Culture How ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ Made Men Irrelevant

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link (Archive)

How ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ Made Men Irrelevant​

The Devil Wears Prada 2 catwalked into theaters this weekend and was number one at the box office, bringing in $77 million domestically and $233 million worldwide during its first weekend, despite mixed reviews—including from the Daily Beast’s Obsessed.

The sequel, released 20 years after the original film, is geared towards women, who accounted for 75 percent of its ticket sales. The film knows its audience and, with the sequel, painted a designer-clad picture of a world where men are no longer needed. As the great Laura Dern said in the greatest movie of all time, Jurassic Park, “Dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the earth.”

Let’s start at the top. Two decades have passed, and Miranda Priestley (Meryl Streep) is still one of the most iconic figures to ever grace the screen. Miranda is often painted as the titular devil, but that’s an oversimplification.

During a new episode of the On with Kara Swisher podcast—titled “Miranda Is Not the Villain—journalist Kara Swisher, who has a cameo as herself in the film, interviewed director David Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna.

Frankel said he got the job in the first place because she never believed Miranda was a villain. “She’s trying to achieve excellence every day, and why does she have to be nice to accomplish that, you know?” he said. “There’s a long list of mostly men, of course, who are highly regarded for their work. They might be the GOATs of the business, and no one really questions how nice they are about accomplishing that.”

He added that Streep once told him that if her character were a man, there would be no movie.
The first movie wasn’t without its problems. It tried to wink at negative body stereotypes yet reinforced them. The cast was overwhelmingly white. It also overvalued the male characters and was miscategorized as a rom-com.

“It’s not a rom-com,” said Frankel of the original. It had some romance, yes. It had a lot of comedy. But the “romance” in the traditional sense, the triangle between Andy (Anne Hathaway), her mid boyfriend, and a hotshot (creepy) writer, wasn’t the core of the movie. Classifying it so weakens the point: The first movie was about growing up and following your dreams.
The sequel is about learning to live your dream within the confines of the system. Yet, it’s also a feminist utopia.

Miranda may not be a villain in the first movie, and she certainly isn’t in the second. Warning: Spoilers ahead.

In the first movie, Miranda’s livelihood was in the hands of an old white man, Irv (Tibor Feldman), who appears again as the big boss. Irv dies midway through the movie, and the fate of fictional magazine Runway is tossed between several men’s hands—first the smarmy son of Irv, played by B.J. Novak, then the unnerving Bezos/Musk mash-up, Benji Barnes, played by Justin Theroux.

However, the deus ex machina of the movie comes in the form of a lady, Barnes’ ex-wife, a philanthropic, artsy MacKensie Scott/Melina Gates proxy played by Lucy Liu.

The men aren’t even relevant enough to be the bad guys. While the billionaire boys play against each other, the true villain of the movie is the Lauren Sánchez-esque Emily (Emily Blunt). But even she finds redemption in the end, and she and Andy conclude the movie as friends.

Throughout the film, the men are supporting characters and nothing more. Stanley Tucci is back, and his Nigel is as encouraging and humble as ever. Barnes is dating Emily, who refers to him not as a lover or boyfriend but as a patron.

Both Andy and Miranda have helpful silver foxes in their corner, played by Patrick Brammall and Kenneth Branagh, respectively. The two leads’ significant others flit in and out of the story, opening doors, offering supportive hugs and pep talks, and causing little to no emotional turmoil, a pleasant change from the first movie, when a lot of time was spent on Andy and her boyfriends, and Miranda’s humanity only shows when her impending divorce devastates her.

Miranda, in particular, has a dynamic character change between the two movies. As Frankel explained it, “We’re seeing new colors from that character.”

Streep plays her softer, quicker to smile, more fluid in her movements. On the page, she’s written as more willing to learn from younger women.

Andy’s role in this story is to save Runway and, therefore, Miranda. Miranda’s new assistant (Simone Ashley) gives her gentle cues when she’s being fatphobic or otherwise speaking politically incorrectly, and, with a sigh, Miranda takes note, choosing to cause less harm. Yet she’s still the boss.

The movie’s relationship to motherhood is another point in the feminist column. Sequel Andy doesn’t mourn having prioritized her career over marriage and motherhood. But it’s not ignored, either.

