Monthly Archives: May 2026

  • Lost in Translation

    Sofia Coppola (2003)

    Straining for up-to-the-minute cultural relevance, The Devil Wears Prada 2 seems to have succeeded in ways it didn’t intend.   A ‘Controversies’ section on the film’s Wikipedia page describes – at length – a brouhaha about the minor character of Anne Hathaway’s PA Jin Chao (played by Chinese-American actress Helen J Shen) – specifically, ‘the alleged use of racist tropes’ in relation to Jin Chao’s name and personal characteristics.  The whole thing reads like a parody of woke zealotry.  Still, it was an instructive coincidence that, just two days after seeing Prada 2, I watched Lost in Translation for the first time in twenty years or more.  Despite the overwhelmingly positive reactions to writer-director Sofia Coppola’s Tokyo-set romantic comedy-drama in 2003, it did attract accusations of racism, even then, for its portrayal of the Japanese.  Lost in Translation simply couldn’t be made nowadays.

    It hadn’t occurred to me beforehand that the Japanese jokes would be a problem.  I don’t remember their being so on previous viewings, but times have changed and I must have changed with them (never mind that the Prada 2 controversy is still preposterous).  On Lost in Translation‘s original release, Sofia Coppola began her response to criticisms of racial stereotyping with ‘I can see why people might think that, but I know I’m not racist …’  Even that defence – the racist’s near-default words of assurance – makes you cringe now.  There’s no getting away from Coppola’s reliance on the long-dependable comedy of Asians mispronouncing the English ‘r’ sound as ‘l’.  She does so repeatedly in the scene where the film’s protagonist, American actor Bob Harris (Bill Murray), in Tokyo to shoot a Suntory whisky commercial, is confronted in his hotel room by a Japanese prostitute, who urges him to ‘lip my stockings’.  In the studio where the whisky ad’s being filmed, its director explains that he wants Bob to come across like a member of the Lat Pack, or as James Bond (Loger Moore, that is).

    Although I smiled with discomfort this time around, I did still smile – Bill Murray gave me no option.  Besides, there’s much more than racial humour at work here.  Bob Harris is a Hollywood movie star on the way down.  People know his face but don’t really remember his films (they just know they loved that one with the car chase).  You get the strong impression that commercials are his most lucrative work these days.  He’s also a husband and father in an unhappy marriage.  Bob didn’t order the excitable, sub-femme-fatale sex worker (Nao Asuka) who knocks on his door (some kind of fixer at the hotel sent her).  His incomprehension of what she’s instructing him to do reflects, on the simple linguistic level, the implication of Coppola’s title, but Bob’s weary bewilderment also expresses a frazzled state of mind that’s both temporary (he’s still jet lagged) and chronic.  The racial jokes in Lost in Translation are very awkward now.  In other respects, the film has aged well.

    In the same hotel, Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is staying with her husband John (Giovanni Ribisi), who photographs celebrities and is ‘shooting a band’ in Tokyo.  A recent Yale graduate (in philosophy), Charlotte is less than half Bob’s age.  Her marriage, compared with his, is also very young but it’s soon evident that she’s dissatisfied with herself – she did have vague writing ambitions but now has no idea what to do next – and with her self-absorbed husband.  When Bob and his wife talk on the phone, her main concern is apparently carpet samples (‘you were right about the burgundy’).  He and Charlotte have already exchanged looks, then conversation in the hotel bar, by the time John’s work takes him away from central Tokyo for a few days.  While he’s away, Charlotte and Bob spend time together.  They enjoy the city’s nightlife, including a karaoke place where both sing (she does The Pretenders’ ‘Brass in Pocket’, he does Roxy Music’s ‘More Than This’ and Elvis Costello’s ‘(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding’).  They visit a hospital to get treatment on the toe that she stubbed in her hotel room a few days ago.  They grow close.

    Only eighteen at the time (even younger than her character’s meant to be), Scarlett Johansson had appeared in plenty of films by the time she made Lost in Translation, most notably Terry Zwigoff’s Ghost World (2001).  Within a few weeks of the opening of Coppola’s film, Johansson was also in cinemas as the title character in Peter Webber’s Girl with a Pearl Earring.  She plays that role well but Webber’s film, as might be expected, gives her a chiefly pictorial purpose.  In Lost in Translation, she’s emotionally fluid, and precociously good at suggesting quiet melancholy.  But this is Bill Murray’s film and – with all due respect to his big hits like Ghostbusters (1984) and Groundhog Day (1993), not forgetting his brilliant contribution to Tootsie (1982) – his finest hour in cinema.  Murray melds his trademark deadpan comedy with romantic yearning to truly memorable effect.

