent* (Stromberg, 2014, 00:32:47)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 20: the spell scene in *Sleeping Beauty* (Geronimi et al., 1959, 00:09:17)</figcaption></figure>

Similarly, an echo to the 1959 version can be found in the use of the song “Once Upon a Dream”, which is sung various times in *Sleeping Beauty* and can be heard as the closing credits roll at the end of *Maleficent*. The incorporation of this song is both a sign of reverence and of divergence, as the music, now interpreted by Lana del Rey, takes on a much darker tone, thus showcasing the more serious and eerie approach of the newer film.

The nods to the original *One Hundred and One Dalmatians* that can be found in *Cruella* are a little more subtle as the story exclusively centres on actions which are set before the events of the previous films and books. As such, there are no moments in which we have a precise side-by-side comparison, but *Cruella* still manages to bring in the spirit of the first films. One striking example is the incorporation of a running joke that comes through in several versions of the universe created by Dodie Smith: that dog owners always resemble their dogs. The joke was introduced in *One Hundred and One Dalmatians* (1961), as Pongo looked through the
window in search of a suitor for himself and for his owner Roger. He is able to look for both at once, as dogs and owners are made to bear a striking resemblance, with the owners passing by his window all matching their pet in colour and posture (figures 21-24). This is taken up in *Cruella* as Horace notes “notice how some dog owners look a lot like their dogs” (00:59:21) – although this remark leaves Jasper unconvinced, the reference to the original animated film is evident.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figures 21-4: dogs and their owner are made to look alike in One Hundred and One Dalmatians (Reitherman et al., 1961, 00:04:55-00:05:39)</figcaption></figure>

Not unlike *Maleficent*'s reuse of the song "Once Upon a Dream", *Cruella* also reincorporates a song which could be found in the animated film. The post-credit scene displays Roger as he writes the song "Cruella De Vil" which he sings in the first animation and is featured during the closing credits of the 1996 live-action film.

While *Suicide Squad* received some criticism for its depiction of Harley Quinn which was rather far from her representation in the original comics (Rogers, 2015), *Birds of Prey* seeks to correct this wrong with several nods to her original costume. In many ways *Birds of Prey* comes back to its origins much more than *Suicide Squad* did. One example of this can be seen with Harley's black and red jester costume, which she was originally seen wearing in the 1993 episode she first appeared in (figure 25). *Birds of Prey* reincorporates a similar design during the starting animation in which Harley tells us about her early life (figure 26).
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 25: Harley's first appearance in any DC media (The Batman Animated Series, "Joker's Favor" Kirkland, 1992, 00:07:17)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 26: Harley in her black and red outfit (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2022, 00:01:31)</figcaption></figure>

This costume appears again later on, when Harley, Cassandra, Montoya, Dinah and Huntress are looking through a box containing some of Harley's old attire in the hopes of finding equipment to defend themselves against Sionis and his army. Harley tells Montoya to wear her old black and red jacket, and the piece of clothing is then mentioned again after Montoya gets shot and it is revealed to be bullet proof (figure 27).

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 27: Montoya wearing Harley's back and red harlequin outfit (Birds of Prey, 01:30:19)</figcaption></figure>

*Birds of Prey* therefore brings us back to the origins of Harley's character, but it also inscribes itself in the continuity of *Suicide Squad*. The film reincorporates shots directly taken from *Suicide Squad* to show the continuity between the two works (figures 28-9).

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 28: Harley falling into the vat of chemicals in Suicide Squad (Ayer, 2016, 10:40)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 29: Harley falling into the vat of chemicals in Birds of Prey (6:58)</figcaption></figure>
This shot appears in *Suicide Squad* during a montage while Amanda Waller tells the head of Special Operations Command about Harley's past. In *Birds of Prey* the exact same shot, is reused, without its colour filter, during a montage of Harley's memories when she is about to drive a truck into the chemical factory in which this event took place.

The new films reprise elements of their origins, but they may also take some distance
from the source-material. This can be seen in *Cruella*, as the depiction of Anita differs from
earlier representations of the character. *101 Dalmatians* presented Anita as an old school friend
of Cruella's, which was already a stretch from the original novel, in which Anita says they were
never close as she was scared of her. Their schoolgirl camaraderie is maintained in *Cruella*, but
the character also undergoes quite a few changes in Craig Gillespie's version. *Cruella* updates
the previous films in order to better represent the society the story is supposed to be set in, as it
features a more diverse cast. The representation of Anita as Black in *Cruella* has been praised
by many: "For Baptiste, who calls London her hometown, *Cruella's* commitment to un-white-
washing the city was just as monumental as giving Anita an actual story" (Stahler, 2021). In
terms of storyline, the new *Cruella* film also takes some liberties: Anita is no longer a fashion
designer (which she was in the 1996 version); she is now a reporter. As for Roger, he is no
longer a pianist (1961), nor a video-game designer (1996): he is now a lawyer who works for
the Baroness at the start of the film. Similarly, in *Maleficent*, despite the clear parallels between
the 2014 film and the previous adaptations of the tale, the story dramatically diverges: Aurora's
mother is killed off while the young princess is in hiding, and her father dies shortly after the
curse is broken. This is all brought together at the end of the film, as Aurora concludes in
voiceover narration: "So you see, the story was not quite as you were told" (01:27:15). Before
*Birds of Prey* even starts, it seems to be presented as a disruption within the DC Universe. As
we have mentioned, the opening title presents Harley in a longline of DC heroes, but this posture
is immediately contested as a face is drawn in a pink handwriting over the company's logo
(figure 30).
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 30: Harley's writing overtop the DC logo (Birds of Prey, 0:29)</figcaption></figure>

As they articulate their distance and faithfulness toward their sources, the films all choose to retell an old story in a new way, presenting the original stories as somewhat lacking. This incompleteness is furthermore always centred around one character, the villain, who thus becomes the main focus of the new narrative. Evidently, all the films have the name of a villainous character as their title (*Cruella* and *Maleficent*) or as part of their title (*Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn*), highlighting the change of protagonist that these films engage in. Turning to a character from a pre-existing work is motivated in part by profitability, as the characters and universes of the films already have an established fanbase to lean on. Harley Quinn was in fact meant to be a one-off character when she first appeared in *The Batman* animated series in 1993, but she was made to stay because of her popularity. Moreover, the interest in Harley long predates the filming of *Birds of Prey*. As early as 1993, the very year the character was first introduced to the comics, the psychiatrist-turned-harlequin was given a backstory, in the form of a one-shot comic book entitled *Mad Love*.

The characters which our films zoom in on all created some form of fascination, despite – or maybe on account of – their villainous ways. Zipes remarks that the villainesses of classic fairy tales are overwhelmingly the characters which leave the strongest impression on the viewer:

> It may seem strange to argue that Disney perpetuated a male myth through his fairy-tale films when, with the exception of *Pinocchio* (1940), they all featured young women as heroines, as in *Cinderella* (1950) and *Sleeping Beauty* (1959). However, despite their beauty and charm, these figures are pale and pathetic compared with the more active and demonic characters in the film. The witches not only are agents of evil but also
represent erotic and subversive forces that are more appealing both for the artists who drew them and for the audiences. (1991: 205)

And long before the films were made, Cruella, Maleficent and Harley Quinn were already perceived as fascinating, and it is from this fascination that emerged the eagerness to dive into their stories and represent them more thoroughly. On a psychological level, Keen notes that the fascination for evil characters can be explained by the notion of “psychological reactance”: “If, by societal standards, we are not supposed to root for the bad guy, then your freedom to choose whom to root for is constrained by others. Thus, by the definition of psychological reactance, one would find the bad guy more desirable” (2012: 141). There has always been a clear interest for the enigmatic evil female characters in our films, suffice it to see the newest cover of Dodie Smith's novel, as well as the posters for the release of *101 Dalmatians* and *102 Dalmatians* (figures 31-3).

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 31: Poster of the 1996 live-action film 101 Dalmatians (Herek)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 32: Poster of the 2000 live-action film 102 Dalmatians (Lima)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 33: Cover of the 2018 edition of Dodie Smith's novel</figcaption></figure>

The casting of Glenn Close to play Cruella in the live-action production is also noteworthy: she is possibly the most famous actress in the films, as attested by the emphasis on her name at the top of the posters, and as such the actress embodying the villain was perhaps the one meant to draw in the most audiences. Furthermore, as the song “Cruella De Vil” plays at the end of the first live-action adaptation, the viewer is made to remember the villain as the most striking part of the film: although she is defeated as the story comes to a fold, her presence lingers on after the film has ended. As for Harley, we can note that she was the number one most searched
costume on Google for Halloween in 2016, the year *Suicide Squad* was released (Fenner, 2016). And nearly three decades after the release of *Sleeping Beauty*, Charles Solomon still notes that the evil witch is one of the most mesmerising parts of the film: “Its more fantastic elements-- the cruelly beautiful sorceress, Maleficent; the climactic battle between Prince Philip and the Dragon of Evil; the vision of medieval life as an opulent pageant--have never been matched in a live-action film” (1986).

In our films, the fascinating nature of the characters may be best highlighted in the use of several low-angle shots to accentuate our heroines' imposing stance (figures 34-36).

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 34: low-angle shot of Harley Quinn (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:03:56)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 35: low-angle shot of Maleficent (Stromberg, 2014, 00:25:49)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 36: low-angle shot of Cruella (Gillespie, 2021, 01:05:55)</figcaption></figure>

As we see with the image of Cruella, the fascination she generates can also be felt within the film's diegesis: she is presented as a captivating figure as her anticks garner considerable media attention. This shot showcases the young fashion designer while she disrupts the Baroness' arrival, by locking her in her car and standing up on it. The images of news headlines are superimposed on the low-angle shot of the character, while camera flashes can punctually be seen on screen. These flashes even operate as a transition from the images of Cruella being photographed, to an image of Cruella being featured in an actual newspaper (figures 37-40).
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figures 37-40: A flash enables a transition from Cruella being photographed to her appearing in print (01:05:58-01:06:01)</figcaption></figure>

The representation of the media frenzy around Cruella is not an isolated event in the film. On the contrary, there are several other sequences which feature Cruella with a superimposed image of a newspaper talking about her (figures 41 and 42), or with the inscription on screen of the headlines written in relation to her (figures 43 and 44).

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figures 41-2: an image of a newspaper is superimposed on the image of Cruella (01:04:52)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 43-4: "Cruella has arrived" appears on screen as she disrupts another one of the Baroness' events (01:08:48-01:08:50)</figcaption></figure>
As newspaper clippings and headlines are repeatedly superimposed on images of Cruella, she becomes inexorably tied to the fascination she generates. In addition, during these scenes, both the images and the sound design are overwhelmingly taken up by flashes and the clicks of camera shutters overtop the dramatic music, thus emphasising the character's allure. Similarly, in *Birds of Prey*, Harley's appeal is mentioned within the film's diegesis; Cassandra Cain clearly states the admiration she has for her as she asks: “How do I be like you?” (00:56:59). The characters are therefore presented as fascinating, both within the film's narrative and on an extradigetic level. This in turn explains the yearning to reinvestigate the tales once told and to centre them around these characters who had been overlooked.

The films under study all have a complex relationship to their source material, both in terms of timeline and in terms of reverence or contestation. The new films are not necessarily entirely faithful to the canon and can on the contrary voluntarily negate what we hold as true from previous works. More particularly, these films all choose to retell, albeit in various ways, the story of one title character, which was not meant to be the main focus in the original works. By focusing on an originally villainous character, they aim to give more depth to the new title character, who had been dismissed as a plot tool previously. The reimagining of these villains and the reconsideration of their stories also stems from a change in voice and storytelling. As we will see, the films at study all make a particularly striking use of narration as a means for the characters to reclaim their own story.
## B) "This is our story. And I'm telling it, so I'll start where I fucking want": the emancipatory power of self-narration

The films shift the image we are given of the characters, as they go from being the antagonists to the protagonists of the stories. They are no longer a narrative tool made to hinder the hero's progress but are now the focal point of the narrative. As Keen notes, "[s]chemas may have some influence on why we root for bad guys". He explains that “[i]n most movies, the protagonist is the good guy and usually good prevails in the end. When we have repeated exposure to this type of storyline, we will start to form a schema of this. The schema can then influence future movie experiences due to certain expectations deduced from the schema” (2012: 136). Because of the schemas we have been exposed to on a regular basis, we are subconsciously made to root for the character that is given most prominence in the film, and as the films recentre on Cruella, Maleficent and Harley, they are inevitably the ones we perceive as good. However, *Maleficent*, *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey* do not simply retell the same story with a different focal point; they present themselves as brand new perspectives on the events and question the univocity of storytelling.

### a) A new perspective

As they dive into the title character's story, the films often make the viewer identify with the character in question. The stories are not merely made to centre on these new protagonists; they are also told through their point-of-view. Cruella, Maleficent, and Harley become the focal point of the narratives dedicated to them: the viewer is not just made to follow their stories but see the events through their eyes. This “shift in the narrative perspective” enabled by the “retelling of a story from the villain’s point of view” is presented by Deszcz as a postmodern “provocative effect” (2002: 83). Our films work in various ways to present themselves not only as new stories, but as new points-of-view on a pre-existing story.

The question of perspective or point-of-view is best represented by the camerawork striving to make the viewer identify with the main character. Several times throughout the films, the screen is made to mimic what the character would be perceiving. In *Birds of Prey*, this is made clearest in the moments when Harley is somewhat incapacitated, and her perception is disrupted. This happens early on in the film, while Harley is in the club getting drunk: the camerawork is meant to reflect her inebriation, as the images on screen are blurred and jerky,
and the sequence is sped up to convey her intoxication and the impression of time passing by quickly. In addition, a striking jump-cut of Harley conveys the idea of her blacking out: some frames are missing, echoing her jolting perception and memories (figures 45 and 46).

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figures 45-6: jump cut of Harley at the club (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:05:29-00:05:31)</figcaption></figure>

Furthermore, when Harley is drugged by Victor Zsasz, we have a very explicit point-of-view shot: as she falls to the ground, the camera rotates before stabilising to reveal a sideway view of Zsasz and Black Canary walking towards her (figures 47 and 48).

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figures 47-8: the camera falls over as Harley is drugged (1:16:18-20)</figcaption></figure>

The fact that we are mainly made to see the events unfold through Harley's perspective can at times be seen in the depth of field. When Montoya arrives to arrest Harley, we see an interesting use of rack focusing, with a change of focus from Harley to her surroundings, thus making us aware of what is behind her (figures 49-51).

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 49-51: the camera focuses on what Harley perceives (00:13:55-00:13:58)</figcaption></figure>

This rack focusing follows a point-of-view shot of the burger she was concentrated on, and while the camera focuses visually on what Harley is fixed on, it is only the sound of a police siren that draws our attention to the background and to Montoya – focusing and sound design working conjointly to create a reveal effect that mimics the character’s perception. Through this changing depth of field, the background is made more noticeable to the viewer at the same time as Harley notices it and focuses on it too.

We can also spot several point-of-view shots in *Cruella*, which create a strong sense of identification between the character and the viewer. This effect is first used when a young Estella hides under a trolley at the Baroness’ ball (figures 52-53).

