Відео

@Ikright0 Yes, beauty definitely contributes to her style’s popularity. She fit the beauty standard of that time being a tall skinny blonde. However, pretty and slim women are a dime in a dozen - it takes individuality and a strong sense of character to stand out, and even amongst a sea of tall skinny blondes she was able to set herself apart.

@@uniuser2003 Thank you so much, appreciate the feedback and support! ❤️

An effortless look never is.

@@maureenogorman8740 Thank you! It's nice to know the real Classic Lady still exist. @maureenogorman8740❤

It was actually a silver satin skirt,,, but yes.

@@tygressblade It really is such a tragedy she passed during her prime. She had so much potential.

@@LadyBug1967 She definitely did not invent minimalism but made it her own staple which probably resonated with the everyday woman at that time and now. I think she made everyday dressing easier for a lot of us - going out, running errands, going to work etc. She was quite relatable in that sense. I can’t speak about her alleged cocaine addiction as I haven’t read anything surrounding that, but cocaine in the 90s was quite prevalent, the Kate Moss skinny anorexic look was very popular so girls would resort to cocaine in order to attain that look, so I would imagine if she had a substance issue it would be due to her environment, especially in NYC; it’s likely that JFK junior also had his fair share of cocaine given the circles they run in. As for her looks, beauty is subjective but as I mentioned in the video, a lot of women at that time did not believe she was attractive enough to be with JFK but looks aren’t everything and it’s not a condition we should foist upon women to date rich attractive men. She knew how to dress and present herself which the average woman can relate to and emulate. I think she did have a personality, maybe just not one we could see in the public eye, and many sources have said she was a very charming charismatic woman. In terms of their marriage, no one really knows what goes on in a marriage, especially with a couple as private as them. I don’t think it’s fair to blame the woman for picking fights and creating drama, many ‘difficult’ women are simply ones who stand their ground and it seems to me that she was someone who would stand up for herself. Their marriage drew a lot of attention and they were constantly hounded by the press which was said to have put a huge toll on her and strain on the marriage. There were rumours of her alleged infidelity with an ex-boyfriend who spoke about his affair with her during her marriage to JFK, but it was never confirmed. Some have even said they were both unfaithful towards the end of their marriage, but we will never know for sure. I believe she did have a strong character, it takes a lot of self-confidence to be with someone like JFK, and I think there are subtle indications during the span of her life which tell us this, is my point.

JFK shouldn’t have been a pilot, he was self centered and lacked self control. He was a terrible person married to a terrible person.

Wow , I thought this comment was written by a man....

I do think she was pretty. She had a very unique beauty and the plastic surgery wasnt as popular as now. So we are overexposed by the same face in hollywood: small nose, plump lips, big eyes, thic brows and strong jawline, prominent cheeks. Maybe that's why you believe her to be not as attractive. Todays standards of beauty differ from the one's in the 90s. Unique beauty can be underestimated just because someone doesn't fit into an instagram face trend, which is so prevalent nowadays.

What?????

You've got to be kidding!!

@@stephaniegerber8368 uh, why are you so surprised? Are you clued into the lives of every 90s socialite from another country?

Agree, likewise, The Row isn’t closer to actual art - the attempt to create a parallel with auteur cinema is absurd- this brand doesn’t have more substance than any another fashion line- frankly, much of it rips off vintage Calvin Klein, Jil Sander, Donna Karan. This video seems to have been made by a 17 year old taking an AP art class.

@@mcatherine36 Only Lovers Left Alive by Jim Jarmusch.

@@justaname999 The first Godfather was also written to be a finished story. Michael Corleone’s arc was complete by the end of the first film. Godfather Part II was also made due to the first movie’s financial success; Paramount convinced Francis Ford Coppola to make Part II when he initially refused to. I don’t believe a ‘finished’ story or arc takes away the potential for a sequel - look at some other examples of films originally written to be standalone films but came out with superior sequels like Terminator or even Kung Fu Panda. And yes, it is unusual for a sequel/prequel to be good or better than the first; I did point out that the reason behind it is because of the further character development and backstory. Hence, my argument that if The Devil Wears Prada intends to make a good sequel it has to have those elements surrounding the existing characters. Disney will most probably squander it but it doesn’t mean there is no potential.

@@justaname999 exactly! All the characters had thier arch. Miranda will still be the boss from hell Emily Blunts character if still there 15 years on will still be stuck as she doesn't learn simping for the devil has the opposite effect Stanley toucci' character similarly would not have learned a damn thing if he hadn't moved on in 10+ years and have his own company Nate/Adrienne Greer- by now they either got together and are living happily back together or he's move on long ago with another girl Simon would be near geriatric so now wouldn't be a love interest - and wouldn't be one anyway since they already tried to close his story line as a cad And Andy... wasn't the whole point of the 1st movie she realized she needed to prioritize her values and grew up/rejected shallow fashion world? Like if she actually did why would she have anything to do with any of these people this for out in time. She'd either be a successful ✍️ or not. Godfather is a fing master piece bc each character is so complex like a real person you can learn from knowing more about them in the past and follow them into how they play into the future. It's also based on a long series of books to have that complexity. DWP does not have that complexity and thats what made it a cute happy rewatchable movie. Remember they tried to do a sequel Godfather III and it was absolutely horrible. Like so bad people still just drop it from thier memory!

