At the Movies: Podcast Transcripts

Devil Wears Prada 2 & Michael

Monday, August 31, 2026

Intro

[upbeat music plays]

Marie Westhaver:

Hello, and welcome to At the Movies with Mike and Marie, a show where two film professors talk about movies. I'm Marie Westhaver.

Mike Giuliano:

And I'm Mike Giuliano.

Marie Westhaver:

And we are going to talk today about the Devil Wears Prada 2 and Michael, the Michael Jackson biopic, starting off with Prada 2. OK, Mike. So to begin with, how much of a fan are you of the first movie? Because I thought the first movie was absolutely genius.

Devil Wears Prada 2

Mike Giuliano:

I really enjoyed it, actually. What strikes me is that first film not only did well, but it has lasted well in memory, if you will. People often have talked about it over the years. It did enter of the pop culture lexicon in various ways. So when you think about it, that film came out in 2006, and yet, if you mentioned it to people many years later, they still "oh, yeah." As you're saying, they really liked it. And not many films can claim that. Our collective memory can be short in that respect.

But it does strike me by the same token that it's rather belated sequel. It's a long time to wait for another film. And of course, one of the most amazing things is that Meryl Streep still looks the same. And one reason why the sequel is so welcome is that she has not been in a feature film, a big screen film in about five years. So it's a return for her, actually, to the big screen. And the principal cast is back. So who's not there to enjoy? Anne Hathaway, and Stanley Tucci, and Emily Blunt, and a number of people in the film who really are just a pleasure to watch.

Now, thematically, what strikes me is, as they think about putting a sequel together, the world of fashion, arguably, hasn't changed all that much, but certainly, the world of fashion journalism has changed a lot. And I think the film is smart, actually, in tracking changes in journalism, because after all, these are editors at a high end fashion magazine, which back in that day, was full of ads and plenty of readers, and all that. But our media landscape has changed so much in the last 20 years that magazines like that are really being stressed.

And therefore, the stress immediately goes down to the level of editors and others at the publication. And where that's really quite interesting is several fold. But one of the folds would be in the first film, of course, Miranda Priestly, the Anna Wintour-like character played by Meryl Streep, is so imperious, so indomitable, so fearsome. And she's still that at least at the outset here. But then we start to see her vulnerability, partly because the magazine itself is so stressed. And of course, she's the one running the show, and then how that extends into her personal life.

And there are a lot of really nifty little details in that respect. Back then, when she could get away with some of this really unreasonable behavior, she always had some assistant there to hang up her coat, and now she has to hang up her own coat. And that might strike you and me as small chips, but it's not anything small for her because she had her kingdom that she ruled, and now she's got to hang up her own coat. And there are a lot of variations on that of ways in which she's been knocked down a bit.

And ultimately, the remaining advertisers exert a lot of force as to what the magazine will publish and how it will play things up and so on. So at that level of checking in on the state of journalism today, it actually gives the film more substance than I thought it might have otherwise. In words, it's not just coasting on the coattails to-- I guess we'll use fashion metaphors today. It's not just holding on to those coattails. It actually is extending it in a way by way of, well, where are we now with fashion journalism?

And so, again, at that journalistic level, the film has more substance than I expected from it, but not that it plays out completely evenly there, because it's trying to pick up on various trends in the workplace and in personal relationships. And some of those were dealt with better than others. There's a big plot point or what seems like it would be a big plot point relatively early in the film, namely a scandal involving use of a sweatshop to manufacture the clothing. And it seems like this could help bring down the magazine, or at least bring it down a notch or something.

And as quickly as that point is brought up and really fretted over in the film, it's just as quickly dropped, and that later in the film, never gets mentioned again. And there are a few things like that in the film that are dangling. But in some ways, you could have worse problems than that, because in other words, the film brings up enough worthwhile topics that some get explored more than others. But to offer a long winded answer to your short question, the film does work really well.

And as we speak, the film has done remarkably well at the box office. Really, it's one of the highest performing films of this season. And so a lot of people, and in fact, among my circle of friends and students and whatnot, any number of people have mentioned it to me. And they don't mention most of the films that come out, but they've mentioned that one, how much they want to see it and how much they like it. So let me turn it back over to you.

