Gird Your Loins: The Realities of Fashion Styling in a Changing World

Red carpets. Press tours. Magazine covers. Brand partnerships flooding every corner of the internet. The Devil Wears Prada 2 has arrived, and the fashion industry has shown up for it in full force. The contrast to twenty years ago could not be more shocking. When the original film was released in 2006, major fashion houses refused to lend their clothes or associate with the production, terrified of offending Anna Wintour: the Vogue editor who inspired the film's iconic Miranda Priestly. Today, those same brands are lining up to be part of this moment. That shift alone says everything about how much the world has changed. The Devil Wears Prada was not just a movie, it was a cultural landmark that exposed the hierarchy, ruthless exclusivity, and harsh realities of the fashion industry in the 2000s. The iconic film embodied the Zeitgeist which is “the current state of culture: the expression of the present” (Rousso and Ostroff 27). The question is what the fashion styling industry actually looks like beneath the surface, and how the Zeitgeist has shaped both its reality and its media portrayal. The fashion industry is shaped by the cultural Zeitgeist of its time, and nowhere is this more visible than in its media portrayals; by examining the original The Devil Wears Prada through the lens of the early 2000s Zeitgeist and comparing it to the realities of fashion stylists today, it becomes clear that while the industry's demands, creativity, and gender dynamics have been a constant, the cultural moment surrounding fashion has fundamentally shifted, a shift that the sequel will inevitably reflect. 

Fashion is not random–it never has been. Fashion is a direct response to the cultural, social, and political essence of its time. This is not an accident. As Rousso and Ostroff explain, "fashion forecasters must understand that fashion is an evolution not a revolution. Changes in fashionable standards progress over time as cultural attitudes change" (Rousso and Ostroff 27). Fashion does not reinvent itself overnight, rather it shifts gradually, picking up everything the era gives it, the good, the bad, and everything in between. The same is true of the media that represents it. Film and television do not just show fashion; they capture and amplify the Zeitgeist of their moment, capturing the feeling of a moment, putting it on screen in a way that resonates, and making it impossible to forget. As Rousso and Ostroff note, "during each era, creative artists and designers are inspired by current influences" (Rousso and Ostroff 27), and filmmakers are no exception. The film that–arguably–demonstrates this the best is The Devil Wears Prada, which, as Lascity observes, "remains something of a cult classic among those interested in fashion–both popularly and academically–because of its portrayal of the industry and its use of clothing" (Lascity 129). The film did not just depict fashion, rather it embodied the Zeitgeist of the early 2000s in every frame. To understand what the sequel must do, we first have to understand what the original captured.

The early 2000s were excessive in every sense, and the fashion industry reflected how it was deliberately, almost aggressively, exclusive. Access was everything, and access was controlled by a very small and very powerful group of people. The Devil Wears Prada captured that perfectly: the all-powerful editor, the all-knowing art director, all-passionate assistant, and brutal insider-outsider dynamic that told you exactly where you stood without ever saying a word. The film hit so hard because audiences already knew this world, they were living it. As Lascity explains, "once The Devil Wears Prada was created and distributed, it became a film to be watched, consumed and analyzed. Viewers were able to broadly make sense of the movie because they were working within the same framework as those who created the film" (Lascity 128). Beneath the glamour, though, the film carried something deeper, a feminist tension that most people in 2006 weren't fully ready to name. Miranda Priestly is a woman who clawed her way to the top by adopting every cold, ruthless quality the industry rewarded–and still rewards–in men. Andrea is brilliant and driven, but doesn’t fit in and is punished socially for it. Though they are very different, Andrea sees the key to Miranda’s success: her masculine demeanor. She even says it herself: “She’s tough, but if Miranda were a man, no one would notice anything about her, except how great she is at her job” (The Devil Wears Prada, 2006). That observation landed differently in 2006 than it does now. What was once seen as a flaw, is now seen as a strength. Interpretations of scenes in the film vary, "one reading of The Devil Wears Prada can be that work or career goals shouldn't overshadow more 'important' things like friendship and romance [...] another reading of the film might be that Nate is a terrible boyfriend who doesn't understand Andy as an ambitious woman" (Lascity 129). When the film came out, most people went with the first reading, they thought Andy was selfish, her friends were right, she lost herself chasing selfish goals. Today? The tide has turned. Now it's Nate who gets the criticism, and Andy who gets the defense. That shift is not just a change in opinion, but a change in society’s views and, in turn, the Zeitgeist. As Warner reminds us, "traditionally, roles that have been fulfilled by women have been left out of histories of film and television production" (Warner 39), and The Devil Wears Prada, for all its iconic fashion moments, is really a story about what happens to women who dare to want more from their life than the bare minimum. The film captured the world audiences lived in and got a lot of it right, but the industry it depicted had a much longer, more complicated story than two hours could ever fully tell.

