The Devil Wears Prada
2006
Like we did with Butch Cassidy and Casablanca, Frank and I got together via email and talked about a movie of Frank's choosing. Here's what we had to say about The Devil Wears Prada.
~~~~~~~~~~
Joe: Thanks again for discussing a movie with me, Frank. As we usually do, I'm interested first in understanding why this was one of the movies you asked to talk about. I have to imagine that you wouldn't request a seat at this particular blog table without something that you're dying to get off your chest about The Devil Wears Prada.
I definitely have a decent amount that I came away from the movie wanting to discuss as well, and I promise only like 70% of it has to do with whatever residual white knighting I was doing for Anne Hathaway circa 2010-2012ish is left.
I guess we should also establish this—do you like The Devil Wears Prada? I liked it, but I feel like it was more of a I-liked-it-because-it-made-me-think-a-lot-about-certain-shit kind of like, as opposed to a I-liked-watching-this-movie thing. Though I did like watching the movie too, more or less. I only ask this at the beginning because that would shape how this conversation goes, depending on how your opinion compares to mine.
Frank: I really like this movie, and I haven't a clue why. Is this a case for a movie that is well-made and well-cast just can't help but be good? Like this isn't a topic that generally interests me, there is nothing about the movie that stands out to me, and yet any time I stumble upon it, I find myself watching it. It's a perfect "don't have to think too hard or pay attention but not because it's trash" movie, I think.
I never got the Anne Hathaway hate at all. I was also Team Annie. I think she knows who she is and what to do in this.
The rest of the cast is just chewing up all the scenes that they are in and having a blast. Stanley Tucci having a great time, Emily Blunt stealing the movie, and then of course Meryl. Meryl exists in this world where she is universally understood to be the cream of the crop of acting, seemingly annually nominated for Academy Awards, and yet, put people's feet to the fire, and how many Meryl Streep movies have they actually seen? She's like a mythical legend in prestige boring movies that people take your word for are good, but seem so stuffy that I get anxious thinking about having to watch them, or like it's gonna be an ordeal. This is Meryl Streep getting to be in a fun movie and flaunt that she can be fun and big and campy and still good!
I don't care for the Entourage guy, but can't knock the movie for that. He was the Entourage guy then, you gotta put him in something! He's a dud playing a dud character who I guess you are supposed to root for, but the flaw of the movie to me is you don't. You want Anne Hathaway to be good at her job and be a part of this world and get her career goals, not be shamed by her dick boyfriend for not being hipster enough to "not care."
I also don't care for the Mentalist, he has weird eyebrows in this movie that I find really distracting. and the soundtrack has aged poorly from overexposure. Hard to find a more eye-roll-y song than "Suddenly I See" for me personally.
I like this movie because the stakes aren't that high to like this movie. It's not a "great" movie, but it's very watchable, and for the most part I think it does everything that it set out to do, which is all you can really ask for. Sometimes that is enough. I think it holds up pretty well fifteen years on, in a way opposite to how these types of movies usually age like sour grapes.
Joe: I hate the beginning of conversations like this, because all of a sudden there are like seventeen things that I want to talk about at once. So for now I'm going to stick with the thoughts about the acting and the various actors/actresses here. And I will move from least important to most important.
I absolutely thought the same thing about Simon Baker's eyebrows, which... I mean, I'm gonna get into whether either of us actually give a shit about the idea of "fashion" and how that affects our appreciation or lack thereof of The Devil Wears Prada, but it's kinda funny that we both had a reaction that was "holy shit, that guy's face is not fashionable."
I googled "is Stanley Tucci gay," and not only found out that he is not gay, but also that he is currently married to Emily Blunt's sister, making him Jim Halpert's brother-in-law. This concludes the IMDB Trivia section of our discussion.
I didn't mind Adrian Grenier as an actor (neither does Jim C****), but I agree with you that the biggest flaw of this movie is how it never quite gets it straight which side of the argument it lands on—is this supposed to be a good job for Andy and a job we should ALL care about, or is she "selling her soul"? Again, don't wanna get too deep in the weeds here when we are discussing performances, but I'll open it up to that discussion if you feel like you've said your piece about the acting.
But first, the big two. I like how you describe Meryl Streep as a "myth" more so than an actress known for her actual work. I think there was a brief time in my life when I was unnecessarily harsh in my opinion toward her, kind of like a "well has she EARNED her status in Hollywood?" type thing. I dunno, I think I tend to go a little overboard in "punching up" at big A-list movie stars. Wasn't there a thing about Streep making Catherine Z*** cry? Stuff like that usually makes me roll my eyes—not the Catherine crying part specifically, just the idea that anyone could have such an emotional reaction to this world-renowned acteur, a reaction that I don't know is actually earned. I dunno! (Also, these thoughts will seem especially ironic/hypocritical once I move on to Anne Hathaway in a couple paragraphs.)
In any case, this is maybe her most famous role? Or at least top three? I saw Kramer v. Kramer in high school (shout out to Doug Demeter's Morality class), and Sophie's Choice is way down on my list, so we'll get there in a year(s). What else would she be well-known for? My point being that if we are going to talk about Meryl Streep the actress, then Devil Wears Prada is a good one to do that for. And I think she did really well here. Brought exactly the right amount of steely coldness to the role.
I was actually looking forward to it since I just watched The Deer Hunter a couple weeks ago, which was Streep's very first Oscar nom (out of 21, holy shit!). And knowing the "myth" of Streep, I was surprised in that film how... not significant she was? Both the role itself and her acting in it, honestly. Like, I knew her as the Miranda Priestly type, the type of actress who is going to talk shit on trump at the 2017 Golden Globe awards (the incident that made me sincerely reevaluate how dumb it is to roll your eyes at actors/actress for whom you know nothing about, i.e. I'm not trying to be a trump and call her "overrated" any more when I don't know shit from shit, ya know?). And here she is, all wispy and soft-spoken next to the gruff Robert DeNiro.
I dunno, it was just good seeing her in this type of role in DWP. Maybe the role of Miranda Priestly has so seeped into our collective consciousness that I saw Streep as that character before I ever even saw Devil Wears Prada. It just squared more with my vision—our vision, maybe—of Streep.
And now, Anne Hathaway. I'll say this—I knew just as much about Anne Hathaway in 2011 as I did Meryl Streep, i.e. zero, so I am quite fortunate that all the defending I did out of spite/ball-busting around that time is retroactively justified. Hathaway is so good! Just so goddamn lived-in and natural in this movie.
