<figure><img src="image_111.png" /><figcaption>Figure 222: the press calls Cruella a "Dalmatian Killer" (01:39:46)</figcaption></figure>

Through this line, Cruella highlights that villainy has much more to do with the need people have of believing in a true evil than with the reality of one's actions. This is what makes the villains evolve into antiheroines: their actions are recontextualised, and their evilness is revealed to be minimal in comparison to the reputation that preceded them. Paradoxically, actually seeing what may have earned them their bad reputation makes them appear less villainous: the threat they pose is made much more concrete, and it is therefore much more circumscribed. As the reality of their actions is revealed to be milder than expected, and as true evil is shown to be little more than a myth that people like to believe in, the identity of the characters becomes more complex.

## b) The kaleidoscopic identity of complex antiheroines

As we move beyond their reputation, the characters become more realistic, and their true nature starts to appear. Our films do not utterly negate the evil actions of their title characters, as they do not completely break from the original films. What they do, however, is make the characters more nuanced, thus leaving way for some sense of identification or compassion, despite their evil actions. The female villains in our films are not necessarily completely redeemed; they are not presented as devoid of fault. Yet, placing them in the posture of the protagonist, making them seem like the heroes of these new stories, tends to bring into question what a hero even is. It seems that our films refuse to classify the characters as either villains or heroes, and thus question the very notion of heroism. This is perhaps made clearest as Maleficent is described at last as “one who was both hero and villain”. Indeed, at the end of *Maleficent*, Aurora, in a voiceover narration, tells us: “In the end, my kingdom was united not by a hero or a villain, as legend had predicted, but by one who was both hero and villain”
(01:28:01). The opposition between the supposed villain/hero dichotomy of legend and the reality of a more nuanced and entangled situation leads us to question the binarity of the hero/villain complex. This makes our characters fall under the definition of “antiheroes”, yet another postmodernist trait of the films, as analysed by McAlexander, who notes: “As opposed to the classic hero, antiheroes have a deeply flawed character. Something about them is wrong, or their actions are out of step with society’s values. They lack conventional heroic, noble characteristics, such as idealism, courage, or morality, and often possess dark personality traits, such as disagreeableness, dishonesty, and aggressiveness” (2019: 320). And indeed, all the characters we have here are flawed, and commit less than commendable actions: throughout the films, they are seen to be acting out of anger and selfishness, far from the classical representations of a selfless hero. McAlexander continues to note that this postmodernist trend can be explained by the historical context of its emergence:

> The rise of the antihero in post-World War II cinema has been explained as a reaction to soldiers coming home from the war and wanting to see themselves reflected in the movies. Despite the “glory of war” narrative spouted by Hollywood war propaganda and recruiting posters, the harsh realities of war and survival on the battlefield required that men took actions that were far from the idealized heroism of prior movies and bedtime stories. So, for those men (and the women they came home to), the antihero was a way to flip the narrative and have the lead character still be a “hero” while committing acts that are morally questionable. This cinematic “re-education” is still relevant today given the US war footing since the early 1990s. (2019: 320-1)

This seems quite relevant to the films at hand: by reinvestigating old stories but giving more space to the villain or antagonist, the films tend to question the notion of what a hero is, enabling a more nuanced understanding of their character and refusing simple categorisations as either villain or hero. In the promotional featurette “Her story”, *Cruella* was announced as a way of reimagining the story of the title character, adding some nuance to our understanding of her. To this end, bold lettering appears in the successive frames of the featurette, spelling out this line: “Her story isn’t black and white” (figures 223-228).
<figure><img src="image_112.png" /><figcaption>Figures 223-8: promotional featurette "Her Story" (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021)</figcaption></figure>

The moral ambiguity of the character obviously echoes the character's characteristic bi-colour hair, which is made to epitomise her inner ambiguity or duality: she does not fit into any easy binary about good and evil. The film itself raises the ambiguity of having her (a villain) as a heroine, as she claims early on: "I wasn't for everyone" (00:00:53). By doing so, she admits to her limits and the film portrays her as more of an antihero than anything else: she is not as easy to love as a classical hero, her moral ambiguities leaving room for quite a bit of contestation. The ambiguity of Cruella is put in contrast with the sheer, unequivocal evil represented by the Baroness. As Cruella notes "the good thing about evil people is that you can always trust them to do something... evil" (01:56:25). In contrast, Cruella and all the other characters we are studying are far more complex: they cannot be trusted to always do evil things, suggesting that they may not be inherently evil.

Harley Quinn had already been established in this ambiguous role when she was first introduced in this iteration of the character. Margot Robbie first appears as Harley in *Suicide Squad*, as part of "Task Force X", a group of supervillains, terrorists and criminals who have been brought together by government official Amanda Waller, as she says: "I wanna build a team of some very bad people who I think can do some good" (00:19:23). The ambiguity of evil and goodness being so deeply intertwined is brought to light from the start, as Harley is one of the "supervillains" who is made to work for a supposed good cause. The 2017 animated film *Batman and Harley Quinn* also featured Harley working alongside heroes in a strive to fight for justice: she teams up with crimefighting Batman in order to stop a bigger threat. Maleficent's evolution is maybe best emblematised by Aurora, as she tells her: "I know who you are", and then goes on to say, "You're my fairy godmother" (00:49:07-00:49:15). The characterisation of Maleficent as "fairy godmother" shows a striking reversal of the figure from
wicked witch to fairy godmother, but also questions the reductive opposition between good and evil that can be found in fairy tales.

The films do more than show that even good people do bad things and bad people do good things. In a postmodern fashion, the films also completely question the logic of good versus evil, they undermine the notion of norms and morals. As Booker notes:

> Also closely related to the collapse of belief in totalizing systems is the demise of the tradition of Aristotelian logic, through which Western society had long defined itself via a series of polar oppositions, the central of which were Good versus Evil and Us versus Them—both of which, in the Western tradition, ultimately amount to pretty much the same thing. Without such clear distinctions to rely on, postmodernist thought tends toward a radical relativism, in which no point of view can be maintained as absolutely superior to any other. (2007: xv-xvi)

The absence of clear morals transpires in all our films: Harley goes back to her selfish ways at the end of *Birds of Prey* as she betrays the other Birds and steals the Bertinelli diamond. Yet she suffers no consequence for this, and the audience is not made to blame her. Cruella also has no clear messaging in the end, as Cruella defeats the Baroness, but is not condemned herself. Maleficent is perhaps closer to a traditional story in this regard, with good ultimately triumphing over evil.

As the films work to show the characters as antiheroines rather than villains, they tend to present the characters as more complex, showcasing various facets of their identity. This also inscribes the films in a postmodernist trend:

> The vertiginous pace of change in the postmodern era has also contributed to an increasing sense of the instability of personal identity, which accompanies the growing sense of alienation experienced by individuals during the era. After all, individual identity attains its stability through a perception of continuity of selfhood over time. But this perception is increasingly difficult to maintain in an age in which so many things have changed so radically over such short periods of time. (Booker xiv-xv)

This led to bringing into question the indivisibility of identity, which was instead seen as being composed of more than one thing – this can perhaps be seen in an evolution towards rounder, richer antagonistic characters. In all the films at study, the title characters are presented as
having a multifaceted identity. Beyond the fact that she holds a burial for a part of herself, Cruella/Estella also often emphasises the multiple facets of her identity. Obviously, the dualism of her name plays into this, as it enables her to distinguish two parts of herself. This leads her to state: “it’s not Estella. That’s the past. I’m Cruella” (00:58:10). She also notes later on: “Cruella gets things done. Estella does not” (01:17:17). The splitting of the character into two separate entities, made up of Estella on the one hand, and Cruella on the other, is not specific to when she talks about herself, but is also picked up by other characters: Jasper tells her, “I miss Estella” (01:16:40), as he also thinks of her as two separate people. The duality of her hair colour is further complexified as Estella is also made to wear a red wig, giving the disparate parts of herself various visual identities. Furthermore, Cruella holds a funeral for herself to emphasise a split between several versions of the young woman (figures 229-232).

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /><figcaption>Figures 229-32 a pan reveals Cruella standing at Estella's funeral (01:55:25-01:55:44)</figcaption></figure>

As the camera swivels towards the right, the screen slowly reveals Cruella partaking in her own funeral, which contributes to the perception of her dual identity. The complexity of her character comes a long way from what had been presented in earlier films. In *102 Dalmatians*, we are told on the contrary that there is no room for any evolution for her: when Alonzo (Tim McInnerny) jokingly suggests the fur-wearing fashion designer may be rehabilitated, Chloe (Alice Evans) responds “No, Alonso. Cruella will always be Cruella” (01:33:50).
*Birds of Prey* also shows Harley facing an identity crisis. From the very start, she tells us “I lost all sense of who I was” (00:01:28), as she speaks about losing herself in her relationship with the Joker. Having been left by the Joker, she is left with no real sense of self, as she confides to Dinah Lance: “a harlequin’s role is to serve. An audience, a master. A harlequin is nothing without a master” (00:28:00). Faced with the need to take a new start after her breakup, she says: “I had to find a new identity. A new me” (00:02:23), and interestingly enough, this process takes place in front of a mirror, as she cuts her hair so that her changing identity may also be reflected physically. Harley’s complex identity is highlighted in her struggle to define herself: as she tries to create a business card, she is at a loss, and ends up writing down a long list of professions, separated by strokes (figures 233 and 234).

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /><figcaption>Figure 233: Harley's business card
(Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:27:27)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /><figcaption>Figure 234: Harley's business card
(00:44:03)</figcaption></figure>

As we see, not only does the card comprise a great number of identities, but it also evolves at various times, showing both her confusion and the possibility for evolution. The multifaceted identity of Maleficent can be seen when she tries to undo the curse that she had cast on young Aurora. As she repeats “I revoke this curse, let it be no more”, the voice of her past self echoes what she had said at the start: “No power on earth can change it”. Her voice is deformed, as if she were not the one who had said it, and visually, her duality is represented by the contrasting colours which represent different powers fighting each other (figure 235).

