In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
The Devil and Meryl Streep
Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
I love talking about movies, but I've never been able to organize movie-night get-togethers. So this is the next best thing: On Tuesdays I'm going to spotlight a DVD and suggest some virtual-discussion starters.
The Devil Wears Prada was one of the biggest surprises of the year for me (Apocalypto was another, but that's a conversation for some other time). It was a big, sleek, mainstream Hollywood movie that I enjoyed from beginning to end, despite its conflicted message. I don't mean to imply that I automatically dread Hollywood movies, but I picked up the book on which this one was based and found it so shallow and irritating that I couldn't finish the first chapter. And I can read just about anything.
It probably doesn't hurt that I work down the street from Condé Nast and have see the needle-toed ranks of the Condé Nasties striding down the street with their "I'm too fine to talk to anyone carrying last season's bag" affectations. I also worked for years in nonprofit (the New York City Ballet), which earned me a front-row seat to the fashionistias-in-action show at galas and fund-raising cocktail parties.
But the real pleasure of The Devil Wears Prada for me was what a throwback it is to the glory days of Mildred Pierce and other Hollywood melodramas about women who unsex themselves to advance their careers. Which sounds very un-PC, I know. But the fact is, that story hasn't changed as much as you might think.
And Devil is buoyed by amazing performances, led by Meryl Streep 's Miranda Priestly, a steely virago in haute couture. Yes, she's a thinly fictionalized variation on real-life Vogue editor Anna Wintour, but she's also an astonishing creation by an actress who's often underrated because she's made the mistake of doing too many things too well for too long. Anne Hathaway can't match her sheer virtuosity and years of experience, but she's talented, and acting opposite someone of such high caliber serves to boost her performance. Emily Blunt (of the fantastic and under-seen My Summer of Love) and Stanley Tucci lead the supporting cast, and they're both right on the money.
For me, the great thing about The Devil Wears Prada is that you can watch it with a diverse crowd: There's something for die-hard movie buffs, something for people who just want a fun story, something for closet celebrity-gossip addicts. And for a glossy mainstream comedy, it packs a nasty little sting.
Things to consider:
The cream of classic Hollywood melodramas were sharp, bracing examinations of social mores and the way women negotiated the rules of the game. Now "melodrama" has become an insult, a synonym for sloppy and sentimental. How did the genre become so despised?
In the end, smart aspiring journalist Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) realizes that she has to get out of the fashion-mag business before it entirely devours her soul. Is it really impossible to work in a viciously competitive commercial environment and maintain your ideals and dignity?
Why do so many people delight in mocking Meryl Streep for her flawless command of the tools of her trade, particularly accents?
Why, a full 35 years after the feminist movement became a mainstream phenomenon and at a time when women hold increasingly powerful and high-profile positions in business, government and the press, is the dragon lady who gave up her family life for a career still such a powerful archetype?
Remember: Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
Previous DVD blogs:
Pandora's Box
The Thief and the Cobbler
Nashville
Panic in the Streets and our Jack Palance interview
The Pusher Trilogy
Scarface
Slither
Sunset Blvd.
In Cold Blood
Brick
Also: This week's new DVD releases
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2006 7:04 PM
|
|
OK, Maitland, you've got me! I'd been torn about seeing this, thinking it would be just too cutesy, if you know what I mean. But at the same time, I inexplicably wanted to see it. Now, you've justified my wishes and I'll be renting it this week. Comments to follow, hopefully. Jenny D.
|
|
Dec 11, 2006 7:18 PM
|
Yeah Jenny D. I'm gonna take a shot at this one on faith in Maitland alone. It hadn't appealed to me. It really didn't look like my kind of flick. But, to quote Warren Beatty as Pudgy McCabe, "I never was a percentage man".
Now "melodrama" has become an insult, a synonym for sloppy and sentimental – how did the genre become so despised?
I think in the 30's through very early 50's when screenwriters writers first and screenwriters second that type of film (like most other types come to think of it) was simply written more intelligently than in later years-especially the mid to late 1950's.