I guess my theory about why people tended to dislike Hathaway back in the day (and not just the women that we associated with in college—yo Sara B******, are you reading this?!—but a very real and widespread dislike) is that it comes down to her constant upbeat theater-nerd energy. This isn't a new theory, I know other people have thought this, but I take the offense to this theory personally, because we hung around a lot of theater kids in college, many of them exuding the same type of energy, and while, yes, there was the running joke that our best theater friends were the "jocks and cheerleaders" of the theater program, i.e. had a certain sense of "cool" at least in the context of a shitty college's shitty theater program that others, and Anne Hathaway (and literally Anne Hathaway's La Salle Masque alum parents!) just do not possess, because the quote-unquote "lame" theater-nerd energy is there, yes, this is all true.
But it's also true that I have always kind of admired that type of energy, personally, that someone could be so unequivocally upbeat/lame in the same breath. I am thinking of specific people in the Masque from way back when, and I won't say any names particularly, but I feel like I'm still defending these friends (acquaintances) in "remember when" conversations with our still-friends from college. Because I'll defend what many people don't seem to have any desire to defend—there's value in someone being like this, in someone's personality coming off as quirky, lame, gooey and emotional, ultimately UNCOOL, because I see that as honest. Or at least more honest than me and my ironic sarcasm, or however you want to describe any attempt I personally make to be "cool" in whatever sense of the word.
So I acknowledge that society at large tends to turn away uncomfortably from the goopy sincerity that is portrayed in this type of personality, and I acknowledge that this desire for hip cynical bullshit is ultimately gonna lead to some widespread bullying of some very rich and talented actresses, but I'm saying that I don't like it, and I don't like participating it. But that's easy to say, and easier to actually do, and of course I have a tough time being gooey and honest and lame and sincere myself (unless, I dunno, I'm drunk blogging or something?).
I don't know if any of this constitutes virtue signalling, and if it does, then anyone reading this can just ignore it. I just think that it's pretty wild that anyone could watch The Devil Wears Prada and Hathaway's performance in it and not fucking love Hathaway as a performer (or at least wave away any indication that Anne Hathaway might annoy you in person?).
Frank: I have more thoughts to collect, but I think you've hit on largely what the movie is actually about I think. Admiring people who aren't cool. It would seem like the fashion people would be the cool ones, right? Obsessed with looking great. But in the movie, it's actually her chef boyfriend and her liberal arts friends who are the cool New Yorkers, right: mocking the snooty fashion world and mean devil boss. But what is the fashion world actually about? Sure, clothes and standards of beauty, but I think what the movie comes down to is actually a lot like Whiplash: it's about a bunch of people who care very much about this one particular thing. Care so much that they are consumed by it, and driven by someone seeking excellence and perfection and accepting no lower standards from those around her. The unabashed pursuit of greatness because they care about it more than anything: these beautiful people are the ultimate nerds.
So maybe the movie is more about learning to be okay with working hard and getting your ass kicked and learning to actually care about something and pursue greatness in it; and then ultimately realizing what the personal moral line is, which is how the movie ends. Andy has taken the lessons of Miranda, but refuses to continue to hurt those around her in pursuit of these goals. And weirdly gets rewarded by Miranda for it in the end, for becoming her own person, something Emily wasn't capable of doing yet. Miranda is a ruthless person, willing to crush her best employee in Tucci to keep in the game, but she is still a person with kids and a failing marriage. Andy gets to become her own Miranda with her own moral compass.
Joe: I think you captured the essence of the main conflict in the movie, and how complicated it is to think about all this. So complicated that I'm not even sure I know what exactly the movie is trying to say—though whether that's my fault or Devil Wears Prada's fault, I'm still not sure.
So let's break it down. We have Andy, who gets a job just for the paycheck (literally cheers-ing to "jobs that pay the rent" with her friends), but then is convinced by Miranda, et al, that fashion is something worth caring about. So you, the audience, might be inclined to think that this is what DWP is trying to do to you too. But then you see that that passion—the double whammy of Miranda's "Cerulean" speech and Nigel's "homework and gold star" speech showing that passion to both Andy and the audience—has its own dark ends. Miranda is revealed to be too ruthless, Nigel too accepting of being a whipping boy, Nigel correctly predicting that Andy's life is going to fall apart (mainly regarding her love life). As much as you hate to side with Nate a.k.a. Vincent Chase, Andy's apology seems to be showing that DWP itself sides with him, and the fact that Andy "sold her soul" or whatever.
I read that Meryl Streep insisted that the Cerulean blue speech be reinstated into the script, after it was previously edited out, but I wonder if that was the best decision. Yes, it is effective as a monologue in a major motion picture, but it kind of muddles exactly what DWP's message is. In other words, it's almost too good at convincing you that Miranda is "right," but by the end of the movie it kinda seems like we are to believe that Miranda is "wrong." OR maybe this is by design, and I'm just being dense; maybe we are supposed to fall under Miranda's spell, and we are supposed to feel the rug pulled out from under us just like Andy does.
And this isn't even touching on the fact that I came into this movie not giving a FUCK about fashion, and what kind of friction that creates in my viewing of DWP. This is probably just a more innocuous version of a discussion that Sunny and I had regarding Children of Men—does a movie need to make you care about what its characters care about in order to be a "good" movie? Like you alluded to above, probably not—this movie might not even be about fashion, per se, but more about the dogged pursuit of perfection. But I wonder two things: 1) Would the movie be better or worse if it was about a subject I cared more about in real life? and 2) Should we judge DWP on its ability (or lack thereof) to convince its audience that fashion, specifically, is worthy of pursuit?
So to toss it to you, what do you think about this? What do you think about fashion? Do you care about it more or less or the same after seeing DWP? And does that even fucking matter?
Also, am I right to be confused about what DWP is ultimately trying to say? Or should we skip right to the logical conclusion of this question and admit that the fact that DWP is even making me mull this over for the amount of time that I have is actually a mark of its genius?
Frank: I think we are supposed to fall under Miranda's spell. We are supposed to be Andy, at first skeptical of this world, but then drawn in by the fast pass, the promise of travel and fancy parties, which even if it isn't our bag, we can think of what would be our thing.