With a bit of a shrug, Andy gives Emily the requisite exposition that, for the last couple of decades, she traveled all over “chasing stories” before landing back in NYC. Her eggs are frozen, but there’s no urgency.

Brosh McKenna said this character choice was insisted on by Hathaway herself. Andy has maintained her friendship with her friend Lily (Tracie Thomas) and is a fun auntie to her kid. It’s notable that Lily is a successful curator and lives in a gorgeous NYC apartment, but we never see a partner, which suggests she doesn’t rely on one to live.

Notably, the Andy character’s problematic boyfriend, Nate, played by Entourage’s Adrien Grenier, is not only nowhere to be seen, but had a superfluous cameo cut from the sequel.

Swisher asked the director and screenwriter if the answer to the question of the original film, “whether professional success is worth the tremendous personal sacrifice,” has changed.

In the first iteration, the answer was no, but the director and writer agreed that the work is worth it now, with the caveat that “the system is not going to care about you,” and that you need to do your best within the parameters you’re given.

Toward the end of the movie, Miranda mentions that she sacrificed time with her kids to stay at the top of her career and, with a smile, speaks about how much she loves her work. Andy agrees, if a little tentatively. She’s not ready to go full Miranda, but she’s not about to feel guilty for her life choices.

While the director has said they didn’t want the new film to feel like a “retread,” the sequel is absolutely formulaic. Its story beats mirror the first movie all the way to the last word—“Go.”

However, the real innovation here is that The Devil Wears Prada 2 has given us a complex view of adult women’s relationships and their own relationships with themselves, and leaves us with happy, successful women—none of whom are holding grudges against each other (except Lady Gaga, who has a comedic feud with Miranda).

The filmmakers discussed how difficult it is to make a living in journalism nowadays (Don’t we all know!), yet all our main characters end the movie with dream jobs and nice offices.

The romance of the movie is that, while it is impossible to “have it all,” if you help each other instead of stepping on people on your way to the top, you can have a pretty excellent life—no men needed or even particularly wanted. Realistic? No. But that’s the magic of the movie.
 
Has this bitch ever heard of Titanic? I was dragged to the movie theater to see that 3 times!!! I wasn't even popular with the ladies. The poor bastards that were still have PTSD flashbacks to this very day.

I guarantee you that movie wasn't the massive box office hit because of men.
I am EXTREMELY autistic about the Titanic, it would probably be my specialist subject on the long-running Bongistani quiz programme Mastermind, so much of that movie triggers me beyond belief.
 
the page, she’s written as more willing to learn from younger women.

Andy’s role in this story is to save Runway and, therefore, Miranda. Miranda’s new assistant (Simone Ashley) gives her gentle cues when she’s being fatphobic or otherwise speaking politically incorrectly, and, with a sigh, Miranda takes note, choosing to cause less harm. Yet she’s still the boss.

Isn’t that just depressing? Even Miranda Priestley has to go through the motions. It’s like Darth Vader putting his pronouns in his email signature to mollify some junior stormtroopers.
 
But in all seriousness my niggers, The Devil Wears Prada is Die Hard, for women. It's a harmless female fantasy where, instead of the Nakatomi Plaza, Our Heroine must ascend the Dark Tower of being thin and pretty enough to make the Mean Girls choke. 💅💯
Both the book and the movie are in fact cautionary tales against superficial perfection. As much as Miranda's right that fashion is a real industry with hundreds of jobs and not the joke that Andy thinks it is, it shows what happens when people lose themselves in the fantasy of trying to be the images they see on the magazine. Emily has no life and was immediately brushed aside as soon as Andy became a better assistant and Niles was equally snubbed for Miranda to keep her job and power. Both showed nothing but loyalty and were all betrayed by Miranda, who only cared about her job and position.

And then, Miranda herself, publicly the "dragon lady", is gonna divorce one more time and she knows she's gonna be subject of gossip because of her personal life. That's why she ends up clinging to her job, when nothing but herself forces her to keep it. When Andy realizes that she's becoming Miranda, she leaves because she's realizing she's also losing her relationships, which are her priority.

