- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joel Berger is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
In Vogue: Bashing Female Bosses
'The Devil Wears Prada'...and there's only one queen.
Power, draped in fabric.
Once upon a time, I had a female boss who took me out to lunch and told me that whenever she looked at me she saw horns growing out the sides of my head. So, yes, I am the devil. I only wish I could wear Prada. It would be worth being the satanic majesty in satin.
Working for women is hell. That is the message of Lauren Weisberger's hatchet-attack The Devil Wears Prada. After working for Anna "Nuclear" Wintour, the editrix-cum-dominatrix of Vogue magazine for little less than a year, Weisberger turned tail and yelped like a beaten dog, fashioning her experiences into a "novel". Well, sort of a novel. More like a breathless poor-widdle-me tell-all in which Wintour becames one Miranda Priestly, the meanest mother to stalk the halls of power. Ain't that just like a woman? No fisticuffs in the streets, just a nasty little book about bitches in command and the whiners who work for them.
This sneaky sabotage act was an enormous success and had the New York fashion world clucking for months. The film version may have softened the original message to "working for women is heck," but the point remains. Work plus women plus fashion equals a battle of the bag hags, the label whores and the various tribes who will kill for the cut of a jacket. Live by the seam, die by the seam as they say.
Sachs meets Fifth Avenue
Into the fashion trenches enters little Andy Sachs (played by doe-eyed actress Anne Hathaway). Andy is a typical college-age dolt who thinks the world owes her a living, so off she sets for a job interview at Runway magazine, where she is assured that a year as the assistant of Miranda Priestly will open doors to journalistic jobs galore. So despite her disdain for all things fashionista, she takes the job and falls down a rabbit hole where one cerulean belt is simply not the same as another cerulean belt.
In this particular wonderland, the Queen of Hearts is played by Her Majesty Meryl Streep. "Off with her head!" screams the Queen. But Miranda Priestly need never even raise her voice; she can do it all with a frozen stare, a purse of lips or a toss of her silver mane. She is all ice queen reserve poured into a frosted glass and deeply chilled in liquid nitrogen.
Streep is certainly something: you forget almost instantly that she is anything other than whom she is pretending to be, such is her art. The rest of the cast pales in comparison, quite literally, with the exception of Stanley Tucci (Nigel) who can hold his own in the thespian camp by camping up a storm. Nigel is second-in-command to Ms. Priestly, and in the high church of fashion he is a bishop: aiming for power, but content to bide his time.
Starring...shoes
The other superstars in this film are, of course, the shoes, the bags and the coats: Chanel, Valentino, Jimmy Choo. Excuse me while I hyperventilate. But despite the presence of the big names, this is still largely a cartoon version of fashion, which is one of the things that incited the New York fashion press to howl like macaques when the film was first released. "Where's the chic?!" they cried, mascara running in dark streaks down their botoxed cheeks.
The film's fashion designer, Patricia Field, who rose to prominence dressing the sirens of Sex and the City, has pulled together some truly curious ensembles. Some of which speak more to a sense of humour than hard-core vogue; although, you'd be hard-pressed to see the difference in the in the opening montage, which depicts a series of lithe lovelies getting their kit on and heading out to stalk the streets of Manhattan, like so many Glamazons. There is lots of S&M wear on display, whiplash girl-childs in thigh-high Chanel boots of leather, oodles of chains and the occasional tongue lash. As campy as Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS, such posing is all fun and games until some bitch starts bawling. Which happens soon enough. Fashion, red in tooth and claw, chews up these young women and spits them out, but there are always more to take their place, as Andy is reminded throughout. ("There are a million girls who would kill for your job.") Kill, quite literally.
Under Miranda's boot-camp tutelage, Andy learns the hard lessons of style: hemlines go up and down, bags come and go and so do people. When she is given a choice between the right decision and the option of going to Paris for fashion week, Andy chooses the City of Light -- and really, who wouldn't? I would. There isn't anything unexpected here; it's the usual clichés: women are nasty cows who blithely undercut each other for jobs, and men are largely irrelevant to the process; they stand on the sidelines looking on in bewilderment or else resentful of the successful women who run empires of image and issue decrees with the power of monarchs.