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figures 52-3: Point-of-view shot of what Estella sees at the Baroness' ball (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:07:08-00:07:10)</figcaption></figure>

The viewer is clearly given the character’s perspective: as the curtains obstruct the camera’s view and we are faced with a slight low-angle shot, we are directly put in the position of Estella trying to catch a glimpse of the grandiose room and event. An even more striking use of the point-of-view shot occurs when the camera shoots sideways, as it does in *Birds of Prey*. This happens twice in *Cruella*, once when she first meets Jasper and Horace after having fallen asleep on the fountain (figures 54 and 55), and a second time when she is left to die in a fire, having been attached to a chair which falls over as she attempts to free herself (figures 56 and 57).
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figures 54-5: sideway eye-line match (Cruella, 00:11:24-00:11:27)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figures 56-7: sideway eye-line match (Cruella, 01:26:13-01:26:16)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

In both instances, we are made to identify with the character in a moment of great vulnerability, as both scenes are made to echo each other, and showcase someone walking towards her to save her (from her desolation in the first case, from a raging fire in the second). In *Maleficent*, the point-of-view shots are somewhat more subtle, but they still work to create a strong sense of identification, in particular during moments of vulnerability. Having returned to the castle and saved Aurora from the curse, Maleficent is trapped in an iron net set by King Stephan. As fairies are vulnerable to iron, she is injured, and her vision becomes blurred. As a result, the soldiers on screen come in and out of focus, and both the images and the sound are distorted (figures 58 and 59).

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 58-9: Maleficent's vision is distorted (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 01:15:41-01:15:47)</figcaption></figure>
Seconds later, as she catches a glimpse of Diaval and gets the idea of turning him into a dragon, we see how her focus on the crow is emphasised by the camera, while the background is distorted to show her impaired senses (figure 60).

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 60: Maleficent looks at Diaval while the background is distorted (01:15:59)*</figcaption></figure>

*Maleficent* also uses aerial shots to create a sense of identification between the viewer and the protagonist. Indeed, drone images of the film's setting are abundant at the very start of the film, as the establishing shots give us a look at the surroundings of the Moors, with the camera advancing through nature. These aerial shots come back at the very end of the film, as we see Maleficent rise above the clouds. But these types of sequences are very scarce during the rest of the film, whilst Maleficent has been made wingless. The camera – and the viewer – are rendered predominantly earth-bound while Maleficent is. As such, the question of point of view plays a key role in the depiction of the new heroines presented in our films. The point of view is far from being strictly internal, as the images reveal many events in which Cruella, Maleficent, and Harley have no part. Yet, the occasional moments during which we are made to identify with the characters, are enough to present the stories as taking on a new point of view.

The focalisation on these characters is all the more striking because they are women. Harley notes the repeated erasure of women and their accomplishments, as she tells us that most of her achievements were claimed by the Joker, who would not let anyone know her role in the story: "We all know the saying, 'behind every successful man, there's a badass broad. Well that was me. I was the brains behind some of Mr. J's greatest stunts. Not that he let anyone know it'" (00:01:33-00:01:46). *Birds of Prey* pokes fun at the limited representation of women when Harley introduces Montoya. As she tells us "Meet the cop", the next image presents Tim Munro (Derek Wilson) (figure 61), and it is only once she says "Not him, her", that the camera swivels towards Montoya (figure 62). The fact that her voiceover has to specify who she is talking about
while the camera seemingly assumes that the story is going to focus on a man shows that women-centric stories are not the norm.

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figures 61-2: Montoya is first introduced (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:08:12-00:08:16)</figcaption></figure>

b) Storytelling

Beyond perspective enabling identification, it appears throughout our films that questioning the evilness of the characters goes hand in hand with questioning who is in charge of telling the story. This is very well exemplified in the second film about Maleficent, *Maleficent: Mistress of Evil*, in which the new evil queen has spread the rumour of Maleficent being villainous: "I spread the story of the evil witch... and the princess she cursed" (01:35:13). As the narration notes, despite Maleficent being the one who ultimately broke the spell that she had cast on young Aurora, "that detail was somehow mysteriously forgotten. For as the tale was told, over and over throughout the kingdom... Maleficent became the villain once more" (00:05:20-00:05:33). This notion of storytelling being limiting and not necessarily representing the full scope of the events is repeated further on as the statement "I know Maleficent is a killer of men, destroyer of armies", is immediately mitigated by "Or so the story goes" (00:13:25-00:13:30). Even before this second volume was made, the third trailer released by Disney for *Maleficent* stated "You know the tale. Now find out the truth", highlighting the possible discrepancies between the stories told and the factual events.

This will lead us to investigate the authorship of our stories, both on a diegetic and extra-
diegetic scale. Beyond making the villain the main focus, the films at hand completely change
the point of view on the story by changing the person in charge of telling it. In the original novel
by Dodie Smith, the story unfolds through the use of an external, omniscient narrator, seemingly
all-knowing and authoritarian, who thus presents the story as objective and unequivocal. As for
*Sleeping Beauty*, the tale was narrated by Marvin Miller, and the film was thus introduced and
concluded by an authoritative male voice who appeared to be reading from a fairy tale book, once again making the narration seem reliable. The first filmic adaptation of Dodie Smith's novel, *One Hundred and One Dalmatians*, ever so slightly complexified the origin of the narration by making the narrator a dog, Pongo: the internal focalisation starts to raise the possibility of a film as a perspective, but it is still a male voice. On the contrary, the story is retold not just through the voice of a woman, but from the point of view of the "villainess" in both *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey*, as Cruella and Harley respectively become the narrators of their own story. Things are a little different in *Maleficent*, as the title character is not the narrator – the narrator in *Maleficent* is revealed at the very end to be none other than Aurora. While the story is not told by the villain directly, having a narrator who is an identifiable character in the story, or a homo-diegetic narrator, to borrow Genette's terminology (1966: 252), rather than an external authoritarian and all-knowing narrative voice has its importance; it still reminds us of the subjectivity of storytelling. The voiceover in *Maleficent* may present itself at first glance as more stable than it is in *Birds of Prey* and *Cruella*: for one thing, the voice is not auto-diegetic in the former (Genette, 1966: 253). While the person telling the story is a character in it, she is not the main focal point of the narrative either. In addition, *Maleficent* takes on a much more conventional approach to storytelling, with a traditional structure and a more formal style of speech. Furthermore, as her identity is only revealed at the end, throughout the film we are made to believe that she is a typical external omniscient narrator, comparable to the voice which narrates *Sleeping Beauty*. But the film is also the one that asserts itself most of all as the contestation of an earlier story, so Aurora's authoritative voice might be needed to counterbalance the male narrator of *Sleeping Beauty*, and present this new discourse as valid, as she states at the end "and I should know, for I was the one they called Sleeping Beauty" (01:27:21).

By insisting on the art of storytelling, all of our films seem to present the stories which unfold as perspectives. Quite strikingly, all of our films comprise voiceover narrations; the stories are told through "acousmatic or bodiless voices [...] that tell stories, provide commentary, or evoke the past" (Chion, 1999: 49). This is somewhat unusual and goes against the idea of film as an illusion aiming to convince the viewers they are looking at the real events as they are taking place. As Doane notes:

> the use of the voice-off always entails a risk – that of exposing the material heterogeneity of the cinema. Synchronous sound masks the problem and this at least partially explains its dominance. [...] As soon as the sound is detached from its source, no longer anchored
by a represented body, its potential work as a signifier is revealed. There is always
something uncanny about a voice which emanates from a source outside the frame.
(1980: 40)

The films at study seem to insist on this uncanny narration, as they emphasise that they are no
more than a story being told. The term "story" is even used in both *Maleficent* and *Birds of Prey*, while *Cruella* uses it in the promotional videos for the film. The first line of *Birds of Prey* problematises the idea of storytelling: "They say, if you wanna tell a story right, you gotta start at the beginning" (00:00:30-00:00:35). As Harley initiates her story, she starts at the beginning, prompted to do so by what she believes to be the correct way of going about storytelling. But soon the chronology becomes much more jumbled, and this is when she asserts her dominance over the narration: "I wasn't the only dame in Gotham looking for emancipation. This is our story. And I'm telling it. So I'll start where I fucking want" (00:07:55-00:08:06). Harley's emancipation through narration is highlighted by her very particular voice and style: she uses vulgar speech, and her strong accent makes her stand out. She presents the artificial construction of stories as she narrates later on: "in the storytelling business, this dummy swallowing that diamond is called a complication" (00:40:00) as Cassandra Cain tries to hide the diamond that she has just stolen by swallowing it. Beyond *Birds of Prey*, all of these films seem to have in common a concern with reclaiming a story that has escaped the main character. This will enable us to see how these films bring to light the importance of perspective on any given story, presenting them as points-of-view rather than given facts. Stories are presented as diverging perspectives on one situation, not as a monolithic state of affairs.

As the stories are revealed to be constructions, they often contest the linearity of events.
While linear narrations are meant to mimic the way in which events unfold in real life, and can
work to emphasise the verisimilitude of the story, all of our films seem to highlight that the
story is something constructed later on. In *Maleficent*, the narrator often predicts in a
foreshadowing way what is going to unfold: after Stephan kisses Maleficent, telling her it is
true love's kiss, the narrator augurs "But it was not to be" (00:08:06). This structure in "to be"
is taken up moments later, as the voiceover narration tells us: "she had never understood the
greed and envy of men. But she was to learn" (00:09:22). By assuming this auspicious tone, the
film brings to light the posterior construction of the events as story and undermines the idea
that the events are happening in order. In *Birds of Prey*, the narrative style of the film enables
the main character to comment on actions that are yet to come within the diegesis of the movie.
As such, when Mr Keo refuses Roman Sionis's offer to pair up to take control of Gotham, we
hear Harley note “he’s gonna regret that” (00:25:44-00:26:13), as a drawing of his mode of death appears on top of his face, before the images cut back to a scene we had already been made to see earlier on (00:11:24), as Mr Keo gets his face sliced off (figures 63-65).

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figures 63-5: Harley announces Mr Keo's death, Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020</figcaption></figure>

Similarly, Cruella tells us early on what happens later in the story, while simultaneously stopping herself from divulging too much of what is to come: “That necklace is the reason I’m dead. But I’m getting ahead of myself” (00:00:56-00:01:01). The narration in *Cruella* is particularly interesting as its source is ultimately revealed within the diegesis. The character’s voice comes as her talking at her own funeral, as if she were retrospectively taking stock of her life. This is all the more striking as her talking at her own funeral enables her to talk about herself in a moment when she should precisely not be able to, seeing that she is supposedly dead.

Furthermore, all of our narrators are female, and while Hollinger notes that “feminist critics have pointed to the use of female first person voiceover narration in woman's films [...] to stress the subversion of the female narrator's voiceover, which they believe is only allowed expression so that it can be undermined by male authority”, the films here seem to do the exact opposite. Hollinger goes on to notes that often times, the subversion of the female narration “can take many forms: the female narrator's story can be finished, interpreted, or interrupted by a male character, exposed as a lie, or revealed as a misinterpretation of events. In all the above cases, however, female narrational power is shut down in some way by a final decisive male
intervention that implicates the spectator strongly in this masculine point of view” (1992: 34).
Yet rather than starting off with a female voice only for it to be undermined, the films at study
presuppose a story that has been co-opted, and the female narrators work to reclaim it – the
earlier male narrations are the ones that are revealed to be a lie or a misinterpretation. The
importance of one being able to speak for oneself without being undermined is perhaps
embodied best by Huntress in *Birds of Prey*: she is continuously interrupted as she tries to say
her name, with others trying to name her instead. Indeed, while Harley gives us a recap of
Helena's life, we have a montage of her practicing the delivery of her line "Do you know who
I am?", intercut with other people (Montoya, Sionis, and Stefano Galante) talking about her but
mistakenly naming her "The Crossbow killer" (figures 66-71).

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figures 66-71: Huntress is interrupted as she tries to say her name (*Birds of Prey*, Yan, 2020, 01:03:54-01:04:07)</figcaption></figure>

Harley corrects this by showing her telling Doc she is called “Huntress”, with a dramatic zoom in on her face when she finally reveals her true moniker without being interrupted (figures 72 and 73).
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>Figures 72-3: Huntress' name is finally revealed (01:04:09-01:04:14)</figcaption></figure>

This is of course done for humoristic purposes, but it also helps to assert the importance of the character speaking for herself and can be paralleled with our main characters reclaiming their own stories. The use of a female voiceover narration is all the more significant as women's voices have long been excluded from the cinema, while images had long been seen as more important than sound: "The dismissal of dialogue and voiceover often goes hand in hand with a gendered perspective associating sound and speech to the feminine" (Le Fèvre-Berthelot, 2022: 200). In *Cruella*, *Birds of Prey*, and *Maleficent*, not only do female voices reclaim their place in storytelling, but the importance of sound over or at least alongside images is also emphasised.

### c) The power of commentary

As they reassess the importance of narration in regards to images, the films give back a place to the feminine, both in terms of a figurative understanding of sound as feminine, and by giving female characters a voice. In *Birds of Prey*, Harley's voiceover narration enables her several times to comment on the actions taking place on screen, as she does with the events described above, regarding Mr Keo. Similarly, when Montoya points out that "she did not think this one through" after Harley blows up the chemical factory to announce to the world her split from "Mr J", we hear Harley agreeing in voiceover ("yeah no shit I didn't think it through" 00:10:42). This distanced commentary is also accompanied by the camera taking some distance from the images:
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>Figures 74-5: switch from medium to long shot before Harley comments on the events (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:10:42-00:10:46)</figcaption></figure>

The end of Montoya's line, and the insertion of Harley's comment is accompanied by a shift from a medium shot to a long shot, to reveal more of the scene, and perhaps to show Harley taking stock of the situation in a more distanced manner. Furthermore, anytime the film shows us one of Harley's enemies, or one of the people who are out to get her, the frame freezes, and scribbles, along with a list of grievances, appear on screen (figures 76-79).

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>Figures 76-9: scribbles appear to explain the characters' grievances (00:15:29 and 00:16:55)</figcaption></figure>

The commentary offered by the materiality of the screen becomes so intertwined with the story being told that it acquires a rather ambiguous status. When Huntress first appears on screen while Harley is being chased by all her enemies in Gotham, she is surrounded by question marks, as Harley is not yet aware of who the crossbow yielding woman is (figures 80 and 81).
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Figures 80-1: Huntress/Helena Bertinelli first appears on screen (00:17:37-00:17:39)</figcaption></figure>

We first get a close-up shot of the young woman, with the writing taking up the rest of the screen. As the camera zooms out and we get a wider view of the character, the proportions of the writing which had appeared remain the same size in relation to Huntress, as if the question marks were truly visible in the frame, and not added in post-production. This scene also shows Harley's narration as fallible, with the question marks expressing the limits of Harley's knowledge. These comments contribute to a distancing effect, as we will see in more detail in our last part. However, they are also a way for Harley to reclaim her story; they act as a commentary that the character is able to make on the film. The possibility for written comments over the images is introduced early on in the film (figure 82).

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>Figure 82: scribbles appear overtop the animated images (Birds of Prey, 00:00:57)</figcaption></figure>

The introduction of these scribbled comments is all the more striking as the images are initially animated, which means they are technically also drawings. Yet the film makes a distinction between the clear lines of the nun and the white scribbles on top, with the sound of chalk accompanying the white writing overtop the animated image. At this stage of the film, while it relies on animations, the drawing of the nun could have been turned into a devil, yet the film chooses instead to present several levels of images: the palimpsestic drawings therefore seem to assert the possibility for writing to serve as commentary.
Beyond these graffiti, Harley often breaks the fourth wall to comment on the actions
taking place: when Harley is seen talking with Sionis, the camera switches angles and tilts down
to exclude Sionis and leave only her in the frame, as she comments on what is happening,
looking directly into the camera (figures 83-85).

