The people behind the deux ex machina called fashion know not to feed into it. They wear high-quality clothing that you wouldn't know was designer unless you looked at the tag; this is how the truly affluent and influential live and dress. They get dressed up at shows and events where they know the masses will be viewing them and they can hawk their overpriced goods.

This message has been deleted.

Hardly dowdy; but well-kept and in good taste. Mega-mansions are for entertainers who have to sell their image and lifestyle along with their "talent."

Well, they are regular people after all.

I was so gratified to see that they don't dress up, but for Anna W. She is said to always look impeccable and she looked that way in the film, yet, not as high style as I would have thought. But actually, entirely appropriate and as fashionable as she needs to be.
I noticed that she wore the same necklace frequently, and then, she had it in another color and wore that in Paris.
I was also surprised at how dowdy was her townhouse, though her Long Island estate appeared to be quite extensive and high end.

I liked the fact that everyone was dressed pretty low key in the office. It looks very much like how everyone else dresses in NYC no matter what the business. The beauty isn't about the busy bees in the office, it is about what is on the magazine page.

very well put. for example i know more doctors leading an unhealthy lifestyle, than otherwise. and there's this saying that doctors are the worst patients. i guess this is the irony of life.
with fashion i guess when you're constantly out there to "create" the latest styles, you just see how fleeting everything gets; the only chance to stay fashionable is to go all black. everything else would just seem like yesterday's fad. so they stop trying.

This message has been deleted.

I would have to agree with the above.
That said, I was surprised at how the workers were dressed subtly and comfortably. I saw a lot of flats on women and (I'm sure designer) t-shirts and blouses. The movie and the book made it sounds like everyone was dressed in ridiculous couture from head to toe all the time. It makes sense though, I would want to be comfortable if I was running around for 12 hours a day.

I thought Anna's wadrobe was simple, chic, and age appropriate. I can somewhat agree with the rest of the staff looking surprising subtle, but I guess movies have clouded our judgement as to what people in the fashion industry are really like.
I visited NYC a few years while I was in college on a magazine tour with some classmates. There is some truth to the stereotypes perpetuated in "The Devil Wears Prada" with people in the industry dressing chic from head to toe and eating minimally at lunch. I noticed this when I was at Hearst Media, particularly with the staff members of Seventeen and Marie Claire magazine. However, both of these magazines are lifestyle mags geared towards teens and women in their 20s and 30s, and most of the staff for both mags were in the latter demographic. I assumed that dressing chic and staying thin was not only for their jobs, but because it was part of this ideal of being a young, hip and trendy woman with a "glamorous" job in NYC (even if the pay sucked).
I think it is a different story at Vogue. Not only is Vogue the most prominent magazine in fasion, most of the staff there are established, older, and have well-respected reputations in the industry. It's not about their appearance, but rather the work they produce.
There are few things as fetching as a bruised ego on a beautiful angel.

This message has been deleted.

Remember,
The Devil Wears Prada
is a movie, so of course everyone is styled to the nines in it.
In regards to the original posting, I think Anna had a beautiful wardrobe. Very classic, tailored, and elegant. The other people in the office - I thought they dressed relatively stylishly. Dressing plainly does not denote a lack of fashion-sense.
I suppose the same could be said about some architects. I've been to some architects' residences that are pretty questionable!

This message has been deleted.

I thought they dressed plain and had on no makeup so as not to outshine Anna. Especially after I noticed that Grace always allowed her to proceed before her on each occasion that they were together.

<< To answer the original question: Vogue employees are on their feet running places all dayit's not like a regular office job where you just sit down and MAYBE get up for a presentation or to go to the fax. Not only that but most of the people at Vogue are middle aged and above, meaning they don't care as much. It is work after all. They care more about creating and showing the beauty/fashion more than living in it themselves MOST of the time. >>
I agree. Sometimes when you're saturated with fashion all day, every day, on your brain and in your eyes and under your fingers and in your ears, you don't want to buy into the circus and wear the burden of being perfect, yourself, all the time. It becomes a commodity that's seperate from you as a person. It is your work. (For instance, you seldom see fashion models completely done up, if they don't have to.)
These people have access to fabulous clothes for fabulous occassionsbut why would they want to get up an hour early to accessorize a complicated outfit and do the hair and makeup that needs to go with it? And clothes like that are often physically bindingthey are not made to work in, lack full freedom of movement, etc. And they're expensive to care for.
On top of thatwho would these women be dressing up for every day? They work with other women, and gay men.