It's funny this is the first watch through of this movie that I thought of Whiplash (it always comes back to Whiplash lol). This isn't as well-made a movie obviously, but it does follow similar beats, that is a movie that does cover the pursuit of something that we are both passionate about. Does our love of Whiplash actually make me say something like "oh it's OBVIOUSLY a much better movie"? Maybe that's just my bias. But I do think you would be more fanatical about a topic you are invested in, which makes it more impressive that a world I don't particularly like and is at the center of a consumerism culture that may have been the death knell of our economic stability, I think is a REALLY GOOD movie. It hops over a higher bar.
I think a movie DOES have to get you to care about what the characters care about in order to be good, but from a sympathy aspect more than an empathy aspect, ya know? Like, we want Andy to be ultimately happy, or we want mankind in an apocalyptic future to have a second shot at going on as a species (a little different case of stakes, lol, but in improv there is a goal that if you can really convince the audience that the thing is important to you, it'll be important to them, andif you seem like you don't care, why should the audience—it's all air they are looking at).
As to your last point, I think both can be true. I think the fact we are discussing the merits of the movie's philosophy and really digging into it means the movie has succeeded, but that doesn't give it carte blanche to waffle on wanting everything for everyone. I don't think it ultimately knows what it's trying to say, and I think that's alright. I think in some ways the movie and novel can't be so in love with the world of fashion and then assassinate it as being ruthless and unfulfilling. Miranda is the devil, but there is a huge admiration for the inspiration of Anna Wintour by everybody involved. It's a movie about paradoxes, that maybe wants us to draw our own conclusions? I don't know that feels like giving it an awful lot of credit though.
Joe: I appreciate the comparison to Whiplash, and I think the comparison actually gives a lot to think about. As you mentioned, does my former pursuit of drumming and current pursuit of enjoying music give me more reason to enjoy Whiplash? Probably. But like you said, that makes DWP all the more impressive. Even more than that though, I think it's interesting thinking about Andy vs. Miles Teller, and Miranda vs. J.K. Simmons. With Miles' character, he starts out wanting to be fanatical about his field, whereas Andy couldn't give less of a shit but is eventually roped in. So I think with Whiplash, you (the audience) start out appreciating the pursuit of the protagonist, whereas DWP has to earn it (and then, unlike DWP, I think it's pretty clear what Whiplash wants its audience to think about that pursuit once it reaches its inevitable conclusion).
Miranda and Simmons' character are more similar—respected in their field, ruthless in their desire for perfection in that field, and so on—and I think at the end of the day, both characters really do want their respective protégés to succeed. There's a toxicity in their relationship with their protégés too, though I think they start to differ when you consider just how far they push their protégés (then again, getting that HP manuscript must've been pretty daunting). The main contrast is probably gonna depend on how the viewer ultimately sees Miranda, but it's: how redeemable are these characters?
Is Miranda redeemable? I would say the movie wants you to think that she is, after she flashes a rare smile after seeing Andy on the street. The first time she smiles all movie! So a good question would be: is that smile earned?
I'm glad you mentioned the real-life inspiration for Miranda Priestly, Anna Wintour, because I read a pretty good 10th Anniversary piece for this film on The Ringer that mainly focused on Wintour and how her reputation has evolved over that ten-year period and beyond. (I should say that I did not know who the real Prada-wearing devil was before watching the movie, so I knew nothing about Wintour before this.) The most interesting aspect to me was how society as a whole has changed its perception on the idea of "girl bosses" (like Beyoncé "slaying" and all that), and so Wintour has found her image softened as people become less sexist in corporate America in general.
Now, DWP barely touches on this—I think Andy mentions Miranda's gender once in the context of sexism but it's pretty quick to forget the point as soon as it's said—but I guess it's still interesting to think about Miranda in light of our evolving society. Are we only having this conversation because it's 2021? I can say with near certainty that you wouldn't have been able to get 2006 Joe to watch DWP, most likely due to preconceived notions of it being "too girly" or whatever. Then again, is it not still fucked up that this might be the most famous semi-fictional portrayal of a "girl boss" in cinema, and it is a character infamous for being a huge fucking bitch as well?
It's tough to parse through it, especially being two straight white dudes, but I would be curious as to your thoughts on this whole aspect to the film (again, even though DWP itself doesn't even seem to keen on discussing it). Or, we can just ignore all that and focus on the fact that Anna Wintour is currently the Global Chief Content Officer for Condé Nast, which means she has SOMETHING to do with Pitchfork's music reviews. Is Anna Wintour the reason that Greta Van Fleet's debut album got a fucking 1.6?!?!
Frank: I do think Miranda is redeemable. Does her smile at the end indicate that she is proud of Andy for not becoming her? Probably not. Tying in with the second point, I think its a smile for someone who had the resolve to walk their own path. She passes a weird test by quitting on her own terms after being successful. Not that she agrees with her, but she is now more of a peer than Nigel or Emily ever will be.
Trying to think of if a boss was a dick and was a guy, would it just be accepted? Don Draper maybe, but the show really leans into it NOT being okay that he is a dick. So I don't know that the sexism comes in the form of how she acts being received differently because of her gender, but I do think HAVING to act that way in order to be taken seriously in the first place is a theme that would be intentional. The pressure to succeed for Nate should be just as much for Andy—he's a chef in New York, that should come with a lot of pressure if Anthony Bourdain has taught me anything. And yet he seems to not have to work as hard, highlighting the whole "having to be twice as good to move up the same amount" notion. Maybe the movie is making a point that Simon Baker gets to be charming in a world where Miranda Priestly always has to demand perfection and is constantly being looked at to be replaced. ONCE AGAIN you and I normally would have to take a back seat and listen to this conversation, but as its just the two of us with no female perspective, here we are dammit!
I DID watch this in 2007 and liked it then, albeit was surprised at how much I liked it. I think it's just a well-made movie. The idea of Anna Wintour having big headphones on listening to Greta Van Fleet for like 30 seconds and then going "no" and walking away has made me chuckle all afternoon.
Joe: Something interesting that is tangential but connected to this conversation is the idea of jobs in general, not just ones helmed by passionate genius jerkoffs. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately: ideas of "dream jobs" or the adage "if you love your work you never work a day in your life" or whatever, vs "jobs that pay the rent." Even taking Miranda out of the equation, this is a story of someone who tries really hard to convince themselves that they could "learn to love/tolerate" their job enough, simply because they don't want to go hungry. That idea is interesting to me, and kind of fucked in a late-stage capitalism kind of way, how like 90% of people our age are going through life trying to convince ourselves that the jobs we have are something we could tolerate and/or just be something to help pay the rent and not make us want to kill ourselves in the process. Without speaking too much about any specifics of your current or past employments, is something that you ever think about? Is the dream job obtainable? Or are we all Andys, working for assholes, just trying to get to the end of the day and not show up too late to any of our boyfriend's birthday parties?
