MovieChat Forums > The Devil Wears Prada (2006) Discussion > Andy was completely right about the 2 be...

Andy was completely right about the 2 belts


When Andy snickered over the 2 belts being pretty much the same, she was mocking the effort to distinguish between them. Andy’s point was that too much effort is made in deciding fashion trends. Andy didn’t really care about fashion so she put little effort in deciding what clothes to wear. No matter how much effort the people working in the fashion industry put into making clothes for the public, Andy put no effort into deciding which of those clothes she should buy.

The fashion industry could put far less effort into making clothes and it wouldn’t really affect Andy. Even with the different options in clothing that their reduced efforts would afford Andy she would still put no effort into deciding on her clothes. Miranda says that it cost millions of dollars and countless jobs to produce the sweater Andy’s wearing in that color. But the fashion industry could just as easily produce a sweater for Andy with far less money and far fewer jobs.

Miranda says that Andy’s sweater was selected for her by the people in that room but the truth is they didn’t need to put in anywhere near as much effort as they did in order to make a sweater that would have been to Andy’s liking. It doesn’t matter to most clothes shoppers which of the 2 belts was chosen by the people at Runway magazine. They could successfully design clothes for the public just by randomly picking one belt over the other. They don’t have to put so much effort into deciding which belt is better in order for people to have clothes to wear.

As Miranda says, Andy doesn’t care what she wears. That’s exactly Andy’s point. She doesn’t care. She doesn’t need to care to get clothes. And she doesn’t need anyone in the fashion industry to care as much as Miranda Priestly or anyone else at Runway magazine does for her to get clothes. And the same goes for most people.

reply

The point was that the high fashion decides and all the rest then follow. Sure she could buy a sweater of any colour but she unconsciously bought it of THAT colour. Because it became popular.

One may not care about fashion but we still make a choice when we buy clothes. And that choice is formed also by what is trendy. Which is decided, or if you want, proposed, by the high fashion.

The two belt to me were of the same identical colour, though. So, yes, Andy was right. :D

reply

First off, we don't really know why Andy has the sweater she does in that scene. For all we know it was given to her by someone else. And if she did buy it herself we don't know exactly why. We don't know that that sweater was ever that trendy or that she cared about how trendy it was. She may have just liked the way it looked.

Many people don't make decisions about what clothes to buy based on what's trendy. Andy would seem to be one of those people. The fact that nearly all clothes available to the public are decided on or proposed by the elites in high fashion simply means that average people don't have a choice about what clothes are mass-produced and put in the stores. However, within that variety there's a lot of choices that people can make about what to buy and many people decide on clothes that aren't particularly favored by the elites in high fashion.

Andy's point in snickering about the 2 belts is to highlight the arbitrariness that goes into deciding between them. The people at Runway could just as easily decide between the 2 belts based on which one they think looks better or by playing eenie meenie miny moe. One way of deciding is just as good as the other. The average person doesn't care how the decision was made. The average person just buys whatever clothes are at the store that have the best price. Therefore, the fashion elites at Runway magazine shouldn’t think that their decisions about fashion or how they make those decisions about fashion actually matter.

reply

I'd say that technically the people not following any fashion are the homeless. Or very poor people generally speaking who do not have a choice (for real) and wear what's given to them.

Still it doesn't matter. The point Miranda made was correct. Andy was wearing a sweater of THAT colour because a stylist introduced that colour. Without that stylist that time, probably there wouldn't have been that cheap sweater of that colour later. It doesn't really matter if she bought it, received as a gift or else. Because it wasn't Miranda's point.

Regarding those belts.. I believe not even Valentino or Armani have ever got so obsessed about the choice between two belts at most identical. As long as they designed the belts they are all good! lol That scene doesn't represent the stupidity of the fashion industry but more the stupidity of Hollywood. But yeah, the movie wanted to make fun of the fashion industry, although unreal (I believe a boss behaving like Miranda can be sued for I don't know how many different harassments in USA), it was in my opinion very well acted, so who cares.

reply

Because the fashion industry determines most of the clothes that are manufactured and sold in stores it just means that the average person has to buy what the fashion industry decides on. But because the fashion industry's decisions about what is made available to the public are so arbitrary its decisions are ultimately meaningless and therefore it's all just "stuff" as Andy describes it.

Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that Runway magazine doesn't make clothes. It merely provides pictures and articles about clothing. Runway magazine and its arbitrary decisions about fashion aren't needed to provide the public clothing. Hence, Runway's decisions about fashion are just "stuff" as Andy said.

