Back then, social media was in its infancy. Power rested solely on fashion editors such as the fictional Miranda Priestly and real-life Anna Wintour. Today, that power has not just dispersed, it has become irrelevant.
Cornell graduate Lauren Weisberger worked for 10 months at Vogue as editor in chief Anna Wintour’s assistant in 1999. That relatively short stint was the basis of her bestselling debut novel The Devil Wears Prada, published in 2003.
The novel wouldn’t have gotten as much attention as it did had Weisberger worked for a different editor at a different magazine. In 2003, print was the dominant medium and fashion magazines—such as Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, WWD—were the bibles that set trends, made or unmade fashion designers, celebrities, and models.
While the book received mixed reviews with critics and fashion insiders calling it “mean-spirited” and no more than a gossip column, it became an instant bestseller for those exact reasons: a light read that was gossipy and confessional at the same time.
Ironically, the branch of journalism that should be investigating the Dior scandal is conspicuously quiet. To say it’s because Dior is an advertiser is such old thinking. Given these magazines’ resources and influence, they could have made a real difference in fashion and taken editorial power back.
When Wintour heard about Weisberger’s book, she reportedly told her managing editor Laurie Jones, “I cannot remember who that girl is.”
The book was optioned very quickly. By 2004, Fox acquired the rights to adopt it into film, and in 2006 the movie was released. It made over $326 million worldwide on a $41 million budget and became the 12th highest-grossing movie that year.
Devil revolves around Andrea “Andy” Sachs who lands a job in New York as an assistant to powerful, demanding Runway editor in chief Miranda Priestly. Andy struggles to find her place in the glamorous and cutthroat world of fashion, until she gradually adapts and transforms her appearance and attitude.
As Andy experiences ethical dilemmas, the highs and lows of working at Runway, she gains Priestly’s trust but begins to falter in her own beliefs. Ultimately, she leaves the magazine to pursue her personal happiness and love of writing.
Author Weisberger would later tell the Daily Mirror in an interview, “When the book was published, people kept saying ‘It’s so brave of you to write this,’ but it wasn’t bravery—it was stupidity and complete naiveté. I didn’t think anyone would read it, let alone have an opinion on it. Had I known about all the fuss that would ensue, I would have been paralyzed. But people attributed things to the book that I hadn’t intended.”
Written under the guise of fiction, everyone knew who “Miranda Priestly” was based on. And for the first time, Wintour’s world was flung open by an insider. For the first time, too, articles critical of her began to appear, questioning the ethics of receiving designer gifts costing thousands of dollars from the designers and celebrities she was covering as editor.
In 2005, two years after Devil was published, what many people considered its local equivalent came out and shocked Manila. The novel When Chic Hits the Fan by Kitty Go employed the same roman a cléf style, exposing corruption and the absurdities in fashion, lifestyle media, and Manila society.
Sequel confirmed, stars “in talks”
When The Devil Wears Prada was first published, it was all anyone connected to fashion and media could talk about. The book was enjoyable but beyond the plot it was largely forgettable.
The famous quote by Miranda Priestly, “Everyone wants to be us,” became iconic because of Meryl Streep even though it was lifted directly from the book. The movie also managed to hold the interest of succeeding generations for the past 18 years.
While a sequel was always rumored, it’s only now that plans seem to be moving. Two days ago, July 9, Variety reported that Devil is in talks with Aline Brosh McKenna, who adapted the original screenplay, to write the sequel. (McKenna also wrote the screenplays of 27 Dresses, Laws of Attraction and We Bought a Zoo among others.)
Yesterday, Entertainment Today said the actors— Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt, Stanley Tucci—are also in talks to reprise their roles; and that David Frankel will direct once again while Wendy Finerman will produce. This comes on the heels of news that the Broadway version of Devil, headlined by Vanessa Williams, is set to begin previews ahead of its October premiere.
Different eras, different values
So what could the sequel be about? At the end of the movie, Andy resigns from Runway and is pursuing her true ambition: writing. Is she now a bestselling author or does she go back to media? And what about her frenemy Emily, what has become of her?
