The Fault in our X-Men

Another week of movie madness! Starting this time, with X-Men: Days of Future Past and ending with The Fault in our Stars.

Well, X-Men was certainly something new for me. I enjoy action films and I like science fiction but the X-Men franchise was never something that excited me. I've seen all of the originals but never rushed to the cinema and stood in line to watch them. And I haven't seen any of the films past the trilogy that ended in 2006. It's very rare that I go see a film, like the new X-men one, without first watching all of the films leading up to it. I love knowing everything there is to know about a character before watching their next steps. But with this film, I didn't bother. It was just something to do on a Wednesday night that was enjoyable and didn't require much thinking after a long day at work. The cinema was packed, which was shocking considering this wasn't the first week of the film being in cinemas. But I suppose, it was a Wednesday night so tickets were cheap and the film works well for date nights! I didn't go with a date, instead I went with one of my best friends and sometimes that's much better. We can have a proper giggle before the film and a proper analytical discussion after it.

For someone who knew relatively little about the film going in, I enjoyed it. The premise was good, the acting was solid and the special effects varied from believable to... 'Come on, as if that would ever happen!' One of my favourite aspects of science fiction films that explore mutations or special powers, is finding out what everyone has. It always provided me with new answers to the age old question - 'What superhero power would you choose?' In this film, I really loved Blink! The mutant who could create portals. I could see that coming in handy if I suddenly needed to be elsewhere! There was also the appearance of fire, ice and speed which could be considered basic powers in that universe but are still highlighted within the main group of characters. Jennifer Laurence seems to be hit or miss for me. Sometimes, like in American Hustle, I find her captivating and frankly genius but then other times she falls short. Although her body and her fighting skills were on point, she was rather unbelievable as young Mystique. She lacked reason (something she supposedly still had before her 'first kill') and her movements were forced. When she's shot in the leg she limps away no better than a first year pupil in drama class - overworked and over thought is my opinion.
**SPOILERS**

Now... What the hell was with that ending? I have to ask what the writers were thinking when they ended it the way the did! Does this mean all of the films prior to this one are now redundant? The last five films, six if you include Wolverine's origin story, now no longer matter because the writers decided that the characters didn't have to be tortured and that a happy ending was best for everyone. I understand that sometimes these endings work. Sometimes an audience really needs a conclusion they are happy with. But honestly, in my eyes, X-Men didn't need that. The characters had more depth because of their troubled past and now so much of that is gone. In the final scene, when Logan is walking through the school and seeing all of his old friends again, I felt that none of the characters had purpose being there any more. Now that only the audience, Logan and technically Dr Xavier know of the real past and how it came about, I can't help but feel like the movie was a waste of time. We don't really witness any real progress with the characters. Yes, it's entertaining and at it's core that is what film is supposed to be but I can't help but feel annoyed and disappointed. It's like when a film transpires to be a huge dream sequence. The audience feels cheated.

With both of us in the movie watching spirit we decided to go to the unlimited screening of The Fault in our Stars. Unlimited screenings are for anyone at cineworld with an unlimited movie card and allows you to see films in advance of it's national release. Obviously the buzz surrounding this film has been crazy and with the American release only last week, the internet had all sorts of things to say about John Green's book in comparison to Josh Boone's film.

Firstly, I want to say that Ansel Elgort grew on me much like his character did in the book. At first I found him annoying and entirely wrong for the role. Gus was a powerful character who grew and then quickly shrunk as he became a shadow of himself by the end of the book. But by the time the young couple were in Amsterdam, I appreciated everything about Elgort's creative choices with the role. He ultimately was perfect for the final scenes because he was able to make the transition that the character demanded. Not forgetting of course that what made him really shine came straight from the book and John Green's captivating writing. I feel like Ansel will enjoy all of the perks that come with being the male lead in a romantic comedy aimed at teenage girls. No doubt we'll be hearing of romps and scandals within the year.

