I watched Ugly Stepsister 2025, and I really liked it. And I rewatched Grimm variations, Cinderella's take on Netflix is also a close second favorite.
And I realized. I like modern adaptations where the stepsisters aren't nice. You root for them not because they're good but because the world they operate in has the odds stacked aginst them.
In GV, they have to fight and claw due to a lack of class status. In Ugly Stepsister the eldest stepsister doesn't fit the ideal beauty standards of society.
This works better for the sisters because making them nice not only removes the conflict, but you're just swapping one ideal woman idea for another. And the core of the wicked stepsisters is that they aren't ideal. They're messy, desperate, jealous, angry, and frustrated, and they destroy themselves to fit into this world.
I think its great when adaptations realize the stepsisters didn't have to be secretly good all along or feminist heroes to be able to have interesting takes on Cinderella through their eyes.
As I said to @princesssarisa previously, there was one article I wanted to share here but forgot to post about... It is from the fourth issue of the "Féeries" publication, the same one which contained the article from which I made this post about 18th century stage adaptations of Beauty and the Beast. The original article is called "Cendrillon mise en pièces ou la seconde immortalité de Perrault au XIXe siècle": written by Noémie Courtès it is about various 19th century adaptations of Perrault's Cinderella.
Here is my info-mining for those unable to speak French:
The article opens with a commentary on the stage genre of the "féerie" per se. It compares the history of the féerie, from the Romantic era to the eve of First World War (where the féerie was replaced by cinema) to the literary continuation of fairytales, starting with the first fairytale anthologies (madame d'Aulnoy, Perrault), ending with the "fairy perversions" of the fin-de-siècle, and passing by the "simplifications for youth" and the "foreign additions" of Grimm and Andersen.
The "féerie" genre was born after the French Revolution, out of authors who didn't want to either do the "théâtre révolutionnaire" (about actualities and current-day politics) or the "drame romantique" (about History) ; searching for magic and wonders, but not those of classical myths as they seek a simpler story and easier-to-create special effects. It was not just something theater-related, all the genres were swept by this wave of innovations under the cosntant changes of freedom and censorship - in the 1820s the "pointe" movement was introduced in the ballets to give the impression that the dancers float or fly, a movement tied to the production of stories with elf-like characters (La Sylphide, Giselle, La Péri). The "féerie" proper started as an aesthetic category - it was understood as a "style" of production between the Directory and the July Monarchy, a time of full freedom and experimentation for the theaters and when writing techniques mingled with each other. However, from the 1840s onward, as censorship and privileges returned, theaters became more formal, productions become more schematic, plots petrify themselves, and the "féerie" becomes its own, proper genre. The "féerie dramatique" (fairy drama) gave birth to several thousands of plays at the heart of a crossroad between various "liminal" genres (vaudeville, pantomime, ballet, opera) - and its purpose was to go beyond the simple "theater illusion" to reach what was called the "fairy illusion". Courtès offers a brief example of the féerie genre by studying its variations on the story of Cinderella.
I/ Cinderella, or how to find a fitting shoe
Perrault's fairytales had a HUGE, HUGE success, from 1697 to the end of the 19th century. Already in 1697 you had the Italian Comedians of the King making a comedy in the Hôtel de Bourgogne called "Les Fées, ou Les Contes de Ma Mère l'oie" (Fairies, or the Tales of My Mother goose, in one act) ; and for the end of the 19th century we can mention Méliès' 1899 Cinderella. A famous work in-between those two is MM. Clairville's and Jules Cordier's 1854 "Les Contes de la Mère l'Oie", a "great féerie" in five acts and twenty-two tableaux (théâtre de l'Ambigu-Comique).