@@polyseamous Godfather II was in parts based on the first novel, so the material *was* there. And even if it was fully freely invented, the material was *there* in the first film. The depth and complexity of relationships and characters. That depth isn't really there in the Devil Wears Prada. It's a fun movie to watch because it's a highly skilled comedy. Great over-the-top acting and fun one-liners. It was lucky that all of these people came together in the way they did and contributed their comedic timing to add to the films colorful background and decent story. But let's call it what it is. It's a nice little comedy film, not a masterclass of screenwriting. So even if Godfather II was in part a cash grab it is still one with lots of artistic substance to work off of. The substance isn't really there in DWP. It's an extremely well-acted comedy that, at its core, actually isn't that far away from stuff that we'd have watched in something like the Lizzie McGuire Movie as kids. That's not to say it's a bad film, at all!! It's a truly fun film that I like to rewatch when given the chance but there aren't extreme depths to plunge while keeping the tone of the original that actually made it fun.

@@justaname999 I think your argument stands on this premise that comedies are inherently to be taken less seriously than dramas, when some of the most complex and well-written stories and characters come from comedy. TDWP may not be on the same level as The Godfather (which I did point out) but it doesn’t mean it lacks depth and substance. The depth and substance simply comes in a different format. It has an overall lighthearted tone being a comedy but it has its moments of drama and severity. And I don’t think this difference matters because ultimately my point is to discuss how to make a good sequel using Godfather as an example as it has a well-known sequel. I’m not saying it has to be on the same level as The Godfather - it won’t - and it’s not the same genre. Ultimately good sequels come from added depth and concepts onto the pre-existing story and world created in the original, it can come in any format - even kids films. But I’m not basing my opinion on the idea that dramas are above other genres because it’s not and to purport this idea just minimises a lot of great movies. It’s akin to the commentary made in TDWP of how the fashion industry is always seen as less than other industries when the film actively tells you that you have to take it seriously to see its worth.

@@polyseamous Oh sorry, no, not at all! I would never claim that a comedy is inherently less complex or to be taken less seriously!! Sorry if that is what came across. I was making a point about TDWP specifically. It absolutely had its moments of more serious things happening but I still wouldn't classify it as particularly interesting or deep had it not been for the actors. The thing is, had they not lucked out with Emily Blunt, Stanley Tucci, and Meryl Streep in the "supporting" roles, I doubt the movie would be as popular as it was, which would point to a screenplay that maybe needs that help. A comedy that can stand on its own might be decorated by amazing cast but its core is strong on its own. That's why I compared it to the Lizzie McGuire movie. Not to say it's "bad" but to draw the parallel to fairly "by the book, typical" fare. But to give a better example, maybe: I love watching You've Got Mail. Love it! But would I say it's a brilliant film? Probably not. It just has the leads' chemistry and charm, it has the fall in New York vibe, it has the incredibly well chosen soundtrack... The screenplay is witty and I love it because the cultural references are fun to me who was like 10 when it came out but I wouldn't call it an incredibly skilled screenplay. Something like Clueless, which is from the same(ish) time, on the other hand, I'd say has a stellar screenplay and does the Emma modernization in a clever and unique way. So even though all of these movies are movies from my childhood and teenage years, some of them I'd rate high purely on nostalgia points, while others have a truly great screenplay. (PS: see also "Tootsie" which is literally something they used to teach screenwriting in the 90s or early 2000s because it's so good. Also a comedy. So nothing "inherently" wrong with comedies ;) Just to make sure that comes across :))

@@beddythecorgi4269 I definitely agree that originals should be left alone and I did point out that it is assumed what the producers’ true intentions are, especially it being in the hands of Disney who are known for their god awful movie franchises. It most probably will be abysmal but just wanted to discuss the possibility of it turning out decent as good sequels/prequels do exist - they are just extremely rare.

@@polyseamous the first movie was just all plot to tell a single story of growth of the main character. You know the sequel will create a whole series of woke tangential story line about race and lgbt+ which was one of the things I appreciated about the first movie. We all knew some characters were gay but they were treated and interacted like that wasn't thier whole identity bc the plot wasn't about some social justice messaging. There were minority and foreign characters but they interacted like normal people re the things they had in common. For example, her black friend wasn't made to feel like she was there to discuss white guilt or how the modeling industry didnt have enough representation, she just loved the freebie gifts and was a moral compass like a real friend would be. Like who in real life would even be friends with someone who goes on sjw rants constantly. That is how they killed the reboot to SITC. No one wants to see more of the characters. They don't make you laugh, they make you cringe. The characters in the original all reached thier character arch. You know it will suck bc its not using new characters and if Andy grew and moved on she wouldn't be back with this crowd. She'd be a real journalist.

@@beddythecorgi4269 The Godfather was also about the main character’s story of growth or rather moral decline in this case. Yes, it’s also about the family and their conflict with the other mafia families, but Michael’s fate is very much intertwined with that central plot and his evolution is a key theme. Much like how The Devil Wears Prada is about the fashion industry and fashion journalism but we see it through the eyes of the main character and Andy, like Michael, evolves to fit into the world they are thrust into. There will most likely be a lot of pandering to a woke audience which is lazy writing and will destroy what was great in the original, the fact that they don’t pander to minority groups for the sake of it. It’s why I said they should instead focus on making appropriate commentary about the changes and evolution of the fashion industry and fashion journalism, like the social commentary made in the original. I personally do not agree The Devil Wears Prada is simply a cute happy film. It can be seen as a comedy and the tone is relatively lighthearted, but there are stakes and consequences. Of course it’s not as serious and grim as The Godfather but that does not mean there are no comparable severe story and character arcs. I don’t think it helps to trivialise an impactful story just because it seemingly looks and feels more shallow when in fact, the reason many resonate with the story is due to the authenticity and accuracy of the social commentary.

@@beddythecorgi4269 Regarding Andy’s arc, it’s why I said she doesn’t serve to be in the second movie as she chose to leave the industry. And just because a character arc ends doesn’t mean there can be no further development, look at Michael Corleone in the second movie for instance. Hence why I think there can be further development for characters like Miranda, Emily and Nigel as long as it has depth and adds to the world constructed in the original.