On Sunday, Kim and I went to go see The Devil Wears Prada 2. It has been 20 years since the original The Devil Wears Prada was aired and we have both always loved the movie and all its stars. The sequel just opened May 1st, several days ago, so this is hot off the presses. The plot follows Miranda Priestly (editor of Runway magazine) and her struggle against Emily Charlton, her former assistant, now head of Dior and rival couture executive as they compete for advertising revenue amidst declining print media while Miranda nears retirement. The entire original cast returns: Meryl Streep (now age 77!!!, but looking great) as Miranda, Anne Hathaway as Andy, Emily Blunt as Emily, and Stanley Tucci (only age 66, but suffering from a throat cancer issue) as Nigel, with new cast members including Kenneth Branagh as Miranda’s new husband, Lucy Liu, Justin Theroux, and Lady Gaga. The film was shot in New York and Milan. Rotten Tomatoes gives it 78% — the consensus calls it “sinfully enjoyable,” noting that Streep still wears Miranda Priestly like a finely-tailored suit, with trenchant observations about the state of modern media. The central theme is about print media’s decline vs. digital disruption (with some notable AI-bashing), giving it a more contemporary bite than pure nostalgia. We really enjoyed it because we love the stars, like seeing scenes in New York and Milan (both familiar spots for us), and because it was a sequel that did a good job or not trying too hard and pandering to the nostalgia of the original. A very funny side-note was a Starbucks ad that showed Adrian Genier, the actor who played Hathaway’s love interest in the original, but who’s character has become controversial because some think he was not sufficiently supportive of Andy’s career goals and he denigrates fashion as flighty while cathecting on Jarlsberg grilled cheese sandwiches. Genier is the only member of the original cast not cast in the sequel and its become a pop culture thing. In fact, in the Starbucks ad Genier remind the producers that he understands…but that he’s also available…
The original film made in 2006, despite the title of the film, is actually ambivalent on the subject of wealth disparity and is not really anti-wealth or, for that matter, anti-fashion in any simple sense. If anything it was a seduction narrative with Andy starting out dismissive of the fashion world as shallow and materialistic, but with the film taking obvious pleasure in the clothes, the glamour, and Miranda’s ice-cold power. The famous “cerulean sweater” monologue, where Miranda devastates Andy’s pretension about being above fashion, is arguably the film’s intellectual core, and it defends the fashion industry and thereby is very “understanding” of the place in the world occupied by wealth. The critique of that film was more about work-life balance and personal authenticity than wealth per se. But the 2026 sequel is more pointed. But the sequel’s focus on declining print media and competition for advertising revenue amid Miranda nearing retirement suggests the new film is engaging with something more systemic, specifically the disruption of legacy media empires by digital platforms. That’s less about anti-wealth sentiment and more about class within the elite, sort of old money/old media vs. new money/new media. Think of it as The Post meets The Social Network. Miranda vs. Emily as rival executives is essentially old establishment vs. ambitious climber (one with a tech bro billionaire boyfriend), which is a different dynamic than wealth vs. the masses. The broader cultural moment, nonetheless, is that there’s a strong anti-wealth current in popular culture right now with shows like Succession, The White Lotus, Triangle of Sadness, Glass Onion, Parasite, and Saltburn. These represent a whole genre of “eat the rich” entertainment that has dominated the last several years. The Devil Wears Prada franchise doesn’t really fit that mold. It has always been more aspirational than critical. Audiences want to be in Miranda’s world, not tear it down. The fantasy of extreme competence, beautiful objects, and ruthless elegance is the product being sold. It’s probably better understood as fashion-world mythology than class critique. The anti-wealth genre typically positions the audience outside looking in with resentment or horror. The Prada films position the audience inside looking around with awe. That’s a fundamentally different emotional contract and probably why it works commercially across very different cultural moments.
But what luck that the Met Gala was set for the opening weekend for The Devil Wears Prada 2. The Met Gala is one of those events that has transformed from a modest museum fundraiser into arguably the most culturally powerful single night in fashion. It began in 1948 as a fundraising dinner for the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and was a fairly modest affair at $50 a ticket, attended mostly by New York society figures. The Costume Institute was the only museum department that had to fund itself, so the gala was a financial necessity, not a cultural spectacle. The gala became a genuine fashion industry gathering rather than just a society dinner. Vogue editor Anna Wintour (the not-so-subtle role model for Miranda Priestly) took over co-chairing responsibilities in 1995 and methodically turned it into the most exclusive and commercially powerful event in fashion. She brought in celebrity co-chairs, corporate sponsorships, and a ruthless guest list curation process. Tickets now run $100,000 per person, with tables at $500,000+. Wintour personally approves every attendee. There is no buying your way in without her blessing.
The gala serves as the opening night for the Costume Institute’s annual exhibition. Guests are expected to dress according to a specific theme tied to that year’s exhibition. The red carpet on the Met’s famous steps is the main spectacle. Each year’s theme is tied to the Costume Institute exhibition and ranges from specific designers to broad cultural concepts. What makes the gala unique is the convergence it represents… fashion, celebrity, art, commerce, and media collide in a single highly controlled environment. The red carpet generates billions of media impressions. Brands pay enormous sums to dress celebrities for the event.
Meanwhile, the criticism about the gala doesn’t just persist, but it grows minute by minute. It attracts consistent criticism on multiple fronts. There’s the obscene ticket prices while the Met itself faces budget pressures, the performative nature of the “themes” (many guests ignore them entirely), the charge that it has become more about celebrity marketing than fashion artistry, and its embodiment of extreme wealth display at a culturally visible moment. The “eat the rich” critique lands squarely here and yet the cultural fascination doesn’t seem to dim…until, perhaps…now.
Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos are honorary co-chairs and lead sponsors of this year’s gala, reportedly contributing $10 million to the event. Their names appear prominently on invitations throughout the event with some calling it simply “The Bezos Met Gala.” Protest posters appeared across New York City reading “The Bezos Met Gala: Brought to you by worker exploitation” and “brought to you by the firm that powers ICE,” citing Amazon’s alleged compliance with ICE and mistreatment of fulfillment center workers. The activist group Everyone Hates Elon mounted a guerrilla campaign across NYC, including hacking bus stop ads to read “The Bezos Met Gala invites you to party like it’s 1939,” and projecting video interviews with Amazon workers onto the Bezoses’ penthouse near Madison Square Park. The A-list has noticed the call to boycott. Zendaya and Meryl Streep both declined invitations, and the internet widely attributed this to the Bezos controversy. NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani also publicly skipped the event, citing the city’s affordability crisis. Critics called it a “billionaire circus” and accused it of being “hollow,” arguing that Bezos’s wealth bought Lauren Sánchez cultural credibility and fashion world access that would previously have taken years to earn organically. And she chose to wear a Schiaparelli gown on the red carpet.
The timing of the Prada 2 movie is pretty perfect…it’s literally about the fashion media world these people inhabit, and Meryl Streep skipping the gala??? Is life imitating art imitating life. or is Ms. Bezos just vying for the Emily Blunt role with her tech bro squeeze and his “remake” while she prances up the stairs to the Met in her devilish Schiaparelli?