And the Emperor Wears Nada ...

Rating: 7/10 (15 March 2015)

Indeed, how could a movie so in-line with the world of fashion be so old-fashioned in its overall plot line?
One redeeming quality though is that beyond the fashion facade, "Devil Wears Prada" pays a powerful tribute to all these authoritarian figures we spent time hating in mind privacy before realizing how enormous their contribution to our lives were... that there will be a 'before' and an 'after' them.
I had a teacher like that in Prep school, constantly squeezing out the best of my potential, and the hardest way. I remember standing during four hours correcting an exam, enduring all the year her "this is pathetic" comments... until that magical day where I was prepared and all she could say was "very good" leaving everyone in the amphitheater jaw- dropped.
I never had anyone like that in my life again, and if I had, maybe my internship in a famous cosmetic company, so close in-universe to the Runway magazine (the Vogue ambiance fictionalized in the film), would've ended more positively. To some extent, this film opened my eyes and its premise and Meryl Streep's performance make the most effective aspects.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film consists on a succession of clichés that didn't befit its ambitions, and the actors aren't to blame. As the editor of Runway Magazine, Miranda Priestley, Meryl Streep can get away with everything. Even if she looks like Cruella De Vil's hidden sister,
you can see in her eyes, a hint of tiredness or compassion that gives a subtle note of three-dimensionality underneath the usual villain's archetypes.
Similarily, even Stanley Tucci who plays Nigel, one of the most overused job trends as the effeminate gay designer, is convincing, so is Anne Hathaway as the naive rookie who learns the ropes... almost. She gives the first wrong signal when her carelessness to the world of fashioned is exaggerated by her ridiculous clothes, something begging to inspire the most excruciating mockeries, before the 'dramatic change', naturally.
I remember in "Miss Congeniality", despite a cinematic knowledge younger of 15 years, I didn't buy the way they tried to make Sandra Bullock masculine and I saw a sexy walk in a sexy dress coming one mile away. And when you have a 5'8 girl like Anne Hathaway with a lovely face, no matter how desperately you try to hide it, the 'dramatic change' doesn't share the same surprising impact than Olivia Newton- John in "Grease".
And why did she change anyway? To show that just because her appearance changed, competence and competitiveness would follow? I guess I could have accepted it but her style wasn't even in the accused box, in a quite well-written scene, Miranda Priestly explains the flashy history of the so-called casual clothing. A little contradictory but let's say it was the first step for Andrea aka Andy aka Miranda's new slave... I mean, assistant, to take her job seriously. Fair enough.
Then, came the crucial "Harry Potter" episode when she couldn't bring the manuscript so she decided to give up, and her boyfriend, a cook, was okay with that. Then, she realized her efforts paid off when a contact gets her the precious pages. Fine. Why doesn't she say that to her boyfriend, instead of "finally, I realized I shouldn't give up" leaving up the very details that could convince him that maybe she's fit to the job.
That's what the film lacked more, a realistic antagonism and there were so many to chose : the friends could've been interesting dream-killers, but then fashion wasn't Andy's dream anyway, she wanted to be a journalist, but why not making it her dream ? It's an adaptation or Lauren Weisberger's best–selling report of her experience with Anna Wintour, but why not taking even more distance if it's worth spicing up the story.
And how about Emily the co-assistant? Emily Blunt was noticed for her supporting performance, but more could've been done with her. She starts as a mean bitchy jealous, then she seems to help her and then, well, as motivated as she was to travel to Paris, she makes an effort to screw everything by appearing sick, snoozing on Miranda and forgetting a guest's name.
Of course, she gets fired, why should Andy be surprised, if one thing, Emily dug her grave. Yet Andy feels guilty but then Emily bumps into a car and can't go to Paris anyway. Emily was written to be a rival, a mentor, a pro, a failure, a comic relief yet in each role, she was severely under-characterized. And under-characterization is symptomatic of what is wrong in the film.
Andy's friends are written as reactive people who noticed how she changed, they didn't serve any other purpose than injecting some guilt in Andy's heart, while in the main time, the film makes us feel that she's making progresses, yet it should be wrong and we never know who is supposed to be right, Andy, Miranda or the friends? And the friends are so unlikable that we don't even want to agree with them. We loved Gordon Gekko as a mentor but we still found him despicable. There's nothing to root for here, except Andy.
She's doing great and Miranda seems to appreciate her efforts, everything is paying off and then, in the laziest bits of screen writing, we're supposed to 'realize' with Andy, that this isn't the kind of job one should dream of because it makes you hurt your friends. And nothing rung falser than that phone she threw in a Parisian fountain.
To some extent, I guess it disappointed me because it reminded of that internship. I gave up happily but I gave up nonetheless.