Death of the gatekeeper: Devil Wears Prada 2 depicts a revolution in the fashion world | Fashion
The National Gallery was the spectacular venue for the party following this week’s London premiere of The Devil Wears Prada 2. Donatella Versace held court in a fenced area beneath Paul Delaroche’s painting The Execution of Lady Jane Gray.
Meryl Streep, reprising her role as Anna Wintour’s fictional alter-ego Miranda Priestly, wore a red satin Prada jacket as a nod to the film’s title and black sunglasses as a wink to Wintour. Glossy magazine editors from Spain, Germany and the Netherlands arrived to spend the night, nibbling on fried chicken served with caviar and macaroni and cheese dishes presented theatrically under silver platters.
It’s ironic that the fashion industry’s most spectacular and high-profile moment in years came with the release of a film that brutally satirised its demise. “It blew our mind how much of the work we made fun of in the first movie and continued to make fun of in the second movie was embraced,” said the film’s screenwriter, Aline Brosh McKenna, speaking from her home in Los Angeles.
The sequel’s plot revolves around Priestly’s attempts to steer Runway magazine through the decline of print publishing. Details of the film are still under embargo, but glossy magazine staffers who attended the film’s premiere described the plot off-the-record as “close to the bone.”
The sequel, 20 years in the making, sheds light on an industry disrupted by the collapse of legacy publishing. But the excitement around the film’s release confirms that fashion is as interesting as ever. “The amazing thing about fashion is that it never loses its appeal,” said the film’s director, David Frankel. “People are interested in beauty, glamour, and recreating our identities using clothes.”
The novel from which the franchise was born, written by Wintour’s former assistant Lauren Weisberger, was denounced as treason by fashion insiders when it was published in 2003, and designer brands refused to supply clothing for the film for fear of offending Vogue.
Twenty years later the situation has changed dramatically. The sequel is overflowing with eagerly loaned designer pieces and eager cameos from Versace and other industry experts. In the real world, the fashion industry’s power brokers have shrunk and restructured both with the shift to digital and as readers abandon newsstands and editorials become increasingly reliant on commercial partnerships.
Gatekeeping has evaporated with a cultural shift away from institutional power; shoppers are no longer prepared to obediently buy trends driven by runway designers and magazine editors.
The Exorcist series, a symbol of the glory days of lavish shooting budgets and bottomless expense accounts, is no longer considered a takedown. Instead, it has become a beloved part of fashion’s own mythology, and editors and designers are fooling themselves into getting caught up in the excitement of the sequel.
In the new movie, Emily Blunt’s character Emily Charlton has jumped the magazine to work for a luxury brand and now has power over her former boss. Editors who once determined taste according to their own whims must be nice to commercial partners of whom they were once too big.
“The media business is scary today,” says Frankel. “The same goes for Hollywood. There’s a terrible contraction; we’re all seeing the tsunami of AI coming, and we’re all doing whatever we can to survive. The movie deals with all of that. The first movie was a coming-of-age story, this one is about values and morality. I see Miranda as the hero. She’s steering a ship through rough waters and determined to find land.”
The trailer for The Return of the Devil demonstrates to a remarkable degree how Wintour has navigated two such bruising decades unscathed, turning a sarcastic book by an assistant she claims she doesn’t remember into the centerpiece of her personal mythology. A year after officially stepping down as editor of American Vogue, she appears on this month’s cover alongside Streep: a clear sign that she remains the industry’s leading woman.
The new film and the rumors that accompany it also highlight changing attitudes towards older women. Streep and Wintour’s joint appearance features two 76-year-old women on the cover of Vogue, with the photo taken by another 76-year-old woman (Annie Leibovitz) and styled by 84-year-old Grace Coddington.
The age-old sexism of Hollywood and the fashion industry, which favors women over 40 away from the spotlight, is being challenged by the power of celebrities, who have seen women like Streep and Wintour create enduring personal brands that maintain box office power.
“Fashion creates these iconic women who have staying power,” says Brosh McKenna. “I think of Coco Chanel, Diana Vreeland and Iris Apfel. It’s a job where people work until they’re tired, and I love that.”
In the 20 years since the first Devil Wears Prada, the prices of the fashion industry’s beloved designer items have increased. It rose thanks to what can be called temporary inflation. Here are some examples of pieces worn in 2006 and their prices today:
chanel jacket
After the makeover, Andy Sachs (Hathaway’s character) wears a double-breasted Chanel jacket. At the time, a jacket from the brand would cost around $4,800 or £3,561. Now a jacket in the pre-collection The price is set at £6,430, an increase of 80%.
Fendi bag
Although Devil Wears Prada’s Chef bag is no longer produced, Baguette can be purchased from the brand. Launched in 2006 for $1,500 (£1,112)they now £2,750An increase of 147%. Meanwhile, chefs are available on the resale market. One on FarFetch A sum of £753.
Jimmy Choo shoes
“You sold your soul to the devil when you wore your first pair of Jimmy Choo shoes.” Emily tells Andy In the 2006 movie. At that time a couple would cost at least $385 (£281). Now a classic pair of the brand’s sandals is up 122% to £625.
hermès scarf
Runway editor Miranda Priestly, always a fashion favorite, wore a Hermès scarf in the original film. In that case, would cost about $320 or £237, but after 20 years, A classic scarf of the brand At £520, it’s 119% more expensive.