Marie Westhaver:

Well, I went to see it with a friend who was-- we both really liked the first one a lot. And she said, it didn't get good reviews. I said, well, how good does it have to be? It's really just an excuse to watch a Meryl Streep movie with Stanley Tucci, and Anne Hathaway, and Emily Blunt, like you said, none of whom have aged at all. Everybody appears to have a painting in the attic. But what's missing from this movie that was so wonderful about the first one, and there's nothing you can do about it because things have changed.

The first movie gave you that sort of inside baseball of what it would be like to work at-- you're supposed to think it's like Vogue Magazine in its heyday. It's before the internet took over everything and everybody's reading things online. You're actually aiming for a physical magazine, which has to be physically beautiful, draw you into this fantasy world of clothing. Andy's character, Anne Hathaway, is a serious writer who takes a job at a fashion magazine because that's what's on offer. But she has no real interest in fashion.

She gets to have that wonderful moment of trying on all the clothes and being able to wear all this wonderful stuff. And that also feels like part of the perks of being in that industry, how you would know things about cerulean belts and things like that. And that part of it, the way the Meryl Streep character was so committed to this industry that she knew so much about, there was a pleasure in watching that. Yes, she was imperious, and yes, she was terrible to people, but she committed to that role of this person who took the thing so seriously that she took it to the next level.

This second movie doesn't have any of that. You don't get that sense of, wow, this is would be what it would be like to be a young woman who went to New York and wanted to be a writer and ended up working for Vogue, and ended up learning about fashion, and her own fashion, and how great she could look and clothes. I will say the one thing that the second movie did deliver was awesome clothes. The costume designer created 46 looks for Anne Hathaway, 28 for Meryl Streep, and 16 for Emily Blunt. And those, I thought, were the highlights.

That's the one thing they brought over from the original movie that you still got to see some really cool looking clothes, including the jacket Meryl Streep wore with the tassels on it, which she apparently personally lobbied to keep in. What did you think of the fashion aspect of it, Mike?

Mike Giuliano:

Well, to some extent, I disagree with what you're saying, not in terms of fashion. And I don't doubt any of the numbers you cite in terms of changes in wardrobe. My minor disagreement there is when you use the word commitment. Because actually-- and this is where I guess we're polar opposites-- in this second film, the word commitment. I think that actually, that's one of the things I like so much about the second film was that, even as the magazine is struggling, and as consequently, they're struggling in some personal relationships, the sense of commitment is still there.

And that's where, again, Miranda Priestly is a monster oftentimes in the first film, and everyone fear and trembling. And that quality is there initially here. But again, you start to see it get a sense of vulnerability there in the office, and not just with the coat hanging, but also even at home in her marriage and how she needs the support of her latest spouse, and so on. There's that. But what struck me there was, as the magazine is struggling and all that pressure, she's committed to keep it going. She is dedicated to it.

And to bolster the point I'm making, her loyal sidekick, Nigel, played perfectly by Stanley Tucci, he's with her all the way on that. And he is not oblivious to the changes around them in terms of the business of fashion and how their jobs are being threatened quite directly, actually. But he is committed. There's one scene in the film in particular. It's very brief, but it's one of my favorite scenes where all that pressure is manifest. And again, he's a smart guy, but he does his job and he's committed to it.

He's looking at a contact sheet. It's a sheet of photographs, and he's trying to decide which one should we use in the fashion spread. And his eye goes across and this and that, and he's just been directly warned about whatever the latest threat is. But he's just like, well, OK, but now which photo? It's this one or that? And he's, no, it's got to be this one, and he explains his reasons. That's commitment.

As the ship is going down, there's still people on deck who want to be well dressed and run things as best they can. And I think that's something to be said in favor of the film. Now, where I have a kind of mixed response to what even I just said is that there is more emotional vulnerability accompanying that kind of commitment, but without spoiling anything in the plot line. And the film does-- it runs 119 minutes. It runs a little long. It does drag a bit in places. Is drag a fashion reference? It does drag a bit that way.

But had some reservations was towards the end, it does go what I call soft and sentimental. And I couldn't go into detail without spoiling some story elements, but there are a few scenes and a few relationships that I think go a little too soft there in the sense of placating. And I hate to use the word pandering, but playing to an audience and by way of what we'd like to see there. And I'm not sure all the relationships would have resolved quite as smoothly and quite as affectionately, say.

And our audience doesn't see you nodding to that, but I think what I'm talking about. There are a few points late in the film where I just think, oh, come on now. I still want Miranda to be mean on occasion, and she maybe goes a little too soft.