Secondly, I hate Shailene Woodley. I'm pretty sure I've written before about how I feel about her and her acting. I will say however, I did enjoy her performance in Divergent. Sadly, the same can not be said for this film. It seems like Hollywood producers have seen the success that (average actress) Jennifer Laurence has received and have decided to produce another in the shape of Woodley. For some reason she is dominating the movie theatres this year with White Bird in a Blizzard, Divergent and TFIOS. There will always be some who are unhappy with casting and that just so happens to be me this time! But back to the film in question... Clearly, she read the book and made notes as many of her movements and reactions were subtle but similar enough to the way they were described in the book. I was a little disappointed that they chose not to explore her slight health improvement after Amsterdam. I think it was a lost opportunity to explore the characters positive yet realist approach to life.

My third and final point - having already read the book didn't make me cry any less. Somehow, even knowing the ending, I still shed more than one tear. But that's why I love seeing book adaptations. You get the opportunity to see a great book realised on screen and appreciate someone else's interpretation of the story. Obviously this film was incredibly faithful to the book, which in the end will likely prove to be the best decision. Still, I love when a director changes things up and emphasises different aspects of the story or the relationships within it. Even with the comments I've made about this film sounding more negative than positive, I actually really enjoyed the film. Sometimes when we judge a film, a book or a play too critically we forget to acknowledge our pleasure. So, to clarify, I liked the film and I would recommend it.

Twenty-Two Jump Street

The 21 Jump Street sequel is just like it's predecessor: forced. The film is hyper aware of itself, which makes for an extended joke regarding the film's popularity, stupidity and the possibility of a 23 Jump Street. The film's jokes are basic and, at times, too cringeworthy to even laugh at. The actors themselves are better than this production so why do they do it? Easy answer, cash. The film will easily pull in large audiences of young teenager and adult chaperones whether or not the content deserves it. Ultimately, 22 Jump Street is a prime example of a bad sequel. 

Let's focus first on the two main characters themselves, because honestly I see potential. Imagine a Dumb and Dumber inspired film featuring two incompetent cops. The characters have the believability and back story needed to make a movie like that work but combining this with a Never Been Kissed theme takes all of that away. No one cares about older people going back to college anymore, and they really don't care about undercover cops who get caught up in college life themselves. Also, the audience watches as, within the first few lectures, the pair are clearly recognised as cops by other students. Surely that news would move fast around a drug infested campus? Tatum and Hill are moderate actors, still trying to prove themselves in Hollywood, but this film does them no favours. Especially for Jonah Hill, who, with his work in recent Oscar nominated films, is stooping to an unnecessary level. The portrayals of their roles are adequate but wont be winning any awards. 

The representation of college and university is an interesting one. The film focused mainly on old stereotypes of students. Painting them all as either jocks or creative alternatives who enjoy slam poetry evenings. Not to say I don't enjoy spoken word poetry but this is hardly the be all and end all of a creative student's life at college. However, I will concede that I know very little about American schools and college systems so I could be incredibly wrong about the way things are run over there. At the end of the day, this film is following the same format as the first one. One of the characters take an intellectual route and the other takes the 'cool kids' route, or in the case of this film the jock route. As if the only way to survive the college experience is to chose one or the other.

The story line was entirely predictable. From the identity of the dealer to the outcome of the kidnap scene and the troubles in Schmidt and Jenko's relationship. A movie, even a Hollywood fluff film, should not be this predictable. The inclusion of homoerotic undertones in the relationship between the two men was also expected. It's a play on the traditional bromance that many films have been exploring to some degree. It's popular in Hollywood cinema and as a result it was pretty obvious that it would feature somewhere within 22 Jump Street. And the final, most obvious element of the film was the ending. With the two men reuniting and working together, it could have easily been any other film with two leads with differing opinions. This is what really ruined the film for me. I can forgive a predictable film and predictable characters for a wonderful ending, but sadly that's not what was given. 

I wouldn't waste your time or money by seeing this film.