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>*Figures 83-5: the camera tilts down and Harley comments on the scene while looking straight into the camera (00:04:33-00:04:40)*</figcaption></figure>

Taking control of her story by narrating it enables Harley to warn the viewership about what is to come, and to make herself more likeable. Having been betrayed by Doc who sold the information about her location to those who were looking for her, Harley decides in turn to betray Cassandra Cain, but before doing so, she warns the audience “This next bit ain’t very pretty” (01:10:44). The relation Estella has to her story in *Cruella* is quite different from that of Harley: the first words uttered by Cruella are “Oh no, we’re starting here?”. This interrogation shows us that while she is not in complete control of the story, she is still able to narrate it, and she is made to have power of commentary over the images we are shown. This shows a certain disconnect between images and sound, but neither is truly given precedence over the other. Despite images often being perceived, as identified by Le Fèvre-Berthelot, as more valuable than sound (“show don’t tell”, or “a picture is worth a thousand words”), the importance of voiceover in our films gives a brand-new value to speech. The voiceover enables the character to reclaim her story and to put in perspective the images we are shown on screen. As the films look so intently at modes of storytelling and on the sources from which voices emerge, it is now
essential to turn to the creation of the films themselves, to study the different levels at which
stories can be reclaimed.

d) Women in film and the extradiegetic reclaiming of storytelling

As we have seen, telling a story anew raises questions on who is telling the new story – but this is not only true on the level of the narration, but also in terms of the extradiegetic making of the films. This is all the more significant as storytelling has traditionally been seen as a female art, which women have later been deprived of, as the art – particularly when it comes to film – has been largely taken over by men: “through their association with the fates, fairies, and spinning, women are identified with the art and power of spinning tales. The history of the male appropriation of folktales is the history of the male’s attempt to control this female power, to co-opt the female art of storytelling” (Haase, 2000: 29).

And indeed, cinema is largely dominated by men, as attested by the statistics on the creators of most films in the various years in which *Maleficent*, *Birds of Prey*, and *Cruella* came out. According to Dr. Martha M. Lauzen, in 2014, 79% of the top 250 grossing films had no female writers (“The Celluloid Ceiling”, 2015). With Linda Woolverton having contributed to the screenplay, *Maleficent* is therefore one of the 21% which do. This comes a long way from the original *Sleeping Beauty*, where very few women could be found in the behind-the-scenes credits. In 2021, the year *Cruella* was released, 17% of writers were women (“The Celluloid Ceiling”, 2022), and with Dana Fox, Aline Brosh McKenna, and Kelly Marcel on the writing team, the film once again distinguishes itself in terms of female representation behind the scenes. Conversely, there were no women credited for Disney’s animated versions of Dodie Smith’s novel, nor for the live-action adaptation of 1996. *Birds of Prey* is perhaps the most striking example in this regard: it is one of the 18% of films which had a woman as a director, and Christina Hodson, who wrote the screenplay, was one of the 17% of women who worked as writers in the 250 top-grossing films of 2020 (“The Celluloid Ceiling”, 2021). While the composer is – as is the case for 95% of films – male, all of the 15 songs on the *Birds of Prey* soundtrack are performed by women. In comparison, out of the 14 songs on the *Suicide Squad* soundtrack, only 4 feature female singers. There seems to have been a conscious decision for the film to be created by a largely female team, and this has consequences on the perspective
we are given on female characters in the film. In this respect, as Harley acts as a self-conscious
narrator to her own story, her line "This is our story. And I'm telling it, so I'll start where I
fucking want" serves as a meta-comment on the way her story is to be told. It puts forward a
shift in the way Harley's life is narrated: Harley is taking control over her own story, just like a
female crew is taking control over the depiction of women in superhero films. In addition, we
may note that all three of the main actresses in the films at study, Margot Robbie, Angelina Jolie
and Emma Stone, were producers for their respective films. Interestingly enough, Glenn Close,
who was the star of the 1996 and 2001 live-action reinterpretations of *The Hundred and One
Dalmatians*, was also a producer on *Cruella*, despite not having been part of the production for
the films in which she embodied the character.

And as Lauzen notes, throughout the years, the representation of women behind the
camera has been closely tied to how women are represented on screen. In 2014, the year
*Maleficent* came out, “[i]n films with at least one woman director and/or writer, females
comprised 39% of protagonists, males 35% of protagonists, and male/female ensembles 26%
of protagonists. In films with exclusively male directors and writers, females accounted for 4%
of protagonists, males 87% of protagonists, and male/female ensembles 9% of protagonists”.
(“It’s a Man’s (Celluloid) World”, 2015). The same thing can be said of the year *Birds of Prey*
came out: “In films with at least one woman director and/or writer, females comprised 60% of
protagonists. In films with exclusively male directors and/or writers, females accounted for
17% of protagonists” (“It’s a Man’s (Celluloid) World”, 2021). This is all the more striking
when tied to Harley’s comic-book background: in the study conducted by Facciani, data showed
that women were underrepresented in the genre with “[m]en represent[ing] 85% of total comic
book characters”, as comic books have historically been in large part produced by and marketed
towards men (2015: 221). This unique point of view for a superhero live-action film gives *Birds
of Prey* striking particularities and makes it stand out not only from the previous depictions of
Harley Quinn, but from the way most female superheroes (or supervillains) have been portrayed
up to this point. The female perspective offered by the production and direction has concrete
effects on the film. *Birds of Prey* even pokes fun at the way superheroines have been portrayed
by men over the years, in particular during the main fight sequence: as Black Canary struggles
to fight with her hair constantly getting in her face, Harley offers her a hair tie (01:28:55). This
seems to be a response to the trope of women in action films frequently wearing their hair
untied, despite the impracticality of such a hairdo. This may be the sign of the film valuing the
depiction of a realistic female experience over mere visual (male) pleasure, with somewhat of a shift in the target demographic.

By telling an old story anew, *Birds of Prey*, *Cruella* and *Maleficent* reinvestigate a tale which has been told before and are able to offer us a new perspective on a pre-existing story. As they zoom in on an overlooked aspect of the stories, and offer us a contending narrative or an idea of what could precede or follow the previous accounts, they present the earlier works as lacking, more particularly in terms of the representation of the originally antagonistic female character. At a time when women are allowed more space at the centre stage both on screen and behind the scenes, the films shift the focus towards these female characters, and allow them to be reconsidered. In doing so, they highlight the subjectivity of the previous works and acknowledge stories as constructed perspectives on events. By focusing on the art of storytelling, they allow the main characters to reclaim their tales. As they reframe the narratives through the perspective of the villains, the films do not only turn them into the protagonist but force the viewer to identify with them by presenting us with their outlook – and even where *Maleficent* does not adopt the internal focalisation that can be found in *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey* on the level of the narration, the images still force the viewer to relate to the character and adopt the same focalisation. This in turn enables the viewer to acquire more sympathy for the characters and more insight into their psyche and motivations. As they show us the villain's point-of-view, the films are able to dive into the origins of the characters' “evilness”. This will enable us to study in more detail how the films tend to justify, or at least explain the characters' personalities unlike the previous works which tended to take their evil nature for granted. *Cruella*, *Maleficent* and *Birds of Prey* present us with a more nuanced view of the characters' evil disposition, and show us how it may have been prompted by exterior circumstances. The representation of the characters' motives can be a way to induce sympathy, helping us better understand how they came to become evil, whilst somewhat mitigating their share of responsibility. The analysis of the reasons given for the emergence of evil will subsequently lead us to question how the representation of the causes of evil actions and of the context in which they take place help make us feel for the characters, as a better understanding of their motives is key in presenting them as anti-heroines rather than villains.
## II. “MUCH TO AVENGE, REVENGE AND DESTROY”: THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF FEMALE EVIL

As Cruella, Maleficent, and Harley's stories are given more depth, we are able to better fathom their psychology: reframing their narratives enables us to grow empathetic for them, as we are given more space to understand their actions and see what prompted them. The films give abundant justifications to the villains' evil deeds, refusing to present evilness as an inherent trait. *Birds of Prey, Cruella* and *Maleficent* argue for their protagonists by insisting on the mitigating circumstances which lead them to commit evil acts. These mitigating circumstances ensure the blame is shared: the characters are not depicted as the only culprit, as they in turn become victims of others. The representation of a new evil means the originally villainous characters may even be presented as righteous: as the films analyse the circumstances in which the evil actions of our characters took place, they encourage us to reconsider the immorality of the actions we were made to condemn. We will therefore see how grounding the characters' actions in a system that is studied with more precision contributes to nuancing the immorality of what they do. Be it through the representation of personal or political motives, the films turn our characters into antiheroes rather than villains, as we are made not only to excuse their behaviour but actively justify what they do. This is done by giving the characters personal motives which help us empathise with them, but also by showing that they are responding to gender-based violence and are fighting within a patriarchal system; they ultimately stand for much more than themselves and take a stance against oppressive systems more broadly.

### A) “She was to learn”: the overdetermination of female violence and the making of natural born killers

Although Cruella claims she was “born brilliant, born bad, and a little bit mad” (01:32:46), all our films work to prove the opposite – to highlight that the female villain is not born into her villainy, but turns to it circumstantially. As they reframe the original stories and give way to more intricate and nuanced narrations by the villainous characters, the films are
further able to dive into the causes and justifications of the characters' actions. Our characters are not presented as inherently evil; their evilness is presented as the consequence of prior events, not as a fundamental trait that explains why all their subsequent actions are evil. Whether it be through the representation of their evolution towards evil, the representation of evilness as an acquired quality which they are taught, or through the representation of their actions as modes of retaliation or self-defence, all of our films question the progression of our characters towards villainy. The films tend to alleviate the main characters' responsibility by making their evilness emerge out of circumstances, instead of presenting it as a part of their nature or as an inherent character trait. When Cruella claims she was born "bad", she seems to believe it to be a fundamental part of who she is, comparable to a genetic predisposition. The untimely reveal that her birth mother is in fact the Baroness would lead us to think evil may indeed arise from innate characteristics that one cannot fight against. In this regard, both Maleficent's and Cruella's threatening-sounding names, with their auspicious etymologies, seem to show the characters' evilness as a central and intrinsic part of their identity. Yet *Cruella* contradicts this idea by giving an origin story not just to the character, but also to her name. The film shows the genealogy of her adopting her new alias: early on her mother scolds the young girl by reminding her "your name's Estella, not Cruella" (00:01:12). Later in the film, we learn how she comes to be known as "de Vil", as we see her first encounter the name of the car which inspired her new surname: when Horace shouts "When I fixed it, I noticed the name. Do you know what this car's called? A devil!", Jasper corrects him on the pronunciation of the famous Cadillac DeVille, and Cruella responds to herself "I like that" (01:43:00-01:43:08). The evolution of the character is thus accompanied by an evolution of her name, from Estella Miller to Cruella de Vil, presenting her villainy as an acquired attribute.

Evilness is not commonly represented as a constitutive part of the characters we are meant to root for. While the original films may have presented our characters as inherently villainous without giving us any further explanation, the situation is a bit more complex in the films that are dedicated to them. As we are given their perspectives, along with a better understanding of their past, there is more room for us to apprehend the motives of the characters which we see advance from innocence to evilness. All of our films begin by presenting us with a young version of the character, even when the films mainly focus on subsequent events: accordingly, the chronological approach enables us to see an evolution in the characters, and to see what turned them into what they ultimately become. This raises a question on how evil comes to be, all the more so as two of our characters are presented from the very beginning of
their existence: *Cruella* shows the title character's mother in labour, while Harley gives us an animated rendering of her conception (figures 86 and 87).

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>Figure 86: Cruella's birth (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:00:38)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>Figure 87: animated rendering of Harley's conception (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:00:37)</figcaption></figure>

In this way, the characters are not presented as evil from birth; the representation of their creation reminds us of their original innocence. Harley's fall into evilness is presented as a form of rebirth (figures 88-93).

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>Figures 88-93: Harley is reborn as Harley after falling in the vat of chemicals (Birds of Prey, 00:01:26-00:01:30)</figcaption></figure>

The animated sequence which opens *Birds of Prey* presents Harley falling into the vat of chemicals; as this happens, she transforms and remerges as something else completely. Her evolution towards villainy is once again accompanied by a name change: from Harley Quinzel to Harley Quinn, further reinforcing the idea that her evilness is an acquired trait. This is a strategy of confining the character's subversion and the threat posed, in particular when it relates to evil women. As Boyle notes: "If the female killer is made and not born, then there is always the hope of conversion and containment" (2001: 317). This drastically diverges from the typical representation of violent men:

> These violent women are not born but made and, as such, their violent subjectivity can be safely contained while nevertheless providing a source of continued fascination.
However, the space devoted to the nevertheless limited attempts to understand the women's behaviour also works to disguise the naturalisation and normalisation of their male partners' violence. (319)

As she continues: "When a man commits a violent act or acts, he is more likely to be presented as a 'natural born killer', inherently violent or monstrous, his motivations need not be examined or understood. In contrast, when a woman commits a violent act or acts, she appears to have acted against gender and her crime requires understanding and explanation." (320). The most striking example of this can be found in *Birds of Prey*, in which the actions of violent men are not explained at all, and Sionis's actions are presented as tantrums, whereas the actions of the women are always justified, if not overly explained. Evidently, this is because the point of the film is to focus on female stories, but it does mean that male violence is presented as much more natural in contrast. The situation is slightly different in *Cruella*, where the Baroness's motives are barely considered, so the representation of evilness as a construction may derive from the need for us to root for them, rather than from their gender.

Even after Harleen's original transformation into Harley, all of the condemnable actions she carries out in *Birds of Prey* are explained: she works for Sionis because he threatened to kill her otherwise, and it is only after being betrayed by Doc that Harley decides in turn to betray Cassandra, acquiescing with Doc's pragmatic "it's just business" by admitting "he's right. Business is business" (01:10:10-01:10:19). The film does not depict her evilness as instinctive. In the same way, Maleficent is presented as an originally innocent fairy who has been corrupted: "she had never understood the greed and envy of men. But she was to learn" (00:09:21). Aurora's voiceover narration presents greed and envy as unnatural to the fairy; the understanding of these faults is an acquired knowledge, and the film seems to portray the character's subsequent loss of innocence, these flaws clashing with her inherent state. Beyond our main character, the violent actions of all the women featured in *Birds of Prey* are overly explained: Helena Bertinelli is trained to become an assassin by the men who raise her: as she is saved by one of the men hired to kill her family, he "hides her away in Sicily. Where she is trained by his own father and brother. Both assassins" (01:03:12). Cruella may be a little bit of an exception in this regard, as she was presented as a turbulent, troublesome child all along – but her actions were still rather harmless: it is only after being bullied by boys that she fights back at school, and she only becomes a thief after meeting Horace and Jasper who were already committed to their unlawful ways. In many ways, our films present a genealogy of violence as
all of our characters were made evil by circumstances, despite what their names or the absence
of any justification for their actions in previous works could make us think.

