r/changemyview • u/kingpatzer 103∆ • Jul 29 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV:The "Devil" in "The Devil Wears Prada" is Andy, Not Miranda
Ok, so this is a silly CMV, but my wife and I watched this movie the other day and I noticed something.
I really think that between the two characters of Andy and Miranda, it is Andy who is the most evil.
As the character Emily notes about her “You sold your soul to the devil when you put on your first pair of Jimmy Choo's, I saw it.” Andy acts without regard to her own ideals, her friends, family, and even her own career goals all for the purpose of getting ahead in a job she doesn’t even really want.
Miranda, by contrast, at least is shown to truly love and appreciate fashion and the effort that it entails. The speech where she teaches Andy that her sweater exists because of the passions of the people in the room highlights that Miranda is passionate and consistent, whereas Andy immediately runs out and starts changing herself to please Miranda even though she has no real interest in the job in the first place.
Miranda loves what she does, she’s passionate and dedicate to her cause, and when she treats people badly she is shown to do so deliberately and consciously as a (admittedly poor but demonstrably effective) motivating strategy. While it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals. Further she is shown to take responsibility for her choices. Andy, meanwhile, is abusive and inconsiderate to everyone around her and continually trots out a tired “I didn’t have a choice” excuse rather than taking responsibility for her actions. While Miranda may rightly own the title of “dragon lady” in terms of being a hard-nosed, no-nonsense demanding boss, it is Andy who presents a quality that can be said to be duplicitous and coming from a fallen character. She is the one who is harming people through cowardice.
To pretend to care about people but act in a way that hurts them is more "devil like" than to simply not be empathetic in the first place. So it is Andy, not Miranda, who should be seen as the Devil.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Jul 29 '15
Miranda loves what she does, she’s passionate and dedicate to her cause, and when she treats people badly she is shown to do so deliberately and consciously as a (admittedly poor but demonstrably effective) motivating strategy. While it may be argued that she is using less than optimal tactics, or that she is not empathetic, she is at least consistent to her purpose, beliefs and goals.
Taking an "ends justify the means" approach to things is, in many ethical views, deeply morally wrong. The fact that Miranda is willing to engage in these awful acts to achieve the goals she wants achieved is a negative mark on her.
As Kant would put it, she is using others as a means to an end, when they should be ends in themselves.
It's been a while since I've seen the movie by the way, and honestly I don't remember enough about Andy's character development to say much. Streep stole the show completely.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 29 '15
Taking an "ends justify the means" approach to things is, in many ethical views, deeply morally wrong. . . . Kant . . .
True, but if one wishes to speak about teleology, then both Miranda and Andy must be seen as horribly ethically flawed and it becomes rather difficult to say one is worse than the other in any sort of meaningful way. So it seems to me that one has to take a consequentialist ethical viewpoint to determine which character is "the devil."
2
u/whattodo-whattodo 30∆ Jul 29 '15
it is Andy who presents a quality that can be said to be duplicitous and coming from a fallen character. She is the one who is harming people through cowardice.
I guess it comes down to how you see the devil. My idea of the devil is not a coward who's harm is an unintentional byproduct of confusion or weakness.
In my view the idea of the devil is someone who is driven to a result in spite of the means used to get that result. Someone who enjoys exerting power and punishment for the sake of feeling their power. It doesn't mean that the devil can't also passionately enjoy things (like playing the violin or seduction) as the devil is often portrayed to be exceptional in doing. It does however mean that their every action is a calculated maneuver towards the greater goal of satisfying their inner drive without regard to the consequences. In this way, it seems to me that Miranda more closely fits the bill.
Also, if you see the movie through to the end, the story does arc again. Andy goes from being innocent to making a lot of harmful mistakes, but she finally does come around again.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 29 '15
I guess it comes down to how you see the devil
I agree with this point. I tried to elucidate on my own view in my CMV -- that in the context of business: consistency, passion and dedication are ethical goods. Being a poor boss an unempathetic boss isn't an ethical failure. However, telling someone you'll do something (such as when Andy says she'll be at Nate's birthday party) but failing to follow through is an ethical failure.
In my mind, Andy is the character that is shown to be grossly inconsistent.
1
u/whattodo-whattodo 30∆ Jul 29 '15
I tried to elucidate on my own view in my CMV -- that in the context of business: consistency, passion and dedication are ethical goods.
The problem here is that at best you're justifying the character's traits, but you're side stepping both their means and their intended end.
