I’ve just been through the first season of Elle, which is a prequel to Legally Blonde, from 2001. And so I decided to re-watch Legally Blonde, which I had enjoyed when it first came out in theatres and then some years later when it was streamed. I decided that I preferred the Legally Blondes over The Devil Wears Prada 2.
Now, I’m not sure I’m in the target demographic for either films. Maybe I’m at some edge of the demographic for Prada, but nowhere near the demographic for Blonde. But it seems to me that Blonde serves its demographic better than Prada serves its. Prada is about the imperious editor of Runway magazine, modeled after Vogue. I’m sure I’ve looked at Vogue once or three times, but that’s it. However I’ve long looked at the fashion coverage in the Sunday New York Times and I generally look at photos of the “looks” on display at important award shows and, of course, the Met Gala. So I’ve got some interest. I don’t have any interest in Cosmopolitan, but I’ve certainly leafed through issues. I have a vague sense that my sister may have read it decades ago. While Blonde is not about Cosmo, it does treat Cosmo as the bible, mentions it frequently, and splashes its cover on the screen often enough. Elle Woods swears by it.
Well, I suspect that the readers of Cosmo are more honestly served by Elle Woods in her various incarnations than the readers of Vogue are served by Prada 2, I don’t remember the original well enough to judge. But I do remember that speech about cerulean:
I can believe the substance of the speech. But what does that have to do with the line I remember from Prada 2: “You don't have what it takes. I'm sorry, but you're not a visionary. You're a vendor.”
I know Miranda thinks of herself as a visionary. A visionary of what? Of design? That’s the designers, no? Or is it her eye for design that makes are a visionary, an eye that crafts the editorial style of her magazine? Does that make her a style visionary or merely an astute vendor? I’m sure that Prada 2 doesn’t make the distinction, but perhaps the original Prada did, I just don’t remember it well enough.
But there is no such pretension about Legally Blonde. Yes, there’s some snobbery and some cliquishness, but the movie wasn’t really about them nor is the prequel series. They prove to be superficial and harmless. The movie presents us with what we initially take to be a dumb blonde prom queen who swears by Cosmo and shows us that she is, or can easily be, a smart, resourceful, and tenacious young woman. In the movie she follows her handsome, shallow, and transactional boyfriend to Harvard Law School. She proves to have shrewd judgment about people and a good legal mind, dumping idiot boyfriend in the process. Elle gives us the same characteristics stretched over an eight episode series. She figures out who’s scamming the high school budget and develops fast friendships with grunge Seatle teens whose sensibility seems (and is) at odds with her perky pinky California glam. She grows.
What we’ve got is a light romp with Homo Ludens in Blonde vs. a highly polished trek with Homo economicus in Prada.
No comments:
Post a Comment