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /><figcaption>Figure 235: Maleficent tries to lift the curse she placed on Aurora
(Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 54:01)</figcaption></figure>
### c) Remorse and improvement

This complex, ever evolving identity enables the characters to showcase remorse and to improve, which contributes to blurring the distinction between good and evil. Cruella ultimately apologises to her friends and makes amends for treating them badly, as she eventually confesses "I went a bit mad. I'm sorry" (01:38:45). While we are originally told that Maleficent "revelled in the sorrow that her curse had brought" (00:34:00), she regrets it later, and tries to undo her own spell. Her regret leads her to feed Aurora, stop her from falling off a cliff, and ultimately exert herself to break the curse. A scene entitled "Diaval asks about the curse" was cut from the film, and this omission further highlights Maleficent's evolution. The scene featured Diaval asking Maleficent when she was planning on revoking her curse, before she had even mentioned it: as it was ultimately cut from the film, the reversal of the curse ends up being Maleficent's own idea and this highlights how Maleficent's identity can evolve without an outside factor. Similarly, Harley apologises to Cassandra, and says she makes her want to be a better person (01:36:34), contrasting with her earlier "I'm sorry kid, I'm just a terrible person I guess" (01:19:44). Not only do these two lines highlight the character's apologetic stance, but they also tend to show that there is room for her to improve: while the first line that she utters suggests that she sees her evilness as an inherent part of who she is, the second statement considers the possibility for her to grow. Even when she originally did her evil deed and betrayed Cassandra she is shown as having immediate regret, or at least being torn about what she is doing: as she betrays Cassandra, she stares at her reflection in the phone box (figures 236 and 237).

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /><figcaption>Figures 236-7: Harley stares at her reflection as she sells out Cassandra (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 01:11:18-01:11:23)</figcaption></figure>

The rack focusing enables the focalisation to shift from Harley's reflection to Cassandra Cain who is standing right behind the glass panel. As Harley looks at herself and at the young girl, we can read the remorse she immediately feels as she commits this act of betrayal. This use of the mirror to show Harley fighting her inner demons is all the more striking as the two following
shots also include someone looking at a mirror: in the following shot we see Sionis answering Harley's phone call as he is looking at himself in a mirror too, but this is done in vanity, as attested by the fact that his face is printed on his pyjama set. The scene that follows this then shows Montoya removing the pictures of the ongoing investigation, and as the images are placed on a mirror, as she removes them, her reflection is revealed, perhaps suggesting her loss of identity or her having to face herself now that her identity as a detective has been put into question.

As such, all the films have a similar way of dealing with their previously villainous characters: they no longer have them do anything evil – or at least, if they do, they show remorse for doing so. This remorse complexifies the definition of villainy and highlights the porousness of the villain/hero dichotomy. Their previous crimes are minimised, and their redemption comes from their complexity and ability to grow, while the idea of pure evil is presented as a myth. As they are presented as having a more complex interiority, we may be able to see how this transpires in their exterior appearance, and how their exterior characteristics may be used to make them appear less threatening.
## B) Bad to the bone but easy on the eyes: revamping the female villain

Historically, films have leaned towards portraying evil characters as physically unattractive, if not completely repulsive. Owing to concepts of physiognomy, literature and film have tended to have their characters' inner temperament transpire in their physical appearance. In film, this also helps code the characters, and helps the viewer understand who we are meant to root for – similarly to what can be found in Westerns, with the coding of black and white hats to help distinguish at first glance the heroes from the villains. According to Marshall, phrenology became preponderant in Gothic literature, which understood one's physical appearance both as a sign of one's moral predispositions, and as the outward manifestation of one's interiority (2000: 162). If evil has a look, how then can film turn villains into heroes and how can film make originally evil characters look good?

As Cruella becomes the hero of the 2020 live-action film dedicated to her, it is striking to note that one of her most characteristic accessories is conspicuously missing: the fashion icon is no longer surrounded by the cloud of smoke that accompanied her in the previous films, as she was constantly portrayed with a cigarette (figures 238 and 239).

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /><figcaption>Figure 238: Cruella smoking in One Hundred and One Dalmatians
(Reitherman et al., 1961, 00:13:55)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /><figcaption>Figure 239: Cruella smoking in 101 Dalmatians
(Herek, 1996, 00:26:49)</figcaption></figure>

The title character no longer smokes, despite this being a characteristic feature of the villain in the previous works. This absence can precisely be explained by the fact that she is no longer a villain. As Rubin notes, "Since 2015, Disney has pledged its movies will not 'depict cigarette smoking in movies [...] that are rated G, PG or PG-13,' unless it's for historical accuracy or it portrays cigarette smoking unfavorably" (2021). As such, Cruella's smoke-free representation in the newest film dedicated to her is a striking mark that she is no longer meant to be perceived as a villain, and in Disney films, smoking may function as the new black hat of Westerns, as
only evil characters are made to partake in the activity. We will therefore be able to study how
the change of perception of the character is accompanied by a change in their physical
representation.

Overall, our characters do fit the bill of what we could expect from traditional villains: they are made to appear eccentric. All of our characters look rather extravagant in the original works they appeared in, and for the most part this is carried over in the newer films. Harley's appearance radically changes once she becomes the Joker's acolyte. Once she becomes "evil", she bleaches her hair and dyes it pink and blue; she trades in her skirt suit for more outlandish outfits, making her stand out much more than before. Maleficent's wings and horns make her stand out from the humans, and she is mocked by King Henry for these attributes: he calls her a "winged elf" which arouses hilarity among his men (00:10:40). In *Maleficent: Mistress of Evil*, Maleficent is made to hide her horns to blend in, as Aurora suggests she puts a veil over them to "make Philip's family feel more comfortable" (00:22:30-00:22:45):

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /><figcaption>Figure 240: Maleficent wears a veil to hide her horns
(Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, Ronning, 201, 00:25:50)</figcaption></figure>

In addition, the prosthetics accentuate Angelina Jolie's cheekbones, making her face shape appear more angular, and she continues to be coded as a villain through her association with black and green, colours often associated with witchcraft and evil. Cruella strikingly stands out because of her hair, and she is often made to hide it. Before Estella starts school, her mother tells her to "wear the hat" (figure 241), and once again when they arrive at the Baroness's ball, she tells her to "lie low" while handing her a hat (figure 242). During this same event, when John catches her after she has snuck in, he orders her to "keep the hat on", "before anyone sees that" (figure 243).
<figure><img src="image_121.png" /><figcaption>Figure 241: Estella's mother tells her to wear a hat (Cruella, Gillespie, 2021, 00:01:42)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /><figcaption>Figure 242: Estella's mother tells her to lay low while putting a hat on her head (00:06:08)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /><figcaption>Figure 243: John puts Estella's hat back on her head (07:40)</figcaption></figure>

When we are first introduced to Estella, we only see the reaction others have to her before her hair is revealed (figures 244 and 245).

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /><figcaption>Figures 244-5: (00:00:41)</figcaption></figure>

As Estella's hair is only revealed to the viewer after the images show the doctors' reaction to it, we are not made to side with them and are just left to look at their reaction externally. The physical marginality of all of our characters can be linked to their political marginality: they are ostracised because of their physical otherness, and their physical marginality may be the source of the rejection that leads them to turn to evilness, but they also lean into their physical differences at other times to accentuate their singularity and appear more threatening.
Cruella's hair is the reason she is an outcast to begin with, but it also something she changes to stand out more or less at various times, depending on her needs: she says "I need to dye my hair" (00:14:19) so she can blend in, and starts wearing wigs whenever she needs to hide her identity (figure 246).

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /><figcaption>Figure 246: (01:01:59)</figcaption></figure>

All our characters change their appearance when they become evil, which goes hand in hand with the representation of their villainy as an acquired attribute: their physical appearance can evolve alongside their personality. They are not inherently odd-looking and evil, but are able to play with their outward appearance to reflect or hide their interiority. During the first third of the film, before Maleficent curses Aurora, she wears her hair uncovered (figures 247-249). It is only once she commits this evil act that she starts wearing a covering on her hair (figures 250-255), and once the curse has been broken, we again see her wear her hair loose (figure 256).

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /><figcaption>Figures 247-249: Maleficent wears her hair down (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, 00:10:54, 00:18:18, and 00:26:31)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_128.png" /><figcaption>Figures 250-5: Maleficent covers her hair (00:30:08, 00:35:49, 00:41:55, 00:58:14, 01:04:57, and 01:16:15)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /><figcaption>Figure 256: Maleficent wears her hair loose again (01:28:11)</figcaption></figure>

This can be seen as the representation of her evolving identity: despite her being evil at times, we see it is not inherent, as her appearance changes to reflect that. As our first introduction to the character, and the final image we are left with show her with her hair down, the rest appears as a mere parenthesis which does not truly reflect who she is.

Furthermore, the importance of hair in this imagery is not anecdotal as it is often seen as a symbol of beauty, and this may be linked to the “beauty is good” fallacy. Indeed, “[v]arious studies confirm that Hollywood perpetuates the beauty equals goodness myth” (Brown, 2015: 60). And tales have taught us just that: in *Beauty and the Beast*, the beast has been cursed to appear unattractive because a fairy decided to make his outward appearance reflect his inner personality as he had acted unrighteously – and it is only when he becomes a better person that he is able to return to his earlier appearance. If attractiveness is a synonym of goodness, it may be interesting to see how the villainess’s appearance evolves as she is made to be seen as an anti-heroine rather than a villain. Keen notes that

The repeated use of physically attractive people to play the role of the villain taps into another basic human tendency—the association of what is beautiful with what is good.
In numerous studies, beautiful persons have been given higher ratings on measures of social desirability, intelligence, success, happiness, persuasiveness, and potency, than their less attractive counterparts. (2012: 135)

This leads us to understand beautiful characters as good, even when they are cast as villains:

In traditional media, the protagonist is portrayed as more physically attractive than the antagonist, leading audiences to prefer him (Sanders 147). In current media, the protagonist of the story is also often the bad guy, such as in the popular Godfather trilogy and the Ocean's movies. Thus, when attractive villains are cast, we assume they possess more positive qualities than the less attractive good guys in the show, so, unsurprisingly, we prefer them. (135)

As all three of the main actresses of our films are largely considered as sex symbols, we may
see how this works to reframe our perception of the characters' morality. Indeed, "Jolie is often
presented in the media as the world's most beautiful woman" (Brown, 2015: 62). Among a few
of the accolades she received for her physical appearance, we can note Channel 4 calling her
the greatest sex symbol in 2007 (West, 2007), while People Magazine voted her most attractive
woman in the world in 2006 (Mattia and Price, 2023) (figure 257).