In the book, IICR, Andy's life turns out worse because due to the stress from her job and her constant abandonment of her friends, her best friend suffers an accident and ends up in a coma and she still didn't return to US from Paris because she still wanted to remain with Miranda and keep her job. She also breaks up with her boyfriend (they're together in the movie). Andy's so tired of Miranda's bs at the end that she yells "fuck you" at her before leaving her job.

If people interpret the movie as some sort of "empowering" story, they're interpreting it wrong. Sure, there is some sort of message that there is nothing wrong with being into fashion and it's also a serious business, but we're not supposed to see how people are terrorized of Miranda in a positive way.
 
Realistic? No. But that’s the magic of the movie.
Completely contradict the entire rest of the piece in the final sentences. Movies are fantasies. Laura Wheatman Hill wants this one to be true so, so badly. But she can't armor herself in delusion despite that. Thanks for wasting my time, "freelance writer." If I were grading this I'd circle what I quoted in red and not mark up any of the rest except to write a big red F over it
 
Has this bitch ever heard of Titanic? I was dragged to the movie theater to see that 3 times!!! I wasn't even popular with the ladies. The poor bastards that were still have PTSD flashbacks to this very day.

I guarantee you that movie wasn't the massive box office hit because of men.
"My heaaart wiiiilll goo oooonnnn..."

No, please, make it stop, or my heart isn't going to go on anymore.
In reality Anna Wintour would have Al Bundy's job if it wasn't for her father's connections.
Bah, how many touchdowns did she ever score?
 
The current film is an exercise in revisionist history that attempts to make a horrific real-world monster in the form of Anna Wintour into some sort of nice person. The original "Devil Wear's Prada" in the form of the novel had something worthwhile to say about how awful woman's magazines were as a place to work. But this film is nothing more than a couple hours of outright simping for Anna Wintour.
 
"Notably, the Andy character’s problematic boyfriend, Nate, played by Entourage’s Adrien Grenier, is not only nowhere to be seen, but had a superfluous cameo cut from the sequel."

It's been a while, so I'm hazy on details, but I do not remember the boyfriend as "problematic"- I have a vague recollection of a rather nice bloke, trying to take care of Hathaway's character wellbeing.
Oh, I see, -making sure she takes care of herself and telling her to touch grass is The Problem..
 
I like SWP 1 because it has a great scene you can use to explain dating up to women. When Andy is boo-hooing about how hard she has it and how she wants to quit, Nigel tells her straight up 'you can be replaced in a heartbeat, every girl wants to work here'. And Andy, to her credit, goes 'oh shit, I actually need to TRY'.

also because Anne Hathaway was cute back then.
 
"Notably, the Andy character’s problematic boyfriend, Nate, played by Entourage’s Adrien Grenier, is not only nowhere to be seen, but had a superfluous cameo cut from the sequel."

It's been a while, so I'm hazy on details, but I do not remember the boyfriend as "problematic"- I have a vague recollection of a rather nice bloke, trying to take care of Hathaway's character wellbeing.
Oh, I see, -making sure she takes care of herself and telling her to touch grass is The Problem..
He liked her as a size 6 when she wanted to be a size 2 or some such.
What an evil man.
 
The current film is an exercise in revisionist history that attempts to make a horrific real-world monster in the form of Anna Wintour into some sort of nice person. The original "Devil Wear's Prada" in the form of the novel had something worthwhile to say about how awful woman's magazines were as a place to work. But this film is nothing more than a couple hours of outright simping for Anna Wintour.
It's the same as with other "problematic" female figures. Women admire them for the aesthetic or because some iconic lines, despite they're not necessarily figures you're supposed to admire. So, if there is a reboot or a sequel, they needed to be toned down. Women see Miranda's power, but they don't see that she's a terrible boss who abuses her employees and they put up with it because they want to be part of her world.

"Notably, the Andy character’s problematic boyfriend, Nate, played by Entourage’s Adrien Grenier, is not only nowhere to be seen, but had a superfluous cameo cut from the sequel."