Lego Maleficent

Finally! The release of Maleficent. Since the pre-production announcement back in 2012, I've been eagerly awaiting the release. Not only has Sleeping Beauty remained one of Disney's highest rating films, but it also remains very dear to my heart. I first received the original film in the form of a limited edition DVD nearly ten years ago when I was nine. I immediately grew an attachment to the story and the magic within it - the fairies being my favourite characters to this day! So as you can imagine, I was pretty excited to book my tickets for the new Angelina Jolie interpretation.

I went to see the 2D 18:45 screening, and although I probably would have preferred 3D, that was the only showing both me and my date could make it to. But regardless, the film was stunning. The special effects, in their truck load, effectively created a new world of mystical beings. I particularly enjoyed the subtle nod to Tolkien and the Ents through the warrior-like tree creatures. Maleficent's character was suddenly given more depth and was portrayed as a misunderstood villain much like Elphaba in Wicked. It seems like these days we are heart set on discovering the deeper meaning behind our baddies! Why MUST the actions of our antagonist be explained? Why are we no longer satisfied with evil just being evil? Although I love seeing how writers and producers interpret a story and a character, sometimes I'm happy just leaving the plot alone.
The film wasn't what I expected. From day one, I thought that it would act as a prequel, again much like Wicked was, but instead it turned out to be a total retelling of the classic with little hints of the original. Cleverly changing the outcome worked in the films favour, as it is now one of the few Disney creations that challenge the idea of a male hero. However, I will add that I felt like the voice over (particularly at the end) cheapened the movie slightly. Whilst I understand the basic idea behind it, old fashioned fairy tales being narrated, I felt that the segment at the end was too cheesy and left the film on a sour note. Having said that, Maleficent was wonderful. With its epic fight scenes, interesting special effects and elaborate theatre style acting, this wont be a film I forget anytime soon.

One last thing. As it's a Disney film, there is an increased chance of younger viewers in the audience. Don't make the mistake I did by sitting next to a young girl and her mother. The child asked questions throughout and was relentless with her 'oohs' and 'aahs'. It very nearly ruined the experience for me!

This weeks date night consisted of movies and snacks, perfect for me because I love films and I love food! Since both of us had missed it during its run at the cinema, we decided on The Lego Movie, for a light hearted night of laughs. I enjoyed the basic premise of the movie and 90% of the jokes had us both laughing aloud. The humour seemed to surround and acknowledge the fact that the characters are made of Lego blocks which helped to distance the film from other animated flicks. Some of the jokes had us pausing the video so that we could laugh louder and longer, for example, the mispronunciation of Nail Polish Remover had us in stitches. No doubt this will be a film that leaves a lasting impression on those who see it. Whether that be in the form of a particularly hilarious joke or in the form of a song... The 'Everything is Awesome' song will be stuck in my head forever along with comedian Rob Deering's 'Coffee' song which I had the pleasure of hearing twice this May thanks to Gilded Balloon's third annual Happyness Comedy Festival in Inverness (Yes, that was a plug for where I work).

It's easy to forget how successful a family friendly film can be these days. I recently wrote a report for university that detailed the rise in violent animation in an attempt to attract a disappearing audience. But The Lego Movie proves that as long as the idea is solid and the animation is well executed, the audiences will be there. Emmett, our lovable protagonist, is the typical hero. The film follows basic hero/villain guidelines in a very obvious way without the story feeling familiar. Showing how writers these days do not need to rewrite the laws of story telling to create film history. And with the arrival and parody of classic film characters like Batman, Gandalf and Han Solo the film appeals to several demographics at once.

However, the whole idea of the film got me thinking. Since when was being a toy not enough? Why has the Lego franchise grown so unnecessarily over the last decade? First come the blocks representing a popular film, then a video game of said blocks, and then a cartoon based on the game which was based on the blocks which was based on a film. And now, even that is not enough. Now the company has produced its very own film with new and semi original characters that it will no doubt be selling by the truck load this year.

Protip: Dates that consist of laughing for two hours, whether they lead to anything serious or not, will always be worth the time.