However, such a huge success can lead to baffling things... To take back Clairville/Cordier's Contes de la Mère l'Oie, in there all of the fairytales are mingled and mixed together under the whims of a good fairy and a bad fairy, who switch between human form and animal form: Mère l'Oie is the good fairy/goose ; Serpentine the evil fairy/snake. Their battle is to allow or prevent the wedding of Simplette with Riquet with the tuft, who is turned at the end into Prince Charming, through the intermediary of grandma-eating ogres and enchanted slippers. This féerie is filled to the brim with references to the theatrical actualities and dreadful puns. People of the time often wrote in an ironic way to point out how, if Perrault was still alive, he would have made a fortune with all the plays, ballets, operas and vaudevilles made based on his stories.
While between 1810 and 1899 numerous adaptations of Perrault's fairytales were made, Cinderella stays the number one adapted tale, with thirty different versions in the 19th century all from different genres. The very first Cinderella of the century is from 1806, but the trend only really starts in 1810 by the opéra-féerie of Etienne and Nicolo. It is a huge success, with a hundred of successive representations, and in just one year, eleven different shows imitated it (one in Montpellier, Les Pantoufles de Magdelaine, and one in Lyon, Le Mariage de Cendrillon). This series is at its core a parodic one, but it is very interesting to see how intertextuality is very, very strong between these creations. For example, the song "compère Guilleri" is first found in the Cinderella ballet of 1809, then is moved to Etienne's work in 1810, and is then almost always referenced or reused by all the imitations and parodies that would follow (sometimes the song is played for a vaudeville act, other times it is merely the name of a character). Etienne's text influenced other plays for nearly twenty years, and it was adapted in all the genres. Etienne's Cinderella heavily inspired the 1823 ballet, and the vaudeville-féerie of 1838, as well as of Rossini's "La Cenerentola" of 1817, which takes back Etienne's plot. The glory of Etienne's play was finally concluded by two revivals in 1845 and 1877, with bigger and more spectacular stagings.
In 1810, every new Cinderella play takes into account all the plays that came previously, and the references pile up playfully - to the point that the number of "Cinderellas" augment within the plots. "La Famille des Cendrillons" offers four Cinderella, "La Fête de Perrault" five, "Le Rendez-vous des Cendrillons" six. In fact, "Le Rendez-vous des Cendrillons" pushes the joke even further: as the play comes to an end, a servant announces the arrival of three more Cinderellas (two from the Boulevard, one from Italy), and it is decided the doors shall be closed shut to avoid an invasion of Cinderellas... Already in "La Famille des Cendrillons" a similar joke was made; the four Cinderellas try in vain the slipper because, unlike Perrault's shoe, it is too big - deformed by "how so many people tried it on". And the final vaudeville act blatantly sang on how Cinderella's name appeared on coins, hats and candies everywhere, used to make money everywhere.
What is very interesting with those rewrites is how the adaptations reveal the constraints of each theater, and the burden of censorship. The Odéon Cinderella decided to be a pure comedy ; Séraphin's Cinderella uses puppets ; other plays rather explore the possibilities of the Vaudeville. Because in 1810, by imperial law, each theater had to have its own specialization, and if they wanted to enter a different genre, they needed to be cunning. Cinderella was everywhere, even within the prestigious Académie royale de musique, where they had a Cinderella theme with Albert Decombe's 1823 ballet, with a Ciceri-decorated stage.
The diversity of all these plays is truly striking today. Every little detail that can be changed is changed. The place can be Bordeaux, Turkey, Italy. The era can be the Middles-Ages, the 16th century or the era of Louis XIII. The number of characters change: is there a stepmother with two stepsisters, just two stepsisters, or a stepfather with one or two stepsisters? The onomastic also changes, though always upper-class and meanngful: comtesse de Hauntainville, Uranie de La Houspignole, Mme de La Haltière... The prince can be a sultan, a king, or a child-prince. The identity of the fairy constantly moves: it is a genie, a great astrologist, a supernatural white cat... The hour of the spell's end can be midnight or two in the morning. Even the slipper changes: glass or green, when it is not replaced by a bracelet or arose... The magic itself can be removed, like in Etienne's text where the fairy is replaced by a knowledgeable preceptor named Alidor who "knows many extraordinary things", "speaks all the languages, can read into the stars, and is rumored to be friend with genies". However, there is still an "aerial choir" supposed to be sung by genies during the second act, and to maintain appearances a fairy is introduced in the final moments. Outside of Rossini's adaptation, which stays very faithful to Etienne's play, all of the other productions influenced by Etienne refuse to keep the lack of magic: they rather highlight the supernatural aspect of the tale.