The Devil Wears Prada did not shy away from showing the ugly areas of the industry: the pure exhaustion, cruelty, and personal sacrifices a single day of work could hold, but even the film’s honest moments only told a part of the story. The part it left out was the people actually doing the work behind the scenes. The styling profession has spent most of its history being invisible. Stylists were not even credited in major fashion magazines until the 1980s. This means that for decades, the people responsible for creating the images that defined fashion culture and style received no recognition for their work. As Lynge-Jorlén points out, "it was not until the 1980s that both alternative and mainstream fashion magazines started to use and credit the stylist consistently. American Vogue's November 1988 issue—the first issue helmed by Anna Wintour—was the first issue of the magazine to credit the stylist in a byline" (Lynge-Jorlén 87). The same Anna Wintour who inspired Miranda Priestly was also the editor who finally gave stylists the credit they had always deserved. That detail alone reframes the entire story. And who were these stylists finally getting their names in print? Davis does not attempt to downplay the situation: "these women—yes, mostly women, and mostly white women born into wealth and privilege—dictated hemlines and waistlines and wielded enough power to make or break the careers of designers, photographers, and models" (Davis 8). Female power existed in this industry, but it was narrow, concentrated, and deeply exclusive—much like the world the film portrayed. The glamour on screen, however, masked a much more unglamorous reality. Behind every polished editorial spread was a profession built on economic pressure, creative restriction, and labor that was rarely compensated fairly. As Lynge-Jorlén writes, "the working conditions of styling today have become increasingly professionalized...there is so much money at stake" (Lynge-Jorlén 91). The dream of fashion that the media sells us has always been exactly that: a dream. The work will always be real. The world it exists in, however, has changed from what it once was.

The world that The Devil Wears Prada 2 is entering looks nothing like the one the original was born into. A global pandemic reshaped every industry on the planet, and fashion was no exception. Digital transformation increased exponentially. Social media changed the industry in the way that it gave everyone a seat at the table, something many would have died for at the release of The Devil Wears Prada. Gender equality conversations that happened on the side then are now standing front and center. The Zeitgeist has shifted dramatically, and the styling industry shifted with it. As one stylist reflected in the wake of the pandemic's impact on fashion presentations, “it's impossible to compare the new with what we had become used to...previously it was a huge group event...what we're becoming used to now is far more solitary” (Carrera 8). The energy, the noise, the last-minute decisions made in a crowd backstage all gave way to something quieter, more isolated, and inherently different. Yet, at the center of it all, “the creative contribution that stylists have brought to the work of designers has not really changed since the advent of social media and it's unlikely it will shift in the wake of the digital shows” (Carrera 8). The format evolved, but the aesthetic did not. Fashion is more visible now, more accessible, but it is also more competitive and more demanding than ever. The stylists navigating this environment are doing the same creative work they always have, just in a world that moves faster and observes at a closer distance. This is the Zeitgeist the sequel must answer to because “once the zeitgeist of the era is understood, a fashion revival can be traced to its time of inception or its most recent reappearance. Usually, the new versions of a revival have the essence of the earlier sense of style morphed into contemporary variations” (Rousso and Ostroff 28). The sequel will carry the energy of the original: the power dynamics, the gender politics, the creative labor, the impossible standards, and the overall aesthetic, but it will be filtered through a modern cultural lens that is drastically different from the early 2000s. The Devil Wears Prada 2 is not just a movie, it is a representation of the Zeitgeist, it is much bigger than the last time, and the fashion industry already knows it. That is why the brands all showed up this time.

Fashion has always been a mirror of the moment, and so has the media that portrays it. The Devil Wears Prada did not just tell a story about a girl who got a job at a magazine, it captured an entire era. The excess, the hierarchy, the complications of navigating a world that rewarded them for their talent and punished them for their ambition, all of it screamed 2006. The realities underneath that portrayal, however, ran deeper than what any film could fully capture. The labor was invisible, the credit was withheld, the creative freedom was always negotiated against commercial interests, and the women doing the work were doing it in an industry that had spent decades ignoring them. That has not changed much. The labor is still real, the gender dynamics are still complicated, and the creative tension between art and commerce is still very much alive. What has changed is the world around it. The Zeitgeist of the 2020s is louder, faster, more connected, and far less willing to accept the power structures that the original film took for granted. The sequel arrives into this world, and it carries a responsibility to reflect it honestly. Fashion styling has never been just about clothes. It has always been about culture, identity, and the time we live in and the best media around fashion has always known that. The brands showing up for the sequel this time around? They know it too.

Works Cited

Carrera, Martino. “As the Runway Goes Digital, Stylists Muse on Their Process.” WWD: Women’s Wear Daily, July 2020, p. 8. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d6359c2e-7455-3025-b3b8-d2698dc947c1.

Davis, Jenny B. "Introduction to Fashion Styling." Style Wise: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Fashion Stylist. New York: Fairchild Books, 2024. 4–23. Bloomsbury Fashion Central. Web. 1 May 2026. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501392405.ch-1>.

Lascity, Myles Ethan. "Clothing on Film and Television." Communicating Fashion: Clothing, Culture, and Media. London: Bloomsbury Visual Arts, 2021. 118–145. Bloomsbury Fashion Central. Web. 1 May 2026. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350112278.ch-006>.

Lynge-Jorlén, Ane. "Editorial Styling: Between Creative Solutions and Economic Restrictions." Fashion Practice: The Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry, vol. 8, no. 1, 2016, pp. 85–97. Taylor & Francis Online, doi.org/10.1080/17569370.2016.1147697.

Rousso, Chelsea , and Nancy Kaplan Ostroff. "Brief history of contemporary fashion." Fashion Forward: A Guide To Fashion Forecasting. New York: Fairchild Books, 2024. 26–65. Bloomsbury Fashion Central. Web. 1 May 2026. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501374333.ch-2>.

Warner, Helen. "Costume Design, Practices and Production Cultures." Fashion on Television: Identity and Celebrity Culture. London: Bloomsbury Education, 2014. 39–56. Bloomsbury Fashion Central. Web. 1 May 2026. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350051126.ch-003>.