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 257: cover of People Magazine featuring Angelina Jolie (2006)*</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 258: cover of W Magazine featuring Emma Stone (2011)*</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /><figcaption>*Figure 259: cover of Maxim Magazine featuring Margot Robbie (2022)*</figcaption></figure>

As for Cruella's Emma Stone, she was considered the “Sexiest Actress” by Victoria Secret in 2011 (Look, 2011), and called “Hollywod’s sexiest redhead” by W in 2011 (figure 258). Finally, Margot Robbie was voted at the top of Maxim’s “Hot 100 Australia” list in 2022 (figure 259).
The fact that the characters are played by women who are largely considered to be beautiful can be a way to help the viewer better accept the fact that we are meant to root for an evil character. In this sense, we may question the place that the male gaze holds in the depiction of these new heroines. Mulvey notes that “[i]n their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and impact so that they can be set to connote *to-be-looked-at-ness*” (1989: 19). The male gaze imposed on the female heroines can be a way of minimizing their effectiveness: “This emphasis on the women’s physical appearances [...] can, in itself, be read as an attempt to re-position the women in gender-appropriate roles, as objects to be looked at rather than subjects who act. Specular objectification destabilises their violent subjectivity” (Boyle, 2001: 319).

*Birds of Prey* represents the concept of the male gaze several times in the film, showcasing the powerlessness that ensues from it. This is particularly the case in Sionis's club, where women are made to be looked at, as we can gather from the scenery: a sculpture of a pair of eyes frames the stage and the woman on it (figures 260 and 261), while art pieces featuring headless female body parts are put on display on the walls (figure 262).

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /><figcaption>Figure 260: a female performer is framed by eyes (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:05:37)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /><figcaption>Figure 261: Black Canary is framed by eyes as she performs (00:26:25)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /><figcaption>Figure 262: sculptures of female body parts are used to decorate the club (00:26:17)</figcaption></figure>
One striking scene reveals the weight and threat of the domination exerted by the male gaze. As Sionis is upset after learning that Zsasz has lost track of Cassandra Cain, he hears a woman laughing in the club and immediately assumes that she is making fun of him. As a form of retribution, he forces her to undress and stand up on the table in front of everyone: he forces her to become a spectacle, ordering her "now dance", before telling her "that dress is fucking hideous. Take it off" and pressing another man to cut the dress off (01:04:49-01:06:25). Erika's disenfranchisement through the power of the gaze is rendered through the absence of any counter shots which would show the scene from her perspective. While traditionally, "women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness" (Mulvey 19), the young woman's posture and facial expression in *Birds of Prey* scream the opposite. She is indeed "displayed", but nothing about her attitude conveys "to-be-looked-at-ness"; on the contrary, the male gaze is shown as utterly undesirable and therefore perverse, as she tries to hold her dress up to cover herself with a look of terror and embarrassment on her face, thus demonstrating the destructive power of the male gaze (figure 263).

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /><figcaption>Figure 263: Erika tries to hold her dress up to cover herself (01:06:22)</figcaption></figure>

Although the viewers would normally be made to identify with the male gaze and to desire the woman, the focus on the young woman's terror rather than on her body makes the scene difficult to watch. The viewer is not looking at the woman alongside Roman: she is watching him looking at her. As Mulvey notes, there are normally "two contradictory aspects of the pleasurable structure of looking in the conventional situation. The first, scopophilic, arises from pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight. The second, developed through narcissism and the constitution of the ego, comes from identification with the image seen" (18). In such an undressing scene, the viewer would conventionally be made to feel a visual pleasure by looking at the woman, and a narcissistic pleasure by identifying with Sionis. However, Cathy Yan completely overthrows this conception, and instead makes the
viewer gaze at the very cruelty of the male gaze. The viewer identifies much more with the woman, and her uneasiness is shared with the audience: the viewer is watching herself being watched, and the reaction of the audience is symbolized on screen by Black Canary wiping a tear off of her cheek and trying to storm off as she cannot watch this unfold any longer (figures 264 and 265).

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /><figcaption>Figures 264-5: Dinah looks away and wipes a tear off her face (01:06:05 and 01:06:19)</figcaption></figure>

The director strips this undressing of any form of sensuality or eroticism and showcases it as a cruel demonstration of male domination. This scene reveals the reality of the male gaze: women are not “to-be-looked-at”, and their constant display as such in film is an undeniable form of violence. The gaze seems to play an essential role in Sionis’s assertion of power, as he uses this intimidation technique at a time when he appears weak: he has just learnt about the escape of Cassandra Cain, and he believes he is being mocked – his gaze becomes a power tool in a moment when he believes to have lost control. This shows how the objectification performed by the gaze and the overall sexualization of women is a way of undermining their power and resisting the possible threat they pose to masculinity.

As for Harley herself, her “fantabulous emancipation” can be read in the representation of the character, as the film rejects the male gaze which she had overwhelmingly been subjected to up to this point. Indeed, her depiction in *Birds of Prey* comes a long way from how she was portrayed in *Suicide Squad*, so Harley seems to be escaping oversexualisation and the male gaze. *Suicide Squad* undermined Harley’s strength by objectifying and fetishising her. In the 2016 film directed by David Ayer, one scene particularly highlights how the male gaze objectifies the character. As Harley changes from her prison apparel to her combat gear in the middle of an airport, the camera pans up on her legs, up to her bra, and finally reveals her putting on her shirt, before the camera finally focuses on her face. This stereotypical way of filming the female body from bottom to top is characteristic of an objectification of the character as it lays emphasis on her body rather than her face (figures 266-269).
<figure><img src="image_138.png" /><figcaption>Figures 266-269: the camera pans up over Harley's body (Suicide Squad, Ayer, 2016, 00:45:16)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /><figcaption>Figure 270: everyone is staring at Harley as she gets dressed (00:45:22)</figcaption></figure>

As the frame shifts to a long shot, revealing she is surrounded by people staring at her (figure 270), Harley naively asks “What?”, and the voyeuristic dimension of the scene hits its acme. As Laura Mulvey notes, the voyeuristic ideal is central in the scopophilia inherent to the male gaze: “Although the film is really being shown, is there to be seen, conditions of screening and narrative conventions give the spectator an illusion of looking in on a private world” (17). Harley’s “what?” is thus a perfect example of this voyeuristic gaze on her body while she is unwillingly becoming a spectacle for male enjoyment: she is looked at and objectified without that being her intention. As all the male characters around her stop to stare at a confused Harley who is unwillingly being sexualized by the other characters, film director, and audience alike, *Suicide Squad* gives us a striking depiction of the male gaze. Furthermore, while Harley remains faithful to her style, the character enjoys a considerable wardrobe upgrade in the film, as her
clothes convey her emancipation. Her new costumes signal this shift quite loudly as she goes around with a t-shirt that literally has "Harley Quinn" written all over it (figure 271).

<figure><img src="image_140.png" /><figcaption>Figure 271: Harley's shirt has "Harley Quinn" written all over it (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:59:20)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_141.png" /><figcaption>Figure 272: Harley wears a shirt which says "Daddy's Lil Monster" (Suicide Squad, Ayer, 2016, 00:59:47)</figcaption></figure>

She is no longer branded as “Daddy’s Lil Monster” (figure 272), and she quickly gets rid of the “J” necklace that marked the Joker’s possession of her. Her clothing still enables her to show skin when she wants to, as she wears shorts and crop tops, but her clothing choices are much more realistic, and not merely meant for the heterosexual male enjoyment: in *Birds of Prey* Harley’s outfits never put sexiness above practicality, and her sexuality thus never undermines her strength. A line Harley addresses to Montoya as she has just been shot while wearing Harley’s iconic red and black jester suit highlights just that. As she tells her new partner “Aren’t you glad you wore that? Sexy, and bullet proof”, she confirms that power – symbolized here in the practicality of a bullet proof vest – a concern with her outward appearance can go hand in hand.

Therefore, the characters' attractiveness is a way to make them more acceptable, but it does not utterly deny their strength: they are not portrayed as ugly wicked witches, but their beauty does not limit their violence either. While they are undoubtedly attractive, they do not fall into the category of femme fatales, for whom it is precisely sexuality and attractiveness that become the source of danger for men. For a long time, the power of women depicted on screen was only an illusion as the power of the 1940s Film Noir's femme fatale came only from the danger her sexuality represented for men, echoing the figure of the siren or the succubus: "dark sirens of classic noir [...] use their sexuality as a means to an end" (Boozer, 1999: 21). *Birds of Prey* pokes fun at the femme fatale trope as Harley Quinn enters the police station disguised with a scarf wrapped around her head, a large hat and dark sunglasses, giving up her strong Southern accent for a British one and reporting "a terrible crime". At this point, Harley is mimicking both the cliché of the damsel in distress, coming in to ask for help, and that of the
femme fatale. The character is portrayed here in the traditional representations of female power: it is either completely wanting or is solely based on her sexuality. However, as soon as the police officer asks her what crime she is here to report, Harley opens up her coat to reveal guns and ammunition and starts shooting at everyone in the police station, thus subverting the traditional expectations of such a character. The scene depicts a radical shift from the fantasy of the threat posed by female sexuality to actual female violence. The hypothetical danger of the female temptress turns into a real threat, and the scene highlights the contrast between both forms of power and showcases a feminine repossession of actual violence (figures 273 and 274).