The main focus of the story can also be changed, especially if new characters and episodes are added. Already Etienne was placing first and foremost the switch between the prince Ramir and the ridiculous lord Dandini, to test Cinderella's feelings ; and Massenet's version includes a very poetic scene of prayers to the fairy, sung simultaneously by Cinderella and the Prince Charming, separated by a magical wall of roses imitating the situation of Pyramus and Thisbe.
II / The féerie ingredients
The story of Cinderella has all the elements needed for a good adaptation. Outside of a quasi-unity of place and time (compared to Sleeping Beauty), the heroine is a touching character and the subject is not perverse (unlike with Donkey Skin). However, in the 19th century, the staging of the fairytale adds more elements - though they are not the same elements as literary adaptations of the fin-de-siècle. No "modernization" in present-day, no outrageous erotic subtext, not even political ideas on women's life in the 18th century.
Since the stage only wants to seduce its audience and make it feel, it stays faithful to the misery of Cinderella and plays on all the possible variations, of genre and of technique. Indeed, Cinderella's success spans over an entire century, a century VERY rich in theatrical experimentations and scenic inventions: it was an era of eletricity and pyrotechnics, of light tricks and optical illusions, of trap-doors of all sorts... As such it is impossible to synthetize all of the Cinderella variations, that go everywhere from the parody to the féerie to the ballet to the opera. Yet, there are three main elements to explain this success in the 19th century. The humor, the music, and the spectacular.
All of these dramatic adaptations contain at least one comical element. More or less obvious, in the parodies it is a burlesque humor - for example, the heroine can be played by a man. In "La Chatte merveilleuse", the audience sees Cinderella played by Brunet, an actor famous for his role of "Jocrisse". Other times the symetry of the stepsisters is exploited (especially in ballets), or a grotesque rival is added (Guilleri, Dandini, Bambini) - this has a precedent with Etienne, who writes a scene of seduction between Dandini and Cinderella's sisters (Clorinde and Tisbé), by basically copying the seduction of ths two peasant women in Molière's Dom Juan. All of these comical elements are here to balance the misfortune of Cinderella.
Second element: the music, very present in the adaptations. The authors can use a "ringing episode", during which the sisters abuse Cinderella by calling her to the opposite ends of their house (on a model imitating the first scene of the Wedding of Figaro). But usually it is the ball scene that is used to insert dances - of course, ballets and operas had a lot of fun with the ball scene. [Henri Cain, for the second act of the opéra-comique of Massenet, staged five different entrances during the ball scene]. The "oniric" atmosphere of féerie shows favorizes and highlights female voices - sometimes an entire choir of spirits is introduced, and with Massenet Prnce Charming is played by a female soprano. Talking plays meanwhile, fitting with the aesthetic an fashions of the 19th century, exploit fully the resources of the vaudeville. Vaudeville acts are recurring, highlight the comical, and often famous songs are inserted with a new meaning given to them. In "La Chatte merveilleuse", Cinderella leaves for the ball on the melody of the song "Bon voyage monsieur Dumollet" (Good travel mister Calf), and at the end of "La Fête de Perrault", Cinderella dances with Blue-beard, Little-Thumbling, Sleeping-Beauty and co on the melody of "Où peut-on être mieux qu'au sein de sa famille" (Where can we better be than within our family).
