Notes from the Field
Hello! Sorry for the unexpected week off. I’ve just started a new job with a long commute and I’ve been dealing with that adjustment. Don’t worry, I won’t talk too much about it because I’m also in therapy now (congratulations are in order).
I’m going to try to keep doing two bigger editions a month and other content in the interim and ideally I’ll minimize the amount of random weeks I take off. That said, if you don’t see me in your inbox for one week, you can hopefully expect to see me in there again soon.
Without any further ado, let’s get into it.
The Cinderella of it All
The __ of it All is a mainstay of the mixed bag newsletters in which I dive deep into a pop culture story or phenomenon and break it down for those who didn’t do the required reading.
As you’ve probably heard by now, a sick, twisted new version of “Cinderella” dropped. It stars noted alleged beard to Shawn Mendes, Camila Cabello and features well-paid set-pieces like Billy Porter, Minnie Driver, Idina Menzel, and Pierce Brosnan.
Now I have little to no interest in litigating the relative quality of this film as it relates to the ghosts of Cinderellas past, however I am deeply interested in why this movie exists. Because when it comes down to it, Cinderella is an old, (potentially) played out tale. What could this new jukebox musical movie veneer have to offer? Let’s get into what Cinderella is and has been and what it purports to be in its latest incarnation.
Cinderella as a story has been around for ages. It was passed down in ancient Greek oral tradition and eventually made its way into Giambatista Basile’s Pentamerone, a 1634 fairy-tale collection that inspired the famed Brothers Grimm version (we’ll talk about them later).
In earlier versions, Cinderella was a bit more sparse; there wasn’t so much magic, mischief, and (insert word that starts with m but could conceivably be substituted for a word like drama or intrigue).
The Charles Perrault version from 1697 added in some more lighthearted and charming elements, like the pumpkin carriage of it all, as well as the fairy godmother, and the concept of glass slippers. These additions made the tale much more captivating for children and thusly had staying power.
The Brothers Grimm turned Cinderella into something darker, because that’s kind of their whole vibe. It’s set against the backdrop of a plague, the stepsisters’ attempts to get their feet to fit the glass shoes are more gruesome, and we know more of Cinderella’s mother. On a lighter note, her mother did give her an instruction that kept her in relatively good spirits despite the abuses she suffered; she was told to be good and kind (this line would later be used in Into the Woods).
Perhaps the most notable Cinderella adaptations of all are the 1950 animated film and the 1957 Rogers and Hammerstein TV musical (and later stage musical). Both take the majority of their inspiration from the lighter, cheerier Perrault version of Cinderella but have their own little twists. These are related in a sense, but are firmly distinct versions of the story. (That said, I couldn’t really explain to you what is different about them because they’re perma-blended together in my head because my brain is broken).
And the next most famous adaptation is, of course, the Brandy/Whitney Houston Cinderella. This features a majority Black and POC cast and the music absolutely, positively slaps. Now part of this is because it’s an adaptation of the Rogers and Hammerstein musical, so the bones were incredibly good. But part of it is because it’s Whitney fucking Houston.
Then there are the Cinderella Stories (is the plural “Cinderellas Story” like in the case of cul-de-sac?) and associated “spunky takes” on the classic ale. Who could forget the Hilary Duff/Chad Michael Murray jaunt? And what about its 5, count them, 5 sequels and spin-offs? These are all modernizations of Cinderella aimed at a tween audience in an attempt to expand the greater Cinderella market.
And then there are your Ella Enchanteds and your Ever Afters, which are more transformative than the straight adaptations and Cinderella Story series. These offer more nuanced takes on the Cinderella tale but still play within the world that was so firmly established by years of oral, literary, and cinematic tradition.
Oh, also there was a straight adaptation of 1950 animated Cinderella in 2015. This rounded out the canon of adaptations of adaptations, as most other adaptations stuck to literary sources or the Rogers and Hammerstein musical.
Now that brings us to the Cinderella at hand. The one with Camila Cabello and really bad graphics and shitty arrangements of pop songs and I said I wouldn’t talk about the quality but…I lied. Sorry. It’s hard to ignore just how bad this movie seems from a distance.
Even before watching this one, I knew I hated it. I heard songs from it and watched the trailer and felt an immense amount of discomfort. It looks like so many things made in the year of our Lorde 2021: like something trying too hard to be what some straight white guys think the rest of the world wants to see in their media.