    It’s easy to say that’s it easy for an actor to play an actor, but foolish to say, too.  Bob is exasperated by the whisky commercial’s hyper director (Yutaka Tadokoro) and his relentlessly upbeat Japanese hosts generally, but he’s doing a job and Murray is professionally obliging to just the right degree.  That means letting the audience see what these other people on screen don’t see.  Bob’s fatigue with being a public figure is always anchored in sad and guilty feelings about his personal life.  His few days with Charlotte both refresh Bob and, in doing so, intensify his unhappiness, while she finds in him the security of a father figure, as well as a funny man to whom she’s attracted.  There’s a scene where they lie side by side on a bed, watching television, but that’s as close as they get physically – at least until their parting embrace.  In the meantime, Bob sleeps with the singer (Catherine Lambert) from Sausalito, the hotel lounge trio.  Charlotte is naturally upset when she finds this out the next morning, but the one-night stand, from Bob’s point of view, makes an odd kind of emotional sense.  It happens mechanically, vindicates his self-reproach, and keeps the unconsummated relationship with Charlotte special.

    Bob’s jaded, Charlotte’s adrift, but they both always know they have worrying marriages to return to.  Lost in Translation is, then, a strong dual character study and a distinctive romance.  The exotic setting allows it to expand into something larger, speaking to the emotional fundamentals of being in a strange place for a short time.  The utter foreignness of the new locale, its sights and sounds, language and rhythms – how enchanting, invigorating and alienating this all can be.  The peculiar loneliness of hotel rooms.  The desperate strain of feeling obliged to enjoy tourist attractions:  Charlotte feels nothing at a Buddhist temple she visits, whereas chancing upon a wedding ceremony absorbs her.  Coppola and her cinematographer Lance Acord capture these themes imaginatively.  Perhaps the standout image is Bob on a dazzling green golf course in the foreground, Mount Fuji mysterious in the background.

    Sofia Coppola was in a privileged position.  Like her directing debut, The Virgin Suicides (1999), this sophomore feature was financially supported by American Zoetrope, co-founded by her father in the 1970s (in 2007, Sofia and her brother Roman became the company’s co-owners).  Even so, the picture was made outside the Hollywood studio system, with a small crew, on what sounds like – even a quarter-century ago – an almost indie budget of $4m.  This is an artistically ambitious film that took well over $100m at the box office.  Like the funny-foreigner jokes, that combination seems to date Lost in Translation; unlike the jokes, in a good way.

    8 May 2026

     

  • The Devil Wears Prada 2

    David Frankel (2026)

    In the 2010 edition of David Thomson’s revered The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, a recurring theme of Thomson’s entry for Meryl Streep is the gap between the esteem and the affection in which she’s held.  He notes at an early point that ‘The distinguished are sometimes those the public does not love’, then goes on to list nearly every one of Streep’s films to date, except The Devil Wears Prada (2006).  ‘Finding Herself’, a piece on Streep by Molly Haskell in the March-April 2008 issue of Film Comment[1], is more acute.  The article appeared shortly before Mamma Mia! hit cinemas but Haskell recognises that David Frankel’s fashionista comedy two years earlier had already made a difference to its star’s image.  The opening sentence of ‘Finding Herself’ is ‘After years of respecting the work of Meryl Streep, what was it that made audiences suddenly fall in love with her in The Devil Wears Prada?’  Molly Haskell goes on to answer that question humorously and persuasively.

    Twenty years on – just when it seemed Streep had almost retired from cinema (she hadn’t appeared in a film since Don’t Look Up (2021)) – she returns in The Devil Wears Prada 2.  The rest of the main cast from the first Prada – Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci – and the main contributors behind the camera, Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna, are also back for more.  According to an article on the BBC news website, Streep and her co-stars agreed to do the sequel on the condition that it ‘speak to the moment’ and that ‘the storyline reflected the dramatic changes in the real-life media and magazine industry’.  This speaking-to-the-moment is the new film’s phoniest aspect.  Unlike its predecessor, it’s also very sentimental and feels interminable (though the actual difference in running time between the two films is only ten minutes)Despite all this, Prada 2 provides a good few things to enjoy.

