Le diable s'habille en Prada

This is a glossy and mostly entertaining film, if a little shallow in terms of story and depth. However, there is a well-written script, that sometimes borders toward predictability, and nice camera-work, not to mention the fashionable costumes. The film's main merit is the performance of Meryl Streep, who rarely disappoints in anything she's in. Here she seems to be relishing the role of the hard-to-please Melinda Priestly. Anne Hathaway of Princess Diaries fame, is very charming and suitably dorky as Andrea Sachs, though I will say her clothes at the beginning of the film were hideous. There is also scene stealing support from Emily Blunt, who delights in making catty remarks throughout the film, and Stanley Tucci, who helps transform Andrea from her former self. One may question whether the film is too long, but it's very fast-paced, so I didn't have a problem with the length. The few criticisms I had with the Devil Wears Prada, is the predictability of the story, and sometimes the lack of depth. Overall, an 8/10 Bethany Cox.

With dialog that absolutely crackles, "The Devil Wears Prada" is bound to please most audiences but will primarily appeal to the MTV generation, I suspect. When all is said and done, it's your typical fish-out-of-water, bright-lights-big-city fable, just dressed up all purdy.

Or, put another way, it's essentially "The Princess Diaries" with much, much, muuuuuuuuuch better dialog and a slightly more sophisticated and dramatic story arc.

So while older audiences may feel the film is a bit formulaic, the hysterical, but occasional cruel, one-liners and zingers hurled at Anne Hathaway's Andy are sure to keep them entertained. Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt get most of the barbs, and Blunt in particular is fantastic in the film.

Tucci and Meryl Streep, however, get to make the most provocative and stirring speeches in the film, and they deliver. Hathaway capably carried the movie, perhaps overacting, but she makes it work. Streep proves again that she's a gifted comedian. Emily Blunt, as Emily, is pitch perfect, and her performance here gives beautiful irony to her given name.

The film is just too long, however, primarily because the director feels obliged to explain everything -- every plot point is rendered obviously and painfully clear, and nothing left open for interpretation. That said, we're spared the "perfect ending" and left with a heroine who can truly stand on her own two feet, and in any shoes she might desire.

I got a chance to see a sneak preview, and it was better than expected. First, I have to say that I've never read the book. My friend who saw it with me read it, and she said that the movie was pretty faithful to the book.

The movie stars Anne Hathaway, a writer who winds up applying for, and getting the second assistant position to the Editor-in-Chief of THE fashion magazine called "Runway." Her boss is played by the always fantastic Meryl Streep. While she gets less screen time in the movie, her mean looks and bitchy attitude makes her character stick with you. Also, the movie does give you some soft moments to make her a little more sympathetic than she was portrayed in the novel (or so my friend told me). I do wonder whether or not this movie would've worked if Meryl's character was male instead of female.

I won't bore you with the other plot details because it was actually fun to not know how it unravels. Without the novel to go by, it was fun to figure out what bad thing was going to happen to her next. I do have to say that the movie has achieved the balance of being cute but not corny. You also get to understand why she just takes it all instead of just quitting to begin with. It's funny enough to make you laugh out loud, but more importantly, it's a great film to escape to. Hey, at least for the majority of us, we can come out of the theater and say, "At least my boss isn't like that."

We in the United States like to believe that we reside in a country without royalty and nobility. The only people who think that there is true egalitarianism have never worked in the Entertainment and Media Industries. There is an aristocratic elite, no question, and it is not exactly made up of politicians (although there are some). It is largely composed of those who control media, particularly in television, film, radio, music, fashion, and print. They control what get's seen and what doesn't. When these people put on huge events that involve the press, cameras, and limousines, the public comes out to pay unquestioned homage to these elites, often on the sideline behind a barricade. With cameras flashing, these people are treated like the royalty of the 17th and 18th centuries. "The Devil Wears Prada" examines what is like to be in the inner circle of one of these elites.

In addition to the public's clamoring to glimpse these powerful elites, another segment of the population desires to become one of these people by trying to "break into" the media business. Since there are many more people who dream of being in these circles than there are spots available, this gives enormous power to those already on the inside, particularly those who have sway to either make or break an up-and-coming career. "The Devil Wears Prada" chronicles an aspiring journalist who lands a dream job that, she is told, "thousands would kill for": being the personal assistant to the editor of one of the largest fashion magazines, Runway, whose editor-in-chief makes Bill Gates seem like a softy. The character, Miranda Priestly (played by Meryl Streep in a tour-de-force Oscar-nominated performance) is in fact modeled after real-life Vogue Magazine editor Anna Wintour whose chilling detachment from those around her, her ability to make or break fashion careers, and her cut-throat demands on her staff have become legendary throughout the fashion world.

In the film, the corporation that is "Runway" is no democracy. It is feudalism, with Mirander the absolute queen ruling over her dominion of serfs who constantly scatter about trying to please her. The central character, Andy Sachs, is plunged into this Madison Avenue purgatory without knowing the rules of the game. A journalism-major from Northwestern, Andy knows next to nothing about the fashion world, but it's not just the fashion world--it's the world of the elite in New York. Since everyone wants to gain favor from the higher-ups in order to step up the ladder, there's often over-the-top deference to those in elite positions. I half-expected her female assistants to curtsy when Mirander entered the office. Mirander knows perfectly-well her status and she uses it, often flaunts it, to her advantage. Her staff run around like castle servants anticipating the arrival of the Lady of the Manor.

