The director said (turn)

Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep's movie "The Devil Wears Prada" became a hot topic in 2006 because it was based on Vogue US editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. and portrayed her as a domineering woman. This film led to the birth of another film, The September Issue by renowned documentary filmmaker RJ Cutler.

Cutler shot the film to show a real Anna Wintour who is different from the "fashion demon" in the novels and movies. To this end, he formed a team of four to enter Vogue and spent nine months shooting 300 hours of footage. The final cut is based on the process by which Anna Wintour and her team published the September 2007 issue, Vogue's thickest special issue ever, at 840 pages, 727 of which were advertisements.

"September" was filmed after "The Queen Wears Prada", and it can also be watched after "The Queen Wears Prada". The two films are just contrasting and very interesting. "The Devil Wears Prada" uses exaggerated propaganda to make people think that a ruthless reveal movie is about to be seen, but in fact, it does not vilify Anna Wintour much, not even the surface sarcasm, even In the end, Anna Wintour is portrayed as a wise man who gently watches the growth of the younger generation and deliberately sharpens her. The structure of the whole film is completely Hollywood-style, first throwing out the straightforward and cruel phenomenon, and finally interpreting it with warmth.

The September issue, on the other hand, appears to be portraying a positive image of Anna Wintour and the fashion industry, but with a veiled sarcasm. The arrogance and arrogance of the devil in "The Queen Wears Prada" can be completely understood as a personal subjective impression, but "September" confirmed the parts that "The Queen Wears Prada" failed to confirm with plain records and interviews.

Anna Wintour in the film always glances erratically and casually at the photos taken with great pains and the clothes designed and made by famous artists, and immediately rejects them, even if the work is not bad, even if it is. A set of photos that cost $50,000, even if it's only a few days before the magazine's publication. Of course, this kind of arrogance may be based on the professional height she has achieved, but also based on the secret of power she has insight into: the more vetoes, the more casual her attitude, the more strengthened her power, because the secret of power is veto, and there is no need to veto. Power cannot be called power.

Why is this so? Because most of the time, people are not unfree, but too free. In the huge world, one can go in any direction, make any kind of attempt, and eventually be overwhelmed by huge possibilities. Looking for a person to call the shots, for myself, for a group of people. Even rashly calling the shots, it provides people with a direction and a boundary, and what people want is a boundary. Therefore, it is well said in "Gone Wulin": "To worship the master is to find someone who can make the decision for you."

Anna Wintour was the one who called the shots, the one who provided the boundaries. Does the subtle (and very subjective) difference between one photo and another matter? Is there really such a thing as fashion? Everyone was terrified, but she dared to provide a direction and a boundary. She thinks feathers are going to come back, she thinks jackets are going to come back, and everyone's going in her direction, so that confirms what she said, in fact, if she made tin clothes the next season's fashion, she'd get the same echo. Power is gradually acquired in the process of constantly calling the shots and constantly providing boundaries for others. When people with the same aptitude and starting point reach the same level, most people stagnate, and those who dare to call the shots continue to move forward and gain more weight.

The world is like a ship with no direction. People are eagerly waiting for the leader who calls the shots to appear, and willingly let their opinions be swayed to gain the illusion of mastering the world. continuously verified.