    At the end of the first film, Andrea ‘Andy’ Sachs (Hathaway) quits her job as assistant to Miranda Priestly (Streep), the dragon-lady editor-in-chief of New York City-based fashion magazine ‘Runway’ (aka Vogue), to pursue the career that Andy really wants as a ‘serious’ journalist.  Two decades later, Andy is a highly successful feature writer at ‘Vanguard’, a hard-news organ in NYC, respected for fearless investigative journalism.  Prada 2 starts with Andy at a press awards ceremony.  Just before her name is called as the winner in her category, her phone pings – ditto the phones of her colleagues:  every member of the Vanguard editorial team has received a text informing them they’ve been laid off with immediate effect.  Andy’s acceptance speech becomes an impromptu rant on the theme that ‘journalism still f***ing matters’ and it goes viral.  At the same time, Miranda Priestly, still in charge at Runway, is under fire from Irv Ravitz (Tibor Feldman), owner of the magazine‘s parent company, the publishing house Elias-Clarke.  Miranda failed to vet a Runway piece promoting a brand that relies on sweatshop labour – result:  terrible publicity all over social media.  Ravitz tells Miranda he’s putting on hold her appointment as Elias-Clarke’s ‘global head of content’.  To make matters worse for her, in the space of a few screen minutes Andy has a new job – back at Runway as features editor, without Miranda’s knowledge or consent.

    Skewering an impoverished media culture where the bottom line is all that counts, David Frankel and Aline Brosh McKenna make heavy weather of conveying the shift towards short-form journalism, clickbait, AI.  The film also tries to have things both ways.  The notoriously meticulous, gimlet-eyed Miranda of the original Prada wouldn’t have let that offending article slip through – so is she losing her edge?  Either that or her patience.  In the early stages, she’s shown as adrift in a 2020s world where Runway’s HR department constrains Miranda’s high-handed management style and politically incorrect remarks.  Yet the whole narrative tends towards giving her a happy ending – and the filmmakers can only imagine that to be her getting the big promotion, never mind that Miranda is now supposedly a misfit/anachronism.  As for Andy:  it would be easier to accept what happens at Vanguard as a tragic sign of the times if she showed the slightest regret for the journalism world she’s exiled from, but she doesn’t.  She eventually decides to write a no-punches-pulled biography of Miranda Priestly (with Miranda’s encouragement).  But the ending of Prada 2 sees Andy thriving and staying on at Runway.  She now, courtesy of Miranda, has a larger office than before.

    There are many more costume changes this time around.  Thanks to the first film’s huge success, international fashion houses were clearly queuing up for coverage on the clothes racks and catwalks of Prada 2:  costumer Molly Rogers has curated outfits from Armani, Balenciaga, Chanel, Dior, Tom Ford, Paco Rabanne, Schiaparelli, Valentino, Versace ….   There’s a cast-of-thousands in as-themselves cameos, among whom I’d both heard of and recognised only Naomi Campbell and Donatella Versace (I would have recognised Rory McIlroy if I’d spotted him).  Lady Gaga is a rather different matter:  she is herself, headlining the Runway gala at Milan Fashion Week, but the script invents a bit of supposed bad blood between her and Miranda, and Lady Gaga’s gala number does give proceedings a lift.  The opulence and A-list overload on display are amusing enough, but they make it hard for your heart to bleed for the characters in the story.  The sad feelings generated by the film relate not to decaying media culture but to its two lead actresses – though for rather different reasons.

    Anne Hathaway was riding very high in the early 2010s.  After winning an Oscar for performing a single number in Les Misérables (2012), she chose some films that didn’t fare well, critically or commercially, and her stock has fallen in recent years.  As it happens, Prada 2 arrives on the screen just a few weeks after David Lowery’s Mother Mary, in which Hathaway has her most remarked-on role in some time (though the reviews have been mixed and the film doesn’t appear to be making money).  You can’t help wondering if Hathaway would have signed up for a Prada sequel if her career had progressed according to plan during the last decade.  She has the most difficult of Prada 2’s main roles – Andy was more plausibly conflicted in the first film than she is here – but Hathaway is very competent.  Even so, there’s an overeagerness not only in the character but also in the woman playing her.  This can be a bit uncomfortable to watch.

