The Devil Wears Prada: the accidental creation of a villain

The real devil wears chef’s whites and complains about the price of strawberries.

Ahead of the highly anticipated yet inevitably second-rate sequel to the Devil Wears Prada coming out this May, actor Adrian Grenier told Page Six that he was ‘disappointed’ to have been left out from the second instalment, citing the hate against his character Nate as the potential reason. Notably, the cult of naysayers has only grown since the release of the film as, while it has always been a cultural reference, its significance has not dwindled. It seems to become more and more popular, despite (or perhaps especially because of) the lack of a clearly assigned villain.

Is it Miranda Priestly, the highly-strung eponymous Devil? Is it Andrea Sachs, the main character who prioritises her career over anything and anyone else? Or is the true villain of the Devil Wears Prada the hypocritical, insecure, unambitious loser boyfriend who, along with Andy’s other so-called friends, makes the main character’s life harder than it needs to be?

It should be obvious who I would put as my enemy number one.

So, why is it that the end of the film sees Andy and Nate move to Boston together, despite Andy interviewing at the New York Mirror that day?

There have been countless articles on Nate as the true villain of the Devil Wears Prada over the decades since it released but none have discussed why it is so bizarre that it seems almost unintentional that Nate is the most hated character. Are we supposed to be happy that they get back together at the end? I certainly am not. Weirdly, I think the unsatisfying ending makes me love the film even more; it feels open-ended without being unambiguous.

Most of the time, I choose to ignore their reconciliation and focus instead on the reference to end all references: ‘she was by far my biggest disappointment; if you don’t hire her, you are an idiot’. (Yes, I did recite that from memory.)

The most curious part of it for me is the fact that it seems to be entirely by accident that Nate has become the epitome of the all-too-familiar tyrant in many women’s lives: the boyfriend who tries to drag you down with him.

In researching the creation of the character, I tried to find any evidence that he had been snubbed through the deletion of key scenes showing him as anything other than a whining, mean-spirited loser – alas, I found nothing. However, Alina Brosh McKenna (a screenwriter for the Devil Wears Prada) told Entertainment Weekly that they wrote him as the ‘nagging girlfriend’ archetype. This feels like both an attempt at feminism and flat-out misogyny at the same time. The former because it turns that stereotype on its head and shows the woman outgrowing her boyfriend, who is threatened by her success – a parallel with the crumbling marriage of Miranda Priestly herself. This would be an interesting discussion of men trampling women’s careers, if it were not for the ending. So, are we supposed to concede – Andy went too far and therefore should get back together with a man who belittled, mocked, and discouraged her every step of the way? So, he was written as a gender-swapped stereotype of a woman AND is my least favourite part of my favourite film of all time by a mile; am I wrong in feeling that’s pretty much an insult? I obviously feel that Nate is irredeemable, but this is because I cannot see a single reason why they are still together; as I have mentioned: he is whiny, mean-spirited, mocks Andy about her ambition and passion, and is an all-round child.

I cannot see the argument that Andy is the villain. Her crimes seem to be:

1. She missed Nate’s birthday.

She had a big, unexpected night at work – shit happens. Plus, as he himself says ‘what am I, four?’. According to McKenna, the reason he is so upset with her is that she has fundamentally changed. But I fail to see how she has morphed into a villain when her changes are: new clothes, a new outlet for her ambition, and a new-found appreciation for the fashion industry. All I see is her outgrowing her boyfriend and realising she is good at her job and potentially has a future in this industry.

2. She “cheats” on Nate.

A kiss on the cheek at a gallery opening from an eccentric writer is far from a heinous crime. The subsequent reaction from her friend Lily, who supposedly does not recognise her from the Andy who was in love with Nate and who thought Club Monaco is couture, lumps her and Nate into an amalgamation of bad friendship. Can people not change? Isn’t that part of having a lifelong friendship or relationship with someone? Watching them grow and find new interests and … break up with their loser boyfriends??

3. Betraying Emily.

This one I will allow. This is clearly something that separates her from Miranda and makes for a fantastic climax to the relationship between Andy and Miranda – ‘oh please, everybody wants this’.

Essentially, I see Andy as a flawed person who makes some mistakes, but she is real and, in the end, sticks to her principles. She has a character arc that leaves her between the two extremes of wearing a lumpy cerulean sweater and the Chanel boots – at the end, she is better off from how she started.

Nate, on the other hand, is awful.

Thank you so much for reading. I know it has been a while…