Podcast Summary: Slate Money: Movies – The Devil Wears Prada

Episode Date: March 30, 2021
Host: Felix Salmon with Anna Shymansky
Guest: Edmund Lee (New York Times)

Overview

This episode of Slate Money Goes to the Movies is a deep dive into The Devil Wears Prada, discussing its depiction of the mid-2000s fashion magazine industry, media power dynamics, digital disruption, and the enduring appeal of Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly. The panel—Felix Salmon, Anna Shymansky, and media journalist Edmund Lee—analyze the film’s accuracy, thematic tensions, social commentary, and legacy, blending insider anecdotes with playful critique.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Book vs. The Movie

(00:44–02:30)

• Edmund Lee shares his initial disdain for the source novel ("the writing was so terrible, I could not get past the first chapter" - Edmund Lee, 01:31), but notes that the film adaptation, in rare fashion, far surpassed the book by leveraging Hollywood’s resources—cast, screenwriting, and nuanced character work (02:58).
• The hosts agree: the movie’s quality comes from both the execution and the elevation provided by A-list actors and a tight script.

2. “The Cerulean Speech” and the Power of Fashion Media

(03:20–06:36)

• The iconic scene where Miranda Priestley explains the trickle-down influence of high fashion (“That blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs. And it’s sort of comical how you think you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry, when in fact, you’re wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room.” – Miranda Priestley, 05:25) is dissected as a smart encapsulation of fashion’s economic and cultural impact.
• Felix emphasizes: this monologue cements Miranda as not just a tyrant, but an industry genius, justifying her role and the stakes of her world.

3. Fashion Media Then and Now

(06:55–11:35)

• Edmund reflects on his years at Women’s Wear Daily and W Magazine, offering rare insights into how review power has shaped designers’ fates, the etiquette of Fashion Week, and Anna Wintour's legendary "nod" (07:45–09:49).
• He explains how the digital age and pandemic disrupted this ecosystem—bloggers and digital influencers democratized front-row access, fast fashion sped up design cycles, and COVID-19 fractured the high-fashion social calendar (10:28–11:35).
  • “The pandemic just put a nail through the heart of the fashion industry, certainly the high fashion industry.” – Felix Salmon, 10:22
• Now, China is keeping the global industry afloat.

4. The Editorial-Advertiser Relationship

(13:13–15:57)

• The panel unpacks a subtle Miranda line: “Do we have anything from advertisers?” (13:55)
• Edmund reveals the “necessary resources” code in magazines—editorials must feature advertisers' products.
  • “At Harper’s Bazaar, the percentage of necessary resources in editorial shoots is officially 100%... If you don’t advertise, your clothes will not get featured.” – Felix Salmon, 15:29

5. The Movie as a Snapshot (“Datedness” and Timelines)

(15:57–18:34)

• Anna observes how the film feels already nostalgic—describing a glossy magazine world that faded in the early 2000s, which Edmund confirms is more ‘90s reality than mid-2000s (16:26).
• Felix argues Vogue was still powerful in 2006, but the supporting media ecosystem had started collapsing.

6. Office Politics, Ambition, and “Selling Out”

(19:51–32:12)

• The Miranda/Nigel (Stanley Tucci) dynamic is compared to real-life Anna Wintour/Andre Leon Talley drama, exploring themes of loyalty, race, and the media’s lack of diversity (“That’s a way the movie is maybe unwittingly accurate…how incredibly white it is.” – Felix Salmon, 22:10).
• The central arc—Andy growing up, selling out, and then rejecting the fashion world—is critiqued.
  • Felix: “The message of the movie ... is that it’s bullshit.” (26:51)
  • Anna argues it reflects a problematic dichotomy: “There are good industries and good paths… and then there are bad paths, often connected to money.” (26:51–28:21)
  • The group debates whether ambition in such a job is admirable or suspect—and how the trope of “losing oneself” in work is given a gendered edge.

7. Work Culture: The Reality Behind the Satire

(31:46–39:16)

• The panel highlights the realism in the film’s depiction of toxic assistants’ schedules and impossible boss demands (“…trying to get this plane flight in the middle of a hurricane, like that felt very, very accurate.” – Anna, 37:31).
• They agree fashion and media—like Hollywood—operate in a realm of fantasy and warped work-life standards.