Marie Westhaver:

That's true, and they do try to make a gag out of her being followed around by somebody who keeps telling her, she's breaching all kinds of HR norms, and that's a little bit funny, but I'm with you. I wanted it all hanging out. And they did get there with the whole Lady Gaga subplot. There were things about the movie I just thought were just poorly done, like the Andy character, Anne Hathaway, scores this major interview with Lucy Liu character.

And yet, later, when they're trying to put a deal together, they make this big montage of phone calls, and I must speak to this person today, multiple phone calls, when clearly, from what you've seen earlier, it could have been done with one phone call. And so you knew they were just jacking this up for trying to make it seem more like there was some tension. But there really wasn't a lot of tension in the movie, not like in the first one where you were hoping Andy at least keeps the job or learns something.

In fact, you start hoping she learns something about fashion and herself in the first movie. Here, you're just hoping she prevails to the end of the movie.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, see, that's reinforcing the point I was making about the film going soft in that respect. It sets up certain issues as if they'll be important, as if they'll be vexing. Earlier, I mentioned the sweatshop subplot brought up, and oh my God, big plot point, and then just completely dropped. But other things, like in terms of what will happen to the magazine by way of ownership. Will it have a new owner who's a Jeff Bezos type? And what would that mean, and so on?

Yeah, it becomes a lot of hoo-ha after a while, because you're right. There's a flurry of meetings, and phone calls, and crises, and so on. But again, that's something that it's going to be resolved and so readily, so conveniently that at that point, I was kind of rolling my eyes a bit. And even though I did really enjoy the film, it was losing me at that level, because it had raised all these expectations early on about serious treatment of the state of journalism and yada, yada. And that gets dealt with pretty well, I think, actually, throughout the film.

And then it kind of fizzles in a way. It just sort of sells out in that respect. What finally kept me watching and really enjoying it was, yes, all the costume changes. Who could not enjoy that? I'm all for superficial pleasure. And by way of superficial pleasure, I love the cameos. And somebody could say, well, you're shallow. And I say, yes, I'm very shallow. I want to see who's at the party. And so the lady Gaga scene is priceless. It only goes on for a few minutes. But without spoiling what actually happens there, she lives up to her diva reputation in that scene.

But there are other little bits, cameos. And this is like, there is the inside baseball or inside fashion quality here, Donatela, Versace, and various other people. Some of them are only on screen for about 10 seconds. You get the name or you see them, and that's fun. It's sort of a Where's Waldo kind of thing. It's, oh, look who's there. Who's over there? And actually, I was hosting a screening of it the day before the Met Gala. So it was perfect timing that way because we talked about the Met Gala that was upcoming at that point.

But it's that kind of event where your neck is craning. You want to see who's here and who's there. And that's the world of fashion. You can talk about it as being superfluous, and decadent and all that, and I'll gladly plead guilty. Yes, it is. And I can make fun of all that, but I want to see what dresses they were wearing at the Met Gala.

Marie Westhaver:

Yeah, and that is where it is a satisfying movie, and it knows its audience, and it does deliver that. But plot wise, like I said, how good does it have to be? It delivered on the things that you knew it was going to bring, but it could have been a better movie. And I did like the point where Meryl Streep's character says how much she loves working and how satisfying it is. That, to me, felt like a missed opportunity to make more of that in terms of the plot.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, in terms of the large audience it's had, we're talking at least indirectly about gender a lot here. It's been 65% 70% or more of female audience going to see it. It's gal pal movie going that way. And in the same time frame as we're speaking, in terms of movies coming out, conversely, a film like Mortal Kombat, it's like the same percentage but all-male. So there are differences between the sexes here when people go to the movies.

Now, in terms of dates, I don't know how many people got dragged in one way or another. But this is interesting in terms of how movies are made and marketed. This movie knew its audience and got its audience.

Michael

 

Marie Westhaver:

Yes. Well, we need to move on to Michael. And I will start off by saying I saw this in France, dubbed in French, which was an interesting way to watch it. The whole movie is about how incredibly like Michael Jackson the main character is. It's his nephew, Jaafar Jackson. He sounds like him. He looks like him. He sings like him. He dances like him. The whole movie rides on the fact that that casting was so perfect.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, I did not have the advantage of seeing it in France. I watched it in Maryland, so here's the local report. This is the official Michael Jackson biopic. And this is crucial to know by way of background information as to what I like and what I definitely do not like about this film. The film was very much produced by his estate. It's so authorized that way. When they were shooting it, there's an initial version of the film that used the 1993 allegations of child sexual abuse as a kind of framing device for then the film within it.

