The positive moral message might be that work at the expense of personal relationships isn't worth it. Andrea learns this, both with respect to her own life, and observing the private life of Miranda Priestly, who obviously believes the rationalization that 'it's not quantity that matters, but the quality' of time spent with one's children, and can't keep her marriages together; at the end of the movie her latest husband decides to divorce her.
What is the stance of the film towards the fashion industry and our culture's preoccupation with the trend-setters? That is not so clear. Does Andrea change her mind about fashion; does she convert and come to like being stylish, embracing the glamorous life? At the beginning, I think it is Stanley Tucci's character, Nigel, who mocks Andrea for thinking that inner beauty is what really matters. When venting with her boyfriend, Andrea initially rejects the obsession with clothing and trend-following, responding that there are more important things in life. But after being criticized by Miranda for both her performance and her appearance (she's evidently fat), Andrea seeks help from Nigel, who gives her a complete fashion and beauty make-over and educates her in fashion sense. At the end of the movie she does not return to her plain Target look, and opts for a compromise. (Or so it seems from my limited acquaintance with contemporary Western fashion.)
Masswyrm thinks that Miranda Priestly is "the Devil" because of the way she can tempt people to adopt her outlook and behave accordingly, and not because she is the ultimate b*tch boss. I don't know if this is the point the book makes, not having read it.
Looking good isn't the problem--one can wear modest clothing and still look good--it's the overemphasis on novelty that is the problem, a principle of aesthetic that has wide-ranging economic and socio-cultural implications. "Image is everything." Not quite. Should one wear ill-fitted clothing, even if the only drawback to wearing them is the aesthetics? If clothing affects comfort and functionality negatively, then they are not "good" clothing. But I think there is something to be said for wearing clothes that fit one's body type well and flatter at the same time. The problem is, who can afford tailored clothing, besides the well-off? Off-the-rack clothing cannot fit all body types (modified by individual differences) well. The most economical and beneficial solution is to have a household that produces its own clothing, but how many people want to form such a household? The households people want to form, as Wendell Berry points out, are completely devoid of any economic function--they are merely units of consumption.
So what must be sacrificed in order for us to look good? Is this goal something we can achieve within reason?
"Traditional" sexual morality is ignored--cohabitation is ok, and so are one-night stands. Andrea sleeps with the writer she admires, Christian Thompson, while she is in Paris, having broken up with her boyfriend before leaving for Paris. Is there some attraction between the two? Initially, since he is a 'good writer' by her estimation, and he helps her obtain a manuscript of the unpublished Harry Potter novel. But, her sleeping with him was a poor decision that she made while under the influence of alcohol. At the end, she returns to her boyfriend. No sign that she regrets sleeping with CT; maybe she doesn't. One gets the impression that her character would not regret casual sex per se, just casual sex with the wrong man.
Gisele Bundchen makes a cameo in this movie, and so does Heidi Klum and a bunch of designers (I don't know most of them... whom can I recognize, besides Giorgio Armani, Calvin Klein, Andre Kim, Vera Wang, Tommy Hilfger, maybe Donna Karan, Gianni Versace?)
Here's a picture of Mr. Giorgio Armani:
Looks good for someone his age? No doubt he has his admirers, both female and male. Andre Kim has some interesting designs, a sort of fairy-tale look. I'll try to find some photos to post.
Review by Massawyrm over at AICN.
The movie's website. The novel's official site. Various reviews of the novel. Salon interview with Lauren Weisberger. SomethingJewish.co.uk interview. Miss Weisberger's website.
Heh, the NY Times Bugmenot.)
We didn't see many good trailers; there were a couple of movies that might be humorous. Luke Wilson is in a movie with Uma Thurman, My Super Ex-Girlfriend (Apple). [It will be interesting to see what the radical feminist response is to this movie--a super heroine who is a basketcase when it comes to personal relationships.] Then there was John Tucker Must Die, with Britney Snow. And then there was Snakes on a Plane... Fujian gal didn't like most of the movies; I thought some might be funny but probably not worth the price of matinee admission.
We also saw the trailer for The Guardian--is this a heroic enough movie? I'm not sure. I can't take Ashton Kutcher seriously, he just has too much of the pretty-boy image. Kevin Costner is manly enough, but will he be overshadowed by his costar, who is popular with teens and young women (for whatever reason)? AK just has no credibility as a man.
Fujian gal wants to see World Trade Center, with Nicholas Cage. I'm not sure if I would want to watch any 9/11 movies--I'm rather uncomfortable with any depiction of that tragic day. It's also easy to exploit the story of Port Authority cops who manage to survive for some sort of sentimental message that doesn't give proper attention to the mysteries of Divine Providence. I'd rather see an honest movie that wails against the perceived indifference of God to evil and suffering than a movie that ignores him altogether and substitutes some sort of idol. Now I don't know if this is what World Trade Center will turn out to be like; however Oliver Stone is the director, and though it isn't really normal for him to praise heroism, family, and the American way of life (or at least America), I don't think the movie will go beyond this, without delving into the deeper theological questions. Maybe it's not necessary, to put things in greater perspective. After all, isn't that what Michael Moore is for?
Also found at Yahoo Movies: Edmond was written by David Mamet, and it stars William Macy--this might be interesting. Same with Gabrielle.
No comments:
Post a Comment