The restrictions on filmmakers also forced directors etc. to allude to things rather than to hit the audience over the head with them.
When you think about it, what's the point of things like semi-graphic sex secnes anyway? Pornography is more honest (and I'm not neccessarily saying preferable or better) in that way. A look and a kiss and maybe an embrace to fade say a lot more than a couple of sweaty people wrestling. Not that I don't enjoy seeing some of my favorite actresses au naturale. Cinematically speaking, I just don't see the point.
In the old days the audience knew why Judy had to go live with her aunt in Vermont that last year of high school or why sweet old "confirmed bachelor" Mr. Smith the druggist lived all alone with his cats but went fishing every spring with the football coach.
As film makers (rightly)became able to portray things more explicitly it was left for the audience to supply more of the emotional motivation for movie characters. That's a loss.
I just saw a French film, Un Couer en Hiver, in which nothing happened. The action of the film took place almost enttirely in the minds of the viewer and the characters. Yet it wasn't at all dull. And it wasn't at all difficult to get caught up in and understand the emotional turmoil of the characters. I wouldn't call it melodrama as, in a sense, it was all denouement and no climax. But in the way of the best melodramas it caught me up in its emotional wave in the way I think the director intended.
Is it really impossible to work in a viciously competitive commercial environment and maintain your ideals and dignity?
I'm looking at an imminent exit after over 25 years in broadcasting because of those very considerations. It is not impossible to maintain your ideals if not your dignity. It is impossible to implement those ideals or to influence an established company in any positive way except by showing how to profit financially from their implementation. Even so they eventually become just another tool and inevitably someone will come up with a way to streamline the improvements for efficiency's sake and the original meaning and merit will be lost.
And the change can't usually be done from the inside. One must be seen to be happy with a new love in order for the old love to appreciate what they have lost.
Why do so many people delight in mocking Meryl Streep for her flawless command of the tools of her trade, particularly accents?
I think people see her as pretentious. Judging from the few times I've seen her on talk shows this is a grievous misjudgement. She does take her work seriously and doesn't seem to be concerned about being a "star". For some reason I think some people tend to resent both of those things. If she made more "movie" movies, like The River Wild, and spread the fact that she's from New Jersey it might help her street cred.
Why, fully 35 years after the feminist movement became a mainstream phenomenon and at a time when women hold increasingly powerful and high-profile positions in business, government and the press, is the dragon lady who gave up her family life for a career still such a powerful archetype?
Well you can't discount the erotic element. There is a desire by some to either submit to or conquer (in some case both) such a person. That type of person speaks to our greatest fears and some of our most shameful desires.
In addition many people who have children love to think of themselves as willing to sacrifice everything for them and consider bringing up a family their greatest achievement. When they encounter the type of woman you describe they are able to overcome feelings of envy by telling themselves that she will never know the joy and affirmation of having children. Contempt-disguised as pity- makes for a warm security blanket.
And people fear strong women, vampires and snakes (and no, I'm not equating the three). That's why they are all perrenial and effective movie villains.
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 3:31 AM
|
I read the book several years ago, and found it amusing, though poorly written - but because I'm a fan of fashion and Meryl Streep (and Anne Hathaway is my birthday twin - though it does make me incredibly depressed when I see how much someone my exact same age has accomplished, in comparison to myself), I eagerly saw this in the theater (with my parents - because I'm just that lame, and my then-boyfriend was a douche) and all three of us found it very entertaining. Very rarely is the film better than the book - both in narrative and in pacing - but "Prada" is an exception (similarly, I tend to prefer the film version of "Mildred Pierce" to the book - though they are both excellent).
The cream of classic Hollywood melodramas were sharp, bracing examinations of social mores and the way women negotiated the rules of the game. Now "melodrama" has become an insult, a synonym for sloppy and sentimental – how did the genre become so despised?
Part of it is certain the shift in acting styles - the performances you saw in classic melodramas would be laughed at if performed by someone today - because it would seem "over-the-top" and just wouldn't mesh with the more subtle, intimate tones that most good dramas contain. I don't think that is why the genre has become so reviled and lumped into camp.