Frank: I think the dream job is possibly attainable. My father-in-law loved his job (airline pilot). It was what he wanted to do since he was a kid. I think it's rare to find it. I know what my dream job would be, and hope to be able to do it someday, but it's risky and unstable, and I think that the fact is the "get through the day, paycheck, keep a roof over your head" jobs offer security, and if we are lucky, they are tolerable so that we can get to the stuff that really matters. I think the truth is if her boyfriend was really that important, she would prioritize him and her friends and sacrifice moving quickly up the ladder. I think that's the choice we have to make in life: what are we going to make our top priority? Not saying you don't miss birthdays sometimes because work forces you to, but you hate it inside.
Joe: Absolutely true, and thankfully it's not always an either/or thing. Some jobs are going to make you miss some parties that you wanna go to, but not every job is gonna be a high stakes fashion industry job that forces you to work 20-hour days. I briefly had a job when I was mid-20s at Avis at the airport, and I quit five weeks in because it really was going to be one of those jobs, but, ya know, without the glamour of Paris or whatever. I was gonna be spending my Friday and Saturday nights in a parking lot at the goddamn airport. NOT worth it. Even now, I mostly like my career, but around the time me and Pam were trying to get pregnant for the first time, I purposefully moved to a new work unit in which I wouldn't ever be forced to work overtime. It's my chosen career path, but it's still not worth it to me. Maybe it is to others. I dunno.
I almost wonder if I would've liked DWP more if they had acknowledged a little more that maybe ALL jobs are not worth missing the good stuff in life. I don't know. Maybe I'm just asking the same question I already asked (if this movie was tailored more toward me would I like it more? fucking duh) but in a different way. And maybe I'm just going too far with my "fuck work!" stance. AND maybe we should acknowledge that I am currently typing this during work, and that maybe I should consider myself lucky that I get to do this shit during work hours at all, regardless of how I feel about my job / all jobs. Let's just cheers to paying the rent, and move toward the end of our conversation.
Here are the last three questions I have, and none of them are big enough for me to do in separate emails. If we were at a pub doing this in person, I would separate them—and would probably too tipsy to explain what I actually mean anyway—but we're on email, so here ya go.
1) Not too many Oscar noms for this film—two—and zero wins. Streep lost to Helen Mirren for her role in The Queen. Not sure if you've ever seen that one. I didn't know it existed until I started watching The Crown, and it... kind of seems like The Crown? With the same creator? I didn't do too much digging. More importantly in my mind, DWP also lost in the category of Best Costume Design, which had to fucking sting. Many real-life fashion designers contributed their work to this film! But I guess Marie Antoinette was just too much of a catnip for these Oscar voters who fucking love cumming over period pieces. Thoughts? (Sorry, no Nick Choice Awards—a goddamn Pirates of the Carribean sequel won Best movie, and Anna Wintour didn't want to get slimed I guess)
2) I guess I had heard of it, but I didn't know anything about it—there is a 2015 movie called The Intern, featuring an elderly Robert DeNiro as the titular intern, and Anne Hathaway as the big bad boss this time. Though Wikipedia's plot synopsis made it seem like A) she was the opposite of Miranda's terrifying in terms of demeanor, and 2) was failing as a boss and needed DeNiro's sage advice to pull her act together. I dunno. If you haven't seen it, you can ignore these thoughts. But I do think it's interesting that Hathaway's characters can't catch a fucking break, whether she is the underling or the boss. Can't she just be the badass for once?
3) There is a band called The Devil Wears Prada, which I guess is something I should've brought up re: the fact that Anna Wintour would technically be in charge of reviewing any new albums that are deemed Pitchfork-worthy. But I was wondering what their deal was. Are they named after the movie? The fact that they are genre tagged as "Christian Metalcore" made me think no. But actually... kind of? They claim that they named their band after the book (which the movie is based on), but before the movie came out. And I read a pretty (unintentionally) funny interview in which the frontman explains that he didn't even read the book before naming his band after it, and that only afterward did he read it. And he was SHOCKED that this book had NOTHING to do with anti-materialism. I don't know why this anecdote made me laugh so much. Maybe just the moronic move of naming your Christian rock band after a book you've never read? Though maybe it's fitting... not many Christians have read THE book either, and they seem to think that they know what that's all about too, only to be wrong on that one as well. But maybe that is a stretch. I just wanted everyone to know that there is a band named after The Devil Wears Prada. I guess a question could be: have you ever listened to them? I don't think I have the stamina to try them out today.
Frank: Agree with all the work stuff.
Helen Mirren is very good in that movie, it’s very much the crown, interesting movie about her wanting to grieve her way for Diana and basically the country saying she had a responsibility to grieve a different way. Streep is probably better, but it was like a career achievement award for Mirren who’d never run.
Costumes in Marie Antoinette are great even beyond a period piece. That movie was pretty good I just saw it this year. Going for vibes for sure.
I’ve never seen The Intern but I’m familiar. It seemed too cheesy for me, but someone just told me it was better than they thought? Could have been a parent, though, so take with grain of salt. Anne has never played the badass but she is in a bummer of a movie called Havoc, and the "villain" of Oceans 8, which wasn’t great, but not her fault? I agree, give her something juicy. I'm a big fan and think she will age well when other fads come and go.
I’ve never heard this band. I think my Christian metalcore starts and ends at one Flyleaf song. If that counts as metalcore. That might be Christian alternative emo. I wish the band had been named The Devil Wears Nada, the porn parody of the movie.
Joe: See, that's what I love about these types of conversations. There's always more to learn. I can't think of a better porn name than "The Devil Wears Nada," honestly. I can't think of a better premise either... but this is a family blog.
I don't want to end on that note. What are some final thoughts about The Devil Wears Prada? How about, will this film continue to age better, or will it always grapple somewhat with its flaws? Or maybe, are there any further depths left to plumb in this movie, or is it perhaps exactly as deep as we've made it out to be? Or, finally, how would you grade this movie?
Frank: Exactly as deep as we made it out to be, which is actually already deeper than I originally assumed. I think it will continue to age well based on the strengths of the performances over whatever flaws the content has. It’s hard to grade movies without understanding my curve, but know that when I give this movie a B+, I mean it as a compliment.