    The sadness with Meryl Streep comes simply from wondering, especially after that five-year hiatus, if this will be her last cinema appearance (she is voicing Aslan in Greta Gerwig’s adaptation of The Magician’s Nephew, scheduled for release next year).  Prada 2’s Miranda is a confused character compared with before.  In one sense, she’s a reversal of who she was in the first Prada.  There, Miranda was exposed (briefly) as vulnerable only in her private life.  This time, she’s in a happy second marriage, to a musician (Kenneth Branagh, with next to nothing to do), and professionally vulnerable instead.  It’s a bit disorienting at the start to see Miranda on the receiving end of a boss’s ire – and a relief when, on their first office (re)encounter, she cuts Andy dead, turns to her loyal adjutant Nigel Kipling (Stanley Tucci) and asks, sotto voce but scathing, ‘Who is this person?’

    As Molly Haskell pointed out in the Film Comment profile, Miranda ‘is a role that Streep could do in her sleep’.  Her reputation for mimicry means there are times in Prada 2 when Meryl Streep seems, weirdly, to be imitating Meryl Streep in the first film.  She might as well, though, especially when this new Miranda doesn’t add up:  Streep is aware of the audience goodwill towards outrageous Miranda, and the other Prada principals – that plenty of fans wanted to see these characters back and enjoy them all over again.  A month away from her seventy-seventh birthday, Meryl Streep looks great.  Her breath control and vocal projection are still top-class, notably when Miranda informs Emily Charlton (Emily Blunt), who is on the point of taking over Runway and firing her former boss, ‘You’re not a visionary – you’re a vendor’.

    Miranda’s promotion keeps getting derailed.  Irv Ravitz, about to announce it at his seventy-fifth birthday party, suddenly drops down dead.  His mercenary son Jay (B J Novak) inherits Elias-Clarke and brings in management consultants to identify cuts, before selling Runway to Silicon Valley billionaire Benji Barnes (Justin Theroux), currently in a relationship with Emily.  On her return to Runway, Andy goes up in Miranda’s estimation by securing an interview with reclusive celeb Sasha Barnes (Lucy Liu), also vastly wealthy and Benji’s ex-wife.  In due course, Andy convinces Sasha to buy the whole of Elias-Clarke from Jay Ravitz, who’s happy to sell and pulls out of his deal with Benji.  Miranda is finally confirmed as Elias-Clarke’s head of global brand – for what that’s worth.  She has already acknowledged to Andy that ‘Elias-Clarke is just the last piece of wood floating next to the Titanic’ (digital media is the iceberg).  But ‘there’s still room on the raft’ for Miranda and Andy, at least.  As in the previous film, they join forces to ensure that everything comes good for them both.  When Miranda finally confides in Andy that she’s grateful for ‘a couple more years’ because ‘boy, I love working.  I really do, I just love it’, the change in Meryl Streep’s voice leaves no doubt that it’s she, rather than Miranda Priestly, who’s saying and feeling those words.  Which makes the audience – this member of it anyway – feel grateful, too.

    All roads led to Paris in the first Prada; this time, it’s Milan that’s the venue for resolving the plot and showcasing the clothes.  Even though he’s coasting here, it’s nice to see Stanley Tucci more comfortable at this Italian summit than he was in Conclave (2024).  I wouldn’t have guessed from the 2006 film that Emily Blunt would enjoy more sustained success than Anne Hathaway in the twenty years to follow, but Blunt has chosen well and built up a strong body of work.  It comes as a surprise, too, that her Prada namesake turns up in this sequel as a senior Dior executive, but the ascent of Emily Charlton, as desperately self-assertive as ever, makes a kind of comic sense.  It seems a bit much when she also starts shaping up as the film’s arch villain, but Blunt is very coherent:  you never forget that Emily, though endlessly bossy, is doomed to failure.  The Milan episode goes on much too long; so does a succession of tying-things-up exchanges between pairs of the main quartet once the action returns to New York.  But the lunchtime reconciliation of vindicated Andy and vanquished Emily is a high point.

    Even though Andy’s personal life is more attenuated than in the first film, it’s a real plus that her new man, Peter, is played by Patrick Brammall, best known for the very engaging Australian TV comedy Colin from Accounts.  (He and his wife, Harriet Dyer, created and co-star in Colin from Accounts, and take turns writing the scripts.)  Brammall as Peter is witty and charming.  What’s more, he’s such a different type – physically and temperamentally – from the rest of the cast that his presence is refreshing.  In The Devil Wears Prada 2’s relentlessly glossy milieu, Patrick Brammall seems like a visitor from another planet – that’s to say, from a real world.

    6 May 2026

    [1] https://www.filmcomment.com/article/finding-herself-the-prime-of-meryl-streep/

     

Posts navigation