The Devil
wears Prada.
After a long, long, period of time I have come back.
In my defense I have to say I stopped writing due to the fact that I had to do
research papers, presentations, final speeches and exams, all in a short period
of time. Now, I’m happy to announce you that I have succeeded in my first year
of University and that I can devote myself to this blog. This means that I will
try to upload more regularly at least until I find a summer job, something
which is going to be difficult.
My last critic was about a movie starring Anne
Hathaway so I have decided to return with a movie of her to link both films.
This girl, well…woman, is, for me, one of the best and luckiest of her
generation. How many actresses, apart from her, can say they have worked with
Dame Julie Andrews and Meryl Streep? There are some actors like Liam Neeson or
Colin Firth who share credits with both of these marvelous actresses, but no
actress has except from Ms. Hathaway and, more or less, Christine Baranski; Mr.
Neeson appeared with Ms. Andrews in Duet for one and with Ms. Streep in Before
and after, and Mr. Firth appeared with Ms. Streep in Mamma Mia and
with Ms. Andrews in Relative Values. Besides being lucky she’s also very
talented; that’s why she won an Oscar for supporting actress in 2013for her
role of Fantine in the movie musical directed by Tom Hooper, Les Misérables.
Enough of Ms. Hathaway.
Why I watched it?
I think I have told you before my story as a fan of
Meryl Streep; therefore, I will not tell it all over again. I suppose there is
no doubt of why I watched it.
The first time, I saw a few minutes of the movie and it
was because they were passing it at the TV and my mother was watching it. I
didn’t like very much what I saw but that time doesn’t count owing to the fact
that I caught the movie in the middle and I couldn’t follow the plot. Then, the
second time , it was because my aunt bought me the movie as a Christmas present
and this time I could enjoy the movie properly.
Original title: The Devil wears Prada
Duration: 105 min.
Director: David Frankel.
Screenwriter: Aline Brosh McKenna based on the book of
Lauren Weisberger.
Country: EE.UU.
Genre: Comedy,
romantic comedy.
Year: 2006.
Music: Theodore Saphiro.
Cast: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Stanley Tucci,
Emily Blunt, Simon Baker and Adrian Grenier.
Summary: The young aspiring
journalist Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) has found her first job in New York, where
she has just moved to, as the second assistant of Miranda Priestly (Streep),
the exigent editor in chief of the fashion magazine "Runway". A
million girls would kill for this job except Andy who realizes that to
obtain success in this business she must forget about having a personal life.
First impression: this is a
movie for fashion lovers.
Second impression: there is
much more than what it is seen at first sight.
After having seen the movie I decided to read the book
due to the fact that books are usually better than the movies based on them.
This time it wasn't like that. I started reading the book and I stopped after
the second or third chapter. The book goes deeper in the fashion world and it
wasn't the kind of book that I usually read; thus, I didn't like it.
The movie talks about normal people who have as
background the fashion world, but the movie isn't focused on fashion at all. For
me, it talks about various types of relationships and how they change in a
matter of short time.
1st short of relationship-couple: Nate (Grenier) and
Andy/ Christian (Baker) and Andy/ Miranda and Stephen (James Naughton).
In this category we can see three types of love
couples:
·
Nate and Andy: they have been together for a long
time, they love each other and all seems to be perfect until Andy starts
working for Miranda. This is the typical couple that romantic comedies present
us: a young couple very much in love that, at the end of the movie, obtains its
happily ever after.
·
Christian and Andy: the one night stand. I understand
as Christian liked Andy he tried to seduce her, but what about Andy who used to
be in love with Nate? Yes, they broke up before Andy went to Paris and spent
that night with Christian, but if you love someone you don't forget him or her
because you have broken up. Besides, she flirted with him before being left by
Nate. That tell us that the first relationship wasn’t as perfect as it seemed
due to the fact that more than a couple they were a love triangle in which Nate
doesn’t know that someone else is involved.
·
Miranda and Stephen: a fail marriage. It isn’t the
first time Miranda was married. This is put this way so we can understand that
it isn’t the first time and that probably won’t be the last one that Miranda
divorces; owing to her obsession towards her job. In addition, they want to
compare the relationship of Nate and Andy with the one of Miranda and Stephen. The
man who always waits for his wife/girlfriend to arrive at home and wants to
make things figure it out, and the woman who is focused on her professional
career too much to care about something else.
2nd short of relationship-friendship: Andy, Lilly and
Doug.
We hardly know the characters of Lilly and Doug
because they have short appearances in the movie. They are the best friends of
Andy and Nate at the beginning of the movie, and even if their relationship
doesn't change too much we see how it is also damaged by “Andy’s work” and the
breaking of the couple.
3th short
of relationship-professional: Miranda, Andrea, Emily and Nigel.
In the labor world every
person is seen as an individual who races against the other ones to be the best
in what he or she does. Working is the center in which the characters mentioned
above focus their lives. However, even if they live to work and they work to
live they are still rational persons who can choose, having elections. They
protect themselves saying that they have “no
choices” but this isn’t true. You can always choose what to do. Of course,
you would have to face the consequences of your actions but this is whether you
make one thing or another.
About Miranda and Andy.
The film wants to tell us
that we don’t have to blame Andrea’s work as much as we have to blame the
aptitude she adopts because of the kind of job she has. The key is at the end
of the movie, in the scene in which Andrea and Miranda are in the car and
Miranda is impressed by how much Andrea tried to warn her about the intentions
of Irv Ravitz who wanted to get rid of Miranda giving Miranda’s job to
Jacqueline Follet, the editor in chief of the French version of the magazine Runway. Miranda says that she sees
something in Andrea which makes her see herself in her. Andrea answers by
saying that she wouldn’t make a thing like the one which Miranda did to Nigel
and Miranda tells her that she already did to Emily. After that, Andrea leaves
her job realizing for the first time the thing that the film was telling us
during the entire movie, that the problem wasn’t the job but how Andrea changes
for her job instead of change her job for her.
Moral: Don’t change for
anything or anyone because you will lose what you had.
Surprise?
Emily Blunt who was perfect
in her role of Miranda’s first assistant. Cold, obsessed and hard-worker, thin
and beautiful, her character gets alive thanks to her performance. She gives something
to the character of Emily that wasn’t firstly there, she gives her personality,
a personality that consist in not have personality at all or at least don’t let
the others see through you and discover the real you.
The worst.
This isn’t the best performance
of Anne Hathaway; I even think she was better in the Princess diaries.
The best.
The performances. I know I
always say the same but it isn’t my fault if I’m more concern about the performances
than in other things and that they end up being the best thing in the movie. Besides,
the perfect selection of costumes and great work of the director.
Mark: 7’5.
Remember that this is my opinion, so it isn’t
necessary that it concurs with yours.
That’s
all!
