In recent years, I haven't been impressed by that many contemporary films' wardrobe styling. Each time I read 'stylish' in a Marie Claire/Glamour film review, for me, it often translates to 'boring' and predictable. So I sat up and listened when I heard Patricia Field, ex-stylist of Sex and the City was in charge of the wardrobe on the film adaptation of The Devil Wears Prada (by Lauren Weisberger). The film has premiered, the stills are out, Vogue has coo-ed over it, and unfortunately, it doesn't come out here in the UK until October. However, judging from these pictures, and don't shoot me for saying so, my reaction is a little like 'Oh? Is that it?'.
I respect Pat Field's daring choices and I still do rate SATC as the only show that pushed style boundaries. In Carrie Bradshaw, the array of styles that Field created were so innovative and fashion-forward. Naturally, my expectations were high.
Now I understand that the nature of Runway magazine in The Devil Wears Prada is conformist in its style rather than zany and urban-edgy. It's about beautifully cut clothes, designer labels, fashion of the highest quality and price. But how great would it be to see Runway magazine's staff and Andrea herself materialised as uber-fashion victim types, with over the top styling. Is it that mainstream audiences have the word 'stylish' pigeon-holed into a certain typecast - a wardrobe purely of Prada, Gucci and Balenciaga? Is there not room for further interpretation of the word, especially when we're figuring Patricia Field into the equation. I do wonder whether she was allowed full rein of the wardrobe or whether, she was trying to stick to how Weisberger portrayed their clothes. Or was she trying to convey how an American Vogue-type magazine office staff would dress in reality? I have no idea. Either way, I'm not blown away by this highly-anticipated 'fashion' film. For me, the content of the film maybe fashion, but the clothing itself is only 'safely stylish'.
(Pics from Telegraph)