Whatever stylist made Andy's sweater didn't need the people at Runway magazine in order to make it. There are only so many colors. How much effort does it take for clothes manufacturers to make sweaters in several of them? The stylist who introduced that sweater in that color didn't need the help of the people at Runway to make that sweater. He or she could have done it all without them.

The people at Runway shouldn't act like their decisions are all that important or that they make a real difference. Acting like the decisions they make about fashion are important is exactly the "stuff" that Andy was talking about.

reply

Exactly, they were acting like they were curing cancer or something. Jesus, it’s a belt and I agree they looked pretty much the same. I don5 look at fashion magazines and think “Hmmmmmm which shall I choose” it’s a bit stupid.

reply

1. I get what you mean, but some individuals refuse to understand a point and have made up their minds.


But yeah, the movie wanted to make fun of the fashion industry, although unreal (I believe a boss behaving like Miranda can be sued for I don't know how many different harassment in USA), it was in my opinion very well acted, so who cares.

From what I understand, some of the things that Miranda did were similar to how Anna Wintour treats her employees. I think it is indeed exaggerated though.

reply

I'd say that technically the people not following any fashion are the homeless. Or very poor people generally speaking who do not have a choice (for real) and wear what's given to them.


Get real. I don't give a rat's fart about following fashion but I am neither homeless nor poor.

reply

Did you miss the part about countless jobs and billions of dollars? I would say that matters.

And if a new hire (in ANY industry) with admittedly no experience or knowledge AT ALL about said industry has the gall to snicker aloud about something in front of experienced veterans, that's just plain rude. No two ways about it.

reply

GingerVitus,

First off, Miranda said millions of dollars, not billions. Second, I mentioned the countless jobs and millions of dollars so I clearly didn’t miss it. I said that that much money and jobs wasn’t necessary to make clothes.

Second, Andy may have been rude to snicker about the 2 belts but that’s beside the point. My point is that Andy’s point of view about the fashion industry, represented by her snickering, was correct.

reply

My point is that the Andy’s point of view about the fashion industry, represented by her snickering, was correct.

That is a very ignorant take on the subject, which is why Andy was chewed out by Miranda.

reply

My bad, I didn't read your entire post. There was a similar post from an IMDB user about a year ago, so I assumed it was the same person. Your mind is obviously made up, and on some level I agree with you, but your focus is on the "arbitrariness" of fashion, and I think what you're missing out on is the ART involved in it. In the words of Nigel:

"Don't you know that you are working at the place that published some of the greatest artists of the century? Halston, Lagerfeld, de la Renta. And what they did, what they created was greater than art because you live your life in it. Well, not you, obviously, but some people. You think this is just a magazine, hmm? This is not just a magazine. This is a shining beacon of hope..."

To some people, this "stuff" is important. To others, it simply isn't. When looking at a Jackson Pollack piece, one might see passion, fire, and intensity whereas someone else might see arbitrary paint splatters and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Who is "right"? No one. It's just opinions.

The world is full of arbitrary things like this. I don't think grown men should get paid millions of dollars for being good at tossing a ball around, but I'm not going to say that it's "wrong" that they do, and it's "right" for people to make fun of it or think it's stupid or unnecessary. It's obviously important to a huge amount of people, so who am I to snicker at it?

reply

GingerVitus,

It's not a matter of art. What they're doing at Runway isn't really art. They're selling a corporate product. To a certain extent it is art. But it's mostly a matter of business. Jackson Pollock's paintings weren't corporate products that he made to sell to the masses. It's not really art if you're just trying to sell a magazine and through that magazine advertise other products. Anything meant to be mass-produced isn't really art. Runway’s arbitrary decisions about fashion don't qualify as art. Art is something you put on your wall. It's not something that everyone wears on a daily basis.

Nigel couldn't be more wrong about Runway being a "shining beacon of hope". The logical conclusion of what Runway does is Katt Savage, a character from an episode of King of the Hill. She uses her time and her wealth to stay constantly up to date with the latest fashions. She reads dozens of blogs and websites to stay up to date and has a special room in her mansion that she uses to store her extra fashion items. The logical conclusion of what Runway does is Rebecca Bloomwood, the main character from the movie Confessions of a Shopaholic. Her endless shopping sprees to get the latest fashions leave her thousands of dollars in debt. That's not hope. That's hopelessness. The logical conclusion of Miranda Priestly’s choices is Katt Savage and Rebecca Bloomwood. That's not art. That's selling people things they don't need.