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /><figcaption>Figures 273-4: Harley arrives at the police station (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:21:49-00:21:57)</figcaption></figure>

Harley does use her looks to be evil, but when she does, she is really using the fact that people underestimate her. This is already the case in earlier depictions of the character: “In the animated series, she kicks a cop in the shin for leering at her, and also is gleefully aware that people will underestimate her, often using her kooky, doe-eyed persona to distract her enemies before killing them” (Mishra, 2021). She uses the fact that people underestimate her because of her physical appearance to her advantage. She thus contradicts the idea that the male gaze subdues female evil, as she is able to play with the way she knows she is perceived, making her even more powerful.

Ultimately, Harley, Maleficent, and Cruella are portrayed as beautiful, and this helps us understand them as good on a psychological level. In addition, we are made to accept them as antiheroines because they do not diverge much from the expectations we have of women on screen, just as they scarcely diverge from the expectation we have of a hero or heroine. While their sexualisation is a means to minimise the threat they pose, we may wonder, along with
McCaughey and King, whether “a woman’s sexiness really make[s] her less of a threat while she’s beating a man senseless or shooting him dead” (2001: 17). Be that as it may, the fact that the actresses who play them are sex symbols, and the fact that their portrayal still adheres to the expectations of the male gaze, help to make them enjoyable to watch even when they commit reprehensible actions. Their reprehensible actions are ultimately rendered even more enjoyable by the fact that they are not meant to be perceived as realistic: we will now be able to see how the actions of our antiheroines are aestheticized not just through the casting of attractive actresses, but also through a distanced representation of their acts of violence.
C) Beyond realism: distancing effects and the fallacy of female violence

The threat posed by the villainous heroines is mitigated as the films tend to present them
in a rather surreal way, playing down the characters' villainous actions by keeping the viewer
at a safe distance, and by resorting to comical or unrealistic portrayals of female violence.
*Maleficent's* magical setting chiefly helps to create some distance and render her less
threatening, since, as we have seen, the viewer is safely on the side of the humans: within the
realms of “folk like you and me” (00:00:53). The magical nature of *Maleficent's* curse is
highlighted visually, when Aurora, under enchantment, walks towards the spinning wheel:

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /><figcaption>*Figures 275-9: jump cut as Aurora is enchanted (Maleficent, Stromberg, 2014, (01:08:16))*</figcaption></figure>

The jump cut creates a jarring effect, with a brief superimposition of two images of Aurora (figure 277) and we are made to see the magic working on its own, leaving Maleficent out of the equation. This is taken up again moments later when she brings her finger towards the spindle, with the same light effect dramatizing an axial cut, and reinforcing the character's enchantment and the magical nature of Maleficent's evil ways (figures 280-284).

<figure><img src="image_144.png" /><figcaption>*Figures 280-4: Aurora pricks her finger on the spindle (01:09:03)*</figcaption></figure>
During this same sequence, as Aurora approaches the spinning wheel, a subtle dolly zoom also highlights the magical aspect of the events:

<figure><img src="image_145.png" /><figcaption>Figures 285-7: dolly zoom (01:08:19-01:08:22)</figcaption></figure>

The camera effect makes the background appear progressively closer while Aurora stays perfectly still in the frame. The camera swivels clockwise, and creates a feeling of dizziness, as we are faced with unusual camera movements occurring simultaneously in several directions. This dizzying effect presents her progression towards her curse as inevitable, but also creates some distance as it emphasises its magical nature.

Another strategy used to minimise the violence committed by female heroes can be found in the non-naturalistic depiction of their violent acts. Observing that “In the action film the relationship of the hero’s feats to real-world laws of physics and physiology runs along a continuum between highly naturalistic and radically non-naturalistic: what we might call a credibility continuum”, Purse notes that “the films often depict their female heroes’ physical achievements in ways that emphasise their non-realist character” (2011: 79-80). Purse notes several strategies used to do this, “such as depicting female physicality within comic or fantastical settings, or explicitly underlining the artificial nature of the physical action being displayed”, which can be defined as “‘containment strategies’ which work to contain the threat embodied by the presence of the physically powerful woman” (81). And indeed, all these films are not meant to be taken at face value: as these films are classified as comedies (*Cruella*), or fantasy films (*Maleficent*), they somewhat mitigate the seriousness with which we are meant to understand them.

The unseriousness of the films can be seen in the chaos that surrounds the characters. They are not presented as cold and calculating, but completely disorganised. Inness notes “that toughness in women is controlled” because “killer-women films often depict women who are clearly insane or over the edge because they have become too aggressive, too masculine, or too tough” (1999: 67). The same process takes place in the courtrooms, in cases where female violence needs to be defended; Morrissey lists the various ways in which female violence is
justified, including the denial of female responsibility through victimisation, but also through a
focus on insanity:

the subject positions through which women who kill are usually represented either
mythify and monsterize them as evil, dismiss them as insane, or depict them as
oppressed and therefore non-responsible victims. In all instances, however, these
narratives deny females agency, which is one of the most crucial characteristics of the
'reasonable man' and, therefore, of full human legal subjectivity. (2003: 169-70)

Cruella and Harley partly fill the bill in this regard. Cruella defines herself as “a little bit mad” (01:32:46), while Harley is called insane several times: Cassandra calls her “that psycho from the roller derby” (00:48:10) and eagerly wants to be like her “except for the crazy part” (00:57:00). The characters are far from the trope of the cold, calculating female villain, as their actions are much more tumultuous, giving way to a great many examples of physical comedy. Cruella does have a meticulous plan (figure 288), and its set-up is presented as surgically precise, as it reproduces the trope which can be found in many heist films, with a voice-off explaining the details of the plan while the images show it being put into action (00:41:43-00:43:10).

<figure><img src="image_146.png" /><figcaption>Figure 288: Cruella's plan (Gillespie, 2021, 00:41:43)</figcaption></figure>

However, the plan to steal the Baroness's necklace falls flat when Horace, Jasper, and Estella realise that the jewel is around the Baroness's neck, and not in the safe which they had managed to break into. As they need to adapt their plan of action, the images are dominated by chaos: Horace falls from the balcony, swings on a curtain, and smashes into a cake (00:53:13).

Likewise, chaos is the keyword that could define Harley's actions throughout *Birds of Prey*: she just hits the machine until it stops working so as to break into Cassandra's cell (00:47:30), and she unwittingly snorts cocaine in the evidence room (figures 289 and 290).
<figure><img src="image_147.png" /><figcaption>Figure 289-90: Harley snorts cocaine (Birds of Prey, Yan, 2020, 00:51:17)</figcaption></figure>

Harley is also drunk when she destroys the chemical factory, telling us she has “all [her] best ideas drunk” (00:06:35), and several of her unlawful acts thus occur at times when she is in an altered state of mind, in some capacity or another. One time that showcases Harley’s uncalculated actions is when she is faced with Happy, who is set to get his revenge on her. As he swings to hit her, she is distracted by a penny on the floor, which she bends down to pick up. As she does, Huntress shoots Happy straight through the throat, thus saving Harley (00:17:17). The luck she relies on to save herself from tricky situations is mentioned by Harley herself moments earlier: as she tries to escape from the many enemies who have come to get revenge on her, she throws a rubbish bag in Montoya’s face while her voiceover narration comments “With the walls closing in around me, I made a carefully calculated, highly strategic move”. As he has rubbish thrown in his face, Sionis’s driver accidently misfires his gun and shoots Ralph Murray, who was driving the car which was headed directly towards Harley. Following this, the car runs off course and straight into Sionis’s driver, thus giving Harley time to escape and taking down two of her enemies in the process: her voiceover then concludes “Fine, it was dumb luck” (00:16:04-00:16:16).

<figure><img src="image_148.png" /><figcaption>Figure 291: Harley goes down a slide (01:25:27)</figcaption></figure>

The physical comedy which characterises most of Harley's acts, can be found in the entirety of the main fight scene, which is turned into something quite light-hearted and playful. The main action sequence of the film takes place in an amusement park, and as a result, many
of the fight sequences are presented as games, and all of the characters are made to go down a slide (figure 291). The entire action sequence relies on the characters using trampolines, distorting mirrors, moving platforms, and revolving stages. As the birds defend themselves against Sionis's army, the fight is quite whimsical, with music and colourful props taking away from the violence of their acts. Furthermore, *Birds of Prey* alternates between moments where violence is shown crudely, and moments where it is completely aestheticised. As Harley attacks the police station, her attack is highly idealised, and she only seems to injure the police officers with toys, paintballs and sparkles (figures 292-294).

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /><figcaption>Figure 292: (00:23:27)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /><figcaption>Figure 293: an explosion of sparkles erupts when Harley shoots a police officer (00:46:47)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /><figcaption>Figure 294: Harley's gun says "fun gun" (00:23:11)</figcaption></figure>

It is somewhat unclear whether Harley's gun is actually non-lethal and only shoots balls of confetti and paint, whether it is merely a form of euphemism, or whether it is just one of Harley's delusions. Indeed, Harley has been revealed to be an unreliable narrator, as events are presented rather differently through her perspective and through the perspective of others. The clearest instance of this relates to the explosion of the factory, which is shown twice, once when Harley walks away from it (figure 295), and a second time when Montoya comes to investigate it (figure 296).
<figure><img src="image_152.png" /><figcaption>Figure 295: Harley walks away from the explosion (00:07:56)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /><figcaption>Figure 296: Montoya comes to investigate the explosion (00:10:13)</figcaption></figure>

The explosion looks very different from the perspective of each character. When we first see the explosion, it is aestheticised, and we are made to see it as a colourful burst of fireworks. However, when we see it again, through the perspective of Montoya, we see it for what it truly is, in a much more realistic manner. This is both a sign of Harley's cognitive disfunctions, and a euphemism which presents the events in a much more distanced manner. The nature of Harley's violent attack in the police station is all the more unclear as in *The Suicide Squad*, she is once again seen carrying a weapon, but this time it is unrealistic flowers that come out of the gun when she shoots (figures 297 and 298). This time, we know with certainty that she is using a real gun, and that the flowers are only a figment of her imagination: this may retrospectively inform our understanding of the shooting in *Birds of Prey*, as an embellishment that happens in her mind.

