When a movie is made from a book, characters often become caricatures of the originals. Meryl Streep gives Miranda Priestly, the subject and protagonist of The Devil Wears Prada and who was a cardboard cut-out villain in the novel, intelligence as well as vulnerability—if seen only in glimpses.

The subject of the movie (directed by David Frankel) is the first after-college job experience for an aspiring journalist, Andrea Sachs (played by Anne Hathaway). Although she is not interested in fashion, she applies for a job at the premier fashion magazine: the fictional Runway. She is told that with one year working as an assistant to the editor, Miranda Priestly, she will have an entrée to any job she would like in journalism. It turns out that the year is rather one of indentured servitude, as her boss is unreasonable and tyrannical. She thinks of her assistants not as young women, but as automatons who exist only to serve her slightest whim. She usually calls them both “Emily” although our heroine is named Andrea.

There are two major issues that become subjects for social commentary in the story. One is the “dragon-lady” boss, who treats her employees with a shameless lack of respect. The second is the fashion industry itself, and how the near-worship of fashion dehumanizes the women and men who work in an industry that is all about—or is it?— superficial appearance.

The constant concern for a tiny figure and clothes and shoes with the right label reminds us of the more superficial aspects of the fashion world. A photo shoot in Central Park has models made up like wild animals (to signify the “urban jungle”) but the de-humanization of the models reflects a negative attitude toward women that is often seen in fashion magazines of our time.

In contrast with this unflattering image of the industry, we have a couple of speeches that are an apologia for the concept of “Fashion.” While the ingénue is accused of selling her soul for “what? …shoes….?” There is also an attempt to defend the existence of the magazine and haute couture in general. The character Nigel, played by Stanley Tucci, (who is not in the book at all) explains to Andrea why fashion matters. He tells her that it is “…greater than art, because you live your life in it.” And Miranda herself takes a moment out of her busy schedule and self-absorption to educate Andrea on the importance of detail. Commenting on Andrea’s Gap-like pullover, Miranda explains—quite intelligently—the development of it’s color (cerulean) from the levels of high fashion on down to mass retail.

Hathaway as Andrea never loses her “deer in the headlights” expression during the course of the movie. She has a too-sudden transformation from schoolgirl to fashion plate that is hardly believable. Any development of her character—whether it is buying in to the fashion world or rebelling against it —is not convincingly acted. The peripheral characters and their actions make little sense and add nothing to the movie.

There are a few things lost in the translation from the book. One of the leitmotifs of the book is the horrible waste incurred by the carelessness and egotism of Miranda Priestly and her staff. She spends thousands on last-minute tickets for a flight that leaves a few minutes earlier than another. She buys hundreds of thousands of dollars of designer clothes that she will wear once or not at all before giving them away to make room for the next season’s styles. When she buys a $40,000 gown, she pays (or has the publisher pay) $670 to have it cleaned before she wears it. Her breakfast must be waiting for her hot at whatever time she arrives in the office. It is ordered, thrown away as it gets cool, and re-ordered repeatedly until she shows up every morning. Miranda is a Hogarthian caricature but she makes us examine the way our materialistic society puts convenience above realistic expectations, and expects the company to pick up the tab.

While in the book Miranda Priestly is more unilaterally awful, she is a two-dimensional comic figure and therefore unbelievable. The movie’s decision to humanize her makes her possibly more threatening because more real—but also less so, as she is pitiable. There is one scene towards the end where she appears without makeup, vulnerable, having just been told her husband is divorcing her.

Streep’s and Tucci’s performances, and the thought-provoking commentary about the raison d’etre of fashion are what make the movie worth seeing. While the industry is criticized, it is also defended as a valid form of artistic expression that affects everyone. Anyone interested in fashion should see it, as it will surely be a reference point for some time.

Sarah Phelps Smith, Ph.D., is an art historian who lectures, writes, and leads tours to Italy.