Now, we haven't seen this initial version. I don't know if anyone will ever be allowed to. But reportedly, the reason they did that was to acknowledge the scandals that were in the offing, because the film as we have it now ends in 1988. But to acknowledge what was coming later and by the early '90s, and reportedly-- I sound like a lawyer talking here-- reportedly or allegedly, that initial version, they wanted to acknowledge that by, here's a frame tale showing the allegations as they were made.

But then the film within sandwiched between would exonerate him or at least offer a fuller picture, something along those lines. What happened next was that the estate lawyers became involved. I'll put it that way. And this is where it gets down in the legal weeds. And I'm not a lawyer, so I can't identify all the weeds there. But the gist of it was the lawyers for the estate obviously got nervous about such issues. But so too, apparently, some of the people involved with those earlier lawsuits.

Whatever the terms were of settlement as to what the estate could or should do, yada, yada, it was that kind of back and forth on that. What happened was they actually went then and re-shot much of the film and re-edited it. So the film we have now, the released version, all 127 minutes of it, is considerably different, reportedly, from what was originally made. And what we have now in the release version is very much a story of uplift and triumph in terms of his monstrous father, Joe, so controlling the young Jackson 5. Yeah, propelling them to stardom, but at quite a price in terms of domestic life that way.

And then later, uplift and triumph in terms of really making it as one of, if not the top stars of the era. And then incidents like the fire in the hair and stuff like that you have to get through. And sanitizing somewhat the story, there are at least a couple scenes where we see Michael visiting sick children in the hospital. So he's entirely benevolent and saintly in that respect, and the film goes out of its way to reinforce that point.

And where it becomes actually downright bizarre is, there were a lot of Jacksons, if you will. And some of them are executive producers on the film, and some are not. The ones who are not executive producers were Randy, Robbie and Janet. And the one that strikes in my mind in this respect is Janet Jackson, since she's the one who became a star in her own right. So Janet Jackson was not-- among the siblings, Janet Jackson was not among the executive producers.

Therefore, in the film that we're watching and talking about, Janet Jackson does not exist as a character. When the family is gathered around, it's so bizarre because her sister Latoya is there. And I don't want to sound mean like I don't care about Latoya. But Latoya is there, and I'm watching the living room scene thinking, OK, there's Latoya, and she's being mentioned by name, and she's talking. But where's Janet? Well, she doesn't exist. She's not in this family. So the film, again, is very much, ultimately, hagiography.

Now, as hagiography, it's very well made. And to your opening observation, Michael Jackson's nephew, Jaafar Jackson, who's Jermaine's son, he's terrific. It's such an impressive performance. Not just that physically, he has the resemblance to Michael, but he's got the dance moves. He's got the persona. He really captures it well. So a lot of the concert footage on its own is quite exciting. And the film has done remarkably well. It's one of the top grossing biopics of all time as we speak.

And so it delivers. I love that word. It delivers. And as we're talking, it's still holding up well at the box office as we're talking about it here. So real props there. Real credit to commercial filmmaking that whatever its flaws or disappointments as biography, it does sell the message. It sells the performer. And final observation, how can I not like a movie called Michael? So I love it.

Marie Westhaver:

That's funny, Mike. So obviously, the music is amazing. And just if you were a fan of the music, you get treated to this wonderful concert, sort of, movie. That works beautifully. It just felt like there was so much missing. And we've talked about this many times, Mike. How long did we want to sit there and watch the movie? You can't put everything in. But leaving out things like him being in the Wiz. Where was Diana Ross? His whole effect on disco.

And I thought leaving out Janet Jackson was a huge mistake, because she was not only a star in her own right. The whole MTV thing, both Janet and Michael were huge in MTV, just incredible stars who they even work together. So yeah, leaving her out like she didn't even exist I thought was bizarre. And I thought it was a missed opportunity in terms of not saying anything about Lisa Marie Presley. It would have been so interesting to have Riley Keough play her in the movie.

Mike Giuliano:

So think about what you're mentioning there, that these are all points where I can imagine lawyers around the table talking. This is all contractual. Certain people were not executive producers. Certain people were not even named or mentioned ever. For me, Diana Ross was such a huge influence on him that was so important for him personally, as much as professionally. She's not in the film whatsoever as a reference. So it goes even beyond not mentioning the Wiz. It's just like as if she doesn't exist either.