As much as I unabashedly love television (not as much as film, of course - but I think the medium deserves far more respect than academics give it), I'll put the blame on TV. I don't think it is coincidence that the last "respected" melodramas were released about the same time Barry Diller coined "Movie-of-the-Week" back in the early 1970s. Factoring in daytime soap operas (which have always been melodramatic, in the most negative sense of the word - though they can be enjoyable and addictive), MOWS (Sybil, anyone? It was acclaimed then - the title alone is a pejorative amongst some of my wittier friends) and the explosion of the Prime Time Soap (which I will admit, is my favorite TV guilty pleasure - there are few things I love more in this world than the first five seasons of Melrose Place, I was 9 when I saw the pilot and was hooked from the first frame) -- not to mention the masking of "dramatic" series into prime time soaps (Steven Bochco and David E. Kelley have made that an art - though Bochco is much better) -- melodrama lost its cache. Obviously, a big part of this is due to the poor writing and acting in some of the mainstay shows (Dallas was great for years - then they dropped the ball and went to hell - Dynasty was never anything BUT camp). It probably didn't help that truly great melodramatic movies of the 70s and 80s weren't really labeled as melodrama - but as "character studies" or "black comedies" or "neo noir." I don't know - I blame TV.
In the end, smart aspiring journalist Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) realizes that she has to get out of the fashion-mag business before it entirely devours her soul. Is it really impossible to work in a viciously competitive commercial environment and maintain your ideals and dignity?
Your dignity - absolutely - your ideals? Well I guess that depends on what you value. I think that people who do the best in those environments are the people that can either intellectually understand WHY ethical/moral lapses are necessary for the machine to work -- or people who just simply don't care, and don't apologize for not caring. I agree with DaMess - as long as you understand that you can't imprint your own ideals onto the corporation - I think the person and the "company" can co-exist. I've worked for several large conglomerates in a variety of positions - and yes, the whole process can indeed envelop your life - but for me, the test became, was what I was getting from the job worth what I felt I was "losing" in my own life. It's time to quit when you are losing more than you are gaining (it took 5 years at one place - but I left about 6 months too late -- another company left me unscathed (I was an intern) and more sure of my career decisions). I think that's true for any job -- working for the public school system can steal your soul just as quickly as Conde Nast.
Why do so many people delight in mocking Meryl Streep for her flawless command of the tools of her trade, particularly accents?
Some parts of the population seem to really, really dislike anyone who has an air of intelligence and confidence (I like it myself - as long as the person is really intelligent and not just poseur) - especially if that person is a woman (and women in particular seem to be more averse to strong, competent and confident women). The fact that she doesn't pander to the press -- begging to be liked doesn't help. I think her sense of humor is also too dry for most Americans. It doesn't help that, due to no fault of her own, she has become such a legend and prowess, such a go-to as "best living actress" that people are automatically going to rebel against that label - fair or not. I've always loved Meryl Streep, but I never loved her more than when she accepted her Emmy for Best Actress in a MiniSeries or TV Movie for "Angels in America" and said, "You know, sometimes even I think I'm overrated. But not tonight."
Why, fully 35 years after the feminist movement became a mainstream phenomenon and at a time when women hold increasingly powerful and high-profile positions in business, government and the press, is the dragon lady who gave up her family life for a career still such a powerful archetype?
Because women hate other women. I'm sorry if that makes me sound anti-feminist - I'm not - I'm just honest. We delight in tearing each other down because we are so insecure about our own decisions and strengths/weaknesses. The bulls**t idea that "having it all" includes both a high powered career AND raising a family (family always coming first) doesn't help. It's unrealistic and unnecessary. So many people who attack the dragon lady archetype (or really, create it) are either jealous of the professional success or afraid of anyone who seem to "need" the whole homemaker moniker. Not all women feel this way - those that are happy and comfortable with the decision they have made don't begrudge those that make different choices - but as the number of women in power increases, that idea that they should also be committed to their families (and have lots of children) has not.