As evil is presented as deeply contextualised and emerges out of circumstances rather
than it being an innate characteristic of the characters, we are given quite a few examples of the
characters acting in self-defence: often times when Harley commits violent acts, she does so to
defend herself, and more often than not she is presented as severely outnumbered when she is
threatened. Early on, when she is chased by everyone in Gotham after making her breakup with
the Joker public, the camera work highlights the threat she is faced with:

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>*Figures 94-6: The rack focusing, and camera tilt highlight the multiplicity of people out to get Harley (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:15:59-00:16:01)*</figcaption></figure>

As we see Montoya catching up to Harley, the camera tilts down and the focus changes (not
unlike how it did when Harley first noticed Montoya while she was focused on her sandwich):
the image reveals a second person aiming a gun directly at her. Later on, during one of her main
fight scenes, Harley tries to break Cassandra out of jail, and all the other convicts are released
from their cells and free to attack her. Once again, Harley is presented as completely outmanned:

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>*Figures 97-9: 48:35*</figcaption></figure>
As she steps back further, more and more of her enemies appear in the background, and the focus shifts to them (figures 97 and 98): she takes up progressively less of the screen while the people who are a threat to her gain footing. The frame then shifts to a long shot (figure 99) which reveals her to be completely surrounded. It is only after the images set her up to be utterly overpowered that we see Harley fighting against the men who are encircling her. Cruella is also presented as inferior to her enemies when she fights at the black and white ball. She signals her logistical disadvantage as she reminds the security guards "that [she is] doing this in heels" (00:48:25), and she tells the men who surround her that they will most likely win, and that she will only be able to injure a few: "there are six of you, so obviously you'll win, but the first two of you to arrive are going to get very badly hurt" (00:48:48). Visually, an arc shot further underlines the fact that she is surrounded (figures 100-104).

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>Figures 100-4: Cruella fights at the black and white ball (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:48:48-00:49:33)</figcaption></figure>

The representation of self-defence as an explanation for the character's seemingly violent actions can also be found in *Maleficent*. As King Stefan has sent his men after her, the Queen of the Moors is seen building a threatening fence. This is to be read as a response to other people's actions on two levels: not only do her actions parallel those of Stefan, each of the two characters being made to build fences, but she is also said to be acting in defence of a threat looming over her. Indeed, we are told that “Stefan shut himself behind the walls of his castle while his soldiers rode far and wide to hunt Maleficent down. But she made walls of her own, that the Moors may never again suffer the touch of any human” (00:33:49). The editing creates a direct link between the threat posed by the soldiers and the construction of Maleficent's defensive walls (figures 105-110).
<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>Figures 105-110: Maleficent builds a wall to protect herself from Stefan's army
(Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 00:33:47-00:33:51)</figcaption></figure>

As the images show the soldiers leaving to chase Maleficent, the wall constructed by the Queen of the Moors starts growing on screen on top of this image, framing the soldiers in the background before the image transitions to Maleficent, as she is constructing the fence. This shows that the construction of these sinister walls is inexorably tied to the threat she is faced with, and as such, they are inherently presented as a defensive tool. Not unlike Harley, whenever Maleficent is seen fighting, it is only after the images establish her numerical and physical disadvantage. This works both to emphasise her power in vanquishing a superior army, but also to show that the violence she partakes in is an appropriate response to a menace. Before the first fight scene of the film, as King Henry's army comes to take over the Moors, we first see Maleficent passively looking at the landscape. The progression of the soldiers is then announced through an eye-line match, with a dramatic cut which reveals a wall of dust produced by the advancing army (figures 111-113).

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_59.png" /><figcaption>Figures 111-3: Maleficent notices King Henry's army approaching the Moors
(Stromberg, 2014, 00:09:34-00:09:39)</figcaption></figure>

The dramatic axial cut (figures 112 and 113) works both to draw our attention to a detail within the extreme long shot, and to give the impression of a threat growing bigger, and nearer, while the music is marked by two forceful accents, to accompany the cut and further dramatize it. This distant threat is immediately made more tangible as we are given an extreme close-up of the army in the following shots (figures 114-116).

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /><figcaption>Figures 114-6: close-up shots of King Henry's army (00:09:39-00:10:02)</figcaption></figure>

The rapid change of framing further highlights the speed at which the threat advances and accentuates the violence of those who menace the Moors. When we first see the attack on the Moors, many techniques are used to emphasise the numeral superiority of the humans. The sound design is saturated with horses neighing, while the images show extreme close-up shots of different parts of the horses; throughout this scene, the fast editing stresses the speed and force of the attack. The composition of the close-up shot of the king (figure 116) is used to increase the impression we have of this being an innumerable army, as the background is
completely saturated by soldiers, and we do not see where the army ends, thus presenting it as almost limitless. Once again, once the order has been given to attack the Moors, we get close-up shots of the soldiers, accentuating the brutality and speed of the threat:

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /><figcaption>Figures 117-8: close-up shots of the king's army (00:11:12)</figcaption></figure>

As we see nothing but soldiers invading the screen, we are given the impression of a clearly unbalanced power struggle. The focus on the legs of the horses in two separate instances (figures 114 and 118) gives prominence to a scene in motion, and to a fast-progressing threat. In contrast, the counter shots representing Maleficent protecting the Moors make her seem rather still and alone:

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /><figcaption>Figure 119: Maleficent defends the Moors (00:10:57)</figcaption></figure>

The representation of Henry's threatening army and Maleficent's defensive stance is highly contrasting, and when she does respond by force, the preceding set-up retrospectively justifies her actions.

Even when the actions of our characters are not prompted by a defence mechanism, they are motivated by revenge: in other words, the characters' actions are at least a delayed reaction to an earlier event, even if they are not an immediate response to a threat. As such, the evolution of the characters towards villainy depends heavily on the mechanics of revenge, which may shift some of the responsibility held by the person committing a violent action. Despite Harley noting, thanks to her background as a psychiatrist, that "psychologically speaking, vengeance
rarely brings the catharsis we hope for” (01:25:05), revenge is one of the main tools that enable the viewer to root for a villainous character:

> Recent psychological research has shown that revenge can be an incredibly strong motivator as evidenced by brain scans. For example, a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scan shows which parts of your brain are used during different activities. De Quervain, et al. (1256) showed that when a participant was able to punish another who previously wronged him/her, parts of the participant's striatum were activated. These parts were also activated when a participant received a reward. This was true even if the punishment resulted in a personal cost (i.e., money) to the participant. (Keen, 2012: 139)

The positive reaction we have to storylines pertaining to revenge, may help us root for a character we did not originally root for. As soon as she presents her evilness as a trait she was born with, Cruella, speaking to her dead mother, immediately mitigates her statement: having said she was “born bad”, she puts an end to this one-sided conversation by stating “must dash, much to avenge, revenge and destroy” (01:32:50). In the same breath, Cruella talks about her predisposition for evilness, and the concrete circumstances of her actions, which are motivated by a quest for vengeance. The film heavily relies on a rhetoric focused on morals and justice, as the second trailer teases that “the devil gets her due”. The theme of revenge is further developed as Cruella details the five stages of grief and suggests the addition of an extra one: “well I’d like to add one more: revenge” (00:56:01-00:56:16). The reasoning behind her actions changes several times as she becomes increasingly aware of the circumstances surrounding her mother’s death: she initially wants to take back the necklace that belonged to her mother, and she then seeks revenge when this enterprise leads her to the realisation that the Baroness is responsible for her mother’s death. Through all of this, she is always motivated by what she believes to be justice and revenge. Ultimately Cruella’s revenge comes from forcing the true villain of the film, the Baroness, to repeat her original sin, while ensuring that this time she will face the consequences of her actions. Cruella ensures that the Baroness will push her off a cliff in front of a large party, while the police witnesses: she thus forces her to recreate the incident in which she had the dogs push Cruella’s mother off the very same cliff but makes sure that this time, she will get caught and rightfully punished. The scene eliminates the intermediary of the dogs which the Baroness had called on Estella’s mother, to highlight the link between cause and consequence and further accentuate the Baroness’s responsibility. After this, Cruella concludes “she’d go to jail for throwing someone off a cliff. Wrong someone, but there’s something about poetic justice that’s just so… poetic” (01:57:00). The images further highlight
the vengeful agenda of Cruella's actions, by making the shots almost identical in framing, lighting, and editing when Cruella and her mother are pushed off the cliff. In both instances, the camera tilts down to follow the fall of the character, thus reinforcing the parallel between what the Baroness has done to Cruella's mother and the action she is going to get punished for (figures 120-125).

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /><figcaption>Figures 120-2: Cruella's mother is pushed off the cliff (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:09:01)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /><figcaption>Figures 123-5: Cruella is pushed off the cliff (01:54:44)</figcaption></figure>

Likewise, revenge is the main motivator for Maleficent: we only see her using her green magic, which is then used to commit evil actions, after she says “he did this to me, so he would be king?” (00:24:04) as she realises why Stefan cut her wings off (figures 126 and 127). This tends to mitigate her own responsibility by highlighting that the original sin was done by Stefan, and that anything which follows is merely a repercussion of this initial act of violence.

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Figure 126: Maleficent's magic is green for the first time as she learns why Stefan hurt her (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 24:13)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>Figure 127: Maleficent's magic is green when she curses Stefan's child (31:39)</figcaption></figure>

In addition, Maleficent reminds us of Stefan's responsibility by mentioning “true love” in her curse, as “true love” is precisely what Stefan had promised Maleficent when he first kissed her (“he told her it was true love's kiss”, 00:08:01). Stefan's betrayal is thus the reason for her evil
act, and Maleficent emphasises this by quoting him in her curse, ultimately explaining to Diaval "true love's kiss? Have you not worked it out yet? I cursed her that way because there is no such thing" (01:01:21).

The mechanics of revenge also play a key role in explaining the female characters' violent actions in *Birds of Prey*. While she is not our main focus, Huntress's use of a list to note the progression of her revenge is particularly interesting. This kill list may be read as a reference to *Kill Bill*, in which the premise is precisely the Bride seeking revenge on a list of people who have wronged her. In *Birds of Prey*, the list is presented as a child's drawing, which is in part quite humorous, but also helps to emphasise the effect of the character's childhood trauma: as Harley notes, "Sheesh kebab. That is childhood trauma right there" (01:20:37). The editing choices help convey the correspondence between actions and their consequences, thus relieving the character from some of her responsibility in the violence she showcases (figures 128-136).

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>Figures 128-36: Huntress killing the men who have wronged her and crossing them off her list (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 01:20:46-01:21:04)</figcaption></figure>

The link between the fallout and the action which caused it is highlighted through the montage which draws a parallel between three instances of vengeance taking place: each time we see someone hurting Huntress, we see her killing them, and we see them crossed off the kill list. The connexion between the actions she has suffered and the repercussions she metes out is highlighted even further by the use of a slow dissolve which enables a superimposition of her
as a child and her as an adult, to reinforce the link, or linear progression between these two states (figures 137-139).

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /><figcaption>Figures 137-9: slow dissolve at the end of Huntress's revenge spree (01:21:01-01:21:05)</figcaption></figure>

The strong sense of correspondence between her as an adult and her as a child further explains her actions through the violence she has suffered in the past, all the more so as a similar superimposition was also used at the start of the flashback:

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /><figcaption>Figures 140-1: slow dissolve at the beginning of the flashback (01:20:42-01:20:45)</figcaption></figure>

This transition helps us understand Huntress in light of her past and analyse her actions in light of her childhood trauma. The very use of a kill list may be read as a way of limiting her acts of violence: the list makes for a very convenient way of confining female violence to a set number of kills. The slow dissolve we have just studied occurs precisely when she announces, “And now I’m done”. This statement showcases something important about her actions. The very concept of revenge which motivates the character is ultimately what limits the scope of her violent actions: they are directed towards a limited, set number of people, it is limited in time and in scope, as the character’s violence is meant to end as soon as the vengeance has been carried out.

Harley's own trauma is shown in the film as a cause for her actions: as we have mentioned, at the moment she is about to make the chemical plant explode, the whole scene is intercut by shots of her falling into the vat of chemicals, referencing her origin story (figures 142-150).
<figure><img src="image_70.png" /><figcaption>Figures 142-50: Harley remembers what Joker did to her as she destroys the chemical factory
(00:06:47-00:07:08)</figcaption></figure>

The fast editing of this scene may highlight that this decision is somewhat impulsive, prompted by glimpses of memories spontaneously reoccurring to her. The shadow progressing on her face as she gets closer to the factory may also be read as a way of showing a darkness growing in her as these memories are brought back to the surface, thus highlighting the ties between the evil that has been done to her, and the actions she takes part in herself later on.

As they underscore the process of revenge to explain our characters' motivations, all our films tend to present our characters as victims. This, as Morissey notes, is one of the ways in which in actual trials, female agency is put into question when concerned with killer women (2003: 25). As she studies the representation made of female killers in court, she notes the ways in which they are made to appear less threatening to society, and we may be able to see how similar mechanisms transpire in the representation of evil women in film: "The case studies to follow demonstrate that agency is denied through three techniques: vilification or monsterization, mythification and victimism". The use of victimism to minimise the impact of evil women is perhaps what can most easily be found in our films. This is quite typical in a lot of villain origin stories, as it can be seen in the *Joker*, which is another striking example of a film about the origin story of a villain made in recent years. The title character is ridiculed, beaten, and has unaddressed mental health issues – and all of this is used to enable the viewer to continue to root for the protagonist, despite the crimes he commits. The process of
highlighting their victimhood may not necessarily be gender specific, although we will study
the potential gender-specificities of their representation as victims later. Morrisey notes the
ambivalence of such a depiction of violent women, resting so heavily on their representation as
victims:

victimism denies agency through invoking victimology theses which insist on the
powerlessness of the oppressed. Many portrayals of women who kill depict them as so
profoundly victimized that it is difficult to regard them as ever having engaged in an
intentional act in their lives. This is the crux of victimology: in emphasizing victimhood,
intentionality or agency is neglected. Representations of the murderess as victim, then,
function to deny her responsibility, culpability, agency, and often her rationality as well,
in their bid to explain her behaviour and secure her sympathetic legal treatment. While
undeniably often successful in securing reduced sentences, the disadvantages of such a
strategy outweigh the benefits in terms of improving general societal attitudes to, and
challenging negative myths and stereotypes of, women. (25)

The use of this strategy to garner jury sympathy in court may be linked to the use of the same
strategy to garner the viewer's sympathy in film. Because they are rarely portrayed as the first
offender, and because their actions are systematically presented as responses to the wrongful
actions of others, our characters are constantly presented as victims. All our characters have
been made to face dreadful circumstances: both Cruella and Maleficent are orphaned, while
Harley was sold by her father and raised by nuns who beat her. As we have seen earlier, our
characters are presented several times in a position of weakness: Harley is drugged (01:16:38),
Maleficent is trapped in an iron net that causes her pain (01:18:37), and Cruella is seen losing
consciousness in a fire (01:26:18). While they were presented as powerful and fascinating
figures with low-angle shots enhancing their heroic stances, we are also made to feel for them
at other times as they are made to appear weak. The films give us many moments in which we
see the previously villainous protagonist in a position of victimhood. We can note that they are
all seen crying at various times:
<figure><img src="image_71.png" /><figcaption>Figure 151: close-up shot of Harley crying
(Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:02:31)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /><figcaption>Figure 152: close-up shot of Maleficent crying (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 00:18:45)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /><figcaption>Figure 153: close-up shot of Cruella crying
(Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 01:30:37)</figcaption></figure>

The scene in which we see Cruella crying is also marked by the use of a hand-held camera, which leaves the images looking rather jerky, as if to represent the character's inner turmoil. Maleficent's realisation that her wings have been taken is particularly striking: it is a rather long scene for how little happens, she is shown crawled up, while the background is stripped back to emphasise her solitude. The intensity of her distress is further highlighted by the editing: as the frame cuts to Stefan slightly off centre as if to leave room to the source of the sound, while we hear nothing but Maleficent screaming in the background (figure 154).