Queens and pretenders
Miranda may be evil, but she is not without sympathy. In fact, there might almost be a little too much sympathy here. At the film's screening in New York, Ms. Wintour was said to have given the film a glacial nod of approval, perhaps because of the all of the characters, Miranda Priestly is by far the most fascinating: her wintry style, all the more enticing for being so inapproachable, like a glacier in human form. This is especially so in contrast to her underlings, including Andy with her Chanel and blackened eyes, who looks like a little girl playing dress-up in borrowed finery.
There can only be one queen, the rest are only pretenders to the throne. In this sense, the film gets one fashion dictum correct. True chic, as Diana Vreeland, or some other famous editor was fond of saying, lies in denial; it's not a neck heavy with chains and baubles, but one with no adornment at all. This is what gives Streep's portrayal of Miranda so much panache: it's the whisper not the shout that speaks of power. Restraint is everything.
The usual cant about women and work is never examined in any depth, but that's not what you go to see a fluffy piece of marabou like this for. It's a confection, a spun sugar bonbon that disappears as soon as you pop it in your mouth. Before you can think "Mmm, delish!" it's all gone. Still, it has its moments. It is easy to pooh-pooh what has been construed as woman culture: the dreaded chick-lit lot. But despite the pretty package, Vogue has done some interesting journalism, regularly championing visionary artists and writers. It's easy to overlook its more serious side with all the clothes in the way. This is a play on the old Faustian bargain idea; except here Mephistopheles doesn't have cloven hooves and a tail, she has really great shoes. Of all the things women will do for clothes, selling your soul is only the beginning. "I turned my back on my family and friends," says little Andy at the end of the film. "Yeah, for shoes," answers her wan wiener boyfriend. "And coats, and bags, and belts, and shirts and jackets."
Dump him; take up with Karl (Lagerfeld), John (Galliano), Marc (Jacobs), Alexander (McQueen), Nicolas (Ghesquiere). You can have a whole bevy of boyfriends. And maybe just one girlfriend, Miuccia (Prada) I love you!
This is a "Holly would" film after all, and thus we must err on the side of traditional morality, in which the sweetly skinny heroine turns away from temptation and follows her heart into working for the alternative press. She even gives back her fabulous wardrobe. Honey, I'm here to tell you, grab the goods while you can. If you want to be a writer you'll be poor and Prada-less forever.
Dorothy Woodend reviews films for The Tyee every Friday.
Related Tyee stories: Dorothy Woodend wrote about how clothes make the me, and about the thrill of thrift hunting as part of the GladRags series, and about the lethal power of prettiness. ![]()



9
Login or register to post comments
Jeffrey J.
5 years ago
Comments on "In Vogue: Bashing Female Bosses"
A very small minority in American culture wish a return to the fake perfection of the 1950's. Unfortunately, that minority wields great influence and control. Even the term "chic lit" is a subtle but powerful technique to diminish the equality of women, and is a disparegement of books read by women. Calling it something silly like chic-lit says it all. If a society is going to really leave chauvinism behind, there is only one way. Its called legislation and regulation. That such terms themselves have now been demonized is not an accident. If we called for legislation that all elected bodies have an equal number of men and women represented, chauvinism would be gone in a generation or two. This model has been successfully proven in northern Europe and it is time we begin discussing it in Canada. Great article.
James Burns
5 years ago
I have to admit that fashion seems so shallow it leaves the impression of a counter top spill having more depth. The intricate parsing out of clothes, accessories and all the various designers reminds me of comic book addicts and their ability to identify all the many super heroes, villians and their many powers. Hell, even the colourful costumes the masked crusaders wear look like something you'd see marching down a catwalk.
As for the movie, I have yet to see it, so I'll reserve much comment. But I will say that backbiting, and nasty office politics are far from being worse in women. As for the movie's unsurprising ending, well I would think freedom from obession about frivolities would be a good thing. Then again PR, marketing and advertising are expert at getting us to trade ours souls for that never ending chase of the next best thing.
