Andrea Sachs's Change and Its Interpretation

“The Devil Wears Prada” Project

In “The Devil Wears Prada”, Andrea Sachs enters a Runway internship as a woman of confidence in her character. Despite this confidence, her taste in fashion is constantly challenged by the Runway family of models, assistants, and especially her boss. When Andrea realizes that she is unable to perform her job without fitting into the role of her work environment, she chang-es her apparel to meet the standards of her peers. As a result, she appeals to the movie’s audience as sexy, professional, and chic. The overall effect is pleasing to those who witness the change as it is a relief to know that the protagonist is at last accepted by the people who outcasted her. De-spite this, Andrea’s change in fashion is unsettling in that it raises the question as to why she had to change her style to function in her job. Her job in Runway associates itself with fashion, but her tasks are more mundane and secretarial which has nothing to do with her performance. In-stead of modeling or being a spokesperson to represent this fashion, Andrea is fetching her boss a Starbucks coffee, a fresh sautéed steak, or even the new Harry Potter book. This has nothing to do with how she represents herself through her clothes, but rather how she represents herself as a servant to their industry. In “The Devil Wears Prada”, Lauren Weisberger describes fashion’s role in society and how it influences consumers like the protagonist Andrea Sachs. Although An-drea’s change in self-image is portrayed as aesthetically appealing to the consumer, the intention of the movie was to show how this materialism distracts consumers from their own self-image. As a result, consumers are likely to abandon their self-expression and follow unrealistic body standards.

As a noticeable mark, fashion reflects values and style when used as a device of expres-sion amongst consumers. In “Consumer Culture and the Media”, it is stated that “it is necessary to consider the relationship between subjects” as “the individualized subject seeks and constructs an image of self” (Iqani, 31). Through fashion as a subject, the consumer is able to build a look that not only appeals to themselves, but also represents how they would like to be seen as a sepa-rate person in their social environment. Despite that, fashion raises questions as to whether a con-sumer’s preference is entirely original when derived from catalogues. Fashion’s various selections are designed to provide products based on consumer preference and tastes, yet it challenges their originality instead. With Andrea Sachs, her preference in clothing reflects back to her personali-ty: practical and subtle. She didn’t take fashion seriously because it hadn’t made an impact on her life. Based on consumer self image, this isn’t a problem. Fashion was designed in a way that allowed imagination and individualism, which makes it open to the consumer. When Andrea is criticized for working in the Vogue office without the pumps to match the work environment––there’s a problem. After switching over to pumps, she is praised and admired for her contribu-tions in the workforce but only because she sacrifices her individual style. This resembles how consumers are discouraged from representing themselves under their own preference because of how fashion wants to maintain the same consistent image. It is a generally accepted standard that leaves very little for consumers to imagine themselves because they want to be accepted into its environment while maintaining their self-image. In “Originality through Imitation”, it is explained that consumers “imitate the refusal of imitation, and in doing so are conforming and deviant at the same time” (Esposito, 609). With that said, consumers lean towards the more easier alterna-tives and pick up “imitations” already approved by catalogues and models who do not reflect their preferences. As consumers conform to the same preference, the fashion industries assume themselves as the ultimate role models for these selections. This is problematic in that consumers are no longer seen as the deciding role of what apparel companies sell, giving fashion industries the power to sell anything they perceive as acceptable. Therefore, there is a misconception as to how fashion industries are able to receive a guaranteed amount of consum-ers, not to mention retain customer loyalty. The supposed idea is that there are designers accepted into the Runway family who maintain differentiated appeals and tastes based on what consumers want. In this sense, fashion is able to encourage consumer self-image through its various selection of designer experience. In actuality, these designers are maintaining styles based on what the company wants. With the “The Devil Wears Prada”, the movie perceives the process of selection as judgement based on a hierarchical management. The majority of clotheslines are rejected by Miranda through a single expression on her face, thus her preference is what the fashion company is built on. These aren’t just clotheslines that are being rejected but rather “differing methods and approaches to a design process (that) allow for uniqueness to (a designer’s) work.. (us-ing)..intelligent appearance, utilities, and meaning” (Cho, 490). When Miranda rejects these dif-ferentiated clothing lines, essentially what she is doing is reducing the options consumers have in purchasing apparel. Thus, consumers have no say in expressing themselves through their selection of clothing as they are not selecting apparel using variables in the designer’s work, but rather imi-tating the company image of general standards. Initially, Andrea doesn’t see this as a valid con-clusion because she doesn’t take fashion as seriously as her coworkers and peers. She does how-ever believe that style is dependent on preference as a result of her own identity. It is justified that consumers like Andrea have little say in their own originality when Miranda makes it a point that items like Andrea’s “lumpy, blue sweater” were “selected” for her by the Runway organiza-tion. This contradicts Andrea’s argument in that something as simple as her blue sweater is con-sidered a derived form of a Vogue product. The CEO of Runway looks down on Andrea’s abil-ity to express herself not because of her personality, but because she wears clothing that does not represent the Runway commodity. This works in the same means when consumers like Andrea are seen as people without style because they do not purchase their items from a brand magazine. As a result, consumers do not see brands as a commodity that expresses their self image but ra-ther a statement that they are in the same brand group of consumers who are identified as stylish.