That's why Andy was completely right to snicker over the 2 belts. There's clearly humor to be found in arbitrary decisions that determine how thousands if not millions of people will spend their money. In the next scene in The Devil Wears Prada, Andy explains quite well to her boyfriend the absurdity of what Runway does:

"And they all act like they’re curing cancer or something. The amount of time and energy that these people spend on these insignificant minute details. And for what? So that tomorrow they can spend another $300,000 reshooting something that was probably fine to begin with to sell people things they don’t need."

The NBA is a bad comparison to high fashion for a number of reasons. First off, the decisions in the NBA aren't arbitrary. Every decision made has a clear connection to the bottom line and to getting to the championship. Who’s best in the NBA isn’t determined by arbitrary choices. The best team is the one that wins the championship. The best player is the one who leads that team to the championship. In contrast, the best fashions in the world of high fashion are determined entirely by completely arbitrary choices made by those at the top of the industry.

Second, unlike fashion, the NBA can be enjoyed alone. You can enjoy watching an NBA game on TV all by yourself. The same can't be said of fashion. You can't enjoy fashion all by yourself. Fashion is an inherently social hobby. Fashion has no point unless it's seen by other people.

Third, the NBA involves participants executing complex physical maneuvers that are fun to watch and that produce a lot of drama. If you're going to compare any art form to the NBA it should be ballet. Fashion doesn't rely on physical skill the same way basketball does. There's nothing to enjoy in watching people create fashion.

reply

I think your concept of art is very misguided. "Art for art's sake" was something that came around the 19th century. All art used to have a practical and commercial function. Artists mostly did portraits for the rich and religious paintings for the Church. Art manifests in the creative input that is needed to finish those pieces. Fashion is both art and business. There is a creative process.

However, you kind of contradict yourself when you say that they were acting in an "arbitrary" manner. I think the more "arbitrary" something is, then the closest it is to art. Nevertheless, fashion is not arbitrary at all, it is backed by centuries of studies in visual aesthetics and fiber engineering. There are several university programs dedicated exclusively to fashion. So, when Andy was undermining the work at Runway, she was kind of *beep* on the lives of millions of people throughout eras!

Your view that fashion create shopaholics is a little conservative as well. Remember when people used to say that video games make people violent? Well, I find your position kind of similar in that sense.

Finally, I'm not even going to discuss your NBA rambling... because it doesn't make any sense =)

reply

Shiroyasha,

Sure, there's a creative process involved in fashion. But Runway magazine isn’t making fashion. Runway’s creative process is geared towards selling a monthly magazine. It's a process geared toward getting people to buy the next edition of the magazine. It's a process geared towards getting readers to believe that the magazine is saying and showing something it hasn't already said and shown before. Runway's "art" is either showing something new or trying to convince its readers that it's showing something new for the simple sake of doing so. The fact that there happens to be a creative process involved doesn't automatically make the product a piece of art.

It's an unnecessary creative process. They wouldn't be worrying about the minute differences between the 2 belts unless they had to put out a new magazine next month. Do they even need to scrutinize the differences between the 2 belts to put out a successful magazine? And it's not even Runway's "art" to begin with. The fashion designers are the ones actually making the clothes. Where did fashion magazines get the idea that their role in the fashion industry requires them to engage in their own version of "art"?

If fashion is backed by centuries of studies in visual aesthetics and fiber engineering then why do they need to keep making more clothes? If that's true then why do they need to keep changing things up? Why do they need to keep designing new fashions? If there's already an established understanding of the best visual aesthetics and fiber engineering then why is the fashion industry making constant changes to clothing? What they already have should be good enough.

Andy was right to snicker at the exhaustive efforts of the people working in high fashion to make numerous arbitrary decisions over how to make clothing because, like most people, all of that wasn't necessary for Andy to get clothes to her liking. They could put in one tenth of the effort and still make clothes that were to Andy's liking.

The idea that video games make people violent is a bad comparison to shopaholics. Video games' own fake violence is the logical conclusion of their fake violence. The only point of video game makers making video games is to have consumers buy and play those video games. In contrast, the logical conclusion of a fashion magazine is getting consumers to buy more fashion. Getting people to buy more clothes is the whole point of a fashion magazine. The whole idea is convince people that they need to buy more and more clothes. That’s how we end up with shopaholics.