People magazine surmised yesterday that the plot may still center on editor Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) “as she learns to navigate an increasingly digital magazine industry, scraping for advertising money. Meanwhile, Emily (Emily Blunt) has risen the ranks and now works at one of Runway’s luxury brand conglomerates that advertises with the publication.”
When the movie came out, designer bags were the aspiration of middle-class women. It was the carrot on a stick chased by exhausted but determined dreamers hoping for a taste of the glamorous life in the pages of fashion magazines. Not anymore.
The magazine continues that it could also be based on the book’s 2013 sequel, Revenge Wears Prada: The Devil Returns, set a decade after the original where “Andy and Emily come together as top magazine editors when Miranda comes sneaking back into Andy’s life.”
I think the first story is more plausible; the second is highly unlikely given Priestly’s character. Twenty-one years between the original material and the current state of fashion and media make for a more interesting plot—especially if they make Andy the editor of fashion’s biggest website to pit her directly against Priestley’s magazine. To make it juicier, Emily controls the advertising money.
Power and consequence
Another change between the early 2000s and today is that social media platforms were then in their infancy. There were no fashion influencers and power rested solely on editors such as Wintour. Today, that power has not just dispersed, but has lost much of its meaning as people are pushing back against unethical designer brands and luxury—and media.
Today, there is not just awareness of ethical practices such as fair trade and sustainability, but major concern and real action against brands and people who continue to ignore them—including media.
Take the recent Dior scandal, where Italian police discovered poor working conditions in a supplier’s factory. The reporting indicates that workers, including undocumented Chinese immigrants, labored without breaks. What outraged people was that they were paid only $57 (P4,375) to make one bag (without cost of material) and Dior is retailing it for $2,780 (P162,000).
Ironically, the branch of journalism that should be investigating these things is conspicuously quiet. Did Vogue or WWD cover the Dior story? No, they didn’t. I don’t want to say that’s expected since Dior, owned by LVMH, is an advertiser. That’s such old thinking. Given these magazines’ resources and influence, they could have made a real difference in fashion if they launched their own investigation on brands and their suppliers.
They could have taken power back from advertisers and made editorial relevant and consequential again. Instead, the story was covered by news and business outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Business Insider, and Forbes…and TikTok.
When the movie came out, designer bags were the aspiration of middle-class women, office secretaries, and urban professionals. It was a carrot on a stick chased by exhausted but determined dreamers hoping for a taste of the glamorous life in the pages of fashion magazines.
These bags—made for $57 in poor working conditions and sold for $2,780—they’re just not that important in people’s lives right now.
Women didn’t question where their bags came from. They believed the brands when they said it took a million hours to stitch such and such bag by generations of artisans—oh those poor, lovely hands laboring in French or Italian ateliers, and being happy about it!
Women were being sold a dream. It wasn’t an impractical dream back then because they were making more than enough.
But the times have changed, we have two new generations that are of age to spend their own money: Gen Z and millennials. And they have been priced out of the two-car garage home in the city. From previously affordable Lisbon, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Amsterdam, and Manila, there just isn’t enough money for such luxuries for the young middle class as the rich are taking over everything.
Today, you see the messaging that “designer brands are keeping the middle class in poverty” all over, amplified by legitimate research, YouTubers, and young people on TikTok. For every influencer unboxing a pricey designer bag on social media, there are two or three others pushing back, and buying plane tickets to travel and enrich their lives that way.
These things—made for $57 in poor working conditions and sold for $2,780—they’re just not that important in people’s lives right now.
The rich who can afford a lovely home, unique experiences, trips, and luxury bags, sure! And the lifestyle and fashion journalists? Since I was a young reporter, I’ve always believed that we only cover these people, these brands—we don’t belong in their world. We shouldn’t labor under the illusion that we do or, worse, make it our aspiration.
Maybe that should be the message of The Devil Wears Prada sequel to journalists.