The Other Woman and her Neighbours

Although we are now a full five months into the new year, there have been very few highly anticipated comedy films of 2014. That was until the promo trailers for The Other Woman and Bad Neighbours started. Suddenly film critics and film lovers were a buzz about both films, saying that they were to be among two of the most hilarious films of the year. Despite my hatred of the typical Hollywood rom-com's (and most comedy films in general), I decided to see both The Other Woman and Bad Neighbours in an attempt to understand the hype.

First was The Other Woman. I was particularly impressed by the trailer, the first comedy trailer in a while that has grabbed my attention and made me laugh. Thankfully, unlike most films these days, the jokes were not limited to the promos. The entire film was littered with clever jokes and even the occasional slap stick scene. Cameron Diaz was able to prove why she was considered to be the Queen of Comedy for so long. She definitely has a strength in playing the strong and occasionally abrasive woman. Still sexy at 41, she makes women of all ages laugh and envy her at the same time. Leslie Mann annoys me and has annoyed me for most of my life. I've never known why, I just cannot seem to separate the actress from the character - and all of her characters have been painfully annoying in one way or another. Nevertheless, she was incredibly funny as the neurotic wife of scumbag Mark King a.k.a Nikolaj Coster-Waldau.
Finally Kate Upton/the boobs. I am a fan of Kate, I think she's made a name for herself in the model world in a completely new way. She's the social media model and that's pretty cool but she's not an actress. It's obvious that the producers were aware of this as she had very few lines considering she played a pretty important part. The relationship between the three women is central to the story, yet it felt like the focus was on Cameron and Leslie and Kate was the awkward third wheel. Scenes involving Upton seemed forced and often had to be rescued by Mann and her moments of neurotic craziness. However, the biggest thing I noticed about Upton's involvement was that she was hired to be 'the body' of the film. But personally, the body most worthy of a trophy in the film belonged to Nicki Minaj. Although I've never been a die hard fan of the rapper turned actress, there is no denying that her body is fantastic. I felt very guilty eating an entire bag of chocolate buttons whilst watching her tiny waist on screen!

As I mentioned at the beginning, the film was hilarious and mixed several traditional forms of comedy. In particular, the concluding scene involving glass panes and buckets of blood had me in stitches. My stomach hurt from laughing and my cheeks were red from smiling. I loved the film in its entirety even with my opinions on the lead actresses.

Secondly, loaded with pizza and wine, I went to see Bad Neighbours! And I'm sorry to say that if I hadn't had wine, the film would have been far less interesting. Following the typical blockbuster comedy formula, it was loaded with weed jokes, sex jokes and unnecessary cameos from comedians like Blake Anderson and Hannibal Buress and actors like Jake Johnson and Lisa Kudrow - who are all frankly too good for a film like this! These films, generated to bring in big numbers at the box office, end up disappointing me the most because they care less about the jokes or a plausible story and care more about bringing in as many demographics as possible. Like seriously, as if Rogen and Byrne were the only family on the street who had had enough - even with the frat boys 'helping out' around the neighbourhood, those parties just got louder and louder! Having said that, thanks largely to the wine, I chuckled a couple of times. There were some moments that were heavily fuelled by references that could potentially be overlooked by some younger audiences, but everyone 18 and up at my cinema seemed to understand most of the film references made.

I'm well aware that most young women were flocking to this particular film to see one thing - Zac Efron's body. I've never really fully understood the hype surrounding Efron and always thought of him as just another good looking actor. His body is spectacular but throughout the entire film his veins are protruding and his face seems strained. It honestly looks like he'd been using steroids to build himself up! But still, there is no denying he's incredibly attractive and will continue to do well in the industry because of it.

The film was fine. I won't see it again but if someone asks about it I'd probably say something like 'meh, might as well go see it'. There were some cool party scenes and some interestingly shot moments. The soundtrack was awesome and featured some classic, cool hits from Missy Elliot and Fergie remixed for a new generation. Rogen and Byrne had fantastic chemistry with the young twins playing little Stella and made a surprisingly cute family. But at the end of the day, films like Bad Neighbours and even The Other Woman, are ultimately forgettable. They haven't broke boundaries or left us with iconic sayings or scenes. They were just films that in a few years time will be playing at 5 o'clock on Sunday on a mediocre TV channel.


