Here is a great article about the movie. It is long, so I won't post the whole thing, but I will post some snip-its below of the fashion portion. 
Whole thing: http://www.fashionlines.com/2006/july/peopleDevilWearsPrada06.php
Excerpt (source: fashionlines.com
The movie sparked the biggest reaction, the most discussion and criticism regarding the wardrobe, which was produced by the iconic, legendary and prolific Patricia Field, (of “Sex and the City” fame). That the wardrobe and fashion should be so closely scrutinized and studied under a microscope is hardly surprising given the subject matter. It IS a move about fashion and more specifically, the tony world of fashion magazines which is a peculiar, idiosyncratic, insular world unto itself, where image is everything and clothing IS key.
There was practically no newspaper, weekly magazine, or website that has not broached this subject and in fact, the cover story of the Thursday ‘Style’ section of The New York Times, June29th, “The Duds of ‘The Devil Wears Prada” by Ruth La Ferla, included the observation, “You’d think that a movie about fashion world get the clothes right, but fashionistas bemoan its lack of chic.” Ouch! The consensus of opinion within the fashion world seems to corroborate this opinion. But after seeing the movie, I had a slightly different view and felt that much of the criticism directed at Patricia Field was undeserved. In general, she fared far better than I was led to believe.
That said, while I felt the clothing choices for Anne Hathaway’s character and the assorted fashion editors and assistants scurrying through the halls of ‘Runway’ were ‘edgy’ enough and pretty believable, I did agree with many that Ms. Field’s choices for the most ‘powerful fashion editor on the planet’, were disappointing, a bit more more hit and miss, and in certain cases (like the fussy striped collar fur or the dowdy ‘Dallas’ portrait neckline black gown), it was more ‘miss’ than hit.
For the record, for those who argue that with an assistant’s lowly salary, it’s not realistic to think she could be dressed in Chanel head to toe, or dress ‘better’ than her boss. I beg to disagree. Actually, when I was an editor at Bazaar, there was a fashion assistant who wore Chanel (head to toe) on a daily basis, and whose boss also wore Chanel quite frequently. And may I add that this assistant managed to pull it off in a much more youthful, offhandedly stylish way. While I’m not suggesting that all assistants outshine their bosses, there certainly are cases (and not few and far between) where assistants have more personal style and savvy than their higher ups.
Let me point out that even though fashion assistants don’t make a great deal of money, they are not exactly from deprived, low income households- some are even from families wealthy enough to buy and sell Conde Nast or Hearst if they wanted to. (Well, almost). Vera Wang was once a fashion assistant at Vogue, and Tory Burch was a fashion assistant at Harper’s Bazaar. Need I say more?
The bottom line is that this is Pat's interpretation, and her goal was "to give Streep a regal look" according to AmNY (www.amNY.com), because she "imagined her character as the Queen of fashion, and proceeded to dress her like a queen". To that end, Ms. Field reportedly relied on a $100,000 budget from which she borrowed clothes and accessories from Oscar de la Renta, Valentino, Dennis Basso, and Miuccia Prada among others (about half Meryl’s shoes were Prada). I don’t mean to be a Sunday morning quarterback, but she blew an opportunity to ‘educate’ America (as if they really care) as to the vagaries, the perfect below the radar details that spell the difference between being inherently chic, truly stylish, and not; the difference between merely getting dressed in of the moment designer labels and IT bags, and exuding personal style; the difference between merely following trends and affecting a signature uniform that transcends the vagaries of seasonal 'ins' and 'outs'.
By dressing Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) in an un-choreographed orgasmic mish mash of expensive designer labels, and ‘It’ bags, Pat seemed to be feeding into the notions and expectations of the general public (who is not immersed in fashion), and the way they may surmise or fantasize a celebrity fashion editor dresses. In order for this movie to have really rung true, rather than giving the public what they expected, Ms. Field should have concentrated on showing them the unexpected- what they perhaps didn’t know (which she was so adept at doing in "Sex and the City").
And the secret is, legendary fashion editors got where they did because they are masters at editing magazines, hence, they are usually masters (or should be) at editing their own look. They normally transcend the trends (and steer clear of IT bags); usually affecting some sort of signature 'uniform' by which they are recognized. This is the important element that was lacking from the Field produced wardrobe in 'Devil'. Think about the late Diana Vreeland, considered to be the “20th century’s greatest arbiter of style and elegance” who was fashion editor at Harper’s Bazaar for 20 years and Editor in Chief of Vogue, or the late Carrie Donovan, who had been a Senior Fashion Editor at Vogue and later, Senior Fashion Editor at Harper’s Bazaar (a wonderfully nurturing woman whom I credit with becoming a fashion editor by the way). Neither one’s look was timid or for the faint of heart and the resulting effect had less to do with their actual clothing and more to do with their personal style. It was all about the little details: the way they wore their clothes. Neither could be considered traditional beauties, but each conveyed confidence and authority through their signature, unforgettable looks.