It's been a while, so I'm hazy on details, but I do not remember the boyfriend as "problematic"- I have a vague recollection of a rather nice bloke, trying to take care of Hathaway's character wellbeing.
Oh, I see, -making sure she takes care of herself and telling her to touch grass is The Problem..
The "problem" was that the guy also had a life and Andy's demanding career was making difficult for them to be together. She couldn't be there even for his birthday and she still wanted the job despite he noticed how miserable she was at home. He, being a man, simply told her she should just resign, but she, being a woman, did not.

The female fantasy in this movie ain't the clothes or the aesthetic, but rather that any woman can be Miranda and men stopping you from becoming such a monster are wrong. Thing is, Miranda IS WRONG. There is no patriarchy here forcing her to do what she does, she wants this life and she's ready to sacrifice everything to be where she is. And both Emily and Andrea wanted to please her for different reasons. Andy because she wanted the connections, and Emily because she aimed to be like Miranda one day.

There is a scene when Andy's spending the weekend with her dad and Miranda, despite it's Andy's free day, calls her because she can't get a flight from Florida to NY during a storm and she wants Andy to get her that flight because that's her job. Then, she scolds her for not able to find it and she had to miss her daughters' recital. Next scene is Andy complaining that Miranda isn't appreciative enough, while Niles tells her that Miranda is just doing her job and all Andy does is to complain. Niles is right: Andy doesn't take fashion industry seriously and Miranda knows she doesn't care, but Andy was not wrong for not being able to book her a flight in the middle of the night, when she wasn't in work time, during what looks like an hurricane. Next scene is Miranda punishing Andy by making her get the unpublished manuscript of Harry Potter 7 for her daughters, which is such an impossible task. We see Andy goes through all loopholes to get it, and people interpret this scene as Andy winning, when it's just another example of Miranda being an abusive person who's lucky Andy's that capable.

At the end, yes, Andy dumps the guy eventually. One of her friends sees her flirting with another guy from work and she tells Andy she saw her. When she goes to Paris, Andy sleeps with this guy, who's an asshole. So, Nate ain't the villain or problematic, he's just a decent guy seeing how her girlfriend is losing her mind in a job she can't catch up with because she's become obsessed with that world. In the book, they break up for good, in the movie they're both back together at the end.
 
Both the book and the movie are in fact cautionary tales against superficial perfection.
So was Mean Girls but nobody watched it for the moral lessons
maxresdefault - 2026-05-07T030425.235.jpg
They watched it because Rachel McAdams is funny you perverts! :punished:

My wife liked The Devil Wears Prada, I liked it too because it was a solid movie. Nothing we hadn't seen before in 80's movies like "Wall Street", "The Secret of My Success", and "Working Girl", which also warned women against the dangers of working for a female boss.
MV5BNjUwNDU2ODcyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjM1ODY0MzE@._V1_.jpg
(the dangers of hairspray: not so much).
 
So was Mean Girls but nobody watched it for the moral lessons
maxresdefault - 2026-05-07T030425.235.jpg
They watched it because Rachel McAdams is funny you perverts!
Mean Girls is even a worst example because it's not based on a novel, but rather a book that researched why girls are aggressive to each other and tried to explain cliches and bullying. In the movie, we vaguely see that Regina is the way she is because her mom is a terrible parent who let her do what she likes so she can feel herself young again and part of the group. It's seen as a comedic relief for the audience to understand Regina, but it's just that, a joke.
 
Holy fuck I didn't realize so many faggots were on here. With the amount of foid sperging, this whole post belongs in BP, not A&N
 
If people interpret the movie as some sort of "empowering" story, they're interpreting it wrong. Sure, there is some sort of message that there is nothing wrong with being into fashion and it's also a serious business, but we're not supposed to see how people are terrorized of Miranda in a positive way.
I would say it's somewhat empowering, but mostly because the movie is a temptation narrative and the empowerment comes from the "coming to Jesus" moment where Andrea finds her conviction and values outweigh the allure of the wealth and glamour she's being tempted with.
 
I am scared to watch this sequel. The first movie was a timelessly relatable story about having a mean boss at your first job.

Men and women alike could appreciate the first movie, that’s why it was such a hit. The fashion stuff was broadly irrelevant to the story — we are not all beautiful wannabe journalists in Y2K New York, but we have all been “there” anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom