The second part “The Devil Wears Prada” was released all over the world – exactly 20 (!) years after the premiere of the first part. Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci, and Emily Blunt return to their roles in the project. Runway magazine’s editor-in-chief, Miranda Priestley, decides what to do with publishing in an era of print industry decline in the New Segment. Andy Sachs, once Priestley’s protégé, returns to Runaway in a senior position. This film hardly reflects the real problems of journalism, but, as before, it is very beautiful – and will please fans. Film critic Anton Dolin tells the details.
The question “to watch or not” is not worth it. Fans of the first part of “The Devil Wears Prada” will be in for a major sequel this spring. And for those who for some reason passed by the famous film about fashion and glossy journalism, this is of no use at all, no matter how hard you try to convince them.
It’s surprising how little Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, and Emily Blunt have changed, at least in appearance, and Stanley Tucci has matured very little in two decades. Everything is as it was before: New York, Runway magazine (originally Runway), its editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly, her former assistant and rival Andy Sachs, and even the inflexible art director Nigel with his sarcastic remarks. Nostalgia for the past! What’s more, screenwriter Allen Brosh McKenna and director David Frankel manage to maintain the spirit of the source material and its brisk pace (and that’s almost more important).
What is not here at all is the devil mentioned in the title. Even in the 2006 film, he was a rhetorical figure, but the plot still suggests a Faustian bargain: commercial professional integrity and a desire for truth for Paris Fashion Week and a Chanel wardrobe, and you’ll be happy. Then Streep made an excellent Mephistopheles – after fifty, the great actress began to enjoy roles of charismatic antagonists, from the cruel nun (“Doubt”) to the sarcastic American president (“Don’t Look Up”). Former Disney Princess Hathaway played the heroine who managed to resist temptation.
Now Andy Sachs has safely moved into the adult category. In “The Devil Wears Prada 2” there’s no way for her to pretend to be a newbie; Twenty years of active investigative journalism does not breed gullibility and good faith. As for Priestley, her evil and diabolical traits were revealed to the world long ago; There is no room left for exposure. What should we make a movie about? Where can I get the materials needed for the conflict?
It’s time to remember that Frankel is, to put it mildly, not a distinguished director, and his calling card remains the original “The Devil Wears Prada”; Son of Max Frankl, Pulitzer Prize-winning executive secretary and editor of The New York Times. Perhaps in memory of his father (Frankel Sr. had died a year earlier) the opening scene of the new film was filmed – in which Andy Sachs receives a journalism award for his work on a newsreel.
The heroine cries on stage not at all from joy, but from sadness and horror: a minute ago, she and her colleagues were fired from the newspaper with one SMS – all for the sake of the legendary “cost optimization”. The center of The Devil Wears Prada 2 isn’t moral dilemmas, or at least not those dilemmas in the first place. This film is about the unforgiving world of social media, artificial intelligence, and real-life cynics who care equally about the art of high fashion and the risky, labor-intensive values of journalism. Miranda Priestly is the experienced captain of the first sunken ship, and Andy Sachs is the captain of the second. Now the longtime rivals have a reason to unite.
The problems mentioned are very real and are unlikely to be solved. But they don’t stop The Devil Wears Prada 2 from being excellent entertainment, much more lively than the sequels – long and televised – to Sex and the City. A trivial and dynamic spectacle, sometimes acerbic, often poignant, catches the eye, like a well-written column, whose reader has neither the time nor the inclination to compare the journalist’s sweeping conclusions with reality. Moreover, their clothes fit the heroines very well. The pictures are completed with amazing secondary men: for Streep – Kenneth Branagh (who came from nowhere, the husband of a violinist), for Blunt – Justin Theroux (an eccentric and stupid businessman), for Hathaway – Patrick Brummel (Australian architect).
What should I add to this? For example, a fun soundtrack: from Dua Lipa in the opening credits to Lady Gaga and her solo number of “Runway” live on stage. Well, traditionally, the film has a lot of relevant cameos: Donatella Versace, Marc Jacobs, Domenico Dolce, and Stefano Gabbana are not only fashion designers, but also cameo actors. Under these circumstances, the audience is unlikely to be outraged by the blatantly implausible scene in the Santa Maria delle Grazie refectory, where dinner is taken by candlelight directly beneath Leonardo’s Last Supper. Not to mention other assumptions and extensions of the plot and design.
The most important of them is not related to the formal aspect, but rather to the objective aspect of the image. Streep, who has starred in at least one film about journalistic values over the years (Steven Spielberg’s The Secret File), clearly wasn’t listening. cash From the side of real editors of glossy magazines, her character has come off as equally generalized. Hathaway’s heroine seems to be concerned about the fate of the journalistic profession, surrenders to the “devil” without resistance – and voluntarily violates professional ethics for the sake of beautiful dresses, from which she has proudly turned away for twenty years.
There is no longer any need to talk about any values in the end: as the events progress, the heroines simply forget what they fought for. Both Priestley and Sacks remain fascinated by big distributions and personal luxury, no matter how sanctimonious they may be. The Devil Wears Prada 2 works well as a sequel for fans, but otherwise doesn’t try to say anything new or important. Not a film, but a fashion show – all the participants were good-looking, the clothes chosen suited them, and the audience did not ask for more.