Not fashion victims but fashion pros, they chose simple, timelessly elegant clothes, and radiated inviduality through their grooming and accessories which were idiosyncratic, eccentric, and highly recognizable. Diana Vreeland, who favored very simple, pared down sweaters, skirts, and pants, was known for her black lacquered hair, rouged cheeks, red nail polish, and her bold matching Chanel cuffs. Carrie Donovan favored Halston’s unfussy, always chic cashmeres, Bobbie Breslau’s slouchy bags, Elsa Peretti’s sculptural silver jewelry and belt buckles, and her oversized Chanel pearls. Her Halston- designed jersey turbans were not only a signature, but insured that she would never have to suffer a bad hair day. Talk about chic and modern!
Anna Wintour also has a very severe, strict, rigorous and definable look. Though she wears many designers' clothes (no, not just Prada), she makes the look her own and wisely selects only those items that complement her lithe frame, her lifestyle, and her position. Most importantly, she understands the concept of 'appropriate'. While she might wear jeans for the country, you would never see her in jeans at public events or during the work week. She is also highly consistent- you can bet she will be in knee length skirts, coats, and dresses; elegant boots or Manolo Blahnik sandals; carrying a small little clutch as to not interfere with the elegant line, or going purse less. (No suitcase- sized 'it' bags for her, regardless of how 'in' they are). Her perfectly straight hair will always be perfectly cut and blown and her famous bangs will always frame her eyebrows, Chanel sunglasses will always shield her eyes. And you can bet that in the winter (and maybe even in the warmer climates too), she will be wearing fur in one form or another…as a coat, a jacket, or lavish trim.
return false;}function _gd(_x,_w){_ed = (_x.lastIndexOf("/"));_be = (_w!="full
Whole thing: http://www.fashionlines.com/2006/july/peopleDevilWearsPrada06.php
Excerpt (source: fashionlines.com
The movie sparked the biggest reaction, the most discussion and criticism regarding the wardrobe, which was produced by the iconic, legendary and prolific Patricia Field, (of “Sex and the City” fame). That the wardrobe and fashion should be so closely scrutinized and studied under a microscope is hardly surprising given the subject matter. It IS a move about fashion and more specifically, the tony world of fashion magazines which is a peculiar, idiosyncratic, insular world unto itself, where image is everything and clothing IS key.
There was practically no newspaper, weekly magazine, or website that has not broached this subject and in fact, the cover story of the Thursday ‘Style’ section of The New York Times, June29th, “The Duds of ‘The Devil Wears Prada” by Ruth La Ferla, included the observation, “You’d think that a movie about fashion world get the clothes right, but fashionistas bemoan its lack of chic.” Ouch! The consensus of opinion within the fashion world seems to corroborate this opinion. But after seeing the movie, I had a slightly different view and felt that much of the criticism directed at Patricia Field was undeserved. In general, she fared far better than I was led to believe.
That said, while I felt the clothing choices for Anne Hathaway’s character and the assorted fashion editors and assistants scurrying through the halls of ‘Runway’ were ‘edgy’ enough and pretty believable, I did agree with many that Ms. Field’s choices for the most ‘powerful fashion editor on the planet’, were disappointing, a bit more more hit and miss, and in certain cases (like the fussy striped collar fur or the dowdy ‘Dallas’ portrait neckline black gown), it was more ‘miss’ than hit.
For the record, for those who argue that with an assistant’s lowly salary, it’s not realistic to think she could be dressed in Chanel head to toe, or dress ‘better’ than her boss. I beg to disagree. Actually, when I was an editor at Bazaar, there was a fashion assistant who wore Chanel (head to toe) on a daily basis, and whose boss also wore Chanel quite frequently. And may I add that this assistant managed to pull it off in a much more youthful, offhandedly stylish way. While I’m not suggesting that all assistants outshine their bosses, there certainly are cases (and not few and far between) where assistants have more personal style and savvy than their higher ups.