8. Visuals vs. Message: Is It Glamorous or Cautionary?

(32:12–34:58)

• Felix points out that, visually, the movie seduces viewers into the world it's supposedly critiquing, much like Wall Street (“If you watch this movie with the sound off, the glamour…is all of the stuff that we’re supposed to be feeling some kind of revulsion to.” – Felix, 32:12).
• All agree that the film’s power is in this unresolved contradiction.

9. Performance Praise: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, and More

(40:32–44:08)

• Meryl Streep’s performance “by Meryl Streep standards” is lauded as giving depth and a peculiar nobility to an otherwise tyrannical role (40:41).
  • Edmund shares: “She’s written in such a terrible way, but… you’re kind of, like, with her a little bit at every moment.” (41:41)
  • The panellists praise how she elevates even the “cerulean sweater” scene into something real and dignified.
• Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt also receive high marks, though Felix calls it “not the world’s best Emily Blunt movie.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On trickle-down fashion:
  “It’s comical how you think you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry, when in fact, you’re wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room.” – Miranda Priestley (05:25)

• Edmund on the book:
  “The book was so terrible, I couldn’t get past the first chapter.” – Edmund Lee (01:31)

• Media power structure in 2006:
  "There were enough glossy magazines paying $3 a word that you could have... the terrible blonde guy... who would have these six-figure contracts to write maybe five or six stories a year." – Felix Salmon (17:35)

• On fashion media’s transformation:
  “The Internet sort of crushed prices, crushed margins on stuff, and then fast fashion sort of sped up the cycle... designers have basically designed new collections, like, every other month practically.” – Edmund Lee (12:20)

• On magazine-advertiser ties:
  “Every fashion shoot has to have a certain percentage of what they call necessary resources. And that’s code for advertiser.” – Edmund Lee (14:10)

• The Anna Wintour effect:
  “Anna has that too. She’s famous for giving you looks without saying anything. Like, this displeases me. And you can sort of see it on her face.” – Edmund Lee (18:34)

• On the film’s underlying tension:
  “Is this a glamorous, real important, multi-billion dollar industry... or is it all bullshit and you just have to kind of work in it as a means to an end? The message of the movie... is that it’s bullshit.” – Felix Salmon (26:51)

• On performance:
  “She gives the character a nobility… that kind of sells you… despite the terribleness of the character.” – Edmund Lee (41:41)

• On nostalgia and change:
  “That was 90s New York media... after 2001... that sense of bacchanalia just ended.” – Edmund Lee (22:17–24:29)

• On fashion’s pecking order:
  “Vogue Italy... nobody reads it except for everybody who matters.” – Felix Salmon (48:12)

Notable Timestamps

• 00:44 – Edmund Lee’s first exposure to the book/movie, and the real-life Anna Wintour premiere drama
• 05:25 – Miranda’s legendary “cerulean sweater” speech
• 07:45–09:49 – How fashion editors influence designers (and Anna Wintour’s ‘nod’)
• 10:22 – Impact of the pandemic and digital disruption on the industry
• 13:55–15:57 – Magazine-advertiser entanglement
• 16:26 – How the movie is more “90s magazine world” than mid-2000s
• 22:10–22:17 – On the whiteness of the magazine/fashion world
• 26:51 – The film’s critical view on the industry
• 32:12–34:58 – The contradictory glamour of the film
• 40:41–41:41 – Meryl Streep’s performance dissected
• 48:12 – “Vogue Italy…everybody who matters.”

Final Verdicts

• Anna: Didn’t love it; found the “adulting is bad” theme tired, and took issue with the way eating disorders and women’s ambition were handled, but admits “the frocks are very pretty.”
• Edmund: Thumbs up, “maybe a 6.5 or 7 out of 10… capturing that fakery, that desire.”
• Felix: Highly enjoyable; praises the direction, editing, and layers of media/fashion bubble life, plus, “the plot is not as candy floss thin as it might be.”

Tone

• Witty, mildly nostalgic, critical, and self-aware, blending industry expertise with pop-cultural affection and realism about both the fantasy and cutthroat nature of media/fashion worlds.

Conclusion

The episode’s lively blend of critique, insider observation, admiration, and nostalgia vividly brings to life both The Devil Wears Prada and the era it represents. The panel raises sharp questions about media and careerism, while ultimately finding that Meryl Streep’s performance and the film’s snapshot of a bygone world remain its lasting strengths.