#lazy disney deisgns

[usssnarfblat]

Lazy Disney Designs Rant: The clothing in "Cinderella" (1950)

This rant does not pertain to everything in the movie.

"Cinderella" absolutely deserves its status as a Disney masterpiece, for Mary Blair's gorgeous background designs; that castle; the famous ballgown transformation scene (Walt's favorite piece of animation); and that pumpkin carriage. That. Friggin. Pumpkin carriage!

ut I guess something had to give, and spending all that time and energy on those things meant slacking on some others. Like the clothing.

Now I did mention Cindy's rags, homemade dress, and ballgown in my "Eilonwy" rant. They're better designs than hers, since Cindy's outfits at least give you a clue. But "The Black Cauldron" is a pretty low bar.

With what Disney was capable of in 1950, and the fact that this movie really needed to be a "hit" to save the company, it's a bit surprising that Cinderella's ballgown is so simplistic, and that her "rags" are...not, really.

The Rags:

Both Snow White and Betty Boop look far more beaten down. Disney's Cinderella looks like she could take that apron off and walk right into town. (For the record, Betty Boop's "Poor Cinderella" short dates to 1934, before even "Snow White," long before Disney's "Cinderella.")

Granted, Betty Boop's "Poor Cinderella" is only ten minutes long, and Snow's rags are onscreen for probably less than that. But surely just one or two more rips, or some patches? Maybe dull down that baby-blue blouse?

Fairy Godmother:

In 1934's "Poor Cinderella," Betty Boop's Fairy Godmother floats out of a candle flame, and has a more elaborate getup than I'd expected from a "Betty Boop" short!

Walt Disney's first fairy was its ethereal Blue Fairy in 1940's "Pinocchio." That same year, "Fantasia" showed us a host of gods and cherubs.

Since "Sleeping Beauty" came nine years after "Cinderella," I won't count those (vastly superior) fairies.

But with all the different magical entities viewers had seen onscreen by 1950, when it came time for the famous Walt Disney company to adapt the tale of the original "fairy godmother"--in a movie that, again, specifically needed to be a "hit" to save the company-- the best they could come up with was Mr. Smee in drag.

Yes, I know "Peter Pan" came after this, but whatever.

Even if they wanted her to be unassuming and humble looking, they could at least have come up with....I don't know, something. Something besides a marshmallow in a bowtie.

The Ballgown:

Oh sure it sparkles, and the transformation scene is brilliant. But for a fairy tale where the ballgown is so iconic to the story, and it being adapted by the most famous animation company in the world, it's surprisingly simplistic.

I've talked before about the little details Disney managed to give past characters' outfits, despite the limits of animation in that era. Even Cinderella's twin Katrina Van Tassel at least has some lace stuff.

And recall that Cinderella's ballgown isn't onscreen for much longer than the "Sleepy Hollow" short, or any segment of "Fantasia."

And recall that Snow White wore that outfit for most of her movie.

By the way, here's Betty Boop's ballgown--again, from 1934.

Yeah, Disney Cindy's dress is more sparkly and elegant, but look at the ruffles and details on this. They couldn't have given Disney's Cinderella something like that, underneath the glitter?

Even Betty Boop's evil stepsisters had more elaborate outfits than the bland one's the Disney stepsisters wear, but I can't put more than ten images in one post, so you'll have to use your imaginations.

In Conclusion,

Walt Disney's "Cinderella" has some stellar animation in terms of the backgrounds, the magical transformations, and that pumpkin carriage; but they slacked major on the "costuming."

This concludes this "Lazy Disney Designs" rant. Atlantica, I'm coming for you next.