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>Figure 154: the image shows Stefan while the sound gives us to hear Maleficent's cry
(00:18:50)</figcaption></figure>
This both highlights the person responsible for Maleficent's distress, and shows the intensity of her sorrow which can be heard at large, as the origin of the sound is not present on screen, forcing us to associate the character we see with the cause of the cry. The characters' inner turmoil is further presented several times as we are made to relate to their emotional state. As we have seen earlier, the viewer is made to see through the character's perspective, thanks to the use of eye-line matches and point-of-view shots, particularly when they are placed in the position of victims. But more broadly still, their emotional unrest is made to be felt:

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /><figcaption>Figure 155: Dutch angle of Cruella as she faces a disillusion at her new workplace (23:10)</figcaption></figure>

The Dutch angle used in this scene echoes Cruella's distress, as the composition is marked by a great many parallel lines that further highlight the camera's slanted angle, to represent the young woman's distress. Overall, the characters which were seen as evil in previous works are now presented in contrast to a new, more threatening evil; we are made to root for previous villains because there is now someone worse that needs to be fought. Cruella, Harley and Maleficent are now victims in relation to the Baroness, Roman Sionis, and King Stefan, and their evil actions do not seem so evil in comparison.

By focusing on the characters as victims and on storylines centred on revenge, the films present their evilness as a form of retaliation: they are not the instigators of evil, but merely respond to the evil actions they are subjected to. The characters are given plethora of reasons and motives to explain their behaviour. This comes a long way from the reasons given for their evilness in the original works: Cruella's actions were explained by her wanting a fur coat, Maleficent was seemingly just vexed because she was not invited to Aurora's baptism, and Harley only did her evil deeds out of loyalty to her boyfriend. While we have seen that victimism is a tool used to help us root for an evil character in a lot of instances, we can study
the gender-specificities of this discourse on victimhood when concerned with villainesses.

Indeed, the characters' status as victims also stems from the world they are shown to be evolving in, which treats them poorly, in part because of their gender. This will lead us to analyse the ways in which the films present gender as a motive for the violence our characters are subjected to, and as such as a motive for the evilness they become agents of. Turning to the part played by gender in the representation of our characters as victims, we will be able to see how gender may also have consequences on the ways their actions are justified.
## B) It's a Man's Man's Man's World

As they commit their acts in retaliation or in response to things that have happened to them, the gender of our characters may hold particular weight. The setting in which the evil women progress may be represented as a patriarchal world or may on the contrary disregard any real-world consideration about gender; either way, this has an influence on the way the characters are represented as victims on the one hand, and as evil women on the other. Having established the gender-dynamics of the world the characters evolve in, we may see how gender comes into play in their use of violence and the implications of their villainy.

Both *Birds of Prey* and *Maleficent* turn the villain into a man, which perhaps better reflects the statistics about real-life violence: according to the National Institute of Justice, "Regardless of victim sex, a greater percentage of violent incidents involved male offenders (79%) than female offenders (17%) or offenders of both sexes (3%) in 2020" (Morgan and Thompson, 2022). Yet in *Cruella*, and in the second volume of *Maleficent*, the villain is a woman. In *Maleficent*, there is a constant opposition between the Moors and "men". As Aurora says that Maleficent had "never understood the greed and envy of men" (00:09:21), Maleficent's loss of innocence is somewhat gendered: although the term "men" is employed as a substitute for "humans", the choice of terminology still creates an opposition between Maleficent and Stefan in terms not only of species, but also of gender. In *Birds of Prey*, women are quite clearly presented on the side of righteousness, while men are overwhelmingly presented as bad.

Dinah Lance, or Black Canary covers the song "It's a Man's Man's Man's World" by James Brown in *Birds of Prey* (00:23:59), and shortly thereafter, we are made to witness how true these words ring in the context of the film. The film presents the events taking place in a deeply patriarchal setting. Some of Harley's acts of retaliation are therefore direct responses to sexist actions or words. Early on in the film, when Harley goes to buy a hyena, the seller tells her "I take payment in kind" while visually, a slow push in conveys the oppression that Harley suffers: the cage takes up more and more space in the shot, and Harley is left constrained to the side of the screen (figures 156 and 157). It is only after this provocation that Harley feeds the man to her new pet, and the next shot shows this, with the cut and time jump highlighting the relation between the seller's words and the fate that awaits him.
<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /><figcaption>Figures 156-7: Harley is oppressed by the seller when she goes to buy a hyena
(Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:02:52)</figcaption></figure>

Less than a minute later, Harley is faced with yet another sexist comment, as a man in the club tells her, “Sit your skinny ass down, you dumb slut” (00:03:55) and she breaks his legs in retaliation. Once again, the logical link between the offender’s sexism and Harley’s actions is highlighted: she replies “okay” as he asks her to get down from the table, and does what he asks – only she does this by jumping off of the table, and onto the man’s knees. The world depicted in *Birds of Prey* is undoubtedly patriarchal, as attested by the depiction of the glass-ceiling Montoya faces as her male partner constantly takes credit for her successes and gets the promotions and praise that she deserves: “ten years ago she broke a career-making case, but her partner at the time took all the credit” (00:08:35).

The misogynistic dynamics at play in the film are perfectly summarized by the revealing incorporation of “have a vagina” in the long list of grievances Sionis holds against Harley, alongside some more trivial ones such as “pronounced it ‘expresso’” and “stuck gum under his table” (00:42:12-00:42:22). In this respect, the grievance “left the toilet seat down” is understandable as an expression of Harley’s womanhood, and Sionis’s misogyny explains his intolerance to this trivial feat. Sionis’s misogyny becomes increasingly threatening as he tells Harley “I want to kill you, because without the Joker around, I can [...] you’re just a silly little girl with no one around to protect her” (00:42:58). He gives no explanation to his wish to kill her other than her being a woman and his ability to do so. Sionis blatantly reveals his wish to commit a femicide, a gender-based hate crime understood as the killing of women by men because they are women. The opposition between villains and (anti)heroes quickly seems to double as an opposition between male and female. This can be seen when Black Mask (or Roman Sionis) invites his “Friends, brothers, men of Gotham” to “show those little bitches” (01:23:58) – the distinction he draws between the two groups is deeply gendered.
The depiction of the filmic universe as a man's world is all the more present in scenes representing a form of sexual abuse. This is not done in an erotic or fetishizing way, contrary to what often happens on screen (Lazic, 2018), but two scenes in particular clearly refer to instances of sexual abuse in *Birds of Prey*. The first scene takes place outside the club, when a very drunk Harley is about to be kidnapped by a man who has heard of her recent separation from the Joker – and thus of her newly found vulnerability. Although the scene depicts a kidnapping, the way the man holds Harley in his arms while she is clearly too inebriated to function or give consent hints to a representation of sexual assault (figure 158).

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>Figure 158: a man holds a drunk Harley up against a wall (00:29:32)</figcaption></figure>

As Black Canary walks by and gives a look of concern to the scene of a drunk woman being taken advantage of, the man answers “we’re all good here” (00:29:41). In a later scene, after shooting Harley with a drugged dart, Zsasz sits next to her, and puts her arm around him (figure 159).

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /><figcaption>Figure 159: Zsasz toys with a drugged Harley
(01:16:38)</figcaption></figure>

He chuckles “it’s nice” before adding “you’re still conscious” and asking her “you can still feel?”, and “are you a good girl?”. After these threatening, suggestive remarks, he slightly undresses to reveal his chest. Zsasz asserting that she is conscious is almost a way of asserting her consent while she is unable to contradict him as she cannot speak. In this way, the scene can be seen as a reference to men taking advantage of drugged women. In the end, both of these scenes depict death threats, and not sexual assault, but as these situations can be read in two
different ways, they show the double threat that hangs over the female protagonist's head. This signals that their victimhood is gendered, and as such perhaps their violent actions are gendered too. As Maury and Roche note:

> Motives are, no doubt logically, almost always gendered: men kill because they're men, women don't because they're women, but when they do, they do it as women. The values traditionally associated with male and female, and masculinity and femininity, are often preserved and even essentialized, but they can also be called into question as cultural constructs. If film and television representations of women who kill have increased in number, female violence continues to be justified according to two primary characteristics: motherhood or victimization. (2020: 12)

Indeed, as we have seen, the characters fight back because they have been victimised, and their gender plays a role in what they undergo. The gender-specificities of the characters' victimhood is obvious in the depiction of sexual assault in *Birds of Prey*. But even in *Maleficent*, the way in which the scene of Stefan cutting Maleficent's wings is shot is “a homage to Maleficent's supposed connection to Lilith and an acknowledgment to the act of sexual assault evident in the source material” (Mishra, 2021). This metaphor of rape has been confirmed by Angelina Jolie, who has talked about the ways this scene was meant to represent a sexual assault (Rich, 2014). *Maleficent* and *Birds of Prey* both represent women who are victimised and in turn become violent because of their gender. This can be linked to rape-revenge narratives, which tend to articulate both the gendered origin of their suffering, and, accordingly, the gendered motives of the violence that ensues: “the binary logic written into the very term ‘rape-revenge’ is itself suggestive of such contradictions and oppositions, the hyphen between the two words directs us towards the way in which these films can also be read as an attempt to bridge, and thus make sense of, these gaps” (Read, 2000: 4). In other words, both films seem to echo “the rape-revenge film’s emphasis on the transformation of the heroine from victim to avenger” (8). Both *Maleficent* and *Birds of Prey* seem to explain the characters’ violent actions in terms of what they have suffered because of their gender, and for this reason, they may shift responsibility from them to the patriarchal society that victimises them in the first place, thus enabling us to root for them despite their evil actions.

While the characters may be fighting because of gendered motives, this does not necessarily mean that they have any realisation of it, nor that they are actively and purposefully working towards a feminist goal, and we will have to study whether the characters have any
sense of their situation, and consciously work to fight it. Cruella does assert her femininity – and perhaps her feminism – early on, as her voiceover narration states “how does the saying go? I am woman, hear me roar” (00:01:56), just before the young girl beats up two boys who bullied her. Furthermore, at the very end of the film, Cruella is seen taking away “MAN” from the name of her new house, to transform “Hellman Hall” into “Hell Hall” (figure 160).

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>Figure 160: Cruella removing "MAN" from the name of her new house (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 01:57:49)</figcaption></figure>

This change is all the more striking as we have a very similar shot of the name of the house at the beginning of the film and at the end, with a push-in that lays emphasis on the name of the domain and highlights the evolution (figures 161-164).

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /><figcaption>Figures 161-2: "Hellman Hall" (00:05:04)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>Figures 163-4: "Hell Hall" (01:58:03)</figcaption></figure>

This is obviously meant to represent Cruella accepting her perceived evilness, as she transforms the name of her home into “Hell”, but we may still discern some feminist undertones in this act.
Likewise, Harley seems to be attached to her gender identity, as she is seen wearing a
necklace with the symbol of Venus, often associated with femininity, which shines particularly
bright within a dimly lit scene (figure 165).

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /><figcaption>Figure 165: Harley wearing a necklace with the symbol of Venus (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 01:10:25)</figcaption></figure>

The character’s feminist tendencies can also be seen in her ties to roller derby, as it is a predominantly feminine sport, and one which has been perceived as particularly empowering: indeed, through roller derby “women can challenge sexist assumptions or feelings of marginalisation within the social. They can take up subject positions that offer an alternative to conventional gender scripts that emphasise responsibility for others (mothering), demure niceness or even work-centred ambition” (Pavlidis and Fullagar, 2013: 684). Furthermore, because of its physicality, roller derby, enables women to reclaim roughness and brutality, challenging the societal expectations of a temperate expression of femininity. The fact that Harley is a comic book character who takes part in roller derby is all the more noteworthy, as participants in the sport often draw from a comic-book aesthetic – comics being one of the many references which enable derby girls to explore a wide range of femininities and ultimately defy gender norms:

> With links to rock'n'wrestling, pin-up girls, comic book heroines and dominatrixes, roller derby provides a multiplicity of meanings that can be taken up by diverse women and used to enact multiple femininities. In some ways, roller derby can be viewed as a creative, gendered leisure practice. It is an enabling space where binaries that separate masculine and feminine (and mind and body) can be broken down. (Pavlidis and Fullagar, 2014: 3)

The possibility for roller derby to question gender norms comes through its connection with what Carlson defines as “emphasised femininity”, which “encompasses an idealized version of Western womanhood that posits that women be physically inferior to men, weak, docile, concerned with their appearance, and attentive to enhancing their heterosexual desirability”
(429). According to Carlson, “all-women’s amateur roller derby is a space in which a critical engagement of emphasized femininity occurs” (2010: 430), because the participants both engage with and distort various signifiers (clothing, and names) traditionally associated with femininity. Harley’s involvement in roller derby is presented as emancipatory, as we see her taking part in it at the moment when her voiceover narration says that she managed to get back on her feet after her devastating breakup with the Joker (“Soon enough, I was back on my feet”, 00:03:08). As we are faced with a smash cut which takes us from one scene to the other, the images create a stark contrast between Harley’s two emotional states, highlighting the importance of roller derby in her regaining confidence (figures 166 and 167).

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /><figcaption>Figures 166-7: cut from Harley crying to her partaking in a roller derby match (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:03:05-00:03:08)</figcaption></figure>

Not only does roller derby help her find herself again on a personal level, but the skills she has learnt doing it are eventually put to use as they are a key factor in her overcoming the threat posed by Sionis and his army. Harley’s skating abilities prove useful at a decisive moment in the funhouse, when she decides to put roller blades on to gain speed and as Dinah is left to wonder “when the fuck did she have time to do a shoe change?” (01:28:30). A little later, when Huntress is pulling Harley behind her on her motorcycle, the usefulness of her roller derby skills is emphasised as she uses the exact same line she used during the match at the beginning of the film: she screams “whip me” (00:03:17 and 01:32:58), in reference to a roller derby technique in which one teammate swings another one forward to give her extra momentum. As such, this female-dominated sport helps Harley overcome her personal distress, but also helps her defend herself and her companions against the misogynistic Sionis.

As they act with the aim of defending themselves and protecting each other, we may be able to read the characters’ violence as a form of vigilante feminism. D’Amore defines “vigilante feminism” as “the performance of vigilantism by girls and women who have undertaken their own protection, and the protection of others, against violence—such as sexual assault, abduction, abuse, and trauma—because they have been otherwise failed in that manner”
(387). She notes that this strand of feminism has been increasingly represented in the media, and more particularly in revisionist tales, not unlike what we have here, insofar as our films all choose to retell a pre-existing story:

> Today's fairy-tale action heroine re/visions embody a cultural reaction to growing up in a world where feminism has tread but where women continue to feel unsafe. There is potential to consider the strong fairy-tale action heroines of today as emblematic of a redefinition of a specific kind of physically powerful feminism in which women can take care of themselves in ways, often violent, that allow them to protect themselves from the danger that lurks around every corner. (2017: 388)

And as the women in *Birds of Prey* decide to start up a “crime-fighting outfit” (01:40:14) they truly become vigilantes, or “dorky little do-gooders” as Harley puts it (01:40:24). Nevertheless, as the female characters are made to team up, and actively work together to defend themselves and protect one another, Harley is forced out of her individualism, and into collaboration with other women, expressing it herself: “we’re gonna have to work together” (01:22:40). Their banding together is rendered visually as the camera pans left, shooting them from a low angle, as it is placed in the box they are all looking through. This creates a strong sense of unity between them, as they are connected by what they are doing, and the camera brings them together two by two as they are paired up in the successive frames (figures 168-72).