These pressures can relate back to the periods of times where women had no rights as consumers to manage their image and this proves the error in fashion companies. When the major-ity of consumers change their preference and values through time, it reflects back on how they see themselves as changed individuals. Fashion is supposed to accommodate these changes of tastes in order to successfully sell to the adapting market. In Buckley and Fawcett’s example of “Fashioning the Feminine:”, the background of women’s fashions throughout the century ex-plains how fashion based itself on the idea that women should appear more conservative in their magazines. Even during the First World War when women were valued as workers to substitute the men put in war, the article demonstrates how there were two different ideas promoting against the other in regards to what the identity of a female should be. The war had challenged women “to take responsibility all aspects of their lives, gaining confidence with a different sense of self-worth, ultimately change and challenged their sense of identity” (Buckley & Fawcett, 52). Despite that, women’s magazines at the time “were required to be feminine, but also serious and independent; they were to be ‘womanly’ but also pull weight in their war effort” which stemmed into “contradictory demands made of women, and their bodies became a site where battle en-sued” (Buckley & Fawcett, 52-53). This exemplifies how consumer preference makes the differ-ence in fashion organizations as time changes values and self-images. These expectations in sell-ing a consumer-image contradict two visions in the process: the consumer and the fashion indus-try. Rather than accepting the changing female identity in its time, fashion ultimately stagnates itself by falling in love with their standards and regulations to the point that they’re unable to innovate from them. Innovation is key to businesses like fashion if they hope to accommodate their consumers changing values and means of expressing themselves.

With this focus in mind, fashion companies do not have a mindset on selling clothing to express personalities but rather to gain profits. For that reason, fashion is no longer centered around originality, but more so of popular demand. Outside contributors to the fashion compa-nies like Irve Rabbits in “The Devil Wears Prada” know nothing about the fashion content of the business, but are willing to invest $300,000 dollars to set up a product based on the CEO de-mand. Despite that, the investment was lost because demands were not met and the industry failed to come up with a product wanted by consumers. The $300,000 dollar investment ended up in a worthless commodity of “shitty jackets”. With that said, fashion is less inclined to pro-vide clothing for self-expression and for that, it’s lost it’s meaning and appeal to originality.

For example, the Punk movement of the mid-1970’s and it’s association with fashions automatically looked back to the Sex Pistols as it’s leader in the culture. However, this was not the case. According to “The Female Body of Punk”, “the artists who created Punk (in the form of apparel) were Malcolm and Vivienne” (“The Female Body of Punk”). Malcolm and Vivienne, as well as other women, were responsible for setting a trend that expressed it’s negation against generally accepted apparel. Meanwhile, trend leaders like the Sex Pistols were only wearing this commodity to reap profits from their fans as they appeared original in their aesthetic image. They did not express themselves as a result of who they were or what they were trying to accomplish, but instead they imitated an image in the means of securing profit. As a result, the original idea of the movement is ignored and the expression of clothing no longer carries the same meaning. Fashion without meaning or statement doesn’t prove itself original as a commodity and it can easily be manipulated so that the general population follows its trends without a sense of identity between consumers.