However, while the music is crucial, the spectacular is even more important. Cinderella is the perfct excuse to present a universe filled with theatrical illusions, an oniric world. All the common scenic effects for spells and enchantments are accumulated throughout the adaptations to illustrate the magic of the fairytale. The ballets especially are known to abuse it all, by gathering many groups of improbable characters so as to have as many people on stage by the end as possible. Féeries meanwhile play heavly on the "tableau aesthetic" and the "apotheosis". The culmination of those can be found in 1866's Cinderella, with on top of the 23 "regular" characters an addition of "Princesses of the Volcano Islands, of the Blue Islands, of the Dancing Islands, of the Crystal Grottos, of the Islands of Flowers and Butterflies, Princesses of Trébizonde, of Savages Islands, etc... Lords and Ladies of the Court, Pages, Valets, Centaurs, Guards of all sorts, the Court of Love, Fairies, Wedding people, Villagers, Peasant women, Monsters, Fire Genies, Glowing worms, etc."
To make "magic real" all sorts of set changes and costume transformations are invented, but often to the point of neglecting the "literary" aspect of the show, which is something the many parodies of Etienne's work like to mock. For example, in "La Chatte merveilleuse", Etienne's use of a rose (symbolizing clearly a sexual motif) is parodied when the cooking pot of Cinderella turns into a rose-tree in the chimney, with the delightful wordplay "Ah ben, v'la qu'c'est un peu trop fort! mon pot-au-feu changé en pot-aux-roses". [The "pot-au-feu", fire-pot, a traditional dish, becomes the "pot-au-rose", flower-pot but also figuratively a trick, a deceit, a scam]. The talisman that Alidor offers to Cinderella to make her intelligent is denounced as an unbelievable trick. Following parodies offer similar meta-commentaries, like "La Fête de Perrault" which claims "We see a cauldron become a nice rose-tree/ A pumpkin is quickly an elegant carriage / This play shall be celebrated up until spring!".
[The article mentions here the various "derived products" sold based on these plays - for example after 1810's La Chatte merveilleuse all sorts of doll-theaters, popular illustrations and Epinal images of Cinderella were created based on La Chatte merveilleuse rather than Perrault's version, leading to a modification of the popular culture's understanding of the Cinderella story. But that's a bit too much for this post.]
III/ The apotheosis of the stage-trick
"Over-the-top" and "way-too-much" could be described as the mottos of the féerie shows. The art of the stage-trick reaches summums as the century goes forward - their evolution can be considered between 1806 and the invention of the cinema. In fact, the talent of the authors was often overshadowed or erased by the genius of the set-makers and the name of the trick-inventors, who earned as much money and fame if not more than the writers. The ironic thing being that "magical illusions" do not require very advanced or difficult techniques. You just need a character, identified by the audience as a fairy, to pretend to use magical powers in order to create an "expectation of the wonder". Then anything can happen, and the smallest modification of the ordinary order of things can pass off as "magic". In "La Chatte merveilleuse", the fairy-cat's powers manifest when, by using her wand, she prevents the other characters from speaking or moving, or manipulates their gestures for comical effects. These "easy tricks" work all throughout the 19th century, and if well interpreted, especially in theater or ballet, they create a true feeling of magic when you just have false words or implicit movements.
The 19th century also sees the return and the persistant use of a trick as old as a century and a half: a change of area, a movement of the settings, done in full view of the audience and justified by the intervention of a supernatural power. Tables filled with food appear, illuminating lamps descend from the ceiling, trapdoors open, cars and chariots appear... The only thing that evolved was the rapidity and fludity of those changes, but the principle is the same ever since the Italian Renaissance. However there are new techniques appearing in the mid-19th century: 1838's Cinderella is a marking step in this regard. In this "vaudeville-féere in three days", the classical units are broken in favor of the spectacular: the staging uses "transparencies" to make appear imaginary characters, supposed in-story to be summoned by magic, but it is also the first use ever in a Cinderella of an apotheosis. From 1838 onward, as the plot gets more complex the tableaux and the tricks multiply, until we reach the bloated "great féerie of 1866". Thirty tableaux, three authors, three set-designers and one trick-maker! Across its five acts we go from the manor of La Pinchonnière (owned by the father of Fleurette-Cendrillon) to the greenhouses of king Hurluberlu XIX, from the mountain of the fire-genie Farhulaz to the grotto of Luciole the fairy of glowing worms. And the plot is complexified by the addition of farcical episodes and nocturnal scenes, with the kidnapping of the heroine by Farhulaz, and the apparition of a Court of Love, and all sorts of adventures only here to add to the spectacular, and to allow the audience to see lightly-dressed women (Charming being played by Mme Desclozas), all under blasting electric lights and an apotheosis at the end of every act!
Several of the scenes in there still use the model of Etienne and the music of Nicolo, such as when the fairy uses her wand to change the opera song of Mme de La Houspignole into a bawdy song. However, unlike with the 1810 opéra-féerie, here the character of the fairy is essential. The fairy Luciole is heavily used for all the un-hidden stage changes - such as when she has a marble staircase turn into a winged chariot that takes her throughout the sky in view of the audience. She even brings incredibly complex effects: in one scene, she has all the furnitures "crawl over the wall" up to the ceiling, while another set of furniture turn on themselves and upside-down, while the room itself goes upside-down, the ceiling becomes the floor and the floor the ceilings ; and the characters end up screaming with fright attached to the floor-now-ceiling.
(Below is a newspaper parody of all the grandiloquent Cinderella plays that were made at the time)
Luciole is so important that she closes the stage, marrying Prince Charming and Cinderella in the middle of an "apotheosis in four parts". Yet, it is Charming that offers the moral of the story: "What good would it be for me to be a prince if I had to justify my whims? If I could only have ordinary desires? If I was forced to make possible all the orders that I give?"
Of course, these shows receive the same criticism that the operas had in the 17th century. The machines made too much noise, the special effects took too long, the plot was ridiculous and vain, the text felt useless and flat... So much so that, to point out how literature disappeared behind the technique, La Lune newspaper published a drawing of a vulgar, worn-out, cheap shoe with the caption "Here is the slipper of the only artist within the house, the machine-worker."
This marke the end of the theatrical vogue of "big Cinderella shows" - even though a few remaining works would soon enchant audiences everywhere for a lasting time, such as Méliès' movie or Prokofiev's creation on Volkov's libretto - with a special mention to Nouréjev's 1986 choreography. As Jean Anouilh wrote in his "Useless Fables": "A fairy godmother, it is useful for a ball's night at the opera!"
So I’ve seen the latest Cinderella movie, and as it is my favorite fairy tale, I’m gonna say a few things about it:
First off, this is not really a “Cinderella” movie - Ella isn’t the typical kind and forgiving and gentle girl you see, and while that’s a character choice I didn’t like at first, I came around and now I see that she has those traits, she’s just also funny and awkward and headstrong, and those traits overshadow the traits that make a Cinderella. In most other adaptations of fairytales, this “girlboss” characterization doesn’t work, but it fits very well in this one.
There’s also no real abuse or servitude at the hands of her stepfamily besides half a scene and a couple offhand mentions, and no emotional trauma because of it. If you’re looking for either of these two things that typically characterize Cinderella movies, 2015 Cinderella did it best.
I see a lot of people screaming “girlboss!” and “fake-woke” and “Mary Sue!” And yeah, I get that, but it works. I have a couple things to complain about Billy Porter’s character, but as far as the Ella-entrepreneur thing goes, I like it. Again, for the millionth time, this doesn’t really explore the typical themes of a Cinderella movie. It’s not really a fresh take, premise-wise, but it works. Also, this Ella is not a “not like other girls” character - she performs femininity and is still a strong character.
This is a POP JUKEBOX MUSICAL. I did not know that coming into it, so on the first watch I was underwhelmed.