Streep is magnificent as her voice never reaches past mezzo-piano. When one of her staff has transgressed, or simply cannot fulfill her expectation (I doubt Superman could hold a job there), in the softest tone possible she expresses her disappointment. And yet, the anticipation of her negative reaction is what makes for moments of anti-gravitational intensity. Of course, she never compliments anyone when they've done well. Excellent performance is taken for granted in this kingdom. I've never found the raging tyrant frightening. Rather, it is the even-tempered soft-spoken empress with absolute power who sends anyone who to displeases her to the block with a disinterested wave of the figure that is the most terrifying.

At one point in the film, Andy chuckles when Miranda fusses over some seemingly identical-looking belts which of course spawns a lecture about how Andy's current wardrobe was in fact created by the fashion elite. This does point to another side of the fashion facade which I think may be the point of the film. If you take away the cameras, the celebrities, the allure, the models posing in museums wearing the latest by Christian Dior, at the end of the day all this is about is just jackets, belts, purses, skirts, dresses, and pants. I think one of the characters says as much. These clothes may look wonderful, even stunning, but that's all they are. They are lifeless pieces of fabric cut in a certain way to make the wearer look appealing but that's all it is. The fashion industry of course needs to perpetuate the idea that clothing is much more than clothing: that beautiful fashions will create fairy-tale existences for the purchasers. They are meant to represent a life of luxury and splendor and the purchase of these articles will bring you closer to that reality. When it doesn't, you need to buy more of these clothes. And you need to read Runway (aka Vogue) to tell you what you should buy. Of course, the only ones who actually have these fairy tale existences are the ones providing the clothes. Most of the people buying these fashions are still behind the barricade. Is there an irony here?

Phil Spector invented modern pop music. Oh, some elements shift from time to time and different performer types are selected to posture in front. But the basic formula is one of filling all the holes. He called it "wall of sound," but Eric Clapton popularized the notion that the lead defines "holes" and its the job of the producer to fill them all.

It has to do with some hardwired notion of richness in the way we perceive things. My own theory is that usually we encounter things that to be understood have to be placed in some sort of context. We have to provide that context by being whole beings who have our own world and understand it. But we don't, usually. We're incomplete, lazy about this. We want prefabricated worlds to provide context and eliminate ambiguities.

That's why we prefer it when an object comes with its own context, like in pop music where there is no vacuum for us to use. Fashion is the same way: there's some sort of bold statement, but it only works if all the holes are filled with accompanying items and attitudes.

And its the same with movies. If you want a movie to be popular, to sit well in the popular eye, you need to make it lush in the small. This project shows signs that it is carefully produced in this way. Look at what happens in the backgrounds: colors, energy, motion. Look at what happens in the blocking: compound events conflated. Look at even the simple setup where a friend sees our young heroine flirt with a suitor. There's a huge amount of attention paid to the environment and the people which surround her.

A Paris street walk is another very fine example.

It isn't as valuable as what I usually look for: actual cinematic art. This is more craft, stagecraft. But it is well enough done to be admired. And entirely apt for a story about an industry that does the same thing.

+++++

There are essentially four characters in this. The boss, our young writer, the "first assistant" who is placed in between in several ways, and the gay (we infer) fashion expert who is placed in between in other ways.

Part of the richness is that each of these is fuller than the usual "lesson" movie would have. All four are compelling performances. But if you haven't yet seen this, I'd like you to pay particular attention to Emily Blount. She's the number 1 assistant.

You've probably seen her before in the very special "My Summer of Love," something human about love and seductions. I think she's a real talent, something different than the others. Oh, they're very good at what they do, finding the right notes. But this woman has something else, something more visceral.

You see, you can dance your own context into this and turn it from something that has no room for you. Try it by following the Emily Blount character, whose name is also Emily. (Hathaway's character is the "new Emily.")

+++++

The moral issue we are meant to capture is more sophisticated than usual, too. Streep's character isn't a devil at all. She isn't quite a useful person in the manner that she actually creates. She doesn't make anything. She doesn't create or design or do anything normally considered the root of the food chain in term of value.

She's part journalist, a sort of elevated, influential journalism that Anne's character doesn't have the horsepower to accept. She's also an arbiter of what matters. Its not a new notion, that some journalists create the world they present, and make it seem real by absolute consistency and projected confidence. Its what politics is. Fashion and politics, religion.

That final challenge, about whether our young journalist will follow what she sees as the devil, that final challenge is more complex than it seems. And though this is a mainstream movie, part of the enrichment is that they didn't tone it down. And they left us with the conclusion that the girl left and wrote the story we see, one which casts the successful worldbuilder as the devil.

++++

Speaking about worldbuilders and fashion. To appreciate this movie, you must see the one on which it relies, "Funny Face." Audrey Hepburn, with the smile that Hathaway mines. Similar situation: fashion, clunky girl becomes fashionably adept, conflict between the "real" and pretend (in that case, philosophy). A trip to Paris — some of the very same establishing shots in fact. An ambiguous resolution that in Hepburn's case involved photography instead of writing.

That movie made Jackie Kennedy possible, which made Jack Kennedy president, and from there, another "wall of sound" that built a reality, incidentally concurrent with the rise of Phil Spector...

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.