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /><figcaption>Figures 168-72: the camera rotates to reveal all of the characters looking through the same box (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 01:24:32-01:24:50)</figcaption></figure>

Several medium-long shots or American shots presenting them all together continue to build a sense of community between them as they are presented as a team (figure 173).
<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>Figure 173: American shot uniting all the Birds of Prey
(01:37:29)</figcaption></figure>

Harley Quinn is forced out of individualism and into cooperation with other women, and Kilbourne notes that this may be constitutive of the character, who has constantly been portrayed finding her emancipation and empowerment through collaboration with women, and through her relationship with Poison Ivy more particularly:

> Bonds like Harley Quinn's and Poison Ivy's are important to popular culture, because they reject the lone wolf model of masculine protagonist storytelling. This bond also challenges the trope of the solo femme fatale who is often pitted against another woman for a man's affections. Woman-to-woman empowerment introduces a world where community and trust encourage others to reach their full potential. It shows that what women can do when they work together is much stronger than what they can do alone.
> (2017: 27)

From the title of the film “Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn”, Harley’s liberation is inherently tied to this group of women which are made to appear as the key to her finding herself.

The feminist backdrop given to the violent actions of our heroines may also help them evolve from villains to antiheroines, as we are made to better understand their actions as responses to the oppression they suffer. This is all the more the case as the feminist approach gives a political meaning to their actions, rather than explaining them on a purely personal level – as such, the viewer is made not only to forgive the characters’ actions, but readily adhere to them.

However, the impact of the political discourse which can be found in these films needs to be nuanced. While the viewer is made to adhere to a feminist message to a certain extent, the
films still ensure that this message is not overly political either. As Harley ultimately reverts back to her selfish ways, betrays her companions, and criticises their wish to continue fighting together, we may wonder how these films tie in a postfeminist rhetoric. Coulthard notes that the use of postfeminism is quite present within the filmic representation of violent action heroines: the violent action heroine is not phallicized or masculinized through her actions (a common concern in much scholarly and popular writing on action heroines) as much as she is postfeminized; her superficial transgression and postpolitical, individual acts, and achievements become the markers for the ambivalent and problematic pleasures, regressions, and recidivisms of postfeminist popular culture. (2008: 173)

The films insistence on the characters' uniqueness confines female evilness to one specific story, in one specific time and place. This is a central theme of post-feminism: as Gill notes, "a focus upon individualism" is one of the "relatively stable features that comprise or constitute a postfeminist discourse" (2016: 149). While Harley does unite with other women, as we have seen, she quickly abandons them once she has obtained what she wanted, once she is free from Sionis, and once she has been able to steal the diamond. As for Cruella and Maleficent, they are mainly made to align with men (Horace and Jasper for Cruella; Diaval for Maleficent) in order to fight a new evil – who is even a woman in *Cruella*, and in the second volume of *Maleficent*. Their actions are not made to seem feminist in that sense, and this de-politicisation is precisely what postfeminism is all about. Ultimately, the evilness of our characters is an "inherent or sanctioned transgression of dominant patriarchal, capitalist ideology, the violent action heroine offers the image of innovative or even revolutionary change while disavowing any actual engagement with violence and its relation to feminism and female solidarity, collectivity, or political action" (Coulthard, 2008: 173). This individualistic view can be linked to the emergence of "choice feminism", which Hirshman defines as "the shadowy remnant of the original movement" (2006: 1), or a "watered-down version of feminism" (17), in which any act made by a woman is considered a feminist act, promoting the idea of choice over anything else, while simultaneously disregarding or overlooking the societal pressures that lead to that seemingly wilful decision being made. Choice feminism represents "the widespread belief in the US that the women's movement has liberated women to make whatever choices they want" (Ferguson, 2010: 247). In that sense, the prefix "post" is also ambiguous, as it seems to represent a discourse that acknowledges the feminist actions of the past, but now considers them obsolete. Projansky defines postfeminism by highlighting its diverse aspects and the various "categories of posfeminist discourse". One of these discourses, which she defines as "equality and choice
postfeminism” (2001: 67), implies that women no longer need feminism because they have obtained equal rights. The films can be read as post-feminist as they place themselves in a world where feminism is rendered obsolete by its supposed success in achieving equality. This appears to be the case in *Cruella* and *Maleficent*, where few questions of gender are raised, which is all the more paradoxical as they take place in the past. Cruella does note “well that wasn’t much of a thing back in 1964” (00:01:55) when talking about the phrase “I am woman, hear me roar”, but both films seem to present a postfeminist world in which the fights of feminism have already been won – the Baroness’s fashion empire is never questioned because of her gender, and no character in *Maleficent* shows any resistance to a woman ruling over the kingdom. *Birds of Prey* does problematise its patriarchal setting, but the other films seem to take for granted the position of a woman as protagonist, which might suggest they are somewhat postfeminist.

Finally, postfeminism can be understood as an inherently commodified version or reappropriation of feminist themes, that “simultaneously rejects feminist activism in favor of feminine consumption and celebrates the success of feminism while declaring its irrelevance” (Butler, 2013: 44). Despite the films engaging with feminist topics, we do have to question their impact, not least because these films are in themselves commodities released by big productions with the aim of making money: the advocacy they hint to may have more to do with the ambition of commercial success. The rise of action women in films can be understood by the marketability of superficial feminist themes, as attested by the rise of “femvertizing”. In recent years, we can note a considerable increase in the number of advertising campaigns which borrow from feminist of pseudo-feminist discourses to sell products (Iqbal, 2015). Windels et al. note that “femvertizing” is “essentially putting feminism up for direct purchase” (2020: 3), and as such various media have tended to present themselves as feminist, to give the consumer the illusion of buying empowerment as a commodity. This leads Coulthard to wonder if “the violent heroine of contemporary popular action cinema [is] merely a symptom and product of a postfeminist cultural context that elevates postpolitical commodification and capitalistic success under the guise of progress” (2008: 155). Ultimately, the “postfeminist version of feminism the media offer is market-driven, using feminism because it has become— because they have helped it become—a valuable commodity that does not undermine the gender system that helps to maintain the media” (Projansky, 2001: 120). This commodified feminism is closely related to concepts of “girl power”, which Harley and *Birds of Prey* seem attached to. “Girl power” emerged with the Riot Grrrls in the 1970s, but has considerably evolved since: “The Riot Grrrls' version of girl power had little in common with power feminism or with girl power
as it exists today” (Hains, 2009: 97). “Girl power” feminism interrelates with commodity
feminism, with Hains noting that “owing to their appealing, unthreatening promise of fun
feminine empowerment, power feminism and girl power have shared commercial success”
(107). With Harley defining herself as a “badass motherfucker” (1:40:34), and as implied by
the incorporation in the film of the song “Boss Bitch” by Doja Cat, the dynamics presented in
*Birds of Prey* seem to lean towards a heavily merchandisable and commodified “girl power”
branch of feminism. The final song which plays in the film before the end credit, “Woman” by
Kesha, is perhaps the most striking example of the commodified nature of “girl power”
feminism, as the lyrics showcase the singer’s claim to emancipation through the acquisition of
material items: “I buy my own things, I pay my own bills / These diamond rings, my
automobiles / Everything I got, I bought it” before concluding “I’m a motherfucking woman,
baby”. This girl power aesthetic is made all the more merchandisable by its depoliticization. As
Bae notes: “One much scrutinized issue of the postfeminist conceptualization of girl power is
the aesthetically oriented consumerism that structures it, a consumerism created through
mainstream commodification for economic purposes” (2011: 29). A consequence of this
commodification is the limited representation offered of the women in the films, in particular
in terms of race. Purse notes that the action heroines of contemporary film “seem to represent
the ‘acceptable face’ of female empowerment: predominantly white, heterosexual, sexualised,
affluent, normatively feminine” (2011: 85). And indeed, all our protagonists are white, and
while there is occasional representation of women of colour in the films, they are mainly
relegated to the background. While *Birds of Prey* has quite a diverse cast, the film centres around
one of the few white women of the group. As for *Cruella*, the film features a Black woman who
was not present in the original works, but Anita is assigned the classic role of sidekick, whose
use is mainly to help the white protagonist, as is often the case in filmic representations of
women of colour (Burke, 2018). The films’ ties to these various aspects of post-feminism are
precisely what make the evil women featured so unthreatening, as post-feminism confines
female violence, by making it unpolitical.

The place taken by gender in the explanation for Cruella, Harley and Maleficent’s need
to resort to evilness may give political weight to their actions. Through the mention of feminist
matters, the protagonists of our films are portrayed fighting for a group rather than just for
themselves: this helps to further justify their actions and turn them into heroines rather than
egoistical villains. Yet the films at study have a rather ambiguous relationship to feminist
themes. On the one hand, they seem to engage with surface level feminist notions which help
us root for the character by justifying their actions as a fight against a patriarchal world. *Birds
of Prey* and *Maleficent*'s subtle references to sexual assault help justify the characters' actions,
while *Cruella* bears some marks of a feminist discourse. On the other hand, the films contain
very little actual feminist engagement, which helps sell the characters as non-threatening. The
feminist references help us root for the anti-heroines, while simultaneously, the very timid
nature of these references ensure they will not unsettle less politically inclined viewers. Yet the
representation of evil or violent women on screen still disrupts gender norms, despite limits in
the political ideas which motivate this evilness. This is why McCaughey and King "reject
arguments for women's pacifism in light of both the relative license to do violence given men
and the obvious political uses of it for women", privileging instead an "approach [that] sees the
pervasive abuse of women by men as an activity maintained in part by traditional images of
women unable to fight and of men immune to injury" (2001: 6). Despite the possible limits to
these heroines' feminist engagement, their evilness still challenges norms, which in turn enables
us to perceive their actions as a form of resistance. Beyond the individualistic motives which
guide them, the characters' actions take on a broader political meaning, raising questions on
how female violence and evilness may be able to fight other modes of oppression. This will
enable us to study the ways in which these antiheroines are made to carry a political message
which helps us root for them, despite their supposed evilness.
### C) “It wasn’t her I was challenging. It was the world”: the political implications of female evil

Beyond their individualistic motivations, the female villains end up standing for much more than themselves. As their evil actions ultimately wreak havoc and disrupt the society they evolve in, they eventually stand against established systems. Female violence is always subversive, even when it is mitigated, and the fact it is subversive is precisely the reason why the films are forced to mitigate the characters’ evil actions. Not only does their evilness give political value to the actions they commit, but they are also considered evil because they are seen as non-conformists. For this reason, it may be argued that female evil takes on a broader political message, and despite their individually driven reasoning, the characters end up taking a political stance, or at least representing a form of subversion and resistance.

#### a) Redefining family

While the protagonists’ family situations contribute to their dreary backstory and help explain their dark turn, it is also a chance for them to reinvestigate what family means, and as such disrupt a capital institution of Western societies. The notion of family seems problematic in all of our films: *Maleficent* is replete with orphans (Maleficent herself, Stefan, and ultimately Aurora), and Maleficent is made to recreate a motherly bond with Aurora, redefining family beyond mere blood ties. Despite fairy tales and Disney films often casting a negative light on blended families, as attested by the trope of the evil stepmother (Francis, 2022), *Maleficent* precisely shows untraditional families in a positive light, whereas Aurora’s original birth family is presented as nefarious. Similarly, the relations which are valued in *Cruella* are not necessarily created by blood. Estella’s mother-line is particularly complex: she is raised by a single mother, who dies early on in the film, and she is made to fend for herself only to learn much later that her birth mother is actually the evil Baroness. Once again, birth parents are presented negatively while the film offers a positive representation of Estella’s adoptive single mother. In *Birds of Prey*, we are told that Harley’s father tried to get rid of her by exchanging her for a pack of beer when she was a child, and the film contains no other mention of her family. None of the other characters in *Birds of Prey* are said to have a family either: the only child of the group, Cassandra Cain, is in the foster system, and her foster parents are only heard fighting off screen (00:32:43-00:32:55). As Dinah consoles Cassandra because her parents are arguing, the family becomes a threatening “acousmatic voice” (Chion, 1999: 19) of a dysfunctional family that
looms over her, but she is never seen interacting with them. As for Huntress, her entire family
is murdered when she is a child, and she recreates family ties with an assassin who raises her
as her own, beyond the confines of traditional family bonds. As traditional family ties come
undone, the characters are forced to recreate new ones. Cruella recreates her own family, as she
values her friendship with Horace and Jasper as if it were a blood relation: she calls her friends
her family at least three times: "we were like a family" (00:15:14), "you're my family"
(01:38:45) and "that's my family" (01:39:20). This also shows an evolution in her way of
speaking about her found family: from a mere comparison introduced by "like", she ends up
presenting them as the actual thing – having learnt about her origins and being aware that she
was not biologically related to her mother, she seemingly reassesses what is meant by the term
"family".

Furthermore, we may note the striking absence of any love interest for our main
characters, which Neroni calls “[o]ne of the most glaring similarities between contemporary
films featuring violent women”:

the almost requisite romantic union with which so many Hollywood films conclude does
not occur. Violent women are usually alive but left on their own at the end of these films.

This suggests how difficult it is for Hollywood— the greatest of ideology machines—
to integrate the violent woman into its typical narrative structure. This absence of
romance, especially in so many mainstream Hollywood action films, is somewhat
astounding considering the rate at which heterosexual couples usually end up in a
romantic union in most Hollywood films. (2005: 85)

The absence of a love-interest for violent or evil women is striking in film: “The absence of
romantic union in films becomes the norm in film-stories in which violent women are
predominant” (Kupfer, 2018: 53). As he continues: “It is as if the filmmakers feel the need to
omit heterosexual involvement because it does not comport easily with a type of woman who
deviates in such marked ways from the typical representation of women for whom romance
was desirable”. The exclusion of heterosexual involvements goes further than a reassuring
omission in our films, as the protagonists actively reject traditional relationships. Harley Quinn
looks back negatively on her past with the Joker, and the entire film traces her path to
emancipation after losing herself in her relationship. Harley’s detachment from traditional
relationships is carried over in *The Suicide Squad*, as she kills her new partner, claiming
“Recently I made a promise to myself that the next time I got a boyfriend I’d be on the lookout
for red flags, and if I saw any I would do the healthy thing and I would murder him" (00:45:36). This comes a long way from her representation in *Suicide Squad*, in which Enchantress (Cara Delevingne) tries to trick Harley by presenting her with a vision of her ideal life: the ideal that Harley longs for and that makes her say "I want that" (01:35:42) is a model of blissful domesticity, with two children and the Joker as her husband (figure 174).

