In uncertain times like these, people often pine for a past which seems now to have been less confusing and frightening.
The Devil Wears Prada 2 plugs into that feeling and by reprising many of the themes and the majority of the cast of 2005’s very successful The Devil Wears Prada does so pretty well.
I took my wife along to see this sequel on Mother’s Day. It can be treated as a chance to enjoy some beautiful clothes, lovely locations (New York and Milan) and a bit of nostalgia.
The Devil Wears Prada 2 certainly features an all-star cast. Meryl Streep is back as Miranda Priestly, the editor of the fictitious Runway fashion magazine, which is now an on-line presence.
Her character is modelled on Anna Wintour, the former editor of Vogue who is now Global Chief Content Officer for Vogue’s parent company, Conde Nast. Streep is joined by Anne Hathaway who reprises her role as Andy Sachs. Sachs returns to Runway after a successful career in journalism curtailed by retrenchment.
Also back are Emily Blunt (as Emily), Stanley Tucci (as Nigel), Tracie Thoms (as Lily) and Tibor Feldman (as Irv).
As if that cast was not sufficiently stellar, they are joined by Kenneth Branagh (as Stuart), Justin Theroux (as Benji Barnes), Lucy Liu (as Sacha Barnes) and Australia’s own Patrick Brammall (as Peter).
While Streep, Hathaway, Tucci and Liu put in their usual strong performances most of the other characters are poorly realised. Now that may be the result of the writing rather than the acting.
This film is clearly designed to be a paean to strong and successful women, so the male characters all are weak.
Perhaps this ideological decision explains why Theroux’s Benji is portrayed as a complete fool (although he is supposedly a self-made billionaire).
That said his love interest, Emily, a consummate manipulator, is equally self-absorbed and unbelievably silly.
It seems Brammal appears here primarily because the original movie featured Australia’s Simon Baker as a brief love interest of Andy’s. Perhaps Andy has a thing for Australian men as he is here as her new paramour.
While there is just no chemistry between Andy and Peter, it is refreshing to see a big Hollywood movie in which mature adults work on developing their relationship in conversation and a growing friendship rather than with immediate physical intimacy.
Whilst this movie seems to have been designed simply to be enjoyed there are some moments of dialogue which warrant further thought.
There is a scene in which Runway hosts a sumptuous dinner in the refectory of Milan’s Santa Maria delle Grazie directly beneath Leonardo da Vinci’s sublime The Last Supper.
The scene is – perhaps unintentionally –a powerful one as the guests dine and converse as though they not in the presence of such a masterpiece.
A revealing conversation also takes place between Miranda and Andy as they stand before The Last Supper.
Miranda asks Andy if she knows much about the Last Supper to which she replies, “Not as much as I should.” It is not clear if she means the event or the painting.
Miranda goes on: “…You can find frescoes and the same subject matter all over Europe. In the other versions, the Man in Charge is usually depicted with a halo. People think that it was da Vinci’s way of saying, ‘We are human. No one is perfect.’ Humans, our wants, glorious and fallible. And inevitably, we deceive and betray one another… let each other down. It’s what we’re built to do. Wouldn’t you agree?”
Strangely Miranda cannot even bring herself to call Christ by his name and betrays an impoverished understanding of the subject which helps to explain her misguided approach to life.
Of course, in the Last Supper, Christ confirms not only the words of Genesis that we are “made in the image of God” but shows his extraordinary love for us.
Shown without a halo Christ is portrayed as a man – which he was – but he was, of course, like no other man.
Christ elevates man by giving us the perfect image – of kindness, forgiveness and love – to aspire to and opening the door to eternal life. This is what we are built for, not to deceive and betray each other but to enjoy the beatific vision.
The billionaire Benji Barnes betrays a similarly deficient attitude to life when he says that, “The future just comes rushing at us like… well, like the lava of Pompeii. Our job is just to let it take what it wants to take. One day it’s going to come and it’s going to smother us all.”
Fortunately, as Christians we can be optimistic about our future. We all enjoy free will and we make our own choices as to how we will live our lives. We are loved, not crushed.
While the clear intent of the movie is to celebrate strong women, perhaps inadvertently it shows the consequences of choosing career over family.
When faced with the prospects of losing her job Miranda asks her partner, Stuart, what she would have without her career. She looks completely bemused and an uneasy silence follows when he says that she would have him and her twin children.
Clearly they are insufficient for Miranda. Later when encouraging Andy to write a book about her she says: “You should write it.
“And you should keep all the juicy bits in…And, you know… how much of my children’s lives I’ve missed. Just put it all in there.
“Because people should know. They should know there’s a cost. But boy, I love working. I really do. Don’t you?”
Andy does not answer but it is clear that 20 years after joining the workforce as an intern she regrets that she has not married and had a family.
We can only hope that viewers leave this movie not only having enjoyed the glamour and style of haute couture but seeing the error in Miranda’s characterisation of The Last Supper and recognising that while there certainly is dignity in working, work can never replace faith and family.
Emeritus Professor Michael Quinlan