It’s colorful, it has people of color, there’s modern music. And yet…it just doesn’t seem to work. I think this film exists to bridge some perceived gaps in the Cinderella canon. But in reality, those gaps don’t exist. It’s been made from feminist and modernized lenses. It’s been made with people of color. It’s been made with more interesting music. I guess it had only ever had a woman godmother, so kudos to Billy Porter for that one.
But in reality, this is a movie that doesn’t need to exist, that people weren’t really interested in, and that people don’t want to watch. We’ve hit a wall. If everything has to be an adaptation at a point we’re going to run out of creative and interesting ways to adapt. It looks like gritty reboots are a thing of the past (don’t let the door hit ya on the way out, The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina).
And taking something old and mixing up the representation in it feels played out too. Remember woman-led Ghostbusters? That was going to be such a thing and it just…wasn’t. Genderbent or racially diverse remakes targeting a liberal sensibility of inclusion and diversity just seem to miss the mark because they appeal to some audience lost in no-man’s-land between the least and most common denominators.
Part of me wants to say that this movie is endemic of the James Corden-ification of our world. And by that I mean this sort of grating, twee “probably progressive but only for optics” way about it. And the music and dancing is so showy and unnecessary (see Carpool Karaoke). (And if you haven’t seen the heinous video of James Corden fucking the air in front of him in a rat costume during the promotional Cinderella flash mob, I’m so bitterly jealous of you).
But regardless of what brought us here, we’re now left with a Cinderella that on its face doesn’t really have anything to say. This is a story that could conceivably have something to say about abuse and mistreatment or of class consciousness and conflict. But this version just doesn’t go there. Because of course it doesn’t.
I mean it does try to be feminist-y and even makes an environmentalist claim at one very brief moment, but it’s all too on the nose because subtly is dead at least in digital blockbusters. (Maybe subtly never had been born in digital blockbusters).
Also, as one very separate note…everybody has different accents? What the hell is that about? And I’m sorry but if you think for one second you should do a version of “Somebody to Love by Queen” sung by an average at best singer…look in the mirror and ask who’s forsaken you.
All in all, I hope that we can move on from this…from all of this. But this sure is a grim representation of that state of affairs of pop culture.
High School Musical: The Musical: The Series: The Drama: The Segment
This is a recurring segment talking about HSMTMTS and its constituent parts, ie Josh Bassett and Olivia Rodrigo.
The latest Olivia Rodrigo news has very little to do with HSMTMTS but I’m attached to this segment title, so please stay with me.
In some truly watershed moments in pop music, Olivia Rodrigo has not only given writing credits on “good 4 u” to Hayley Williams and Josh Farro of Paramore, but she’s also given up royalties to Paramore and Taylor Swift.
In essence, people have continuously drawn comparisons between select Olivia Rodrigo songs and Taylor Swift and Paramore. In the case of “good 4 u” it was “Misery Business,” and in “deja vu” it was “Cruel Summer.”
The similarities between “good 4 u” and “Misery Business” are indeed striking. Their chord progressions are the same and they share a lot of melodic features. If you want a really good analysis of this, watch this incredible vid by Adam Nealy.
In his video he makes the point that songs can only be so distinct from one another. And more over, he hints at the idea that so often songs are in conversation with one another. And in the case of “good 4 u,” I think that’s the case here. To me, it feels like a sort of love letter to “Misery Business.”
And while I appreciate the giving credit where credit’s due, it’s disheartening to think that there’s now legal precedent for fighting over songs that happen to utilize the same sets of chords in similar ways when there are finite options for chord structure, especially in pop music.
And as for the Taylor Swift problem…this is beyond the pale to me. The comparisons made between “deja vu” and “Cruel Summer” come down to Olivia Rodrigo using an element that Taylor Swift neither invented nor popularized—a cross between a scream and a belt (in theater contexts when done poorly, this is called a screlt).
And the real gall of this is that “Cruel Summer” by Taylor Swift is a song built on a reference to another pop song, “Cruel Summer” by Bananarama. To accuse Olivia of stealing a stylistic choice from Taylor when she named her song after another song is brain rot behavior.
What we have here is a young woman who has been fucked over for making music that’s in conversation with well-established tropes, elements, and themes of pop music.
Like in the case of Cinderella, this is a sign of a grim state of affairs. But hopefully Liv will just write a fucking banger about how frustrating this shit is. And when she does, I’ll write about it.
A farewell
If you liked this, laughed at this, hated this, whatever, please subscribe and read on in the future. I put out long mixed-bag pop culture newsletters like this twice a month and other content ranging from deep-dives to personal essays, playlists, and TV recaps on the off-weeks.
Thank you so much for reading!
I love you (allegedly).
✓