With this said, consumer identity has been blurred as a result of the masses adopting to these similar trends. There is no distinctive style amongst them because of how they imitate one another. The consequence of that is how consumers function with the dependency of one mind set that doesn’t work efficiently with their way of life. In terms of “The Devil Wears Prada”, Mi-randa doesn’t see any difference between her personal secretaries as she only carries two and calls them by the same name, “Emily”. This stands that there is no originality on the expression of her workers as Miranda expects the usual assistant who imitates the fashion but doesn’t have an individual sense of intelligence on how to perform her job. These expectations are unreasonable when consumers are unable to operate with their own capabilities if their expressionism is limited. The same can be said with empowering employees as it productivity relies on empowerment in individual choices. Individuals that express themselves in something as simple as their clothing preference are able to function normally without stress in their image. This associates itself with “brand personality” and how “the set of human characteristics (are) associated with a brand” (Aagerup ,489). Through behaving in the same self-image cultivated through fashion’s mindset, consumers imitate something that has no control and no expression. This is considered “harmful” to a consumer in that “in addition to an ideal self to which they aspire, consumers also have an undesired self.. (that) encompasses everything they do not want to be” (Aagerup, 489). Miran-da’s constant criticism in her employees for simple mistakes reminds her coworkers of those “un-desired selves” despite them adopting her fashion principles. In that same form, consumers are unable to behave as themselves as a result of expressing themselves through styles that aren’t them. It is an uncomfortable process in how they’re perceived by other people because of having to constantly fit a role that isn’t theirs to act.

On the other hand, the audience believes that Andrea has changed her self-image to em-brace her own inner style. This is what consumers want from themselves when they reflect back on their own self-image. Consumers want to be regarded as different the second that they stray away from their original apparel. However, it’s clear that nothing has changed with Andrea’s sta-tus as she is still considered the “Miranda-girl” just as any other assistant in her spot. Instead, it is her personality that has changed with her self-image. With Runway’s apparel, Andrea also adopts the company’s attitude regarding how they work in their line of business. As a result, Andrea be-lieves that the image she represents in the company is essential to her mundane tasks, but this sounds as ridiculous as her boyfriend’s comment how she doesn’t need a “ball gown” to “answer phone calls and get coffee”. Through this belief, Andrea forgets why she invested herself into the internship and with it, forgets her future goals that make up her character in the first place. She adopts the same belief as her coworkers in which adopting the fashion trends allow her to func-tion properly as a consumer and not as an individual person. Fashion has this effect on consumers in that it’s implemented as an expression of their persona whether it reflects their actual character or not. When investing thought into this image, the consumer adopts not only its physical resem-blance but also its behavioral traits.

For example, Miranda’s self-image is seen to be cold, chic, and professional because in this form of expression, she is essentially “doing her job”. People may believe that this is a con-text in which consumerism follows the simple trend of the CEO, but it can be argued that fashion represented as a business holds an influence of its own. Miranda may hold the reigns in her con-trol with fashion, but the system that she works under gives her no more leniency than those who work below her. In her personal life, she is seen as struggling with her family and trying her abso-lute effort in being a mother to her two children. When Andrea offers to help her in any means, such as cancel the very event that proves an obstacle to Miranda’s personal life––her boss rejects it and insists that she continue to do her job. Although she is considered the responsible for standardizing this form of expression, she is under the same pressure herself to maintain a self image that doesn’t represent who she is and how she struggles with her life. The same can be said about how consumers perceive their image in how fashion categorizes them. For Miranda, her responsibility is to represent her company as well as manage what that company sells. For others, they could be representing themselves based on how they want their jobs to see them or how people perceive them. Neither role establishes freedom with fashion’s effect in dictating how im-age is to be set in their environments.

Regarding consumer’s body image, they ultimately go for what they believe is healthy and approved in the environment. Fashion magazines usually employ skinny models in regards to how “fit” or in “shape” they are, but it comes back to these questions. Where do they “fit” in and just how are they “in shape” compared to everyone else? According to “Consumer Culture and the Media”, the “western culture strong and physically fit bodies are visually valued” in terms with media representation (Iqani 121). One can argue that because of this generally followed principle and its results, there shouldn’t be a harmful side effect towards its consumers. However what accounts for the way fashion takes these culture norms and puts them to the extreme tests? The fashion industry holds the most desirable examples of what consumers should look for when developing their self-image. This can also be said for body image in which “The Devil Wears Prada” shows is a dynamic standard throughout the years. One of its leading examples is when Nigel explains women’s dieting as changed “since a size two became the new four and zero be-came the new two”. At that moment, it wouldn’t have mattered if Andy confessed that she was happily a size six because Nigel, as well as his Runway peers, would’ve seen her as the “new fourteen”. This isn’t sarcasm or a play on fashion humor. The Runway catalogues and Vogue magazines account for women that follow these stated measurements without flaw, which draws consumers under the same unconditional trend. In this display, the magazines expose fashion’s culture and expectations to the consumers and the result isn’t pretty.

