The Devil Wearing Prada? In This Economy?

A review of the sequel to hit 2006 film

Hmm. This was a journey.

I was rather skeptical going into this one. Obviously the first film is iconic, and the cynic in me felt rather strongly that there was no reason for a sequel to exist. What could a sequel add to the iconic moments and outdated fashion from 2006 that we know and love so well? Surely it would just be a money grab, a flat sequel trying to echo the best moments from the first movie and blind us with nostalgia, cameos, and glamour.

And I mean yes that did happen. But there’s slightly more to it.

Like many others, I am hardly immune to the charm of the first movie. 2006 introduced us to Anne Hathaway’s wide eyed, earnest, awkward Andy Sachs, an aspiring journalist thrust into the fashion world under the iron rule of the forever iconic Meryl Streep portrayal of Runway fashion mogul Miranda Priestly. Together with the sharp-tongued and exasperated fellow assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), and the patient, brutally honest fashion director Nigel (Stanley Tucci), Andy Sachs ends the movie with personal growth, agency, and a better haircut, having gained her own footing in the world of journalism, and alive with confidence.

What makes the movie great? Well, the fashion was already hopelessly outdated when the film debuted, so that made it funny. And the production both took itself extremely seriously and yet not seriously at all, which made it funny. And most importantly, the film had blistering, razor-sharp dialogue, delivered with such masterful zing that a delighted audience forgets that the plot makes no sense. All in all, it’s a fantastic movie to throw on, not think too hard, have some good laughs, and watch Meryl Streep put the fear of hell itself into whoever is standing nearest to her.

So where does this sequel leave us? In a word, conflicted.

20 years have passed, and Andy Sachs finds herself back under the employ of Miranda Priestly, to use her established journalism skills to help stop Priestly from getting “canceled,” a concept Priestly struggles to navigate in a digital age. Priestly is a subdued, weakened character, a slave to the corporate powers-that-be that no longer allow her the free reign she wielded so unmercifully once before. Not only that, but the modern age demands short form, scrollable content instead of the art and beauty she craves. Her characteristic acidic remarks are smothered by HR policies, and she has to fly economy class. In short, she’s declawed.

Andy Sachs, her ideals undimmed by the ravages of reality, is determined to save the magazine (and employer) that treated her so poorly 20 years before. And she will need to face some familiar faces (Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci reprising their roles) to do so.

Emily Blunt returns as Emily Charlton, reprising her role from the first film

First, the good stuff. I have to commend the acting. Each slipped back into their character so naturally, you could have me convinced that Stanley Tucci just is that way in real life. Anne Hathaway brought back her youthful charm with ease, but also displayed a strong maturity in her acting that highlighted the strong chemistry she has with every costar. Some new cast members also brought some fresh talent that was very fun (B.J. Novak in particular had a running bit that I just loved). The costuming department had what I can only imagine to be an unlimited budget, and they swung hard with the glamour and spectacle befitting the modern fashion world. The cinematography was excellent, there was fun music, and some absolutely stunning settings that elevated the film to a new level. There was also a very surprising cameo performance that made the whole theater gasp, which is always fun.

This film also brought some very interesting ideas for the characters to wrestle with. I say wrestle, but a more accurate term would be “pelted with in swift succession.” Pelting options included (but were not limited to) modernity, AI, authenticity, integrity, religion, materialism, sacrificing motherhood for career success (and the emotional cost thereof), etc, etc. A central theme is the conflict between the old and the new, which was a rather self-aware choice for a sequel to make. These are all good things.

But there were also weak points. The film was trying to do too much, and the result felt a bit aimless. So many new characters were introduced with no time to go further, so many ideas were brought up and not developed, and the first 15 minutes were hobbled by heavy bricks of exposition. In a light-hearted early 2000’s comedy this might be overlooked, but this film took itself awfully seriously. It showed the glitz and glam of the world doing nothing to fill the emptiness of the characters, who work themselves past exhaustion for fashion, power and validation. The film shows this emptiness but doesn’t really go out of its way to condemn what caused it, so the seriousness of the point seems lost. While I do respect that the film was thinking some deeper thoughts, whether it came together in a cohesive way is up for debate.

The problem is that the first film was first and foremost a comedy, and I just don’t think this one was that funny. Oh it was glamorous, it played the hits, it elevated the medium, it expanded upon the characters, it gave depth, it asked good questions and sort of did/didn’t answer them. It did some good and admirable things, but the expectation of an encore to a goofy comedy, built up by two decades of nostalgia, was perhaps too crushing.

Every now and then, there would be a moment, a flash, of the magic of the first film– and I would be won over for a few more minutes. But it just wasn’t nearly as funny. And it didn’t have iconic lines. And frankly, there was no devil wearing Prada. The characters were all subdued and slightly sadder echoes of themselves, in a movie that was far more drama-forward than comedy.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it didn’t quite do it for me.

It was, however, surprisingly thought-provoking. I’m just not really sure what it was trying to say.