Let me point out that even though fashion assistants don’t make a great deal of money, they are not exactly from deprived, low income households- some are even from families wealthy enough to buy and sell Conde Nast or Hearst if they wanted to. (Well, almost). Vera Wang was once a fashion assistant at Vogue, and Tory Burch was a fashion assistant at Harper’s Bazaar. Need I say more?
The bottom line is that this is Pat's interpretation, and her goal was "to give Streep a regal look" according to AmNY (www.amNY.com), because she "imagined her character as the Queen of fashion, and proceeded to dress her like a queen". To that end, Ms. Field reportedly relied on a $100,000 budget from which she borrowed clothes and accessories from Oscar de la Renta, Valentino, Dennis Basso, and Miuccia Prada among others (about half Meryl’s shoes were Prada). I don’t mean to be a Sunday morning quarterback, but she blew an opportunity to ‘educate’ America (as if they really care) as to the vagaries, the perfect below the radar details that spell the difference between being inherently chic, truly stylish, and not; the difference between merely getting dressed in of the moment designer labels and IT bags, and exuding personal style; the difference between merely following trends and affecting a signature uniform that transcends the vagaries of seasonal 'ins' and 'outs'.
By dressing Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) in an un-choreographed orgasmic mish mash of expensive designer labels, and ‘It’ bags, Pat seemed to be feeding into the notions and expectations of the general public (who is not immersed in fashion), and the way they may surmise or fantasize a celebrity fashion editor dresses. In order for this movie to have really rung true, rather than giving the public what they expected, Ms. Field should have concentrated on showing them the unexpected- what they perhaps didn’t know (which she was so adept at doing in "Sex and the City").
And the secret is, legendary fashion editors got where they did because they are masters at editing magazines, hence, they are usually masters (or should be) at editing their own look. They normally transcend the trends (and steer clear of IT bags); usually affecting some sort of signature 'uniform' by which they are recognized. This is the important element that was lacking from the Field produced wardrobe in 'Devil'. Think about the late Diana Vreeland, considered to be the “20th century’s greatest arbiter of style and elegance” who was fashion editor at Harper’s Bazaar for 20 years and Editor in Chief of Vogue, or the late Carrie Donovan, who had been a Senior Fashion Editor at Vogue and later, Senior Fashion Editor at Harper’s Bazaar (a wonderfully nurturing woman whom I credit with becoming a fashion editor by the way). Neither one’s look was timid or for the faint of heart and the resulting effect had less to do with their actual clothing and more to do with their personal style. It was all about the little details: the way they wore their clothes. Neither could be considered traditional beauties, but each conveyed confidence and authority through their signature, unforgettable looks.
Not fashion victims but fashion pros, they chose simple, timelessly elegant clothes, and radiated inviduality through their grooming and accessories which were idiosyncratic, eccentric, and highly recognizable. Diana Vreeland, who favored very simple, pared down sweaters, skirts, and pants, was known for her black lacquered hair, rouged cheeks, red nail polish, and her bold matching Chanel cuffs. Carrie Donovan favored Halston’s unfussy, always chic cashmeres, Bobbie Breslau’s slouchy bags, Elsa Peretti’s sculptural silver jewelry and belt buckles, and her oversized Chanel pearls. Her Halston- designed jersey turbans were not only a signature, but insured that she would never have to suffer a bad hair day. Talk about chic and modern!
Anna Wintour also has a very severe, strict, rigorous and definable look. Though she wears many designers' clothes (no, not just Prada), she makes the look her own and wisely selects only those items that complement her lithe frame, her lifestyle, and her position. Most importantly, she understands the concept of 'appropriate'. While she might wear jeans for the country, you would never see her in jeans at public events or during the work week. She is also highly consistent- you can bet she will be in knee length skirts, coats, and dresses; elegant boots or Manolo Blahnik sandals; carrying a small little clutch as to not interfere with the elegant line, or going purse less. (No suitcase- sized 'it' bags for her, regardless of how 'in' they are). Her perfectly straight hair will always be perfectly cut and blown and her famous bangs will always frame her eyebrows, Chanel sunglasses will always shield her eyes. And you can bet that in the winter (and maybe even in the warmer climates too), she will be wearing fur in one form or another…as a coat, a jacket, or lavish trim.
return false;}function _gd(_x,_w){_ed = (_x.lastIndexOf("/"));_be = (_w!="full
Last edited by a moderator:
anyhoo... Emily reminds me of the girls i used to work with back in those days. hahaha... ...totally slaved to the fashion industry 
The actress really did that character to a T! She's hilarious.
The long pearl one with the CC's and bow... and all her Chanel accessories. I was squirming my way through the movie.