Consumers look to the industry models as role models towards their own bodies, especial-ly when admiring clothing they believe fits their self image. Despite this, clothing lines are not meant to be stepping stones for what the body example ought to be. In fact, “constructing the object, ‘anorexia’ within the text as an extreme, dangerous and deviant condition” should “set it apart from simply being thin, beautiful and glamorous” as explained in “Saints, Sinners, and Standards of Femininity”. Through magazine’s use of photoshop, the line has thinned between the two terms “slender” and “anorexic” when the same images are positioned in fashion’s market-ing campaign. Something that is considered generally seen is on the same category as generally acceptable. Moreover, “Think “Thin” and Feel Bad” notes how:

With that said, the difference between the consumer and the model is explicit. Women do feel pressured to change their body’s state in order to reach the same appearance as their model in mind and despite this, most fashion industries are unlikely to change the model. This preference in image ties to how “some bodies are more highly valued than others” (Iqani, 121). Just as women are pinned to standards, men’s evaluations are just as “exclusionary and tyrannical” when “enforcing an ideal of the ‘six-pack’ (Iqani 121). When using that same model image for their campaign on clothes, they are relying on that trend while neglecting consumers that fall out of it. If consumers do show negative dieting behaviors to follow these trends, the fashion industries demote the behavior as a mental disease. What the fashion industries fail to acknowledge is that anorexia as a “unrealistic dissatisfaction with the body” (Whitehead & Kurz, 350) is a severe symptom in a normal process for developing women. In “Saints, Sinners, and Standards of Femi-ninity”, the article points out that “certain amount of dissatisfaction with the body is, in fact, normal” (Whitehead & Kurz, 350) as a result of women finding the urgency to develop them-selves as a continuous rate. However, when fashion acts as a role model to govern these changes this develops a problem when goals become too steep for the average reach. It can also be said that “eating disorders are based on unrealistic dissatisfaction with the body, so they go hand-in-hand with plastic surgery” (Whitehead & Kurz, 350) . One may relate to fashion while the other relates more on cosmetics, but they come back to the unrealistic points that fashion governs to meet the model image.

When the fashion industry fails to take responsibility for its marketing pressures, it proves harmful for the consumers as they are “victimized” through anorexia. In the article “Saints, Sin-ners, and Standards of Femininity”, anorexia encourages those unrealistic ideals when it “pro-vides an effective scapegoat for women’s magazines, as a medical distinction between being ‘thin’ and being ‘anorexic’. Because of this theory, people don’t see anorexia as a choice but as a inevitable mental condition as a result of dissatisfaction in the body. They fail to see how it re-lates to the images that magazine advertises for its clothes when those images are the exact role models that encourage anorexia in its victims. When seen as a mental disorder, the article notes that it is “constructed as some ethereal, ugly ‘monster’ that picks the victim up bodily and squeezes all the life (and weight) out of them” (Whitehead & Kurz, 351). Recognizing the con-sumer as a victim and anorexia as a villain doesn’t help dissuade the influenced body from this sort of “mental disease”. Rather than that, this fails to understand the source of where the con-sumer holds these ideals. By ignoring fashion’s unreasonable measurements, the consumer is blamed as behaving under a mental condition, which doesn’t help dissuade their influence from the marketing campaign. With the consumer’s self-image in mind, they have an object or model in which they desire to become and a mental disease cannot be provoked without a vision. By negating against women’s magazines as a probably cause to eating disorders, this not only “alle-viates the magazines from responsibility, but also the anorexic themselves” (Whitehead & Kurz 351). Moreover, the journal states that without recognizing the original fault, “this reinforces the message the controlling your diet is desirable and then effectively releases the anorexic from per-sonal responsibility for taking it too far” (Whitehead & Kurz, 351). With that said, suspending a mental disease over a consumer’s head does not help ground them to more reasonable goals. This enforces them to believe that they are still faulty or imperfect in mental state in addition to being dissatisfied with their body proportions. That type of responsibility shouldn’t be left on the con-sumer but rather on the industry in which it derived its ideas from.