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /><figcaption>Figure 297-8: (01:10:15-01:10:47)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

The aestheticization of Harley's acts of violence can be linked to what Kupfer calls “aesthetic violence”. According to him, “There is a sense in which all cinematic portrayals of violence are aesthetic insofar as they are products of film artifice: framed, shot from a particular point of view and camera angle, lighted in a distinctive way, held for a certain period of time, and located within a sequence of other shots or scenes”. However, some films “not only emphasize violence but manage to present it in a fashion that celebrates it by making it attractive. Despite the fact that in real life violence done by people to other individuals is usually condemned, movies
manage to cast it in a positive light by rendering it in ways that are aesthetically arresting – by ‘aestheticizing’ the violence” (2018: 28). To render her altercations aesthetically pleasing, *Birds of Prey* frames all the scenes in which Harley fights so as to make them appear either comical, or highly choreographed, with most of her fights including gymnastic moves (figures 299-301).

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /><figcaption>Figure 299: Harley does an aerial as she fights her enemies in jail (00:48:53)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /><figcaption>Figure 300: Harley does a handspring during her fight with Montoya in the evidence room (00:53:28)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_158.png" /><figcaption>Figure 301: Harley does a handspring in the fun house (01:28:01)</figcaption></figure>

The films also constantly highlight their own artificiality. This can be linked to the distancing effect, as defined by Brecht: by highlighting its own artificiality, a work of art can create a distance which forces the viewer not to sympathise with the character, but to watch and analyse instead from a distance. The spectator's judgement is thus placed in the conscious realm, not the subconscious of Aristotelian empathy: “[a]cceptance or rejection of the characters' words is thus placed in the conscious realm, not, as hitherto, in the subconscious” (1961: 130). And in all our films, the viewer is reminded that the events unfolding are not real. As we have already seen, the films use the term "story" to define themselves, which serves not only to show that there are several possible perspectives on the same events, but also to highlight their own fictionality. In addition, *Birds of Prey* heavily relies on a non-linear narration that somewhat confuses the progress of the narrative. When Montoya talks about the Bertinelli massacre, Harley's voiceover interrupts to give us a "quick history lesson" (00:19:34), and we are shown images of the event which occurred fifteen years before the events of the main
timeline. Shortly thereafter, when Harley is raiding the police station, the image freezes as she is about to pull the trigger, and she says: “hold up hold up. I’m telling this all wrong. Let’s rewind” (00:23:43). Her speech becomes performative as the images do rewind, and everything we have seen so far is presented backwards, further emphasising the artificiality of the film. The complicated timeline is restored once the viewer is caught up, with Harley stating “ok, now we’re good” (00:46:44), and the actions resume where they had been left off (figures 302 and 303).

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /><figcaption>Figure 302: the images freeze right when Harley pulls the trigger (00:23:38)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /><figcaption>Figure 303: the story resumes (00:46:45)</figcaption></figure>

Title cards are also used several times to indicate a change in the chronology of the film (figures 304 and 305).

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /><figcaption>Figure 304: “Four Minutes Ago” (00:08:08)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /><figcaption>Figure 305: "One Week Ago" (00:23:58)</figcaption></figure>

Timelines can even become confused, as is the case when Montoya investigates the crime scene left by Huntress. The images switch back and forth between the moment of Huntress’s attack and the time of Montoya’s investigation, until it is interrupted by the explosion of the chemical factory which we had already seen earlier. The images blend together two different timelines as the camera rotates with no cuts from Huntress while she commits the murders, to Montoya, at a later time, while she is investigating them (figures 306-311).
The change of temporality is only marked by a change in lighting, thus creating a strong sense of fluidity between the two moments. The same discontinuity can be found in *Cruella*, as she claims early on: "That necklace is the reason I'm dead. But I'm getting ahead of myself" (00:00:57). This is yet another post-modernist trait which can be found in the films, as “[t]ime is malleable in postmodern literature and, by extension, postmodern cinema” (McAlexander 315), and this continues to create distance.

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /><figcaption>*Figures 306-11 Montoya investigates the crime scene left by Huntress (00:09:36-00:09:49)*</figcaption></figure>

*Cruella* also keeps the viewer at a distance by playing with the fourth wall. This is of course the case through the use of a voiceover narration that addresses the viewer directly (“so I told you I died”, 01:55:25) but it is also the case in subtler ways. When a drunk Estella cleans up the department store, “These Boots were Made for Walkin” by Nancy Sinatra plays in the background, and while the music appears to be completely extradigetic at first, as soon as the first lyrics start, we see Estella dancing and singing along to the words. The music thus shifts from extradigetic to intradigetic, making this use of music slightly disconcerting and revealing its incorporation as an artifice (00:25:16-00:26:12). Similarly, throughout *Birds of Prey*, Harley breaks the fourth wall as she directly addresses the audience, but there are also several instances of piece-to-camera, which work against the viewer's suspension of disbelief. As we have already seen, this is the case early on, as she comments on everything Sionis tells her by looking directly into the camera as it pans down to exclude Roman (figures 83-85), but there are several other instances of this taking place (figures 312-314).
<figure><img src="image_164.png" /><figcaption>Figure 312: Harley looks into the camera
(00:55:33)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /><figcaption>Figure 313: Harley looks into the camera
(01:41:14)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /><figcaption>Figure 314: Harley looks into the camera
(00:16:18)</figcaption></figure>

This highlights the film's artificiality as it reminds the viewer of the presence of the camera, whereas we are usually meant to forget about its existence in classical cinema. The emphasis on film as artifice can also be found in the film's sound design, not unlike what can be found in *Cruella*. The voiceover narration that we find in both films is already a technique that highlights the film's artificiality, but *Birds of Prey* further toys with this: as Harley tells the audience about Sal's egg sandwiches, her voiceover says, "no one makes an egg sandwich like Sal", and Harley, as the character we see on screen, acquiesces and says, "I mean it Sal, no one" (00:13:39). This confusion between the voiceover and the character talking as the story unfolds does two things: it creates a comical clash which draws the viewer's attention to the artificiality of having a voiceover narration, while it simultaneously continues to show Harley as mentally unstable, as she is not entirely able to make sense of the voice she seems to be hearing in her head. Not unlike postmodern texts, which "foreground the techniques of storytelling, offering forms of self-conscious narration", the films at study "draw attention to their means of construction, foregrounding their own artifice and use of convention." (Constable, 2015: 36). Harley's voiceover highlights the artificiality of what unfolds, since when Cassandra swallows the diamond, she tells us "in the story telling business, this dummy swallowing that diamond is called a complication" (00:39:57). Furthermore, *Birds of Prey* tends to rely on elements of
pastiche: it keeps strong ties with the comics genre, as it starts off as an animated film. But even once the film turns to live action, Harley is seen watching cartoons several times (figure 315), and Montoya is seen watching a performance by a harlequin on television (figure 316).

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /><figcaption>Figure 315: Harley and Cassandra watching comics on television (01:01:10)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /><figcaption>Figure 316: Montoya's television plays a programme featuring a harlequin in the background of the scene (01:12:31)</figcaption></figure>

Furthermore, as a great many references to cop shows punctuate the film, it relies heavily on the art of pastiche. Harley tells us that Montoya was “[r]aised on ‘80s cop shows” and that is the reason she is “always saying cheesy shit” (00:08:17). Later on, her voiceover tells us “if you’ve ever watched any cop movie ever, you know this is when shit gets real” (1:07:47), and Huntress asks “does she always talk like a cop in a bad 80s movie” (01:39:00). The film relies on intertextual references which highlight its artificiality as it dialogues with other films. While Sionis has his men interrogate Harley, he is even presented as a spectator in a movie theatre: as he sits on a chair and eats popcorn, he comes to embody a viewer in the cinema, and the scene is almost presented as a film within a film (figures 317-318).

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /><figcaption>Figure 317: Sionis eats popcorn as he watches Harley (00:43:26-00:43:34)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

Shortly thereafter, Sionis hits Harley, and she goes into a delirium where she starts singing “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”, in the style of Marylyn Monroe (figure 319). This is a clear reference to Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, which was released in 1953 (figure 320), but this reference to the famous music hall number is heavy with meaning, as this scene has already
been mimicked, parodied and referenced many times in various media, not least in Madonna's 1984 "Material Girl" music video (figure 321). Madonna's music video already highlights the intertextuality of this reference as it starts off as a film within a film. In turn, the use of such an iconic reference in *Birds of Prey* highlights the palimpsestic dimension of cinema and art more generally, and points to its own artificiality as Sionis transforms Harley into a character within the frame of the story.