I definitely have a decent amount that I came away from the movie wanting to discuss as well, and I promise only like 70% of it has to do with whatever residual white knighting I was doing for Anne Hathaway circa 2010-2012ish is left.
I guess we should also establish this—do you like The Devil Wears Prada? I liked it, but I feel like it was more of a I-liked-it-because-it-made-me-think-a-lot-about-certain-shit kind of like, as opposed to a I-liked-watching-this-movie thing. Though I did like watching the movie too, more or less. I only ask this at the beginning because that would shape how this conversation goes, depending on how your opinion compares to mine.
Frank: I really like this movie, and I haven't a clue why. Is this a case for a movie that is well-made and well-cast just can't help but be good? Like this isn't a topic that generally interests me, there is nothing about the movie that stands out to me, and yet any time I stumble upon it, I find myself watching it. It's a perfect "don't have to think too hard or pay attention but not because it's trash" movie, I think.
I never got the Anne Hathaway hate at all. I was also Team Annie. I think she knows who she is and what to do in this.
The rest of the cast is just chewing up all the scenes that they are in and having a blast. Stanley Tucci having a great time, Emily Blunt stealing the movie, and then of course Meryl. Meryl exists in this world where she is universally understood to be the cream of the crop of acting, seemingly annually nominated for Academy Awards, and yet, put people's feet to the fire, and how many Meryl Streep movies have they actually seen? She's like a mythical legend in prestige boring movies that people take your word for are good, but seem so stuffy that I get anxious thinking about having to watch them, or like it's gonna be an ordeal. This is Meryl Streep getting to be in a fun movie and flaunt that she can be fun and big and campy and still good!
I don't care for the Entourage guy, but can't knock the movie for that. He was the Entourage guy then, you gotta put him in something! He's a dud playing a dud character who I guess you are supposed to root for, but the flaw of the movie to me is you don't. You want Anne Hathaway to be good at her job and be a part of this world and get her career goals, not be shamed by her dick boyfriend for not being hipster enough to "not care."
I also don't care for the Mentalist, he has weird eyebrows in this movie that I find really distracting. and the soundtrack has aged poorly from overexposure. Hard to find a more eye-roll-y song than "Suddenly I See" for me personally.
I like this movie because the stakes aren't that high to like this movie. It's not a "great" movie, but it's very watchable, and for the most part I think it does everything that it set out to do, which is all you can really ask for. Sometimes that is enough. I think it holds up pretty well fifteen years on, in a way opposite to how these types of movies usually age like sour grapes.
Joe: I hate the beginning of conversations like this, because all of a sudden there are like seventeen things that I want to talk about at once. So for now I'm going to stick with the thoughts about the acting and the various actors/actresses here. And I will move from least important to most important.
I absolutely thought the same thing about Simon Baker's eyebrows, which... I mean, I'm gonna get into whether either of us actually give a shit about the idea of "fashion" and how that affects our appreciation or lack thereof of The Devil Wears Prada, but it's kinda funny that we both had a reaction that was "holy shit, that guy's face is not fashionable."
I googled "is Stanley Tucci gay," and not only found out that he is not gay, but also that he is currently married to Emily Blunt's sister, making him Jim Halpert's brother-in-law. This concludes the IMDB Trivia section of our discussion.
I didn't mind Adrian Grenier as an actor (neither does Jim C****), but I agree with you that the biggest flaw of this movie is how it never quite gets it straight which side of the argument it lands on—is this supposed to be a good job for Andy and a job we should ALL care about, or is she "selling her soul"? Again, don't wanna get too deep in the weeds here when we are discussing performances, but I'll open it up to that discussion if you feel like you've said your piece about the acting.
But first, the big two. I like how you describe Meryl Streep as a "myth" more so than an actress known for her actual work. I think there was a brief time in my life when I was unnecessarily harsh in my opinion toward her, kind of like a "well has she EARNED her status in Hollywood?" type thing. I dunno, I think I tend to go a little overboard in "punching up" at big A-list movie stars. Wasn't there a thing about Streep making Catherine Z*** cry? Stuff like that usually makes me roll my eyes—not the Catherine crying part specifically, just the idea that anyone could have such an emotional reaction to this world-renowned acteur, a reaction that I don't know is actually earned. I dunno! (Also, these thoughts will seem especially ironic/hypocritical once I move on to Anne Hathaway in a couple paragraphs.)
In any case, this is maybe her most famous role? Or at least top three? I saw Kramer v. Kramer in high school (shout out to Doug Demeter's Morality class), and Sophie's Choice is way down on my list, so we'll get there in a year(s). What else would she be well-known for? My point being that if we are going to talk about Meryl Streep the actress, then Devil Wears Prada is a good one to do that for. And I think she did really well here. Brought exactly the right amount of steely coldness to the role.
I was actually looking forward to it since I just watched The Deer Hunter a couple weeks ago, which was Streep's very first Oscar nom (out of 21, holy shit!). And knowing the "myth" of Streep, I was surprised in that film how... not significant she was? Both the role itself and her acting in it, honestly. Like, I knew her as the Miranda Priestly type, the type of actress who is going to talk shit on trump at the 2017 Golden Globe awards (the incident that made me sincerely reevaluate how dumb it is to roll your eyes at actors/actress for whom you know nothing about, i.e. I'm not trying to be a trump and call her "overrated" any more when I don't know shit from shit, ya know?). And here she is, all wispy and soft-spoken next to the gruff Robert DeNiro.
I dunno, it was just good seeing her in this type of role in DWP. Maybe the role of Miranda Priestly has so seeped into our collective consciousness that I saw Streep as that character before I ever even saw Devil Wears Prada. It just squared more with my vision—our vision, maybe—of Streep.
And now, Anne Hathaway. I'll say this—I knew just as much about Anne Hathaway in 2011 as I did Meryl Streep, i.e. zero, so I am quite fortunate that all the defending I did out of spite/ball-busting around that time is retroactively justified. Hathaway is so good! Just so goddamn lived-in and natural in this movie.
I guess my theory about why people tended to dislike Hathaway back in the day (and not just the women that we associated with in college—yo Sara B******, are you reading this?!—but a very real and widespread dislike) is that it comes down to her constant upbeat theater-nerd energy. This isn't a new theory, I know other people have thought this, but I take the offense to this theory personally, because we hung around a lot of theater kids in college, many of them exuding the same type of energy, and while, yes, there was the running joke that our best theater friends were the "jocks and cheerleaders" of the theater program, i.e. had a certain sense of "cool" at least in the context of a shitty college's shitty theater program that others, and Anne Hathaway (and literally Anne Hathaway's La Salle Masque alum parents!) just do not possess, because the quote-unquote "lame" theater-nerd energy is there, yes, this is all true.