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 12:48 PM
|
Excellent point about TV and melodrama filmgirl. And I agree with you about Meryl and "dragon ladies" too. I wouldn't neccessarily confine the hatred/jealousy angle to women but I would say that if that kind of thing is more prevalent among women it is partially because of the corner that male society keeps them in. One of the great tools of racism, sexism, anti-semitism is fostering self-hatred amongst the group the perpetrators are trying to impress. They elevate certain select members above the crowd and those members become both illusioned about themselves and the target of resentment from those left behind.
In the 1960's, during that era's swell of the Women's movement some very independent women who actually embodied the principles feminism was trying to buttress were some of the most outspoken public detractors of that movement. I recall Lauren bacall saying some rather discouraging things. And Phyliss Schafley was the poster girl for the attitude. You had informers during the days of slavery and detractors during the civil rights movement. And there were those who betrayed their fellows in the ghettos of Europe during the rise of the Nazis.
I'm not equating the Streep situation with such serious matters but I think the roots of the attitude are from the same type of place.
By the way, it's nice to hear from more people around these parts.
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 3:39 PM
|
I'm really interested in the comments about melodrama, for a couple of reasons. First and foremost is that my thoughts about melodrama have changed dramatically as I've gotten older.
When I was in college, I was baffled by the fact that R.W. Fassbinder was so passionate about Douglas Sirk movies. I was too punk for all that weeping and breast-beating, but the fact that someone as remorseless as Fassbinder loved those movies obviously stuck with me, and when I started revisiting them years later I was amazed by how raw and truthful they were just under the glossy veneer. (Sirk's remake of Imitation of Life just slays me.)
I suppose this is the moviegoer's equivalent of the old saw about how dumb my dad was when I was a teenager and how much he'd learned by the time I was 30.
I find myself really caught up in a lot of Bollywood movies, despite the fact that their aesthetic is very alien to the one on which I was raised because they're not ashamed of extravagent emotion -- there's no ironic distance or fake cool in the best of them, just a visceral evocation of how much people hurt and are hurt by those whom they know and love best.
As to the dragon ladies, I agree with parts of what everyone has said. I think a lot of women reach a certain point in their lives and question what they've made of them. I think they often draw comfort from the idea that those other women who seem so self-confident and accomplished are really miserable underneath because they've chosen careers over love. And I think many men resent the fact that freed from certain social constraints that the feminist movement brought to the forefront of mainstream culture, many women can compete with them toe to toe and win.
Put those two factors together and is it any wonder that there was such gloating when Martha Stewart's husband left her? (Cue the chorus of Sheila E.'s "Glamorous Life")
It's my suspicion that anti-Streepism is a variation on American anti-intellectualism: Our national history is one of favoring plain-spoken cowboys over ivory tower-eggheads, cool kids over grinds and wonks. I think Streep strikes many movie-goers as a grind, both because she does the work to master an accent, a way of walking, a vocabulary or a physical look. And to make matters worse, she habitually chooses challenging parts in films that may or may not be commercial. As she herself has pointed out, Out of Africa was a huge hit, but she's widely perceived as someone who only makes "difficult" movies. And unlike Nicole Kidman, whose marital miscalculations have helped wtake the chill off her icy facade, Streep doesn't seem vulnerable.
For me, part of what makes her Miranda Priestly so interesting is that Streep herself is phenomenally successful at what she's chosen to do, has been married since 1978 and has four children, none of whom has ever been arrested for DUI, been in rehab or wound up on a sleazy reality show. Now it's time to cue Blondie: "Come on, rip her to shreds!"
Though I have more to say about other subjects on which you've weighed in, it's time for me to sign off for now.
Thank you all for participating, and please -- if you want to recommend a movie, put it on the table.
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 9:10 PM
|
|
I just want to say that I admire Ms. Streep tremendously. I may not always agree or care for her choice of vehicles, but I admire her as an artistic craftsman and successful human being. I, too, loved her acceptance speech ("You know, sometimes even I think I'm overrated. But not tonight.")which made me laugh and caused me to admire her even more. She's a class act! Jenny D.
|
|
Dec 12, 2006 10:00 PM
|
Thank you all for participating, and please -- if you want to recommend a movie, put it on the table.