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /><figcaption>Figure 319: *Birds of Prey* (Yan, 2020), 00:44:58</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /><figcaption>Figure 320: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (Hawks, 1953, 1:10:38)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /><figcaption>Figure 321: Madonna's "Material Girl" music video (Lambert, 1984, 01:06)</figcaption></figure>

Finally, both *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey* poke fun at the representation of women in action films, as Cruella notes “I’d like to remind you all that I’m doing this in heels” (00:48:26) and Harley offers a hair tie to Black Canary (01:28:58). These two somewhat anecdotal lines echo the typical unrealistic representation of women in action films, with little thought given to practicality: action heroines are often made to fight with their hair undone while wearing impractical shoes. As they hint to these expectations and somewhat subvert them, the films never let the viewers forget that they are watching a film. At least when it comes to *Cruella* and *Birds of Prey*, the films have elements of “meta-fiction”, a technique in postmodern literature “in which the writer makes the reader aware of the work’s fictional nature, often to force the reader to ponder the relationship between fiction and reality. In other words, it is writing about writing” (McAlexander, 2019: 314).
We thus see how the films work to make the characters less threatening, by denying or minimising the evil they did. As they question the morality of the villainesses turned antiheroines, the films bring into question what a hero even is – they are no longer villains because their identities are revealed to be far more complex, and in the end, what they do is not so different from the expectations we have of a hero. Furthermore, by making them more pleasing to see, the films do not let their heroines diverge very much from the traditional expectations of femininity either. If the characters are made more acceptable because of their attractiveness, their actions are also made more enjoyable to watch, through various modes of distancing and aestheticization. As the films create a reassuring distance, the characters are made unthreatening because they do not evolve in our world, either because the films present themselves as fiction, or because they are set in a magical universe which bears little resemblance to the real world. This helps us see the characters as heroines even when they commit reprehensible actions, as their evil deeds are represented in an unrealistic, surreal way.
CONCLUSION

The investigation of *Cruella*, *Maleficent* and *Birds of Prey* has shown the growing interest in stories centred around villainous female characters. As they find themselves at the epicentre of trends which have marked the past few decades of content produced in Hollywood, we can see the growing space given to imperfect women on screen. The analysis of the characters has enabled us to see both the increasing freedom with which women can be depicted, and the persisting strategies used to mitigate their evilness.

The redemptive story-arc functions very differently in the three films that we have studied. *Maleficent* aims to debunk a false narrative about the story of Sleeping Beauty, seemingly correcting the misconstrued reputation given to the Mistress of Evil and presenting another version of the facts which is not as damning for the supposed villainess. In addition, “the movie provides a cruel backstory to the Mistress of Evil, turning her into a tragic villain” (Caballero, 2021). Transforming her into a “tragic villain” further mitigates her evilness, as she is presented as a victim: the film displaces the source of evil by presenting Maleficent as the one who has suffered at the hands of an enemy more wicked than her. *Cruella* on the other hand takes place long before the events presented in *101 Dalmatians*, and barely acknowledges any of the vile actions which Cruella is seen committing in the previous works she is featured in – the film rather chooses to focus on the wrongs that have been done to her. Finally, *Birds of Prey* acknowledges Harley’s faults, but presents them as little more than the quirks of a heroine who is made to fend for herself in a hostile environment. As Caballero notes, *Birds of Prey* “has real and enduring sympathy for Harley and presents her as more of an anti-hero. Her self-described ‘craziness’ isn’t romanticized and the character’s actions are praised (even if they are decidedly immoral and reprehensible)”. As she fights against Roman Sionis and what he represents (class privilege and glaring misogyny), her morality shines through, while her evil deeds are merely presented as a forgivable manifestation of her eccentricity.

Ultimately, the evolution of the characters towards anti-heroism relies on the reframing of their tales; as a new perspective is offered to us, we are made to look at old stories in a new light. This enables us to better appreciate their motivations and to reconsider what we held as a standard of morality: Maleficent, Cruella and Harley Quinn are presented as antiheroines because they stand in opposition to systems which are revealed to be misogynistic, classist,
bellicose, or colonialist. Not only are they represented as victims who fight back in the face of
the oppression they have endured, but they also come to champion political causes with which
the viewer is meant to sympathise. In addition, as they reframe the tales told previously, the
films completely rework the representation of the characters' violent actions. The films make
their heroines' evil acts appear much more acceptable to the viewer, not only because of the
motivations that justify them, but also because of the way they are enacted: the characters are
much less violent, and their actions are made enjoyable to watch, thanks to strategies of
minimisation and distancing effects. This helps mitigate the threat they pose and continues to
showcase them as antiheroines rather than villainesses, as they scarcely, and only temporarily,
diverge from the expectations we have of heroes and of women. All in all, the villainesses are
rehabilitated both because of what leads up to their evilness and because of the representation
of their evil deeds: we are given abundant justification for their actions, and these actions are
not presented as particularly appalling.

The representation of the protagonists as antiheroines relies on a strong sense of relativism. Storytelling is presented as a limited perspective on events which can be contested and perpetually reimagined from varying points-of-view. The morality of one's actions is then questioned as villains can become the victims of worse villains, and we are left to ponder on the morality of the systems which we had once considered to be good. Finally, the films reject a restrictive understanding of good and evil as two distinct, opposing entities: this mythical dichotomy is presented as limiting. Good and evil are presented instead as inherently intertwined, and the characters thus escape any easy categorisation as either villain or hero.

The grouping of these films highlights some similarities in the precautions taken to represent evil women despite the taboo that female villainy still represents. While women on screen have been given increasing leeway to act in reprehensible ways, a certain number of strategies still work to confine the female villain. Not only are her evil deeds abundantly justified, but the fictitious nature of the works she appears in is constantly emphasised. In that regard, the transformation of evil women into loveable antiheroines can also be read as a way of making them less subversive, and of confining the threat they pose. The interest in these enigmatic female characters stems both from the fascination they create, and from a wish to tame them by making them more understandable.

Be that as it may, the release of these films in such a short timeframe is an undeniable
sign of a trend which is making its marks on American cinema, and the commercial success of
these films is bound to give way to the continuation of this trend. With a new *Cruella* film set to be released in the next couple of years, it will be interesting to see whether her depiction will continue to be marked by distance and taming, or if she will grow into a more subversive figure now that she has been established as a loveable antiheroine.
# ANNEX

## Annex 1: Highest-grossing films of 2014-2021

### 2014

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>Transformers: Age of Extinction</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Guardians of the Galaxy</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Maleficent</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>X-Men: Days of Future Past</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Captain America: The Winter Soldier</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Dawn of the Planet of the Apes</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>The Amazing Spider-Man 2</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Interstellar*</td></tr></table>

### 2015

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Jurassic World</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Furious 7</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Avengers: Age of Ultron</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Minions</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Spectre</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Inside Out</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>The Martian*</td></tr></table>

### 2016

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>Captain America: Civil War</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Rogue One: A Star Wars Story</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Finding Dory</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Zootopia</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>The Jungle Book</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>The Secret Life of Pets</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Deadpool</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Suicide Squad</td></tr></table>

### 2017

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>Star Wars: Episode VIII – The Last Jedi</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Beauty and the Beast</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The Fate of the Furious</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Despicable Me 3</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Spider-Man: Homecoming</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Wolf Warrior 2</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Thor: Ragnoarok</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Wonder Woman</td></tr></table>
2018

<table><tr><td>1</td><td><strong>Avengers: Infinity War</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><strong>Black Panther</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><strong>Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom</strong></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td><strong>Incredibles 2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td><strong>Aquaman</strong></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td><strong>Bohemian Rhapsody*</strong></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td><strong>Venom</strong></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td><strong>Mission Impossible – Fallout</strong></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td><strong>Deadpool 2</strong></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td><strong>Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald</strong></td></tr></table>

2019

<table><tr><td>1</td><td><strong>Avengers: Endgame</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><strong>The Lion King</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><strong>Frozen II</strong></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td><strong>Spider-Man: Far from Home</strong></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td><strong>Captain Marvel</strong></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td><strong>Joker</strong></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td><strong>Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker</strong></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td><strong>Toy Story 4</strong></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td><strong>Aladdin</strong></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td><strong>Jumanji: The Next Level</strong></td></tr></table>

2020

<table><tr><td>1</td><td><strong>The Eight Hundred*</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><strong>Demon Slayer the Movie: Mugen Train</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><strong>Bad Boys for Life</strong></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td><strong>My People, My Homeland</strong></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td><strong>Tenet*</strong></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td><strong>Sonic the Hedgehog</strong></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td><strong>Dolittle</strong></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td><strong>Jiang Ziya</strong></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td><strong>A Little Red Flower*</strong></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td><strong>The Croods: A New Age</strong></td></tr></table>

2021

<table><tr><td>1</td><td><strong>Spider-Man: No Way Home</strong></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><strong>The Battle at Lake Changjin</strong></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td><strong>Hi, Mom*</strong></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td><strong>No Time to Die</strong></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td><strong>F9: The Fast Saga</strong></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td><strong>Detective Chinatown 3</strong></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td><strong>Venom: Let There Be Carnage</strong></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td><strong>Godzilla vs. Kong</strong></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td><strong>Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings</strong></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td><strong>Sing 2</strong></td></tr></table>

* Standalone films
WORKS CITED

Corpus

*Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn*. Directed by Cathy Yan, Clubhouse Pictures (II), DC Entertainment, Kroll & Co. Entertainment, 2020.

*Cruella*. Directed by Craig Gillespie, Gunn Films, Marc Platt Productions, TSG Entertainment, 2021.

*Maleficent*. Directed by Robert Stromberg, Jolie Pas, Roth Films, Walt Disney Pictures, 2014.

Filmography

*101 Dalmatians*. Directed by Stephen Herek, 1996.

*101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure*. Directed by Jim Kammerud and Brian Smith, 2003.

*102 Dalmatians*. Directed by Kevin Lima, 2000.

*American Psycho*. Directed by Mary Harron, 2000.

*Batman and Harley Quinn*. Directed by Sam Liu, 2017.

*Birds of Prey*. Directed by Laeta Kalogridis, 2002.

*Bridget Jones's Diary*. Directed by Sharon Maguire, Universal Pictures, 2001.

*Crazy Ex-Girlfriend*. Created by Rachel Bloom and Aline Brosh McKenna, The CW, 2015-2019.

*Fleabag*. Created by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, BBC Three, 2016-2019.
*Good Girls*. Created by Jenna Bans, NBC, 2018-2021.

*House of the Dragon*. Created by Ryan Condal and George R. R. Martin, HBO, 2022-present.

*Joker*. Directed by Todd Phillips, 2019.

'Joker's Favor'. *Batman: The Animated Series*, directed by Boyd Kirkland, 7, 1992.

*Justice League*. Directed by Zack Snyder, 2017.

*Killing Eve*. Showrunner Phoebe Waller-Bridge et al., BBC America, 2018-2022.

*Maleficent: Mistress of Evil*. Directed by Joachim Rønning, 2019.

*Man of Steel*. Directed by Zack Snyder, 2013.

*Monsters, Inc*. Directed by Pete Docter, 2001.

*Monsters University*. Directed by Dan Scanlon, 2013.

*One Hundred and One Dalmatians*. Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman et al., Buena Vista Distribution, 1961.

*Planet of the Apes*. Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, 1968.

*Rise of the Planet of the Apes*. Directed by Rupert Wyatt.

*Sleeping Beauty*. Directed by Clyde Geronimi et al., Walt Disney, 1959.

*Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace*. Directed by George Lucas, 20th Century Fox, 1999.

*Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens*. Directed by J. J. Abrams, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2015.

*Suicide Squad*. Directed by David Ayer, 2016.

*The Godfather*. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Video, RCA SelectaVision, 1972.

*The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power*. Created by J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay, Amazon Prime Video, 2022-present.

*The Suicide Squad*. Directed by James Gunn, 2021.
Bibliography

Bae, Michelle S. 'Interrogating Girl Power: Girlhood, Popular Media, and Postfeminism'.
*Visual Arts Research*, vol. 37, no. 2, 2011, pp. 28–40.
*JSTOR*
<https://doi.org/10.5406/visuartsrese.37.2.0028>.

Booker, M. Keith. *Postmodern Hollywood: What's New in Film and Why It Makes Us Feel so Strange*. Praeger, 2007.

Boozer, Jack. 'The Lethal Femme Fatale in the Noir Tradition'. *Journal of Film and Video*, vol. 51, no. 3/4, 1999, pp. 20–35.

Boyle, Karen. 'What's Natural About Killing? Gender, Copycat Violence, and *Natural Born Killers*'. *Journal of Gender Studies*, vol. 10, no. 3, 2001, pp. 311–21.

pureportal.strath.ac.uk, <https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230120086511>.

Brecht, Bertolt, and Eric Bentley. 'On Chinese Acting'. *The Tulane Drama Review*, vol. 6, no. 1, 1961, pp. 130–36.
*JSTOR*, <https://doi.org/10.2307/1125011>.

Brown, William. 'Destroy Visual Pleasure: Cinema, Attention, and the Digital Female Body (Or, Angelina Jolie Is a Cyborg)'. *Feminisms*, edited by Laura Mulvey and Anna Backman Rogers, Amsterdam University Press, 2015, pp. 54–64.
*JSTOR*, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt16d6996.9>.

Buckingham, Susan. 'Ecofeminism in the Twenty-First Century'. *The Geographical Journal*, vol. 170, no. 2, 2004, pp. 146–54.

Butler, Jess. 'For White Girls Only? Postfeminism and the Politics of Inclusion'. *Feminist Formations*, vol. 25, no. 1, 2013, pp. 35–58.

Carlson, Jennifer. 'The Female Signifiant in All-Women's Amateur Roller Derby'. *Sociology of Sport Journal*, vol. 27, Dec. 2010, pp. 428–40.
*ResearchGate*, <https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.27.4.428>.
Chion, Michel. *The Voice in Cinema*. Translated by Claudia Gorbman, Columbia University Press, 1999.

Constable, Catherine. *Postmodernism and Film: Rethinking Hollywood's Aesthetics*. Wallflower Press, 2015.

Coulthard, Lisa. 'Killing Bill: Rethinking Feminism and Film Violence'. *Interrogating Postfeminism Gender and the Politics of Popular Culture*, by Yvonne Tasker and Diane Negra, Duke University Press, 2008, pp. 153–75.

D'Amore, Laura Mattoon. 'Vigilante Feminism: Revising Trauma, Abduction, and Assault in American Fairy-Tale Revisions'. *Marvels & Tales*, vol. 31, no. 2, 2017, pp. 386–405.
*JSTOR*, https://doi.org/10.13110/marvelstales.31.2.0386.

Deszcz, Justyna. 'Beyond the Disney Spell, or Escape into Pantoland'. *Folklore*, vol. 113, no. 1, 2002, pp. 83–91.

Dini, Paul, and Pat Cadigan. *Mad Love*. Titan Books, 2019.

Doane, Mary Ann. 'The Voice in the Cinema: The Articulation of Body and Space'. *Yale French Studies*, no. 60, 1980, pp. 33–50. *JSTOR*, https://doi.org/10.2307/2930003.

Eaton, A. W. 'Robust Immoralism'. *The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism*, vol. 70, no. 3, 2012, pp. 281–92.

Facciani, Matthew, et al. 'A Content-Analysis of Race, Gender, and Class in American Comic Books'. *Race, Gender & Class*, vol. 22, no. 3–4, 2015, pp. 216–26.

Ferguson, Michaele L. 'Choice Feminism and the Fear of Politics'. *Perspectives on Politics*, vol. 8, no. 1, 2010, pp. 247–53.

Filson, Darren, and James H. Havlicek. 'The Performance of Global Film Franchises: Installment Effects and Extension Decisions'. *Journal of Cultural Economics*, vol. 42, no. 3, 2018, pp. 447–67.
Fritz, Ben. *The Big Picture: The Fight for the Future of Movies*. Eamon Dolan/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018.

Gay, Roxane. *Bad Feminist*. Denoël, 2018.

Genette, Gérard. *Figures*. Editions du Seuil, 1966.

Gill, Rosalind. ‘Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility – Rosalind Gill, 2007’.
*European Journal of Cultural Studies*, July 2016. ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2246,
https://ezproxy-prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk:2246/doi/10.1177/1367549407075898.

Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm. *The Brother Grimm Fairy Tales*.

Haas, Melanie, editor. *Antiheroines of Contemporary Media: Saints, Sinners, and Survivors*. rowman.com, https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781793624574/Antiheroines-of-Contemporary-Media-Saints-Sinners-and-Survivors. Accessed 18 July 2023.

Haase, Donald. ‘Feminist Fairy-Tale Scholarship: A Critical Survey and Bibliography’.
*Marvels & Tales*, vol. 14, no. 1, 2000, pp. 15–63.

Hains, Rebecca. ‘Power Feminism, Mediated: Girl Power and the Commercial Politics of Change’. *Women’s Studies in Communication*, vol. 32, Apr. 2009, pp. 89–113.
*ResearchGate*, https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2009.10162382.

Hammond, Helena. “‘So You See, the Story Was Not Quite as You Were Told’”: *Maleficent*, Dance, Disney, and Cynicism as the Choreo-Philosophical Critique of Neoliberal Precarity*. *Dance Research: The Journal of the Society for Dance Research*, vol. 35, no. 1, 2017, pp. 3–48.

Hebdige, Dick. *Subculture: The Meaning of Style*. New York, 1979.

Hirshman, Linda R. *Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World*. Viking, 2006.

Hollinger, Karen. ‘Listening to The Female Voice in the Woman’s Film’. *Film Criticism*, vol. 16, no. 3, 1992, pp. 34–52.
Inness, Sherrie A. *Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture*.
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

Keen, Richard, et al. ‘Rooting for the Bad Guy: Psychological Perspectives’. *Studies in Popular Culture*, vol. 34, no. 2, 2012, pp. 129–48.

Kilbourne, Kylee. ‘With Great Power: Examining the Representation and Empowerment of Women in DC and Marvel Comics’. *Undergraduate Honors Theses*, Dec. 2017, https://dc.etsu.edu/honors/433.

King, Ynestra. ‘Engendering a Peaceful Planet: Ecology, Economy, and Ecofeminism in Contemporary Context’. *Women’s Studies Quarterly*, vol. 23, no. 3/4, 1995, pp. 15–21.

Kupfer, Joseph H. *Aesthetic Violence and Women in Film: Kill Bill with Flying Daggers*.
Routledge, 2018.

Le Fèvre-Berthelot, Anaïs. ‘Voice-Overs: Renewing Gender Representations in American TV Series’. *From the Margins to the Mainstream: Women in Film and Television*, Bloomsbury Academic, 2022.

Malott, Curry, and Milagros Peña. *Punk Rockers' Revolution: A Pedagogy of Race, Class, and Gender*. Lang, 2004.

Marshall, Bridget M. ‘The Face of Evil: Phrenology, Physiognomy, and the Gothic Villain’. *Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS)*, vol. 6, no. 2, 2000, pp. 161–72.

McAlexander, Micheal. *Postmodernism in Action Movies*. 2019, pp. 307–24. *ResearchGate*, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119100744.ch16.

McCaughey, Martha, and Neal King, editors. *Reel Knockouts: Violent Women in Film*.
University of Texas Press, 2001. *muse.jhu.edu*, https://muse.jhu.edu/book/2882.

McRobbie, Angela. *The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change*. SAGE,
2008.
Merchant, Carolyn. *The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution*. Harper & Row, 1989.

Morrissey, Belinda. *When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity*. Psychology Press, 2003.

Mulvey, Laura. *Visual and Other Pleasures*. Macmillan, 1989.

Murphy, Patrick D. 'Ecofeminism and Postmodernism: Agency, Transformation, and Future Possibilities'. *NWSA Journal*, vol. 9, no. 3, 1997, pp. 41–59.

Neroni, Hilary. *The Violent Woman: Femininity, Narrative, and Violence in Contemporary American Cinema*. State University of New York Press, 2005.

Pavlidis, Adele, and Simone Fullagar. 'Becoming Roller Derby Grrrls: Exploring the Gendered Play of Affect in Mediated Sport Cultures'. *International Review for the Sociology of Sport*, vol. 48, no. 6, Dec. 2013, pp. 673–88. *the University of Bath's research portal*, https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212446451.

---. *Sport, Gender and Power: The Rise of Roller Derby*. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2014.

*Perceforest: la tres elegante hystoire du roy de la grand Bretaigne*. 1528e édition, Hachette Livre BNF, 2012.

Perrault, Charles. *The Tales of Mother Goose*: Independently published, 2021.

Projansky, Sarah. *Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture*. New York University Press, 2001. *Open WorldCat*, http://site.ebrary.com/id/10032508.

Puckett, Kelley, et al. *The Batman Adventures*. 1992.

Purse, Lisa. *Contemporary Action Cinema*. Edinburgh University Press, 2011.

Read, Jacinda. *The New Avengers: Feminism, Feminity and the Rape-Revenge Cycle*. Manchester University Press, 2000.

Smith, Dodie. *The Hundred and One Dalmatians*. Heinemann, 1956.
Stasia, Cristina. 'Butch-Femme Interrupted'. *Journal of Bisexuality*, vol. 3, Apr. 2003, pp. 181–201. *ResearchGate*, https://doi.org/10.1300/J159v03n03_13.

Tally, Margaret. *The Rise of the Anti-Heroine in TV's Third Golden Age*. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016.

West, Dave. 'Angelina Jolie Named Top Sex Symbol'. *Digital Spy*, 25 Feb. 2007, https://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/a43147/angelina-jolie-named-top-sex-symbol/.

Windels, Kasey, et al. ‘Selling Feminism: How Female Empowerment Campaigns Employ Postfeminist Discourses’. *Journal of Advertising*, vol. 49, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 18–33.

Taylor and Francis, https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1681035.

Zipes, Jack. *Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion: The Classical Genre for Children and the Process of Civilization*. Psychology Press, 1991.

Žižek, Slavoj. *Sex and the Failed Absolute*. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019.

## Webography

Bahr, Robyn. 'From “Fleabag” to “Dickinson”: The Rise of the Anti-Heroine'. *The Hollywood Reporter*, 28 Nov. 2019, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fleabag-dickinson-rise-anti-heroine-1254305/.

Burke, Jasmine. 'Sidekicks Not Heroes: The Representation of Black People in Film'. *Epigram*, 17 Oct. 2018, https://epigram.org.uk/2018/10/17/sidekicks-not-heroes-representation-of-black-people/.

Caballero, David. 'Cruella: Birds Of Prey & 9 Other Films & TV Shows That May Have Inspired The Disney Origin Story'. *ScreenRant*, 1 Apr. 2021, https://screenrant.com/cruella-disney-plus-movie-tv-inspiration-theories/.
Cromeans, Donna. 'How Cruella's Backstory Changes Turns The Disney Villain Into A Hero'. *ScreenRant*, 29 May 2021, <https://screenrant.com/cruella-disney-movie-backstory-changes-villain-hero-explained/>.

Debruge, Peter. ""Cruella" Review: Emma Stone Reimagines the "101 Dalmatians" de Villainess as an Iconic Underdog". *Variety*, 26 May 2021, <https://variety.com/2021/film/reviews/cruella-review-emma-stone-1234981828/>.

*Disney's Cruella | Her Story*. 2021. YouTube, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReAa2K75PTA>.

*Disney's Cruella | Official Trailer*. 2021. YouTube, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmRKv7n2If8>.

*Disney's Cruella | The Music Featurette*. 2021. YouTube, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q7bqufbFQ4>.

*Disney's Maleficent - Official Trailer 3*. 2014. YouTube, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-XO4XiRop0>.

Fenner, Justin. 'Here Are Your 50 Most-Googled Halloween Costumes of 2016'. *GQ*, 18 Oct. 2016, <https://www.gq.com/story/most-googled-halloween-costumes-2016>.

Francis, Ali. *The Myth of the Evil Stepmother*. 21 Nov. 2022, <https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20221118-the-myth-of-the-evil-stepmother>.

Garrahan, Matthew. 'The Rise and Rise of the Hollywood Film Franchise'. *Financial Times*, 12 Dec. 2014, <https://www.ft.com/content/192f583e-7fa7-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0>.

Iqbal, Nosheen. 'Femvertising: How Brands Are Selling #empowerment to Women'. *The Guardian*, 12 Oct. 2015. *The Guardian*, <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/12/femvertising-branded-feminism>.

Jackson, Angelique. 'Emma Stone Confirmed to Return for "Cruella 2""'. *Variety*, 13 Aug. 2021, <https://variety.com/2021/film/news/emma-stone-cruella-2-1235041570/>.
Kadlec, Jeanna. 'Deconstructing Disney: Motherhood and the Taming of Maleficent'.

*Longreads*, 7 Oct. 2020, http://longreads.com/2020/10/07/motherhood-and-the-taming-of-maleficent/.

Kogod, Theo. 'Maleficent & 9 More Disney Characters You Never Knew Were Queer-

Coded'. *Screen Rant*, 9 Oct. 2020, https://screenrant.com/disney-villains-maleficent-queer-coded-lgbtq-gay/.

Laib, Shawn. 'Not Quite Heroes, Not Quite Villains, These Are the Characters Everyone

Loves to Hate and Hates to Love'. *The Manual*, 17 July 2023,

https://www.themanual.com/culture/best-tv-antiheroes/.

Lauzen, Martha M. 'It's a Man's (Celluloid) World: On-Screen Representations of Female

Characters in the Top 100 Films of 2014'. *Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film*, 2015.

---. 'It's a Man's (Celluloid) World: Portrayals of Female Characters in the Top Grossing Films of 2020'. *Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film*, 2021.

---. 'The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2014'. *Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film*, 2015.

---. 'The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top U.S. Films of 2020'. *Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film*, 2021.

---. 'The Celluloid Ceiling in a Pandemic Year: Employment of Women on the Top U.S. Films of 2021'. *Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film*, 2022.

Lazic, Elena. 'Film Depictions of Sexual Violence Are Increasingly Alarming. It Has to Stop'. *The Guardian*, 14 Mar. 2018. *The Guardian*,

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/14/red-sparrow-jennifer-lawrence-sexual-violence-films-rape.
Leigh, Danny. 'Disney's Cruella Stitches Punk's Overlooked Female Designers into the Fabric'. *The Guardian*, 27 May 2021. *The Guardian*, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/may/27/disney-cruella-punk-fashion-design.

Leroy, Kath. *Best Movie Anti-Heroes*. 28 Jan. 2022, https://gamerant.com/best-anti-heroes-movies/#han-solo.

Look, Marie. 'Scottsdale's Emma Stone Named “Sexiest Actress” 2011 by Victoria's Secret'.

*Haute Living*, 20 May 2011, https://hauteliving.com/2011/05/scottsdale-emma-stone-named-sexiest-actress-2011-by-victorias-secret/160575/.

MacInnes, Paul. 'No More Mr Bad Guy – Farewell for Ever to TV's Male Antiheroes'. *The Guardian*, 29 Dec. 2019. *The Guardian*, https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/29/no-more-mr-bad-guy-farewell-for-ever-to-tvs-male-antiheroes-don-draper-walter-white-tony-soprano.

Mattia, Nancy, and Lydia Price. 'Every Woman Who Has Been on the Cover of PEOPLE's Beautiful Issue: Then & Now'. *People*, 21 Apr. 2023, https://people.com/celebrity/peoples-most-beAUTIfUL-PAST-COVER-STARS/.

Mishra, Pratikshya. 'Femme Fatale Retellings: Anti-Heroes in Cruella DeVil, Maleficent & Harley Quinn'. *The Quint*, 3 Sept. 2021, https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/cinema/cruella-de-vil-101-dalmatians-birds-of-prey-suicide-squad-harley-quinn-dc-disney-maleficent-female-villains.

Morgan, Rachel E., and Alexandra Thompson. 'Criminal Victimization, 2020 – Supplemental Statistical Tables'. *Bureau of Justice Statistics*, 2022, https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/criminal-victimization-2020-supplemental-statistical-tables.

Murray, Noel. 'The 50 Greatest Antiheroes of All Time, Ranked'. *Inverse*, 6 Oct. 2020, https://www.inverse.com/entertainment/best-antiheroes-comics-tv-movie-video-games.
Omar, Yasmin. 'The Rise of the Antiheroine: Why Women Are Finally Allowed to Be "Unlikeable" on-Screen'. *Harper's BAZAAR*, 17 Oct. 2018,

<https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/entertainment/a23817045/the-rise-of-the-antiheroine-why-women-are-finally-allowed-to-be-unlikeable-on-screen/>.

Phillips, Maya. 'The Antihero's Last Gasp'. *The New York Times*, 20 July 2022.

*NYTimes.com*, <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/arts/television/antiheroes-the-boys-batman.html>.

Rich, Katey. 'Angelina Jolie Confirms a Key Maleficent Scene Was About Rape'. *Vanity Fair*, 12 June 2014, <https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/06/angelina-jolie-maleficent-rape>.

Rogers, Adam. 'Suicide Squad's Harley Quinn Is Kinda Un-Harley-Quinnish'. *Wired*, 13 July 2015. www.wired.com, <https://www.wired.com/2015/07/harley-quinn-suicide-squad/>.

Rubin, Rebecca. ""Cruella" Ditches Her Cigarettes in Disney's Villain Origin Story'. *Variety*, 27 May 2021, <https://variety.com/2021/film/news/disney-cruella-cigarette-1234982347/>.

Solomon, Charles. '3 ANIMATED FILMS: GOOD, BAD, UGLY'. *Los Angeles Times*, 21 Mar. 1986, <https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-03-21-ca-5385-story.html>.

Stahler, Kelsea. 'Cruella Also Rewrites Anita Darling's Backstory — & That Changes Everything'. *Refinery 29*, 5 June 2021, <https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/06/10508827/cruella-anita-darling-original-kirby-howell-baptiste-interview>.

West, Dave. 'Angelina Jolie Named Top Sex Symbol'. *Digital Spy*, 25 Feb. 2007, <https://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/a43147/angelina-jolie-named-top-sex-symbol/>.