But it's also true that I have always kind of admired that type of energy, personally, that someone could be so unequivocally upbeat/lame in the same breath. I am thinking of specific people in the Masque from way back when, and I won't say any names particularly, but I feel like I'm still defending these friends (acquaintances) in "remember when" conversations with our still-friends from college. Because I'll defend what many people don't seem to have any desire to defend—there's value in someone being like this, in someone's personality coming off as quirky, lame, gooey and emotional, ultimately UNCOOL, because I see that as honest. Or at least more honest than me and my ironic sarcasm, or however you want to describe any attempt I personally make to be "cool" in whatever sense of the word.
So I acknowledge that society at large tends to turn away uncomfortably from the goopy sincerity that is portrayed in this type of personality, and I acknowledge that this desire for hip cynical bullshit is ultimately gonna lead to some widespread bullying of some very rich and talented actresses, but I'm saying that I don't like it, and I don't like participating it. But that's easy to say, and easier to actually do, and of course I have a tough time being gooey and honest and lame and sincere myself (unless, I dunno, I'm drunk blogging or something?).
I don't know if any of this constitutes virtue signalling, and if it does, then anyone reading this can just ignore it. I just think that it's pretty wild that anyone could watch The Devil Wears Prada and Hathaway's performance in it and not fucking love Hathaway as a performer (or at least wave away any indication that Anne Hathaway might annoy you in person?).
Frank: I have more thoughts to collect, but I think you've hit on largely what the movie is actually about I think. Admiring people who aren't cool. It would seem like the fashion people would be the cool ones, right? Obsessed with looking great. But in the movie, it's actually her chef boyfriend and her liberal arts friends who are the cool New Yorkers, right: mocking the snooty fashion world and mean devil boss. But what is the fashion world actually about? Sure, clothes and standards of beauty, but I think what the movie comes down to is actually a lot like Whiplash: it's about a bunch of people who care very much about this one particular thing. Care so much that they are consumed by it, and driven by someone seeking excellence and perfection and accepting no lower standards from those around her. The unabashed pursuit of greatness because they care about it more than anything: these beautiful people are the ultimate nerds.
So maybe the movie is more about learning to be okay with working hard and getting your ass kicked and learning to actually care about something and pursue greatness in it; and then ultimately realizing what the personal moral line is, which is how the movie ends. Andy has taken the lessons of Miranda, but refuses to continue to hurt those around her in pursuit of these goals. And weirdly gets rewarded by Miranda for it in the end, for becoming her own person, something Emily wasn't capable of doing yet. Miranda is a ruthless person, willing to crush her best employee in Tucci to keep in the game, but she is still a person with kids and a failing marriage. Andy gets to become her own Miranda with her own moral compass.
Joe: I think you captured the essence of the main conflict in the movie, and how complicated it is to think about all this. So complicated that I'm not even sure I know what exactly the movie is trying to say—though whether that's my fault or Devil Wears Prada's fault, I'm still not sure.
So let's break it down. We have Andy, who gets a job just for the paycheck (literally cheers-ing to "jobs that pay the rent" with her friends), but then is convinced by Miranda, et al, that fashion is something worth caring about. So you, the audience, might be inclined to think that this is what DWP is trying to do to you too. But then you see that that passion—the double whammy of Miranda's "Cerulean" speech and Nigel's "homework and gold star" speech showing that passion to both Andy and the audience—has its own dark ends. Miranda is revealed to be too ruthless, Nigel too accepting of being a whipping boy, Nigel correctly predicting that Andy's life is going to fall apart (mainly regarding her love life). As much as you hate to side with Nate a.k.a. Vincent Chase, Andy's apology seems to be showing that DWP itself sides with him, and the fact that Andy "sold her soul" or whatever.
I read that Meryl Streep insisted that the Cerulean blue speech be reinstated into the script, after it was previously edited out, but I wonder if that was the best decision. Yes, it is effective as a monologue in a major motion picture, but it kind of muddles exactly what DWP's message is. In other words, it's almost too good at convincing you that Miranda is "right," but by the end of the movie it kinda seems like we are to believe that Miranda is "wrong." OR maybe this is by design, and I'm just being dense; maybe we are supposed to fall under Miranda's spell, and we are supposed to feel the rug pulled out from under us just like Andy does.
And this isn't even touching on the fact that I came into this movie not giving a FUCK about fashion, and what kind of friction that creates in my viewing of DWP. This is probably just a more innocuous version of a discussion that Sunny and I had regarding Children of Men—does a movie need to make you care about what its characters care about in order to be a "good" movie? Like you alluded to above, probably not—this movie might not even be about fashion, per se, but more about the dogged pursuit of perfection. But I wonder two things: 1) Would the movie be better or worse if it was about a subject I cared more about in real life? and 2) Should we judge DWP on its ability (or lack thereof) to convince its audience that fashion, specifically, is worthy of pursuit?
So to toss it to you, what do you think about this? What do you think about fashion? Do you care about it more or less or the same after seeing DWP? And does that even fucking matter?
Also, am I right to be confused about what DWP is ultimately trying to say? Or should we skip right to the logical conclusion of this question and admit that the fact that DWP is even making me mull this over for the amount of time that I have is actually a mark of its genius?
Frank: I think we are supposed to fall under Miranda's spell. We are supposed to be Andy, at first skeptical of this world, but then drawn in by the fast pass, the promise of travel and fancy parties, which even if it isn't our bag, we can think of what would be our thing.
It's funny this is the first watch through of this movie that I thought of Whiplash (it always comes back to Whiplash lol). This isn't as well-made a movie obviously, but it does follow similar beats, that is a movie that does cover the pursuit of something that we are both passionate about. Does our love of Whiplash actually make me say something like "oh it's OBVIOUSLY a much better movie"? Maybe that's just my bias. But I do think you would be more fanatical about a topic you are invested in, which makes it more impressive that a world I don't particularly like and is at the center of a consumerism culture that may have been the death knell of our economic stability, I think is a REALLY GOOD movie. It hops over a higher bar.