I've never really like comedy films... sorry.

The Amazing Spiderman

The Amazing Spiderman 2 was everything I wanted it to be. Not only was the story well developed and a natural progression from the first film, but the acting was fantastic. I've been a long time fan of superhero films and in particular the Spiderman series. Since the first film of the new regeneration, I put a lot of faith in Andrew Garfield to continue the legacy with grace and subtlety. His acting has vastly improved since his early days in films like Social Network. He knows how to command the screen now whilst not over exaggerating his movements and making them seem unrealistic. In my mind, he has already surpassed Toby Maguire in my ranking of actors who have played the insect-human hybrid. Nicholas Hammond is still in last place, CBS really dropped the ball on that one. But back to the film in question, it was long. And long enough that it felt long, even though it was paced nicely, friends should be aware when seeing the film that it will take three hours from your day including pre-film adverts. However, I love a long film so Spidey and I were a great fit. I particularly enjoyed the introduction of Electro. Jamie Foxx managed to create a villain that I empathised with and frankly wanted to help!

My favourite two moments of the film were nearer the end. The first is a huge SPOILER... After defeating Electro, Spiderman and Gwen Stacy are about to celebrate when suddenly the Green Goblin a.k.a Harry Osborne arrives and makes the connection between his childhood friend and the hero he hates. In attempt to acquire his revenge, the Goblin scoops up Gwen and another fight scene commences. Sadly it ends with Gwen hitting the ground hard despite Spiderman's efforts to save her. She dies and what follows is five months without Spiderman's presence in the city. The reason why this scene stuck out was because it was unexpected. The whole film leads us towards a happy ending for the pair, so her death is shocking. I was also a little disappointed that this meant the end of Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. I had grown to love her in the role and was expecting to see more of her in the third film.

My second favourite moment was shortly after the first. As I said, Spiderman had been absent from the city of Manhattan for five months which resulted in Osborne (from his cell in the local mental institute) orchestrating the creation of destructive villains. As one of these take the streets, a young boy, seen earlier in the film befriending Spiderman, runs past barriers and police to stand in front of the villain in his Spiderman costume. The image was so powerful and worked to represent the connection that many young children have with the hero in our society. So many of them look up to the character as a role model and in some cases as a friend. Thankfully, in the film, the real Spidey turns up and saves the day.

Overall, I found the film to be surprisingly uplifting and captivating. It seems like this generation of Spiderman films has found its stride and is really hitting home with audiences around the world through its realistic themes between the love interests and the elaborate fight scenes reminiscent of the original comics. Whilst I am excited for the third film of this series, which was recently announced, I am interested to see if the films continue to impress fans like the last two have.

YSL & Divergent

This past week I have seen two very different films with one thing in common. They were both surprising.

First, I saw Yves Saint Laurent with my good friend from school. I can always rely on Emma whenever I want to go see a film and thankfully she felt the same as she invited me to an early morning showing of the French film. I hadn't looking into the content of the film before hand (sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't) so I wasn't aware that the film was French, subtitled and a biography. Originally, I was under the impression that the YSL film would be an art film - a display of sketches and runways set to jazz and electro punk. In this particular case, I'm very happy I was wrong. The film was actually a stunning retelling of Yves and his turbulent life from the time he started working for Dior to his death. Told from the point of view of Yves long term life partner, Pierre, the story tells of his start in the fashion world and how after Dior's death he was thrust into the spotlight with disastrous effects on his health. He was anxious and panicked and struggled to deal with people outside his immediate group of friends. But as the world changed and the drug culture erupted, Yves life became tumultuous as he fell into a deep well of alcohol, sex and drugs.