According to you, anyone who likes fashion is a 'dupe.'
Plain old fashion is fine. People like to look good in what they are wearing. I understand that and support that.
I tend to draw the line when things go over the top. Paying $200 for a well-tailored dress is fine but paying $20,000 to wear a piece of clownish art is not fashion anymore. It is closer to snobbery.
And the clothing world isn't the only one where this happens. Some people routinely pays tens of thousands of dollar for abstract art that they wouldn't dare display in their homes or hundreds of thousands for a car that they leave in the garage all year.
Paying for quality is fine in my book. Paying out the nose for a famous label on your object is ridiculous and wasteful.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

Because there isn't any discussion here. I've been entirely rational and tried to explain exactly how the business and how people's passions work with examples and information to back me up and you keep shutting it down, with not really any given reason as to why. According to you, anyone who likes fashion is a 'dupe.' I'm not asking you to like it, just trying to get you to look at it from a more respectful perspective.

You're just close minded. I WIN C YA
It is always quite amusing and a little bit sad when someone implies that they are open minded and then immediately declares themselves the winner and shuts down the discussion. Period.
It is like they don't even know what open-minded means!
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

But they're still clothes and they are fit to be worn, but generally not for day to day. Presuming you have enough money to own the pieces, you probably have some event to go to or what have you where the clothes are still appropriate. Whether the buyer chooses to wear the extravagant styles or not is their decision.
It serves a purpose whichever way you look at it.
My argument is valid and I'm better informed and more articulate than you. You're just close minded. I WIN C YA

It isn't meant for its wearability like the aforementioned Ready-to-Wear, it's a display of the designer's ability in his craft and his level of workmanship, as well as attention to detail, etc.
So then, is a chef who makes food that isn't fit for consumption considered to be a great chef?
If the entire industry shut down tomorrow I wouldn't care, but it's not as vapid and pointless as you make it out to be
As long as they recruit more people into the cult it will continue on forever and magazines like Vogue will grow in popularity.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

I said mindful, I don't know if you're aware of what that means but it doesn't mean you have to agree with everyone's tastes. Acknowledge it, accept your differences, and don't put it/whoever is able to appreciate it down relentlessly.
And on the contrary, while Ready-to-Wear clothes are always going out of fashion and out of season, couture is literally considered art pieces. They are kept in museums and in archives of designers to be admired and appreciated, not to be worn once and sold on eBay. Their value goes up rather than down. It's worth no more or less than any other piece of art.
I know you're not interested because you fail to see the point in this, but please educate yourself on the subject more before making arguments on your current basis of little knowledge. Haute Couture and Ready-to-Wear are two different categories of design. Ready-to-Wear is also expensive and designer but meant to be worn for everyday purposes. Haute Couture is far more grandeur and these are the 'King Tut' or 'feather' pieces you're always on about. It isn't meant for its wearability like the aforementioned Ready-to-Wear, it's a display of the designer's ability in his craft and his level of workmanship, as well as attention to detail, etc.
I'm hardly interested in 'fashion' anymore. If the entire industry shut down tomorrow I wouldn't care, but it's not as vapid and pointless as you make it out to be and close-mindedness is intolerable for me. It's as admirable as any art form and I hope you come to realize that, or at least accept what other people see it to be.

This response is very frustrating to me because you have to be mindful of people's tastes.
Do I? Why? If I think someone's taste sucks, why do I have to tell you that you have good taste? You may see a toilet glued to the ceiling as great art but I see it as trash and I will tell you that.
If I just clap and call it good when I don't think so, then I am just recreating the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
Would you say an art collector is throwing his money away?
As long as there are more dupes in the future who will pay top dollar for the collection, then no he's not throwing away his money.
One who collects couture pieces could be considered an art collector.
Perhaps. But couture goes out of style in the blink of an eye and becomes worthless. To me, that is throwing money away, just as if I was a collector of fruit; the stuff goes bad and my money is gone.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

This response is very frustrating to me because you have to be mindful of people's tastes. There are people who encompass their lives around fashion and it attracts them like whatever attracts you.
Would you say an art collector is throwing his money away? One who collects couture pieces could be considered an art collector.

describe buying couture as like buying a piece of art.
It seems to me that a lot of the art I see the upper crust buy is trash sometimes literally.
That is a state of affairs when people throw all that money away. I hope I'm never that rich where I lose touch with reality.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?