I think a movie DOES have to get you to care about what the characters care about in order to be good, but from a sympathy aspect more than an empathy aspect, ya know? Like, we want Andy to be ultimately happy, or we want mankind in an apocalyptic future to have a second shot at going on as a species (a little different case of stakes, lol, but in improv there is a goal that if you can really convince the audience that the thing is important to you, it'll be important to them, andif you seem like you don't care, why should the audience—it's all air they are looking at).
As to your last point, I think both can be true. I think the fact we are discussing the merits of the movie's philosophy and really digging into it means the movie has succeeded, but that doesn't give it carte blanche to waffle on wanting everything for everyone. I don't think it ultimately knows what it's trying to say, and I think that's alright. I think in some ways the movie and novel can't be so in love with the world of fashion and then assassinate it as being ruthless and unfulfilling. Miranda is the devil, but there is a huge admiration for the inspiration of Anna Wintour by everybody involved. It's a movie about paradoxes, that maybe wants us to draw our own conclusions? I don't know that feels like giving it an awful lot of credit though.
Joe: I appreciate the comparison to Whiplash, and I think the comparison actually gives a lot to think about. As you mentioned, does my former pursuit of drumming and current pursuit of enjoying music give me more reason to enjoy Whiplash? Probably. But like you said, that makes DWP all the more impressive. Even more than that though, I think it's interesting thinking about Andy vs. Miles Teller, and Miranda vs. J.K. Simmons. With Miles' character, he starts out wanting to be fanatical about his field, whereas Andy couldn't give less of a shit but is eventually roped in. So I think with Whiplash, you (the audience) start out appreciating the pursuit of the protagonist, whereas DWP has to earn it (and then, unlike DWP, I think it's pretty clear what Whiplash wants its audience to think about that pursuit once it reaches its inevitable conclusion).
Miranda and Simmons' character are more similar—respected in their field, ruthless in their desire for perfection in that field, and so on—and I think at the end of the day, both characters really do want their respective protégés to succeed. There's a toxicity in their relationship with their protégés too, though I think they start to differ when you consider just how far they push their protégés (then again, getting that HP manuscript must've been pretty daunting). The main contrast is probably gonna depend on how the viewer ultimately sees Miranda, but it's: how redeemable are these characters?
Is Miranda redeemable? I would say the movie wants you to think that she is, after she flashes a rare smile after seeing Andy on the street. The first time she smiles all movie! So a good question would be: is that smile earned?
I'm glad you mentioned the real-life inspiration for Miranda Priestly, Anna Wintour, because I read a pretty good 10th Anniversary piece for this film on The Ringer that mainly focused on Wintour and how her reputation has evolved over that ten-year period and beyond. (I should say that I did not know who the real Prada-wearing devil was before watching the movie, so I knew nothing about Wintour before this.) The most interesting aspect to me was how society as a whole has changed its perception on the idea of "girl bosses" (like Beyoncé "slaying" and all that), and so Wintour has found her image softened as people become less sexist in corporate America in general.
Now, DWP barely touches on this—I think Andy mentions Miranda's gender once in the context of sexism but it's pretty quick to forget the point as soon as it's said—but I guess it's still interesting to think about Miranda in light of our evolving society. Are we only having this conversation because it's 2021? I can say with near certainty that you wouldn't have been able to get 2006 Joe to watch DWP, most likely due to preconceived notions of it being "too girly" or whatever. Then again, is it not still fucked up that this might be the most famous semi-fictional portrayal of a "girl boss" in cinema, and it is a character infamous for being a huge fucking bitch as well?
It's tough to parse through it, especially being two straight white dudes, but I would be curious as to your thoughts on this whole aspect to the film (again, even though DWP itself doesn't even seem to keen on discussing it). Or, we can just ignore all that and focus on the fact that Anna Wintour is currently the Global Chief Content Officer for Condé Nast, which means she has SOMETHING to do with Pitchfork's music reviews. Is Anna Wintour the reason that Greta Van Fleet's debut album got a fucking 1.6?!?!
Frank: I do think Miranda is redeemable. Does her smile at the end indicate that she is proud of Andy for not becoming her? Probably not. Tying in with the second point, I think its a smile for someone who had the resolve to walk their own path. She passes a weird test by quitting on her own terms after being successful. Not that she agrees with her, but she is now more of a peer than Nigel or Emily ever will be.
Trying to think of if a boss was a dick and was a guy, would it just be accepted? Don Draper maybe, but the show really leans into it NOT being okay that he is a dick. So I don't know that the sexism comes in the form of how she acts being received differently because of her gender, but I do think HAVING to act that way in order to be taken seriously in the first place is a theme that would be intentional. The pressure to succeed for Nate should be just as much for Andy—he's a chef in New York, that should come with a lot of pressure if Anthony Bourdain has taught me anything. And yet he seems to not have to work as hard, highlighting the whole "having to be twice as good to move up the same amount" notion. Maybe the movie is making a point that Simon Baker gets to be charming in a world where Miranda Priestly always has to demand perfection and is constantly being looked at to be replaced. ONCE AGAIN you and I normally would have to take a back seat and listen to this conversation, but as its just the two of us with no female perspective, here we are dammit!
I DID watch this in 2007 and liked it then, albeit was surprised at how much I liked it. I think it's just a well-made movie. The idea of Anna Wintour having big headphones on listening to Greta Van Fleet for like 30 seconds and then going "no" and walking away has made me chuckle all afternoon.
Joe: Something interesting that is tangential but connected to this conversation is the idea of jobs in general, not just ones helmed by passionate genius jerkoffs. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately: ideas of "dream jobs" or the adage "if you love your work you never work a day in your life" or whatever, vs "jobs that pay the rent." Even taking Miranda out of the equation, this is a story of someone who tries really hard to convince themselves that they could "learn to love/tolerate" their job enough, simply because they don't want to go hungry. That idea is interesting to me, and kind of fucked in a late-stage capitalism kind of way, how like 90% of people our age are going through life trying to convince ourselves that the jobs we have are something we could tolerate and/or just be something to help pay the rent and not make us want to kill ourselves in the process. Without speaking too much about any specifics of your current or past employments, is something that you ever think about? Is the dream job obtainable? Or are we all Andys, working for assholes, just trying to get to the end of the day and not show up too late to any of our boyfriend's birthday parties?