I don't see anything wrong with what I said about the NBA. It makes perfect sense to me. I only discussed basketball in the first place because GingerVitus brought up the issue.

reply

I thought the people at runway were incredibly rude anyway especially Emily. Jesus Christ and to be honest if I were Andy and Miranda kept calling me Emily, I would ignore her. Then when Miranda says “how many time ago I have to scream ur name” I would say “Again, my name is Andrea, if you keep calling me Emily, I will continue to ignore you”
Miranda was just a horrible cow. Also the designer guy (can’t recall his name- James holt I think) the guy who says to Andy “nice bag, who made that fantastic thing” was a complete egotistical asshole!!! So far up his own ass it was incredible and so was Christian Thompson.
Maybe this is why I’m not really into fashion because the people involved in fashion are idiots and such stuck up snobs.

reply

I agree, Andy was lucky to not be fired. She showed no respect for her employer or the industry she was hired for. Also, going into a job thinking I'll only be here until I can get something better is awfully rude and pretentious. She was entirely ungrateful, by her own admission she sent out tons of resumes and only Miranda's HR responded, show some humility and appreciation. This is a high paced high stakes job, if you can't handle it or appreciate it, get out so someone who understands and is competent can get the job.

reply

Idk, I thought Andy was rude to laugh about the belts. She could've done it quietly or waited until she got home to laugh about it. But then she acts so surprised when Miranda calls her out on it... Really? Did you really think Miranda wasn't going to notice you laughing? Yes, they were very similar but that's how it is in their fashion world. I felt Miranda was right.

reply

Those belts looked the same color to me too though. It was weird. Maybe if she said 'they both communicate something differently' but still how could they when it looked like the same color?

Wildcattin'...Wildcattin'. Pow! I'm gonna go.

reply

They were definitely the same color, but they had different belt buckles. They were both the same color buckles heart differently shaped lol

reply

But shaped differently*

reply

The belts were pretty much the same color, but the buckles were different. When I first watched the movie, I thought, "What's the big deal?" Having helped my wife accessorize dresses with belts since, I now understand what a difference size, color, thickness, and material can make in what first looks to be a simple belt.

Andy thought this was laughable, but in fashion, small changes can affect the look of an outfit and the trends of an industry. That is the whole point of the scene, and we see that Andy later understands this - with a little help from Nigel.

reply

They weren't talking about the color of the belt.

reply

That's just fashion. Have you seen those dresses that look like they're pieces together, shredded, colorful garbage bags? Those are hundreds of dollars and its like why would someone wear that?? Why? Because a magazine said so

reply

I get what you are saying Rusty, but I disagree. The belts mattered, fashion mattered because it was their job. If they didn't take it seriously, the magazine would lose readership and they would all lose their jobs. It is a multimillion earning magazine in a billion dollar industry. Clothes featured inside sell out, trends are born, designers are elevated and so too are their staff, their manufacturers and salespeople. So every detail has to be scrutinized.

I don't give a rat's patootie about sports. It's only people hurting themselves for entertainment, it has little impact in my life. The Dallas Cowboys spend waaaay to much money on their stadiums, equipment, training, uniforms, cheerleader, etc... they could still be a good team if they had half the staff, even half the team. Why are the coaches paid so much? All they do is yell at the players. Bitches! Why do sports teams take sports so seriously?

You are a baker. Does it matter if you put a little too much yeast in this bread mix, or too little sugar in those cookies? Stop taking your job so seriously!

Just because you think fashion is silly doesn't make it so. It is their job, and in order to succeed at any job you have to take it seriously. Miranda was at the top of her field precisely because she nit picked over two similar belts.

reply

Jandersonu2,

Runway's arbitrary decisions are supposedly the ultimate influence on fashion trends. How are they going to lose readership if readers decide that Runway's opinions matter simply because they're Runway's opinions? Why scrutinize details if people will be influenced by Runway's opinions on fashion no matter what those opinions are or how those opinions are determined? Do the people at Runway actually have to take all their decisions seriously in order to succeed at their jobs? If you're a trendsetter then you don't worry about others' opinions. Instead, they worry about yours.

Why are you comparing arbitrary decisions about fashion to the Dallas Cowboys spending lots of money? Spending lots of money on a football team isn't an art form and no one claims that it is. It's hard to claim that the Cowboys spent way too much money in the middle of a season where they ended up with the best record in the NFC. If they end up winning the Super Bowl then it will be impossible to claim that they spent too much money.

reply

The whole speech could have easily been avoided if that girl who talked about the belts didn't sound as if she was talking about world peace.

reply

I completely agree. The sweater speech seemed off to me. Andy is probably like myself and many others: looking for fit and price. If you're influenced by brand name fashion and fads you'll always be chasing a trend that someone else decides so women can perpetually fund a decadent industry.

I do think there's an art to fashion but Miranda was wrong to think the sweater was anything more than an arbitratrary purchase made regardless of the exact shade of blue

reply