Devil Wears Prada Fans Deliver Unanimous Verdict on Film's True Antagonist
With the highly anticipated sequel The Devil Wears Prada 2 set to reunite Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway next month, fans have reignited a two-decade debate about the original film's characters. While Miranda Priestly famously earned the "devil" moniker, readers have delivered a scathing verdict on who they believe is the true villain: Nate, Andy Sachs' former boyfriend played by Adrian Grenier.
The Gaslighting Accusation
Metro readers responded overwhelmingly when asked about Nate's role in the 2006 workplace comedy-drama. "Yes, next question," dismissed one reader, while another declared Nate "definitely the real villain." Multiple readers pointed to Andy's entire friend group showing frustration with her career focus, but Nate received particular criticism for his behavior toward his then-girlfriend.
"He was gaslighting," argued reader Cassie Crawford, capturing a sentiment echoed by many. Others accused Nate of being "selfish" toward Andy, with one reader noting he "didn't provide the emotional support required" during her challenging experiences with Miranda Priestly's demanding leadership at Runway magazine.
The Character Defense
Adrian Grenier, now 49, recently defended his character in an interview with People Magazine. While acknowledging he can "understand the sentiment" against Nate, the actor stated he has "to stand for my character." Grenier pointed out that both characters were "working really hard to make it in their careers" and suggested the conflict stemmed from broken commitments rather than mere birthday celebrations.
"If someone makes a commitment, I do take it seriously that the commitment gets upheld," Grenier explained. However, he conceded that Nate's reaction appeared "a little bit meek and weak" and suggested the character needed "growing up to do... and manning up."
The Sequel Absence
Notably, Grenier will not return for The Devil Wears Prada 2, though he humorously addressed this in a recent Starbucks advertisement. "Let's leave Nate in 2006 and keep this good energy going," the actor shared in the commercial, while joking about his availability should the sequel require his character.
Some fans defended Nate in the advertisement's comments, with one writing "He wasn't the villain, he was right all along," while another suggested "Nate deserves a second chance." This sparked further debate about whether Andy herself might be considered villainous at times, with one reader noting "everyone in the movie was the villain at one point."
The Broader Context
The original film, based on Lauren Weisberger's 2003 novel about her experiences working for Anna Wintour at Vogue, became a cultural touchstone exploring ambition, workplace dynamics, and personal relationships within the cut-throat fashion industry. As fans prepare for the sequel's release on May 2, the debate about Nate's villain status continues to highlight the film's enduring relevance in discussions about workplace culture and relationship dynamics.
While Miranda Priestly and journalist Christian Thompson provide obvious antagonism in the narrative, the consensus among engaged fans appears clear: Nate's behavior toward Andy during her professional transformation marks him as the film's true villain, though few characters emerge completely blameless in this nuanced workplace drama.