Frank: I think the dream job is possibly attainable. My father-in-law loved his job (airline pilot). It was what he wanted to do since he was a kid. I think it's rare to find it. I know what my dream job would be, and hope to be able to do it someday, but it's risky and unstable, and I think that the fact is the "get through the day, paycheck, keep a roof over your head" jobs offer security, and if we are lucky, they are tolerable so that we can get to the stuff that really matters. I think the truth is if her boyfriend was really that important, she would prioritize him and her friends and sacrifice moving quickly up the ladder. I think that's the choice we have to make in life: what are we going to make our top priority? Not saying you don't miss birthdays sometimes because work forces you to, but you hate it inside.
Joe: Absolutely true, and thankfully it's not always an either/or thing. Some jobs are going to make you miss some parties that you wanna go to, but not every job is gonna be a high stakes fashion industry job that forces you to work 20-hour days. I briefly had a job when I was mid-20s at Avis at the airport, and I quit five weeks in because it really was going to be one of those jobs, but, ya know, without the glamour of Paris or whatever. I was gonna be spending my Friday and Saturday nights in a parking lot at the goddamn airport. NOT worth it. Even now, I mostly like my career, but around the time me and Pam were trying to get pregnant for the first time, I purposefully moved to a new work unit in which I wouldn't ever be forced to work overtime. It's my chosen career path, but it's still not worth it to me. Maybe it is to others. I dunno.
I almost wonder if I would've liked DWP more if they had acknowledged a little more that maybe ALL jobs are not worth missing the good stuff in life. I don't know. Maybe I'm just asking the same question I already asked (if this movie was tailored more toward me would I like it more? fucking duh) but in a different way. And maybe I'm just going too far with my "fuck work!" stance. AND maybe we should acknowledge that I am currently typing this during work, and that maybe I should consider myself lucky that I get to do this shit during work hours at all, regardless of how I feel about my job / all jobs. Let's just cheers to paying the rent, and move toward the end of our conversation.
Here are the last three questions I have, and none of them are big enough for me to do in separate emails. If we were at a pub doing this in person, I would separate them—and would probably too tipsy to explain what I actually mean anyway—but we're on email, so here ya go.
1) Not too many Oscar noms for this film—two—and zero wins. Streep lost to Helen Mirren for her role in The Queen. Not sure if you've ever seen that one. I didn't know it existed until I started watching The Crown, and it... kind of seems like The Crown? With the same creator? I didn't do too much digging. More importantly in my mind, DWP also lost in the category of Best Costume Design, which had to fucking sting. Many real-life fashion designers contributed their work to this film! But I guess Marie Antoinette was just too much of a catnip for these Oscar voters who fucking love cumming over period pieces. Thoughts? (Sorry, no Nick Choice Awards—a goddamn Pirates of the Carribean sequel won Best movie, and Anna Wintour didn't want to get slimed I guess)
2) I guess I had heard of it, but I didn't know anything about it—there is a 2015 movie called The Intern, featuring an elderly Robert DeNiro as the titular intern, and Anne Hathaway as the big bad boss this time. Though Wikipedia's plot synopsis made it seem like A) she was the opposite of Miranda's terrifying in terms of demeanor, and 2) was failing as a boss and needed DeNiro's sage advice to pull her act together. I dunno. If you haven't seen it, you can ignore these thoughts. But I do think it's interesting that Hathaway's characters can't catch a fucking break, whether she is the underling or the boss. Can't she just be the badass for once?
3) There is a band called The Devil Wears Prada, which I guess is something I should've brought up re: the fact that Anna Wintour would technically be in charge of reviewing any new albums that are deemed Pitchfork-worthy. But I was wondering what their deal was. Are they named after the movie? The fact that they are genre tagged as "Christian Metalcore" made me think no. But actually... kind of? They claim that they named their band after the book (which the movie is based on), but before the movie came out. And I read a pretty (unintentionally) funny interview in which the frontman explains that he didn't even read the book before naming his band after it, and that only afterward did he read it. And he was SHOCKED that this book had NOTHING to do with anti-materialism. I don't know why this anecdote made me laugh so much. Maybe just the moronic move of naming your Christian rock band after a book you've never read? Though maybe it's fitting... not many Christians have read THE book either, and they seem to think that they know what that's all about too, only to be wrong on that one as well. But maybe that is a stretch. I just wanted everyone to know that there is a band named after The Devil Wears Prada. I guess a question could be: have you ever listened to them? I don't think I have the stamina to try them out today.
Frank: Agree with all the work stuff.
Helen Mirren is very good in that movie, it’s very much the crown, interesting movie about her wanting to grieve her way for Diana and basically the country saying she had a responsibility to grieve a different way. Streep is probably better, but it was like a career achievement award for Mirren who’d never run.
Costumes in Marie Antoinette are great even beyond a period piece. That movie was pretty good I just saw it this year. Going for vibes for sure.
I’ve never seen The Intern but I’m familiar. It seemed too cheesy for me, but someone just told me it was better than they thought? Could have been a parent, though, so take with grain of salt. Anne has never played the badass but she is in a bummer of a movie called Havoc, and the "villain" of Oceans 8, which wasn’t great, but not her fault? I agree, give her something juicy. I'm a big fan and think she will age well when other fads come and go.
I’ve never heard this band. I think my Christian metalcore starts and ends at one Flyleaf song. If that counts as metalcore. That might be Christian alternative emo. I wish the band had been named The Devil Wears Nada, the porn parody of the movie.
Joe: See, that's what I love about these types of conversations. There's always more to learn. I can't think of a better porn name than "The Devil Wears Nada," honestly. I can't think of a better premise either... but this is a family blog.
I don't want to end on that note. What are some final thoughts about The Devil Wears Prada? How about, will this film continue to age better, or will it always grapple somewhat with its flaws? Or maybe, are there any further depths left to plumb in this movie, or is it perhaps exactly as deep as we've made it out to be? Or, finally, how would you grade this movie?
Frank: Exactly as deep as we made it out to be, which is actually already deeper than I originally assumed. I think it will continue to age well based on the strengths of the performances over whatever flaws the content has. It’s hard to grade movies without understanding my curve, but know that when I give this movie a B+, I mean it as a compliment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GRADE (Joe's): 3.5 pukes out of 5
NEXT TIME: Joe attempts to grapple with how in the hell to write about Madea after watching Diary of a Mad Black Woman
2 comments:
This is a fun read.
I saw The Intern on a plane, and having not seen DWP, would agree Intern was a worse DWP based solely on this tête-à-tête. Intern was better than I expected, but still not good...
This was helpful to hear. I feel like I can usually tell if a movie is bad based on the Wiki plot synopsis, and this one did not come off well. Though who knows if I'll ever be bored enough on a plane in the future.
Post a Comment