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 174: Harley longs for domesticity (Suicide Squad, Ayer, 2016, 01:34:40)*</figcaption></figure>

As for Cruella, she has canonically been represented as deeply opposed to marriage. While she was married in the original novel, she is presented as a single woman from the 1961 animated film onwards, and she can be heard saying "More good women have been lost to marriage than to war, famine, disease, and disaster" in *101 Dalmatians* (00:09:38). This anti-marriage stance was supposed to accentuate her eccentricity and make her look all the more villainous, but it also presents her outside of the confines of traditional expectations. Although the character does not state her aversion to marriage so clearly in *Cruella*, she does associate with queerness as she befriends Artie, the first openly gay character in a live-action Disney film. Similarly, Maleficent, with her phallic horns, sharp features, and cold personality has long been read as queer-coded, before the live-action film was made, and as is often the case in the representation of Disney villains (Kogod, 2020). In that regard, the casting of Angelina Jolie to play the live-action incarnation of the evil witch is not anecdotal as she has come to symbolise the "butch-femme", whose films "draw heavily on this persona to charge the characters she plays with a bisexual, butch femme subjectivity", according to Stasia (2003: 187). As for *Birds of Prey*, the film confirms in passing Harley's prior relationship with Poison Ivy (figure 175). The association of these originally evil women with queerness is not coincidental: not only does their marginality enable them to explore relationships outside of social expectations, but their representation as evil women may also be understood as the demonisation of women who diverge from societal norms.
<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>Figure 175: the opening animation of *Birds of Prey* mentions Harley's prior relationship with Poison Ivy (Yan, 2020, 00:01:11)</figcaption></figure>

Although *Maleficent* does end with the union of Aurora and Prince Philip, the title character is not given a love-interest of her own, and while the film maintains the relationship between Aurora and Philip as a key point of the narrative, there is a devaluation of the omnipotence of their relationship, in contrast to how it was presented in the original *Sleeping Beauty*. While the 1959 animated film presented the kiss between the two young royals as the key to saving the princess, *Maleficent* gives value instead to a new kind of relationship: it is now Maleficent's kiss that breaks the curse, and the core of the film is now the all-powerful tie between a mother and a child. Maleficent recreates a new family as she becomes a mother-figure for Aurora; despite originally hating the young child, claiming "I don't like children" (00:42:04), she reluctantly ends up taking care of her. This can be read as a way of taming the character (Kadlec, 2020), but it is also just a way of valuing other types of relationships. The same can be said for Harley Quinn as she ultimately takes the young Cassandra Cain under her wing ("yeah, yeah, I made the kid my apprentice"), and Harley recognizes that this may make her appear weak ("call me a softy"), but she refuses to see mothering as a weakness as she jokingly threatens the viewer, concluding the film with "I dare ya" (01:41:09-15), reminding us that her taking on this role as caregiver does not mitigate her strength and the threat she poses. As they are removed from traditional family ties, the characters are made to reinvestigate and explore new ones, contesting dominating ideas about relationships to favour contending representations of family.

b) **"I was never an establishment kind of gal"**

The evil characters of our films do not only represent an unconventional approach to marriage and relationships; they also stand against a lot of established norms. Harley claims early in the film that she "was never an establishment kind of gal" (00:01:01), and all our films
show the protagonists in situations where they are made to stand up against authoritative figures. In a similar vein, Cruella claims early on "It wasn't her I was challenging. It was the world" (00:01:18). This leads Cromeans to remark that "Cruella's agenda of revenge against the Baroness [...] is not solely motivated by a need for payback. Her war against the Baroness is as much about fighting the powers that be, as it is about her personal motivations" (2021), and indeed, she constantly appears as a "poor little nonconformist" (Debruge, 2021), who disrupts conventions and attacks the establishment.

In all our films, the new evil is a powerful figure which the title characters defy: Maleficent faces the head of a neighbouring kingdom, Cruella challenges a powerful fashion designer interestingly called "The Baroness", while Harley Quinn defeats an egotistical millionaire who effectively controls Gotham city. Roman Sionis's background is precisely the source of some interrogations in *Birds of Prey*, as Harley calls him a "trustafarian fuckbag" (00:53:14), in reference to his coming from money and having a trust fund while assuming an alternative lifestyle which is enabled by his generational wealth. But he is also someone who refuses to recognise his privilege: "you know what my family gave me? Nothing. I know what everyone says. 'Here comes Roman Sionis. He was handed life on a silver spoon.' 'Gin and tonics at 5:00.' 'I'll have the duck.' Blah blah blah. Fake fucking fucks" (00:25:06). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Harley and Cruella are presented as coming from a much less privileged background: Harley's father tries to exchange her to buy beer, while Cruella's mother is forced to ask the Baroness for money.

As the characters fight dominating forces, all our films denounce unfair labour conditions. In *Maleficent*, we see King Stefan exploiting his workers, Cruella herself is demeaned at her place of work, while *Birds of Prey* presents the oppression of Dinah under the hand of her employer, Roman Sionis. The oppression of workers by King Stefan is shown by his brutality, as we see him throw water in the face of the overseer to wake him up. The brutality of this action is highlighted in the editing, as a smash cut takes us directly from Stefan waking up, to the overseer receiving water in his face. We are not made to see Stefan picking up the bucket of water, thus creating a surprise effect meant to echo the brutality of Stefan's action (figures 176 and 177).
<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>Figures 176-7: Stefan throws water in the face of the overseer (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 00:55:48-00:58:52)</figcaption></figure>

The dialogue which follows continues to showcase Stefan's exploitation of the men who work for him (00:55:52-00:56:34):

Stefan: “Where are your workers?”

Overseer: “Uh. In their beds, Majesty.”

Stefan: “Get them back to work without delay.”

Overseer: “They’re exhausted, Sire. But I’ll have them back to work at first light.”

Stefan: “I need them back to work now.”

Overseer: “It’s the wee hours.”

Stefan: “Aye. Aye. It is the wee hours. So wake them up.”

Overseer: “Sire?”

Stefan: “So wake them up! And get them back to work now!”

Cruella's deplorable work conditions are also highlighted in the film as we get a long sequence showing the luxurious building in which she works, and the camera glides through the entire building until it reaches Cruella, scrubbing the bathroom floor (figures 178-81). As the camera slithers around the shoppers and through sinewy corridors, this long take dolly shot is replete with movement: the camera passes through several doors, down a flight of stairs and around a couple of corners, thus reinforcing both the impression of the viewer being immersed in the scene, and the suspense leading to the reveal of Estella. Her work is hidden, unrewarding, and the editing reinforces the difference between the shoppers and the invisible workers. While she had waited with expectancy on this opportunity to work for the Liberty department store, the long take creates an effect of suspense and ultimately leads to disappointment, once the reality of Cruella's job is revealed.
<figure><img src="image_91.png" /><figcaption>Figures 178-81: long take showing Estella's place of work (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:20:06-00:20:59)</figcaption></figure>

Moments later, we get a montage of Estella doing a great many trivial tasks, with the camera systematically pushing in on her face, to show her reaction to having to do this, and highlighting how unfulfilling her work is (figures 182-193).

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>Figures 182-93: montage showing Estella at her job (00:21:11-00:21:41)</figcaption></figure>

The repetitive push ins create a comical effect, but also work to highlight the monotony of her job. The feeling of entrapment created by her work conditions is rendered literal through the depiction of doors constantly closing on her. This happens first as she looks enviously onto a woman shopping in the department store: the door closes, and Estella is left to look at her through a glass panel (figures 194 and 195).
<figure><img src="image_93.png" /><figcaption>Figures 194-5: the door closes as Estella looks at a women shopping (Cruella, 00:21:41-00:21:43)</figcaption></figure>

The representation of her lack of opportunity through closing doors is once again taken up as she tries to talk to her supervisor to ask for more responsibility, he does not even listen to what she has to say and closes a door in her face (figures 196-198).

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /><figcaption>Figures 196-8: Gerald closes a door in Estella's face (00:22:05-00:22:07)</figcaption></figure>

The stand Cruella takes against the establishment is perhaps best emblematised through the importance of the punk aesthetic that permeates the filmic universe, as Craig Gillespie comments in The Music featurette: "it was just so much fun with Cruella's character. She's fully ingrained in this punk sensibility". The film's punk setting is most strongly perceptible in the music which composes the film's soundtrack, including songs by The Clash or Blondie. As Malott and Peña note: "a number of music scholars do suggest that punk rock is a form of anticapitalist resistance" (2004: 27), and as such the use of this musical genre while Cruella fights the domination of the Baroness is a sign that she represents a figure of the anti-establishment.

The other essential aspect of *Cruella*'s punk aesthetic can be found in her use of fashion. As Leigh notes: "Cruella signposts something else essential about punk: the power of reinvention. For the original punks, clothes weren't just clothes but a ticket to a whole new you, cut to your own design" (2021). It is perhaps not completely anecdotal that Cruella's evilness is so strongly associated with her success in fashion. The novel and successive films may be denouncing the excesses of the fashion industry, in particular surrounding animal cruelty, but *Cruella* somewhat flips the script by showing the subversive potential of fashion. The industry,
as it is embodied by the Baroness, is still heavily criticised, but the incorporation of punk offers a new way of reading fashion as a disruptive force. Cruella's character was inspired by Vivienne Westwood, and her fashion is shown as futuristic, as she writes “the future” on her face (figure 41). More broadly, punk fashion represented a complete disruption of norms: “The punk subculture [...] signified chaos at every level” (Hebdige, 1979: 113), and Cruella seems to be wholly immersed in chaos and subversion. Her rubbish dress can also be read as deeply punk, as the punk aesthetic leaned heavily on the incorporation of “inappropriate items” which were not meant to be seen (figure 199).

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /><figcaption>Figure 199: Cruella arrives in a bin lorry (01:08:43)</figcaption></figure>

As she arrives at the event hidden in a bin lorry, her long dress is revealed among a pile of bin bags, which can be tied to what Hebdige notes about punk fashion: “Objects borrowed from the most sordid of contexts found a place in the punks’ ensembles: lavatory chains were draped in graceful arcs across chests encased in plastic bin liners” (107). Drawing from Hebdige’s analysis, Carlson explains the ways in which the punk movement took on bourgeois elements and turned them on their head to take away their meaning and reveal the artificiality of their association with a bourgeois lifestyle: “Punk thus undermined the link between signifier and signified insofar as punk exposed the signifier’s (e.g., make-up) assumed correspondence with the intended signified (e.g., bourgeois femininity) as socially constructed. Thus, punk directly questioned the coherent, socially meaningful relationship between the signifier and signified” (2010: 430). Cruella does precisely this when she reappropriates one of the Baroness’s designs from her 1965 collection (figures 200 and 201).
<figure><img src="image_96.png" /><figcaption>Figure 200: the Baroness's 1965 design is seen in a thrift shop window (00:33:20)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /><figcaption>Figure 201: Cruella wears a modified version of the Baroness's dress (00:50:53)</figcaption></figure>

At the black and white ball, Cruella wears a red dress designed by the Baroness, but manages to make it controversial, by wearing it at an inappropriate time, at an event in which colour is completely forbidden: while the Baroness says “No wonder I like it, it’s mine”, Cruella replies “I fixed it” (00:50:51-00:50:55), thus highlighting the power of reinvention offered by punk fashion.

The character's anti-conformism is also rendered spatially: Cruella is mainly seen outdoors, and she often drags others outside too. This is in part due to her being welcome nowhere, as she is chased out by dogs at the Baroness's ball (00:08:03-00:09:02), and the Baroness wants to have her arrested for trespassing at the black and white ball (00:52:50). During this same event, Cruella's antics ensure everyone else is also made to leave, as Horace, pretending to be a pest exterminator, starts defusing toxic fumes (figure 202).

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /><figcaption>Figure 202: all the guests are forced to leave the black and white ball (00:54:18)</figcaption></figure>

As she represents a newcomer in the fashion industry, she is not as established as the Baroness, and a lot of doors are closed to her, forcing her to creatively reimagine the outdoors: during the Baroness' spring show, she makes sure the dresses are infested by moths which fly out of the vault and force people to run out of the venue, and onto the streets where Cruella is waiting
with her own outdoors show, which the Baroness is left to watch through a window (figures 203-205).

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>Figures 203-5: people leave the Baroness's spring show and attend Cruella's outdoor show while the Baroness watches through a window (01:19:51-01:20:27)</figcaption></figure>

As the key light colours the scene in red, we are made to see the Baroness looking onto Cruella's show (figure 204), while she is locked indoors. Cruella also locks the Baroness inside her car slightly earlier in the film, while she stands up on top of it (figure 206).

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /><figcaption>Figure 206: Cruella locks the Baroness inside her car (01:05:48)</figcaption></figure>

Similarly, during the charity gala held by the Baroness at the end of the film, Cruella ensures that all the guests think the host has invited them to go to the terrace, so they can witness the evil fashion magnate pushing Estella off the balcony. Cruella, because she defies the establishment, is constantly defined by an exterior setting, but she is also able to turn this in her favour by essentially dragging others outside with her. Cruella's status as an outsider can be likened to the rejection that Maleficent is subjected to as she is not invited to the princess's
christening: this is the main explanation for her scorn in *Sleeping Beauty*, in which no explanation is given to the curse that she places on Aurora, apart from her vexation after having been excluded from the ceremony. Both Cruella and Maleficent feature characters who are rejected by society, and this rejection is in turn what fuels their evilness.

Finally, both Cruella (01:35:26) and Harley (00:21:51-00:23:40) are made to wreak havoc in a police station, while Maleficent is shown facing an army (9:34). These are quite drastic instances of the characters facing an established institution. This is somewhat questionable in *Birds of Prey* as Harley ends up working for the authorities: she pairs up with Montoya, who is originally a police officer, and in both instalments of the *Suicide Squad* franchise, Harley is hired by the US secret services to work for the government. Similarly, Cruella's whole revenge ploy rests on getting the Baroness arrested, and she thus heavily relies on the police, despite having driven a car in a station to break her friends out of prison earlier.

### c) Maleficent and nature: an ecofeminist reading

The systems against which Maleficent stands are perhaps even more complex, in part due to her connexion with nature. As Mal conjointly fights a system and the destruction of her home in nature, the film offers us an interesting ecofeminist reading. Underlying the ecofeminist movement is the realisation that women and nature go through similar modes of oppression, that women are the first victims of ecological disasters, and that thinking about these two causes hand in hand is a helpful way of acknowledging their interconnectedness: "The specifically ecofeminist argument here proposed that, since the same social and economic structures also produced widescale environmental damage, then women could, in some sense, 'share' this experience and were therefore better placed to argue on nature's behalf" (Buckingham, 2004: 147). While ecofeminism has sometimes been viewed as an essentialist amalgamation of women and nature, the theories developed by ecofeminists are actually based on the social construction of womanhood and of nature. This ideology is not necessarily based on "[t]he essentialist argument that underpinned some of the North American and Australian analyses" which "proposed that women had a particular relationship with nature by virtue of their biology (predominantly as actual or potential child bearers) and that this proximity to nature qualified them to speak more eloquently on nature's behalf" (147). To put it in other words: "ecofeminism is not 'essentialist,' as our understanding of the woman/nature connection is historical and
specific, and corresponding symbolic representations are based on historically and culturally constructed understandings of women and nature" (King, 1995: 18).

Maleficent's intimate relation with nature is symbolised in the film from the start, as the very first thing we see her do is healing a tree (00:01:52). Her connection with nature is also shown visually, as she blends with the tall grass:

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /><figcaption>Figure 207: Maleficent is camouflaged in the tall grass (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 00:22:09)</figcaption></figure>

Later on, as she has been left hurt by Stefan, the entirety of nature is made to echo her feelings: the pathetic fallacy of the setting tends to further the ties between her inner emotions and her surroundings. Not only is her anger symbolised by thunder, but the colours of nature radically change to symbolise the evolution of her emotions (figures 208-209).

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /><figcaption>Figures 208-9: the tones change to reflect Maleficent's emotions as she advances through the Moors (00:25:03-00:25:05)</figcaption></figure>

The change in colour temperature from warmer tones to a much cooler lighting is made to echo the changing mood of Maleficent.

Maleficent's ties with nature are due not only to her being a woman, but more particularly to her being an evil woman:

Symbolically associated with unruly nature was the dark side of woman. Although the Renaissance Platonic lover had embodied her with true beauty and the good, and the
Virgin Mary had been worshipped as mother of the Savior, women were also seen as closer to nature than men, subordinate in the social hierarchy to the men of their class, and imbued with a far greater sexual passion. The upheavals of the Reformation and the witch trials of the sixteenth century heightened these perceptions. Like wild chaotic nature, women needed to be subdued and kept in their place. (Merchant, 1989: 132)

The character's ties with nature further oppose her to Stefan, who is much more often associated with the indoors. As we had been told that Stefan shut himself away after Maleficent's curse, the editing works to reinforce the image of a king locked up inside his castle (figures 210-212).