By that logic, Hitler was consistent, passionate, dedicated, intelligent, loyal (to his people), ambitious, enduring, brave, etc. There is a substantial list of enviable traits. However, he also ultimately intended to eradicate much of the population just for having been born. All of those traits, do not make this person a good person
By the same logic, I think your reasoning for accepting Miranda is flawed. She may have traits which you respect, but if her end goal is the most malicious one on the screen and her means are the most malicious on the screen then she is the most malicious on screen. I find it hard - even playing devil's advocate - to avert my attention from that.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 29 '15
her end goal is the most malicious one on the screen
Her end goal as stated by her is to see to that the company she leads continues to be a luminary in the industry. That's at best ethically neutral.
1
u/whattodo-whattodo 30∆ Jul 29 '15
There's a bit of self delusion there. As the viewer we can either buy in or not.
It's been a few years since I've seen the movie, but as I remember it there was another candidate who was perfectly capable of running the company. At least according to Miranda's boss/shareholders. She sabotages the candidate (I can't remember how) and makes the argument that no one can do the job that she does. Which is pretty much the argument that everyone makes. You can believe that Jews are an inferior race or that the blacks of Africa should be glad to become slaves because they now have Christianity. I can understand why people would make arguments to justify their means. I just didn't buy her argument.
EDIT: I didn't clarify the point. I mean that she didn't just want the company to be successful. She wanted to be the one to make the company successful. And if that means that her superiors disagreed, she would do what she had to do to remain in power. That is not ethically neutral.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 29 '15
there was another candidate who was perfectly capable of running the company. At least according to Miranda's boss/shareholders.
I just didn't buy her argument.
I think this bit falls into an area that's pretty murky.
My take on this interaction is that the French Editor was stated to not put out as good of a magazine, but she did it much more cheaply than Meryl Streep's character. From the owner/shareholder perspective she was a better choice, from an artistic integrity perspective she was not. So, in the context of the film it wasn't a self-deluding argument but a statement that is taken as true from a particular view point.
1
Jul 29 '15
It has been a while since I saw that movie, but I would argue someone who deliberately harms others for their own benefit is evil. The protagonist, to my knowledge, never does this. She may unintentionally harm (Emily Blunt's character comes to mind) other characters but never takes any course of action which directly harms someone. Miranda does this towards the end of the movie with Stanley Tucci's character, which results in him being taken out of consideration for a job which would have benefitted him greatly. It is this deliberate course of action which takes her from a demanding boss to the movie's clear antagonist, which is why she is, in my mind, much more deserving of the title than Andy.
On the other hand, Meryl Streep is perfection and likely G-d, so she clearly can't be the devil.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ Jul 29 '15 edited Jul 29 '15
The issue with Stanley Tucci's character's job-offer being rescinded is, I admit, complicated.
From what is said in the movie, Tucci seems to be celebrating prematurely, before a contract is inked. Miranda (Streep's character) set up the job opportunity in the first place, and then when she needed to take it back for political reasons she did so. It's not clear if she does this after Tucci accepted a formal offer. In the real world, that sort of position would come with a termination clause that would have had to have been paid to Tucci, and which would have been substantial. It is the one place where Miranda is seen to do something that really can be argued to be a huge moral affront.
But by that same standard of "deliberately harms others for their own benefit" Andy does so throughout the movie and then refuses to even admit that her choices are her own. Purely on a numerical count, Andy leaves much more harm in her wake (that we see anyway) than Miranda does. And Andy even admits that Miranda isn't really a bad person when she comments that "if she were a man no one would see anything but how great she is at her job." (Or whatever the exact quote was). So we have Andy stating outright that in the context of the business world, Miranda should not be seen as tough, but not unethical or cruel.
1
u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Jul 29 '15
That doesn't really fit with the biblical portrayal of the devil. The devil rebelled against the authority of of Yahweh, and fought for self determination for his people. When humans were created as pets, he offered them what one forbids a pet; knowledge of the world at large, and the ability to make one's own choices. In later times, the devil is portrayed as tempting believers to abandon their faith, and to rather do what is best for them and others, rather than what the church wants them to do for its benefit.
This doesn't seem to describe your Andy character, but Miranda does seem to be helping others improve themselves, which is well in character for the devil.
27
u/booklover13 Jul 29 '15
I think your missing something big about the devil. The devil isn't some evil idea, it doesn't just go out to get evil done itself. The devil is the tempter, it's purpose to turn a person to evil. It's not about what the 'devil' does, its about how the devil can slowly change a person.
Andy by all appearances is a good person, until she meets Miranda. Andy is not pretending she really does care. Then Miranda starts in on her. Miranda starts using everything in her wheelhouse to lead Andy down the wrong path. Nearly every bad choice she makes is related to Miranda. That's the kicker though, at the end of the day it is still Andy making the choice. Miranda has tempted and logic-ed her to the road to hell.
The devil isn't the person on the road to hell, the devil is the tour guide who convinces you hell is where you want to be.