The costumes and props for extras are all over the place period-wise, but you just gotta get used to the chaos and let it be.
The song choices are also all over the place, and you just have to sit back and let it happen. It ends up more or less working.
I loved the original songs; Million to One was very generic, but lovely nonetheless. Dream Girl stole the show for me - I’ll talk more about it later, but it was incredible.
Somebody to Love was either Queen heresy or simultaneously the most flamboyant, hilarious, and sexy thing I’ve ever seen. I can’t decide.
Really, this movie has some good points to make, but really it’s just a fun movie that’s not to be taken too seriously. Again, if you want that kind of Cinderella movie, go watch 2015 Cinderella.
The running sea monster gag was hilarious. Honestly? Most of the jokes hit their mark. This is a funny, feel-good movie.
The image of Pierce Brosnan screaming “GET OFF MY DAD” is now burned in my brain. I love it.
The whole sleazeball Thomas plotline doesn’t have enough screentime, so it doesn’t have much emotional impact.
Also, why is Ella lying on the bed and being really depressed??? I think in that scene she was supposed to be feeling that way bcs Vivian had just told her the prince was gonna marry that other princess (who is DEFINITELY a lesbian) but that just didn’t play out in the scene. Girl you got a hot queen to go meet and a future to chase!!!
QUEEN Tatiana is the hottest one in the movie. I take no criticism.
“Your Highness was the man whose blood I spilled to take this crown” ICONIC
I will wax poetry about Fra Fee and the definitely totally 100% canon relationship between Fra/Hench and Wibur
Honestly, you can tell that everyone on this movie just had fun. Half the time the background characters, like Robert’s posse, are just straight up vibing, and Camilla and Billy Porter really play off of each other. You can just tell that everyone making this was having a good time. Really living their best lives
I like Gwen a lot. Like, she was played off for laughs, but you connect with her as a character far more than you’d expect, just from the few lines she has in Am I Wrong and whatever other songs she’s in. I wish we had gotten to have more of her, and more interactions with characters that weren’t jokes. I especially wish we could have seen more of her interacting with her brother
I like her line “don’t let them control your life” in Am I Wrong - she says it to her brother, who is waking up to the realization that his life is mapped out by people that want to control him, and he doesn’t want any part of it. This is what she’s lived with for years and years, always being told to sit down and shut up and be a decoration, although she has meaningful contributions. She’s telling him to rebel, because that’s what she’s been doing; she understands how he feels, and she’s encouraging him. Gwen’s a chiche character, but those few lines she has in Am I Wrong give her more characterization and meaning than either of the stepsisters.
Honestly… Billy Porter was advertised as a “nonbinary fairy godmother,” but really he just plays the Gay™️ character, and Corden refers to him with he/him pronouns (obviously not all nb ppl use they/them pronouns, and many use he/him but I still feel like it was false advertising). Fab G was fun nevertheless, although VERY stereotypical gay with a capital G (I mean his first onscreen word is “Work!” Seriously. I’m not kidding. Ugh.) and his costume was absolutely GORGEOUS. Honestly all the characters’ costumes were incredible, and although I wasn’t a fan of the stepfamily’s floral prints, generally all of the costumes were beautiful. Which is fitting for a movie about a dressmaker.
Queen Beatrice was incredible and the dynamic between her and Rowan was just great. I’ve been tired by the “queen is either always dead or just a silent witness there to be nurturing and motherly, and occasionally a plot device with no characterization” trope. So I was so happy to see that Beatrice was an actual character! And can we talk about her rant at Rowan?? “Do you know how hard it is to just sit at your side and smile endlessly, like a decoration? My voice, completely silenced?” Up to that point, she’s only broken out of the “nurturing and motherly silent witness” type that I expected going into the movie with a few lines here and there. But this is where she tells Rowan, and the audience, that she knows what we expected of her, and she knows what she was doing. This is another subtle way the movie uses the stereotypes of a Cinderella movie against the audience.