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 210-12: superimposition of nature and inside the castle (Maleficent, 00:33:37)*</figcaption></figure>

The slow dissolve between the aerial shot of nature and the interior of the castle enables a superimposition of two strongly contrasting images, and thus highlights the difference of setting. The colour schemes in both images are also made to reinforce the opposition: the blue and orange tints of the castle contrast with the dominating green of the scenery, while the overall darkness of the castle, with Stefan being backlit, contributes to his threatening appearance. Maleficent's association with exterior setting likens her to Cruella, who, as we have seen, is often linked to the outdoors – but in *Cruella* the character was associated to the streets, whereas Maleficent's ties to the outdoors is marked by the importance of nature and is as such more ecological. The ecofeminist reading of the film is further encouraged by the ties which bind the defence of nature and the fight for peace. According to ecofeminist theories, there is a link between nature and pacifism: “In both ecofeminist theory and ecofeminist political activism *ecology* and *peace* have been inextricably linked since the first explicitly ecofeminist political gathering” (King, 1995: 15). In *Maleficent*, the destruction of an organic nature, embodied by the Moors, is both the cause and the consequence of war: during the fight scene at the beginning of *Maleficent*, soldiers are made to fight trees, and the attack is presented as a disruption, which Maleficent tries to avoid as she takes on an initially pacifist stance, ordering them to “Go no further” (10:43).
Furthermore, while pathetic fallacy accentuates the link between (wo)man and nature, nature itself is humanised, with talking trees (figure 213) and rocks which seem to have a face (figure 214).

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /><figcaption>Figure 213: trees are given anthropomorphic features (Maleficent, 00:04:15)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /><figcaption>Figure 214: the rock is given a face (Maleficent, 00:01:04)</figcaption></figure>

This re-humanisation of nature contributes to contesting its devaluation in relation to humans. The importance given to every part of nature through a form of animism tends to demonstrate its value, and as such highlights a biodiversity which is presented as valuable. As the humans work towards the destruction of this abundant nature, we have yet another ecofeminist theme: “The simplification of organic nature (decline of diversity in nature) is related to the simplification of human culture. This is why ecofeminists oppose sameness and standardization as destructive to ecology as well as humanity” (King 17). This is very well exemplified by the destruction of magic in *Maleficent: Mistress of Evil*, as the new queen hires a scientist to work on the destruction of magical creatures (figures 215-217).

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /><figcaption>Figure 215-7: science is presented as the opposite of magic
(Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, Ronning, 2019, 01:00:53-01:00:57)</figcaption></figure>

As the scientist transforms a fairy into a dandelion, he removes the magical essence from the creature, effectively taming it. While the humans try to render everything more uniform, the diversity which characterises the Moors is heavily emphasised: as early as the first volume, there is a distinction between “folk like you and me” on the one hand, with the term “like” highlighting the homogeneity of the group, and “every manner of strange and beautiful creature” which compose the Moors on the other hand (00:00:53).
The concept of diversity presented in *Maleficent* also pertains to postcolonial themes, which are inherently linked to ecofeminist ideas:

the concept of diversity has many parameters and implications in ecofeminism, both in terms of the nonhuman world and in terms of human cultural and economic practices.

The recognition of the necessity of diversity in nature leads ecofeminism to recognize the necessity of cultural diversity in humanity, which in turn leads to a recognition of the need for eco feminism to be postcolonial and multicultural. (Murphy, 1997: 54)

*Maleficent* thus draws from both ecofeminism and postcolonialism. There is however a displacement of the question of diversity and colonialism in *Maleficent*, as the diversity hinted at in the film is ultimately centred on a diversity of species, and not of race. All humans are white in the first volume, and we only see any racial diversity among the fairies in the second volume. Although the film takes on a reflection on diversity, it is somewhat depoliticised as it is made to pertain to fictitious species whilst overlooking real questions of racial representation.

As the diversity alluded to in the film centres on nature and biodiversity, the postcolonial arguments which ensue revolve around a reflection on land. Hammond analyses Maleficent's pedestrianism once her wings have been cut off, noting the film's "potential for critique of neoliberalism", which relies on "the intertwined themes of sexual violence, war, land grab, and labour, female labour in particular" (2017: 5). In this regard, "Maleficent's enfranchising pedestrianism amounts, then, to a feminine, counter-hegemonic critique of capitalist, and now neoliberal, economics of land" (16). This criticism of neoliberal economics of land appears through a denunciation of the exploitation of nature. This exploitative relation to nature is condemned early on, as Stefan gets caught for stealing a stone in the Moors; Maleficent takes the stone back and throws it back into the river (figures 218 and 219).

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /><figcaption>Figures 218-9: Maleficent throws the stone back into the water (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 00:05:19-00:05:22)</figcaption></figure>
While Stefan contests Maleficent’s action, viewing this as a waste of resources (“if I knew you would throw it away, I would have kept it”), Maleficent replies “I didn’t throw it away, I delivered it home” (00:05:27). As the scene is filmed from below the water surface, with a low angle shot of young Maleficent, and with her image slightly distorted by the refraction, the images present the action from the perspective of the stone being returned to its rightful place, rather than from the perspective of it being given away, further reinforcing the idea that it belongs to nature, and that its extraction from its natural habitat is unjust.

As such, nature in *Maleficent* is in need of protection from human touch, and as both Maleficent and her homeland have been harmed by men, they become inexorably tied. The politics of the film draw on themes of ecological protection, the contestation of colonial attitudes and the refusal of a devaluation of nature. This gives a broader meaning to the character’s actions, beyond self-defence or personal revenge against the man who has wronged her: Maleficent’s actions can be said to bear political value, which may help justify them.

The reframing of the stories does not only complexify the identity of the originally villainous characters, but it also complexifies the identity of the foes that Maleficent, Cruella and Harley Quinn are fighting against: they are no longer entirely evil, because the system against which they stand is no longer presented as completely good. We are made to root for Harley, Maleficent, and Cruella because their motives are made abundantly clear, because they are presented as victims, and because their actions are framed as the repercussion of earlier events, but also because they come to symbolise something greater than themselves. The process of turning them into antiheroines rather than villainesses relies on giving greater meaning to their evilness: while the personal justifications for their actions may have made the viewer more empathetic, the political value given to what they do enables us to truly root for them – their actions are not just excused; they are justified. The political value of their actions adds to the emotional appeal of the characters' personal motives, to enable us to root for them on both an emotional and logical level, while the political aspect of their actions is always mitigated to remain acceptable. The reframing of the characters therefore relies on questioning systems that were taken for granted previously: the films examine the societies that we were made to take at face value in the original works, and questions the inherent value of the societies that the “villainesses” were disrupting. Gender plays a key role in the reframing of the
characters, because their victimhood is influenced by the fact that they are women, and because their marginality enables them to posit themselves as the champions of a political resistance which defies unjust systems. Yet even as we are made to understand the motivations of the characters, the films also seem to make them appear less threatening, further enabling us to root for them. Having seen the processes through which we are made to theoretically support their actions, we can now turn to see how those actions themselves are presented in a way meant to reassure the viewer.
### III. DEFUSING THE THREAT: INNOCUOUS VILLAINESSES AND THE REASSURING PORTRAYAL OF FEMALE EVIL

While the reframing of our characters' stories enables us to better understand their motives, and accept the evil actions they commit, both on an emotional and on a political level, it also changes the way these evil actions are represented in the first place. In other words, it is not just by making us identify with them or by giving more space to the representation of their inner emotions, that we are made to root for the villainesses. The reframing of their stories drastically changes the representation of the evil actions they were accused of in the first place; their actions are dedramatized, and the films render their new heroines somewhat innocuous. Seeing how the evil actions are represented, we will be able to study how these evil women are rendered less threatening: not only do the films make us understand why they came to become evil, but it even questions whether they are actually evil at all.

The films do acknowledge the characters' past depictions, and they even make this a key selling point. Both *Maleficent* and *Cruella*'s publicity remind us that these characters were originally villains: the YouTube trailer for *Maleficent* describes the film as "The untold story of Disney's most iconic villain from the 1959 classic *Sleeping Beauty*". On the trailer for *Cruella*, the fashion designer is described as "one of cinemas most notorious – and notoriously fashionable – villains", and one of the promotional videos for *Cruella*, entitled "Meet the Villain", takes from the song "Cruella De Vil", which was first featured in the original animated film, and warns us: "if she doesn't scare you, no evil thing will". Even within the films, the characters all seem to carry with them the notion of their villainousness as they all state that others should fear them. As Aurora tells Maleficent not to be afraid and to come out of the woods she is hiding in, the queen of the Moors is reticent to come out of hiding, professing that if she does: "then you'll be afraid" (00:48:48). Similarly, in *Birds of Prey*, Harley tells Sionis: "I'm the one they should be scared of. Not you, and not Mr. J. 'Cause I'm Harley fucking Quinn" (01:35:58-01:36:06). Having seen how the motives of the characters' evilness are highlighted, we will now see what the actual acts of violence are, what evil is according to the films, and how reprehensible acts can be made acceptable, and even enjoyable. We will study how the characters are rendered less threatening, by reimagining the evil actions they commit,
by reinvestigating their physical appearance, and by creating a distance that enables the viewer
to appreciate the evilness of the new protagonists from afar.

A) “One who was both hero and villain”: beyond the hero/villain dichotomy

While all of our characters have the reputation of being evil, we still have to investigate
what that really means, and what their evilness actually corresponds to. As we are made to think
about what these characters have done to deserve their reputation for evil, we realise that the
films present their actions as complex, and move past the simplicity of a good/bad dichotomy.
By reconsidering the actions that were considered villainous previously, the films rehabilitate
the characters and emphasise their complexity.

a) Beyond bad reputations

Seeing that the characters are made evil and not born as such, their evilness does not
stem from an innate attribute, despite it being presented as such in the earlier films. As we have
seen, the original films scarcely explain what pushed the villains towards their villainous ways.
Moreover, these previous films did not even explain why the characters were taken to be evil.
In many ways, their reputation for evil was simply stated as a well-known fact about them,
without explaining what they had done to deserve such a reputation. As our films reject an
essentialist vision of the characters' villainy, we will be able to study what explanation is given
to justify their bad reputations. In *One Hundred and One Dalmatians*, Roger starts singing about
the evil Cruella as soon as she approaches their house, but beyond her reputation he scarcely
explains why she is to be considered as evil. In *Sleeping Beauty*, Maleficent's arrival at Aurora's
baptism immediately casts a veil of horror on all who are present, and she is told that she did
not receive an invitation because she was not wanted (00:08:12). This rejection leads to her
being vexed and cursing the baby, but we are not made to understand why she was not invited
to the christening in the first place, nor why she was hated before the events of the film even
start to unfold. While her reputation is confirmed when she commits this crime, we do not see
her do anything that would warrant her reputation before that. On the contrary, it is rather her
being rejected that leads her to put a curse on Aurora. The films at study tend to give us a bit
more context as to why they may later be considered as evil: Cruella is seen in her earlier days,
before the events of *One Hundred and One Dalmatians*, and she is presented as a thief, a
disruptor and is sometimes mean to her mother and friends. As for Maleficent, she was made to severely injure King Henry in defence of the Moors, which would explain why the humans present her as evil.

The gravity of their actions is therefore subject to debate, and can make us wonder if they are truly worthy of their reputations. While the films toy with the notion of murder, the characters are scarcely guilty of it. While Harley most likely kills a few people in the film, none of these deaths are confirmed – she does feed a man to her hyena, hands an explosive to Cassandra so that she can blow up a woman, and sets a man's beard on fire, but there is very little room given to the bodies of the people she has killed. As for Maleficent, she only kills King Stefan by accident, as he is the one who attacks her. Cruella rarely even injures anyone, and while the images suggest that the title character is about to stab the Baroness during her charity gala, this is ultimately revealed not to be the case. Although we see her with a threatening needle and although the music dramatizes this moment by becoming progressively more intense as she approaches her nemesis, in the end Cruella merely pricks the Baroness:

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /><figcaption>Figures 220-1 (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 01:49:26-01:49:42)</figcaption></figure>

Yet all of our films play with the idea that their main characters are killers, making them appear more villainous than they actually are. When Jasper tells Cruella he doesn't want her killing the Baroness, she promises she won't, before jokingly adding “only if I really, really have to” (01:42:00), despite suggesting earlier on that she might just kill her. Indeed, when Jasper asked her “you're not gonna kill her, are ya?”, Cruella had replied “it's not part of the current plan, but we might need to be adaptable” (00:56:48-01:56:55). Later on, when Jasper notes that the Baroness is “a homicidal maniac, and you're not”, Cruella replies “Well, we don't know that yet, I'm still young”, before adding “I'm joking. I'm joking” (01:38:19-01:38:10). Cruella constantly turns her homicidal tendencies into a joke, toying with the idea that she is completely villainous, but never actualising it. Finally, the Baroness notes that Estella has a “killer instinct” (01:13:20), and as she pauses between the two parts of the expression, we are left to consider
Cruella as a killer, but ultimately she does nothing that would qualify her as one. In that regard, Cruella's victimless murders stand in stark opposition with the Baroness: when Estella confronts her about the murder of her mother, the Baroness replies "You're gonna have to be more specific" (01:24:39), suggesting she is responsible for many deaths. Maleficent is presented in the second volume as a "killer of men", but as we have seen, the character who pronounces this line immediately mitigates it by saying that that is just what people say about her. Similarly, Harley's voiceover narration tells us that Dinah has a "killer voice" (00:24:20), playing with the idea of her as a killer, but somewhat displacing it. Although in the end, Harley confirms "Told ya she had a killer voice" (01:31:24), when it turns out her voice has superpowers that can knock out her enemies, it is not really confirmed that her voice actively kills anyone.

As they maintain some ties with the original works, the films cannot completely negate the evil actions committed by the characters in the original films; they may however be able to put them in perspective. In *Sleeping Beauty*, Maleficent's curse goes like this: "she shall prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die!" (00:09:08) – and it is only the last of the fairies, Merryweather, who is able to change the curse to state that it will be "not in death, but just in sleep", and that the curse may be broken by true love's kiss. In *Maleficent* on the other hand, the evil queen is the one who immediately states that Aurora shall fall into "a sleep like death" and allows for the curse to be broken by true love (00:31:43). This is all the more striking as the curse scene in *Maleficent* bears striking similarities with the curse scene in the original animated film, thus reinforcing the differences in the dialogue between the two. *Cruella* does not completely ignore the fact that the title character is originally famous for making coats out of puppy fur, but it also plays it down. When Cruella comments "they would make fabulous coats" when talking about dalmatians, she immediately adds "I'm joking" (01:16:40). This plays a central part in enabling us to root for a character who is accused of puppy-murder, as she doesn't actually hate puppies in this film, and even has a soft spot for them as she takes care of the Baroness's dogs in the end. The Baroness does believe Cruella to have made a coat out of her dalmatians, but this is later revealed not to be true. As the song "I Wanna Be Your Dog" plays in the background, the Baroness's "she killed my dogs and made a coat" (01:21:33) is made all the more ironic, and is a clear reference to the character's past depictions. However, ultimately as the press dubs her a "Dalmatian murder" (figure 222) and as Artie calls her "the puppy killer" (01:40:01), she replies "no I didn't. But people do need a villain to believe in, so I'm happy to fill the bill".