I found the film to be beautifully shot and carefully directed. It is always risky dealing with real, idolised people. Yet, even with the way Yves acted during moments of the film, I still left the cinema eager to learn more about his life and his work. Biographies tend to inspire me to go home and research everything about the subject as possible. So it was no surprise that I spent the rest of my day learning about Yves and the way he worked. I found myself to be equally fascinated with his lover Pierre. Through it all he was there for Yves and really only acted the way he did in an attempt to protect his love from danger (which Yves, in the later part of his life, seemed to hunt like it was prey). 

With this film, I was inspired to reconnect with the culture in my life. To appreciate the art that I grew up with and the work of those in fashion. Needless to say, I went on to watch September Issue and Coco Chanel later on that evening.

The second film I saw this week was Divergent. Set to be a big hit at the box office and a popular conversation topic for the next few months, I felt that I had to see it. I had also read both Divergent and Insurgent earlier last year, and I am always intrigued to see how popular books translate onto the screen. Having my reservations regarding the casting, I went in with an open mind! And yes, I was surprised! Shailene Woodley would be my last pick to play Tris, but actually she was fantastic. She gave real life to a character, that because of her Divergent nature could be incredibly distant from an audience. And all the other actors were fine. Just fine.
My only issue was the absence of Edward. Although he was listed on IMDB as being featured, readers of the book will have noticed one major thing when seeing the film. His eye. In the book, Peter is jealous that Edward is above him in ranking during training so he gouges his eye out with a knife. None of this happens in the film, in fact, we weren't even introduced to the character at all. Frankly, without Edward and the conflict, it was hard to believe Peter was as bad as the film tried to make him out to be. Another reason I am baffled by his lack of inclusion in the first film is because he becomes a vital character in Insurgent (in the book at least)! Due to the second book being pretty complicated, in terms of the number of new and old characters who come in and out, I'm not surprised that the movies will be split into three. I feel like this might give the director a real opportunity to develop the characters and expand on a good story that with the right tools could be made great.

My favourite part was the end. I really did enjoy the film, I promise! I just really liked how even though the film will be part of a trilogy it didn't end on a painful cliffhanger *cough* The Hobbit *cough*. It felt as though the story could have ended when the credits rolled, with the audience left to fantasise about the Divergent and the rebels living their life escaping the Erudite/Dauntless army.

With my new Cineworld Unlimited card, I imagine I'll be getting back into my old habit of writing film reviews. I enjoy this sometimes more than writing about my personal life. I can relax a little more without worrying about saying the wrong thing. I like movies. I like writing about movies. I like not always writing in the same structured way. I like being relaxed.

The Devil Wears Prada

The Devil Wears Prada, 2006, directed by David Frankel is based on the 2003 novel of the same name by Lauren Weisberger.[2] The story centres on Andrea Sachs, played by Anne Hathaway as she strives to survive and flourish as a writer in the big city. Along her way she lands a job working for the notoriously difficult and powerful Runway editor, Miranda Priestly. After struggling to get to grips with the high flying fashion world Andy soon excels and begins to enjoy her new surroundings. But as her new friendships and her old relationship are tested she ultimately decides that Priestly’s world is simply not for her and leaves the company to pursue her long lasting dream of being a serious journalist. Certain aspects of the film reveal the fashion industry and its warped standards of beauty whilst employing typical dramatic devices of Romantic Comedies to portray these issues.

One of the most noted performances in the film comes from Meryl Streep as head honcho, Miranda Priestly. Streep not surprisingly, received a nomination for an Academy Award for this role along with several other awards. According to Richard Dyer there are three types of role for an actor; the Perfect, the selective and the problematic fit.[3] In this case, the role was selective for Meryl as the character and her own personality are polar opposites. In spite of this the role becomes perfect for Streep as her talent as an actress allows for her to fit any role she takes. In public appearances and award shows she seems to be a very nice and genuinely sweet person whereas her character in The Devil Wears Prada is icy cold and often candidly mean. Our first encounter with Priestly is rather dramatic as suspense is built from before we see her. The employees of Runway are informed of her impending arrival and are seen frantically cleaning and rushing to tidy their areas. The visual fear on everyone’s faces builds anticipation and when we finally see the character in all her glory the audience is not disappointed. Streep pulls of a complete transformation from her normal seemingly bubbly self to the horrible and stern Queen Bee. There is no surprise that this role gained the actress her record breaking 14th Oscar nomination.