One line that stood out to me in a very random place was Robert saying “you’ll be dressed by the finest dressmakers!” And Ella saying “I am a dressmaker.” It’s not the fashion she cares about, it’s getting to do what she loves.
Ok now I’m gonna talk IN DEPTH about Vivian, the stepmother
She’s a harsh, stern woman, but she also manages to be dynamic and stereotype-breaking— we’ve all seen the “villain has a tragic backstory” narrative before, but this pulls it off very well.
I really loved how they changed the Stepmother - like, throughout the movie, you keep waiting for her to do something just… needlessly cruel, but she never does. I’ll admit, the scene where she forbids Ella to go to the ball gets pretty close, but that just seems pretty in character for her, plus emotions are running high.
And even in that scene, you can tell that she expected Thomas to choose one of her daughters, not Ella, but she needs the money and security (it’s heavily implied that they’ve fallen on hard times after Ella’s father’s death), so even though it’s a blow to her and her daughters’ pride, she accepts.
I think that’s the beauty of it - you think Vivian is a manipulative, scheming monster, because that’s what you expect of the Evil Stepmother. But you come to realize that Vivian is just a hardhearted woman who’s been exploited and hurt, and she was being genuine throughout the film. When she told Ella she was sorry she hadn’t told her about the betrothal earlier, she meant it. That’s not to say she’s a good person, or that any of these things are excusable; it’s just to say that this film used the stereotypes against the audience.
Not to mention how, when she discovers Ella was the girl at the ball, she begs her on her knees to marry the prince! She’s not angry or jealous, she knows Ella will be happier and they will all be infinitely better off! I noticed how she immediately started being more tender with Ella, calling her family and such, subtle manipulation, and although I found it slightly out of character, because she hadn’t been *actually* manipulative anywhere else in the movie, I don’t think she meant it maliciously or even selfishly.
She admits that she was foolish to think either of her daughters could compete with any of the other princesses, not in a deprecating way towards the stepsisters, but in an “how could they ever compete with such riches, nobility, beauty, and talent in a world they were not born into” way. Also, no one ever makes jokes about Malvolia’s weight, which is something I appreciate, although I would appreciate not having a fat Ugly Stepsister at all, even if they deliberately cast out the Ugly part.
She doesn’t deprecate any of her daughters about things like their talents or looks, only their work/husband-catching skills
Can we talk about how Dream Girl???!?! How harsh and stoic she is in it, and then how close she is to breaking down as she lets everything out on the piano????
“The treasure you found: bury it. The only way out: marry it.” I like how this film highlights that the only (accessible) way out of poverty, abuse, and bad situations for women is to marry out of them. Of course, Ella proves that there is another way: women can make their own way, but it’s worth noting that Ella couldn’t do it on her own, and without her example, other girls probably wouldn’t ever be able to either.
“All that hope, and that pride/It’s a waste, it’s a lie”
“You’re so blind, you’re so green/You’ll give up, just like me”
“The wings are ornamental/They have no intention of letting you fly”
Man those lyrics hit
Anyways I think that’s it if you read all this way thank you idk how to do cuts or I would’ve spared you all this
It’s pretty hard to top Whitney’s vocals. And Brandy was one of my favorite singers back in the late 90s. This was a great updated homage to the original Rodgers and Hammerstein.
Original Rodgers and Hammerstein - Cinderella, 1965
This is a classic. Great music and story.
Personal Favorite - Slipper and the Rose, 1976
The costumes are gorgeous. There’s some dry humor. The songs are unique. It’s just fun and a little more well-rounded on the story side than the Rodgers and Hammerstein versions.
Non-musical Spin - Ever After, 1998
I need to rewatch this, but it was super cute and the prince was pretty swoon-worthy.
These are the ones I’ve seen. Here’s a link to others that I’m going to look into and see if I can watch somewhere. (I know the Kenneth Branagh live action one is supposed to be really good. I just haven’t seen it yet.)