And yet, some other people do. Lawrence Tate plays Berry Gordy, so you do get some direct Motown involvement that way. And so it's sort of hit or miss as to who's in the film or who's even acknowledged and who's not. And that's, again, where I think because it's the authorized version, it's sanitized that way. They play it very safe. Now, whether some of those real life people-- Janet Jackson clearly made a choice not to be an executive producer. But as to some of the other names even not even being mentioned, I think they're just playing safe here. They're not even going there.

Now, in terms of who's in the film and where it is, actually, I think, very true and very bold is the father figure, the patriarch, Joe Jackson, a really strong performance, as one would expect from Colman Domingo. But when you realize what they were up against with this showbiz father who was so domineering, that's where the film actually is brave, at least true somehow to the facts. And that's where you can sense with all the siblings who did produce this film, how they feel about their father.

They're much more sympathetic to Nia Long as Catherine the mother, but the way they felt about the father. And where there is some dramatic substance in this film, actually, is where Michael's trying to assert himself and get out from under his father's thumb, initially with Jackson 5, but then certainly as a solo performer. And some of those scenes actually are as soap opera-- and I'm not saying that in a pejorative sense, but as family drama-- quite involving when you see him, in his own way, trying to talk back to his father. Some of those scenes work quite well.

Marie Westhaver:

Again, you can't put everything in. But I had heard anecdotally that at some point, Michael Jackson met Donny Osmond. And the two of them really clicked immediately because they totally understood the other person's life. That would have been a cool scene to put in, because they talk a little bit about how hard it is to be a little kid who is supposed to be absolutely "get it right on the first take" professional. These families are incredibly talented. That's not even a question.

It's just, it seems abusive to shove kids that young in front of the spotlight like that, because somebody has figured out this is a way to make money.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, next we'll be talking about child labor laws.

[laughing]

I don't know how much of that we could work into it. But as it is, the movie is kind of white bread, but putting the Osmonds in would really make it white bread.

[laughing]

Marie Westhaver:

It would have been nice, though, to see interactions with people who did get him, at least on some level. Because what you see so much is it's a really lonely person.

Mike Giuliano:

But what's fundamentally missing here, and it's kind of a blunt assessment, is his personality, his inner self. There doesn't seem to be too much inner self here. There is in terms of trying to get out from under the father's thumb. There is in terms of the perfectionism of getting every dance move, hitting everything right. That comes through there. But in terms of a private life, a personal life, this is where they were so careful to skirt-- to get around issues involving all the later scandals that they have essentially avoided giving him a personality, giving him an inner life.

Marie Westhaver:

But he did date many famous people. Brooke Shields. Like I said, the whole digital era.

Mike Giuliano: You don't even get that, though. You don't even get that, right?

Marie Westhaver:

Yeah. And we're talking also about the disco era and Studio 54, rubbing elbows with people. The fact that he collaborated with Paul McCartney and Mick Jagger, none of that makes it into the film. Nothing where you would have felt like, professionally, this must have just been an amazing day.

Mike Giuliano:

Well, because it's so focused on that singular title. It's Michael. He's front and center. And the performance sequences are really, really so well handled. They're really exciting. And you want to see it actually in a theater environment. You want a big screen. You want a sense around. You know what I mean? You don't want to watch it on your phone. I think this is one where you really want the big screen treatment for it.

Marie Westhaver:

How did the audience you saw it with like it?

Mike Giuliano:

Oh, yeah. It was almost like being at a live concert. People really went for it. And I'm people, too. I went for it.

Marie Westhaver:

I went for it, too. And like we said, I did think there were things about watching it that were really fun. It was really good to hear all of that wonderful music. Whatever else you might say about him, he could write a song. But that does bring us to the end of this episode. But don't forget to check out our others at atmhcc.podbean.com. And we'll see you next time at the movies.

Mike Giuliano:

See you then.

[music playing]

Outro

[music fades down]

Podcast Producer:

Thanks for tuning in. If you enjoyed what you just heard, we have a whole universe of podcasts waiting for you. Simply search Dragon Podcasts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also explore our full lineup and discover new shows at podbean.com/dragonpodcasts. That's podbean.com/dragonpodcasts.

[music ends]

Devil Wears Prada 2 & Michael