Christ In Concrete Maitland. I'm telling ya......
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 2:43 AM
|
Now "melodrama" has become an insult, a synonym for sloppy and sentimental. How did the genre become so despised?
I agree with everyone else's assessments. But please let me add my own.
Melodramas originally used music ("melo") to heighten simple dramatic tension. This was quite effective in the early days of film or with silents. As audiences became more accustomed to this trick, it just didn't work any more. I would say the mid-50's was about the last time you could really get away with it.
It's not that music isn't used to accent the action on screen. Obviously that is still the case. But it isn't being used to manipulate emotions for simple concepts anymore. Now when the strings swell, it's usually when we see a close-up on the actors face and we see subtle changes in their demeanor or watch them find their inner resolve.
Somewhere in the 40's or 50's, there was a crossover between these two methods. I would say Mildred Pierce straddles the line. A good point of demarcation that shows what you can get away with.
By the time you get to the early 60's and, say, Days of Wine and Roses, music no longer had to act as a substitute or as shorthand for what could be conveyed in a script or by the actors. I think this new kind of raw emotion was disturbed by overly exaggerated musical cues.
(As a side note, does anyone else think about Sonic Youth every time Mildred Pierce gets mentioned?)
Is it really impossible to work in a viciously competitive commercial environment and maintain your ideals and dignity?
It's certainly possible but it will hinder your chances for "success". If your main concern is excessive money and power, the dark side of humanity is what attracts and stimulates the growth of those things.
Why do so many people delight in mocking Meryl Streep for her flawless command of the tools of her trade, particularly accents?
I don't think people make fun of her so much any more. I remember back in the mid-80's, Bette Midler did a routine and it made a passing blow at the dramatics of "Mer-yl". But back then, it kind of made sense. Look at her movies from the beginning of her career to the late 80's:
Julia, The Deer Hunter, The Seduction of Joe Tynan, Kramer vs. Kramer, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Still of the Night, Sophie's Choice, Silkwood, Falling in Love, Plenty, Out of Africa, Ironweed and A Cry in the Dark. Oh, and let's not forget the Holocaust miniseries! With the exception of Heartburn (no one wants to remember that) and a non-starring turn in Manhattan, this is some heavy, er, stuff! The kind of roles you get jealous about when you get stuck in Jinxed!.
It wasn't until 1989 that she took on some more comedic and less dramatic work. That was the year of She-Devil and everyone was surprised to see her in a comedy like that. Four of her next five films were comedy or action. And since then she has bounced back and forth between genres.
So, while at one time she has a bit of a stereotype in terms of what kind of an actress she was, I think that has changed and people see her versatility. I bet Bette doesn't ever make fun of her now. Ms. Streep really is a treasure of the cinema.
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 1:56 PM
|
Movie Recommendations:
In a Lonely Place (1950) - It's on TCM this Saturday.
W.R. - Misterije Organizma (1971) or W.R. - Mysteries of the Organism - Available only on VHS from what I see... if you find it on DVD, please let me know!
The North Avenue Irregulars (1979) - Hey, I have eclectic tastes... so sue me! Besides, it has Barbara Harris in it...
|
|
Dec 13, 2006 2:19 PM
|
In a Lonely Place is one of my favorite films of all time. Does it come more noir than this:
"I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me."
Wow. And both Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame are fantastic.
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 11:38 PM
|
|
In A Lonely Place and Crossfire (both big favorites of mine) sparked a lifelong crush on Gloria Grahame. That's my kinda dame.
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 2:53 AM
|
|
I'm impressed when I find other people who actually know who Gloria Grahame is!
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 1:31 PM
|
|
I'll third (or fourth) the In a Lonely Place love -- it's on several of my "All-Time" lists.
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 5:12 PM
|
What, no love for WR? 
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 7:06 PM
|
|
|
