Films like this, and the people who star in them, should thank their lucky stars someone invented the term "hater." The word is a get-out-of-jail free card to anyone who wants to walk over others and not have their victory party interrupted by the noise of those they trampled upon. Like few other films could, this film exposes the hypocrisy not in the fashion industry, but Hollywood itself. It also proves, convincingly, that Meryl Streep is the most overrated actress in the history of the civilized world.
Ask Anne Hathaway to do a nude scene, and she'd likely refuse. If she wouldn't, most actresses on her level would refuse. Ask her (or Streep) to play a role that sends the wrong political message about women (say a movie about how to sexually harass women in your office and not get caught), and she might get up on a soapbox and refuse it. After all, actors are such role models, and their films leave such an impression on their audiences. Just ask Geena Davis, who was thrilled to be playing the nation's first female president. Strong, independent women on film send a great message, and the actresses who play them love being the messenger.
When you can call everyone you oppress a "hater," you can marginalize their statements as sour grapes. You can even call them a hater if they fail to be as happy and enthusiastic about your success as you are, even if yours came at the expense of theirs.
That said, would Hathaway revel in the role of a young legal secretary praying she's pretty enough to be hired and dismissing the concerns of the older women she displaced? Is Streep proud that the 20-minute lunch she assigned her assistants violates NY state labor law? Does she like gender discrimination? I guess so, because we all know that actresses won't do things on film if they don't approve of the political message.
Ever wonder why young Hollywood actresses are always smiling so much? Aside from needing to send a biological signal that they just might be ready to have sex (gets them ahead), they are happy because they get paid six or seven figures to play around with these "important political messages." While they are doing this, and while movies like this are being made, the stories that really need to be told -- the ones about the people left in the wake of narcissistic dimwits like the leads -- are not, because the "devils" in Hollywood don't want that story told, and they don't hire those who can tell it. Instead, they hire the Emilys and Andies of the world, and in the course of mistreating them, destroy the careers of those who never get in their door because they aren't that slither of the population that is young, female, and attractive. Streep was nothing more than a glorified housemom in this film.
Hathaway's "struggling" young adult female in New York City is about as unrealistic character as exists. A fat girl who grows up in Manhattan without family money will find herself boxed out of the job market by Andie, while a space has been reserved for Andie all along, by the powerful men who want her socializing near them and working for them. To her credit, Hathaway is not one of those young women herself, in that she did not capitalize on gender bias at regular jobs to keep her in the big city long enough to sleep her way to the top. She's acted all her life and is also a Soprano, i.e., a real performing artist. Her performance may stink theatrically, but politically she's the cleanest of the film.
Streep's character, Miranda Pristley, must have felt like she was in a kennel with all the scenery being chewed by Streep, whose into-the-wall performance smacked of litte more than her industry-induced narcissism that her "loo droppings" don't stink. Streep has to be the most annoying actress on- and off-screen of this era. Her character in Defending Your Life is a caricature of the undeserved pedestal the public has placed her on throughout her fourteen Oscar nominations. Those who think Barney is the Devil have good reason, but they're wrong, because Streep is a lot closer than he'll ever be. She takes her paychecks and glory from an industry her characters lampoon. This is like when the media complains about political spending in shows sponsored by high-priced political advertising. Hypocritical.
The film is simple enough: Fashion magazine, queen-bee boss (Streep) hires naive assistant (Hathaway), who barely escapes the sharks before becoming one, proves she can survive, and then wonders if she wants the fruits of her struggle. Stereotype the world and present racist, sexist backdrops (did Manhattan turn into South Africa?) without commentary, while pretending to make a meaningful political statement.
Message to the people in this film: there are no wealthy victims in this world, and there are no wealthy activists. Lip service changes nothing, but putting injustice on film for "realism" without showing its ugliness or sparking its eradication is nothing more than profiteering and enabling. But don't worry, anyone who points this out must be a "hater." Pristley is Streep's better half, because she's honest about what she is and what she does.
Ask Anne Hathaway to do a nude scene, and she'd likely refuse. If she wouldn't, most actresses on her level would refuse. Ask her (or Streep) to play a role that sends the wrong political message about women (say a movie about how to sexually harass women in your office and not get caught), and she might get up on a soapbox and refuse it. After all, actors are such role models, and their films leave such an impression on their audiences. Just ask Geena Davis, who was thrilled to be playing the nation's first female president. Strong, independent women on film send a great message, and the actresses who play them love being the messenger.
When you can call everyone you oppress a "hater," you can marginalize their statements as sour grapes. You can even call them a hater if they fail to be as happy and enthusiastic about your success as you are, even if yours came at the expense of theirs.
That said, would Hathaway revel in the role of a young legal secretary praying she's pretty enough to be hired and dismissing the concerns of the older women she displaced? Is Streep proud that the 20-minute lunch she assigned her assistants violates NY state labor law? Does she like gender discrimination? I guess so, because we all know that actresses won't do things on film if they don't approve of the political message.
Ever wonder why young Hollywood actresses are always smiling so much? Aside from needing to send a biological signal that they just might be ready to have sex (gets them ahead), they are happy because they get paid six or seven figures to play around with these "important political messages." While they are doing this, and while movies like this are being made, the stories that really need to be told -- the ones about the people left in the wake of narcissistic dimwits like the leads -- are not, because the "devils" in Hollywood don't want that story told, and they don't hire those who can tell it. Instead, they hire the Emilys and Andies of the world, and in the course of mistreating them, destroy the careers of those who never get in their door because they aren't that slither of the population that is young, female, and attractive. Streep was nothing more than a glorified housemom in this film.
Hathaway's "struggling" young adult female in New York City is about as unrealistic character as exists. A fat girl who grows up in Manhattan without family money will find herself boxed out of the job market by Andie, while a space has been reserved for Andie all along, by the powerful men who want her socializing near them and working for them. To her credit, Hathaway is not one of those young women herself, in that she did not capitalize on gender bias at regular jobs to keep her in the big city long enough to sleep her way to the top. She's acted all her life and is also a Soprano, i.e., a real performing artist. Her performance may stink theatrically, but politically she's the cleanest of the film.
Streep's character, Miranda Pristley, must have felt like she was in a kennel with all the scenery being chewed by Streep, whose into-the-wall performance smacked of litte more than her industry-induced narcissism that her "loo droppings" don't stink. Streep has to be the most annoying actress on- and off-screen of this era. Her character in Defending Your Life is a caricature of the undeserved pedestal the public has placed her on throughout her fourteen Oscar nominations. Those who think Barney is the Devil have good reason, but they're wrong, because Streep is a lot closer than he'll ever be. She takes her paychecks and glory from an industry her characters lampoon. This is like when the media complains about political spending in shows sponsored by high-priced political advertising. Hypocritical.
The film is simple enough: Fashion magazine, queen-bee boss (Streep) hires naive assistant (Hathaway), who barely escapes the sharks before becoming one, proves she can survive, and then wonders if she wants the fruits of her struggle. Stereotype the world and present racist, sexist backdrops (did Manhattan turn into South Africa?) without commentary, while pretending to make a meaningful political statement.
Message to the people in this film: there are no wealthy victims in this world, and there are no wealthy activists. Lip service changes nothing, but putting injustice on film for "realism" without showing its ugliness or sparking its eradication is nothing more than profiteering and enabling. But don't worry, anyone who points this out must be a "hater." Pristley is Streep's better half, because she's honest about what she is and what she does.