The employees seem to over react and the scene seems to be overdramatised at first but as we learn more about the character, their responses seem to be totally appropriate. Many of the female employees are seen making an attempt to improve their physical appearance as one woman changes from flat and comfortable shoes to high heels. This image is brief but not easily forgotten as it sets the tone for what is considered to be beautiful and feminine within this film. The close up is of a strained and uncomfortable foot which shows the pain that women go through in order to achieve this perception of beauty and the standards of beauty within this particular company. The idea that women suffer for fashion and beauty is not wrong but many believe that this is something we must do. Whilst in the films case, I believe that the image of beauty within that industry was incredibly accurate. It’s a world where weight and owning the latest pair of Chanel boots is key to gaining success.

Another especially memorable scene in the film is the montage of Andy’s makeover transformation. The makeover is a reoccurring tool used in Romantic Comedies and teen films. ‘Hollywood has long been enamoured [with] transformation stories’.[4] The Devil Wears Prada is no exception and turns the dowdy writer into a fashionable New Yorker. Most films use this dramatic device as a way of showing the evolution of the female character. Even once Andrea has turned her back on Runway to pursue journalism she is still dressed fashionably but this time with a little more of her own personality intertwined with it. The montage shows Andy on her way to work in several different and varying outfits. Hathaway is no stranger to the makeover in films as one of her foremost roles was as Mia Thermopolis in The Princess Diaries.[5] I found it interesting that this segment was very similar to the opening montage in the film that showed models and other ‘fashionistas’ out on the streets of New York in a similar fashion. This highlights further the vast changes in the protagonist’s appearance and how she now ‘fits in’ with the types of girls she used to make fun of. This further perpetuates the idea that a woman should change her appearance in order to fit in and be successful.

An interesting aspect of this scene was the choice of music, Vogue by Madonna.[6] The magazine, Runway featured in Weisberger’s book and the character of Miranda Priestly are based on American Vogue and its notorious editor Anna Wintour. The music is a subtle nod to the inspiration behind the novel and subsequently the film. Additionally, the song itself is iconic in the fashion industry for its interlude that features the names of many famous and infamous designers. Partly because of this song and her courageous choices in costumes, Madonna has become an icon in ground breaking fashion and glamourising designers. Often considered to be strong and powerful, Madonna took charge of her career in the same way the Andrea is trying to do in the film.

The representation of femininity and female beauty are, I feel, challenged by this film as they are brought to light. In an incredibly shallow and appearance based industry the main character has no choice but to sacrifice parts of what make her unique in order to blend with her new surroundings. The film incorporates aspects of perceived beauty such as body weight and explores them in a light hearted manner that could easily be misconceived by the young impressionable minds that the film is marketed at. There is no doubt that this film appeals to young female audiences but unfortunately it will take year for them to fully understand that this film is not just a light and puffy look at the fashion industry but is instead a social commentary on the idea of beauty and what we must do to achieve it.

---

[1] The Devil Wears Prada, dir. by David Frankel (20^th Century Fox, 2006)

[2] Lauren Weisberger, The Devil Wears Prada (Broadway Books, London, 2003)

[3] Jeremy G. Butler, The Star System and Hollywood (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000) p. 11

[4] Brenda R. Weber, Makeover TV: Selfhood, Citizenship, and Celebrity (Duke University Press, North Carolina, 2009) p. 19

[5] The Princess Diaries, dir. by Garry Marshall (Walt Disney Pictures, 2001)

[6] Vogue, performed by Madonna, written by Madonna and Shep Pettibone (Sire Records and Warner Bros Records, released March 20^th 1990)