James Burns
5 years ago
Jeffrey J. wrote:
LOL! Not if all the women end up being Wintour and Maggie Thatcher clones. But this is a rather large topic jump from female fashists.
apollyon
5 years ago
I'm not sure this article actually proves its title "In vogue: Bashing Female Bosses".
Its about a movie that bashes a female boss that certainly is worth bashing, especially in a lightweight movie such as this.
A similar movie could be made lampooning Donald Trump, I'd imagine.
I don't think ones feminist sensitivities have to be inflamed simply because the target is a woman.
flyingfish
5 years ago
I think the randomness of the responses here reflect the vagueness of the review itself. Is there actually anything fresh to say about this film? Chick lit's been around for some time, and the populist notion of following your heart instead of your ambition is a Hollywood staple. (Though the actual author of the original book clearly didn't go back to Brooklyn with her nice boyfriend, she wrote a trashy expose and is probably aiming full-tilt for a career as corrupt and shallow as anything found in the fashion industry -- but that ending would make a more complex and ambivalent film, so forget it).
What's somewhat unique about this film besides its quasi confessional content? I guess that it's about high fashion, which is a truly bizarre world more akin to high art than to what the average consumer experiences at the mall. It might be interesting to dissect how a mainstream film tackles this intersection between elitism and populism, and navigates the anti-intellectualism and anti-art/aesthetic that pervades American culture.
Or something like that.
deeby
5 years ago
Isn't everybody nuts in the fashion industry? Or, to put that another way, aren't all the bosses hell to work for? What does gender have to do with it?
Abstracting from that industry to the rest of the working world is a pretty huge leap. Looks like the reviewer was stuck for an opening paragraph and got swept away by her own anecdote.
anarcho
5 years ago
Better to bash ALL bosses, than just female ones!
dgb
5 years ago
Dorothy seems to be falling into all of the same ditches as the characters in this enjoyable but insignificant holly - flick well hyped.(marketed) It might be more a commentary on the career ladder clones who toil in the towers of capitalism than the horrors of a female boss. Stretch it a bit and you can see the same elements in the less glitzy world of work and drugdery in anywhere North America.
The only likeable character in the relatively slow hour and a half was Priestly, a pragmatist who takes full and legitmate advantage of the self serving,obsequious climbers, all about her. Hathway/s character was definitely easier to look at, but really had stupid self indulgent friends,in particualr her sleep in, of four year old mentality. Feminazi's shouldn't get excited about this one. Women are completely in control in this piece.
Meryl's Preistly could be any guy, with the right opportunity and the willing cast of players.
nightbloom
5 years ago
I wonder if we're going to see more negative portrayals of female bosses and other "top women" emerging from American popular culture as the American presidential campaign heats up. Hillary Clinton has always been susceptible to accusations of "shrewishness" etc. (although it seems in her case some of the stereotype holds true). It's almost inevitably that her opponents will make at least oblique use of the stereotype.
I've worked under both men and women, and there's actually no consistent rule about who handles authority/power better. My worst boss ever was a man, but my most micro-managerial and controlling was a woman. My all-time favourite bosses were all women, but the most sensitive and consultative one I ever had was actually a man. So go figure.
For a while, the theory was that women didn't handle positions of authority well because of the lack of group socialization in hierarchal environments that is a "natural" part of every boy's upbringing. Princess didn't play team sports, or get dragged into the rough-and-tumble ego-molding cut-and-thrust of adolescent male dominance dramas. Now this doesn't hold true anymore - girls now have more sporting/team opportunities than, say, unathletic boys (the male social equivalent of fat girls on the adolescent hierarchy), and it is now socially acceptable for young men & women to interact as "buddies", with all the egalitarian ribbing & competition that implies. I think that my generation of women (thirty-something) handle the boardroom well (if a little too competitively at times) and the ones coming up just behind me (mid- and late-twenties) are even better at it, because (in my opinion) the ones I've seen tend to be much more secure and relaxed when it comes to sharing credit, navigating interpersonal differences, compromise, etc. There's no hard and fast rule though.