Would Cruella have grounds to sue Roger?

[cardinal biggles]

I just finished watching the new two-disc "platinum edition" DVD of Disney's classic One Hundred and One Dalmatians, and a thought occurred to me while I was watching it.

Toward the end of the film, just before the dogs return home, Roger is listening to his song "Cruella de Vil" play on the radio, and Anita comments about the song being a hit and making him a lot of money.

While the song's lyrics (see below) are all certainly true regarding her character, and despite her involvement with the theft of Pongo and Perdita's puppies, isn't it possible that Cruella would still have grounds for a defamation of character lawsuit against Roger? Or would the song be regarded as parody?

Cruella De Vil
Cruella De Vil
If she doesn't scare you
No evil thing will.

To see her is to take a sudden chill
Cruella, Cruella De Vil.

The curl of her lips
The ice in her stare
All innocent children had better beware.

She's like a spider waiting for the kill.
Look out for Cruella De Vil

At first you think Cruella is the devil
But after time has worn away the shock
You come to realize
You've seen her kind of eyes
Watching you from underneath a rock.

This vampire bat
This inhuman beast
She ought to be locked up and never released.

The world was such a wholesome place until...
Cruella, Cruella De Vil...​

 

[Gepard]

I could certainly imagine she might try a lawsuit. Whether or not it would hold up in court, I don't know, but I can imagine a lawyer taking the case.

However, the last thing we need to do is provide Disney the plot for 103 Dalmations.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I'm sure they have armies laboring away at this crap already. Or at least they did before John Lasseter became the new sheriff in town.

 

[Sephiroth]

but thier still coming out with Mulan 3: East Meets West

 

[Trekker4747]

For deflamation of character she'd have to proove in court how she was harmed by the song and directly show how it was harmed by her. If she's a public enough figure it *may* be possible she's just open to these kinds of parodies. Afterall, SNL doesn't get sued for deflamation of character for their various parodies on their show.

What's more, Curella would have to prove that the claims in the song were false and unrepresentive of her which might be tough considering everything that happened over the course of the movie. So, really, she wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on.

However, this comes from my understanding of American law and I believe 101 Dalmations takes place in England.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Sometimes I can't believe some of the threads I read. You think you've seen everything on the Internets, and then someone asks a question about fictional characters in a Disney movie with talking dogs suing each other. I love it!

She might have grounds to sue, sadly. I could actually see it happening, and even though she's sitting in prison she'd have royalties for the song pouring in. Luckily nobody has to worry about these things in Disney land (but not Disneyland...did you hear about the woman who was sentenced to jail for beating up another woman while waiting in line?). Interesting question though.

 

[Kegek]

Any lady who calls herself Cruella De Vil is just asking to be made fun of.

However, this comes from my understanding of American law and I believe 101 Dalmations takes place in England.

She's got grounds, as I understand it English law is particularly different from American in this field. The onus of proof isn't on the person who claims they were defamed; but the person allegedly guilty of defamation: They must prove that their work does not defame the person in question. Or so I recall...

 

[Mr. Fergy]

^ I think she does. But remember it's the 1960's and Disney.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

I would think that as a most likely well known fashion designer she would qualify as a public figure and be open to such forms of parody. But that's going by American law. British law could be very very different.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Did we ever know what she did in the 1961 film? I know in the Glenn Close version she was the CEO of a fashion design company (and Anita worked for her), but I don't recall her having an established job. I just figured she was some rich psycho obsessed with furs.

 

[M'Sharak]

Did we ever know what she did in the 1961 film? I know in the Glenn Close version she was the CEO of a fashion design company (and Anita worked for her), but I don't recall her having an established job. I just figured she was some rich psycho obsessed with furs.

The last sentence is pretty much it. In both the original book and the 1961 adaptation she's a former classmate of one of the Dearlys/(Radcliffes?) -- a spoiled child of inherited wealth used to having her own way, now married to a furrier.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^Yeah, in the novel and the live-action film, Roger's surname was Dearly. It was only Radcliffe in the animated film.

On an separate note, seeing the '61 film again for the first time in at least a decade has made me seek out the original novel, just for comparison. I know from watching the special features on Disc 2 that author Dodie Smith wrote screenwriter Bill Peet to thank him, and say that he'd actually improved on her novel, something you seldom hear from authors when their movies make it to the silver screen.

 

[M'Sharak]

...author Dodie Smith wrote screenwriter Bill Peet to thank him, and say that he'd actually improved on her novel, something you seldom hear from authors when their movies make it to the silver screen.

True. It did occur to me that such a sentiment might be especially rare for authors whose works were adapted into Disney movies, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I'd be interested in knowing how many authors were actually around to react when their works were adapted by Disney. Unless Uncle Walt was holding séances to gauge the responses of Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, etc.

 

[M'Sharak]

You've got a point. Not much comment from that quarter, one way or the other.